People
v. Guro.
G.R.
No. 230619
April
10, 2019
FACTS:
RTC and
CA convicted Angel Guro for the crime of Murder under Art. 248 of the RPC.
Jefferson, the witness, son of Jesus testified that while at their home in
Cubao, his father was called from Venus de los Santos, Jefferson’s cousin. When
they fetch Joemarie, his brother and passing by Parang, Marikinca City, they
saw around 5 persons waiting for him at the computer shop. When Jefferson asked
what was the problem, he was suddenly pushed and fell down. Upon getting
himself up, he saw his father on his knees and another hitting him with a
chair, mauling and stabbing him.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not CA erred in convicting the accused of murder
HELD:
Yes. Guro committed the crime of Homicide as the
qualifying circumstance of treachery was not present in the killing of Jesus.
As to Guro's allegation that the illumination and condition of visibility on
the area, the distance of the eyewitnesses to the victim, and the suddenness of
the attack, as well as the immediate flight of the assailant, cast doubt on the
alleged positive identification of witnesses, it must be stressed that these
circumstances were raised for the first time on appeal. Guro had all the
opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses as to these
circumstances during trial, but this he did not do. Objection to evidence
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court
to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection.
Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on
appeal.
Furthermore, Guro merely interposed
the defense of denial. He denied that it was him who had stabbed Jesus, and
adverted to a certain Peping, as the assailant. However, aside from such bare
allegation, Guro did not adduce any evidence to corroborate such claim and
establish that a certain Peping actually stabbed Jesus. Meanwhile, as stated
earlier, prosecution witnesses Jefferson and Joemarie positively identified
Guro in open court as the person who stabbed Jesus. The prosecution was unable to prove that Guro
intentionally sought the victim for the purpose of killing him. Well settled is
the rule that the circumstances which would qualify a killing to murder must be
proven as indubitably as the crime itself.33 There
must be a showing, first and foremost, that the offender consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and forms in the execution
of the crime which tended directly to insure such execution, without risk to
himself. In People v. Santos, “mere
suddenness of the attack is not sufficient to hold that treachery is present,
where the mode adopted by the appellants does not positively tend to prove that
they thereby knowingly intended to insure the accomplishment of their
criminal purpose without any risk to themselves arising from the defense that
the victim might offer.38
Specifically, it must
clearly appear that the method of assault adopted by the aggressor was deliberately
chosen with a view to accomplishing the act without risk to the aggressor.
No comments:
Post a Comment