People v. Romeo Aseniero

 

People v. Romeo Aseniero

G.R. No. 218209

April 10, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Romeo Aseniero for the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the RPC. Roel Pilo, 19 years old, married and a resident of Domagocdoc, Bato, Leyte said that at around 4pm, he attended  a fiesta celebration accompanied by his friend Jimmy Garong. At dawn, he left with the group of Dominador Ranes. On their way home, since the road was too narrow, they did not walk side by side. He heard Dominador shout “Aray”. At this instance, he saw Dominador run past him followed by the accused Romeo Aseniero, who was carrying a long bolo. More or less four (4) meters from where he was, Dominador stumbled, with his back on the ground. The accused caught up with the victim and hacked him multiple times. Prior to the stabbing, Roel Pilo did not notice that the accused was around. He recalled that on both sides of the narrow trail, there were a lot of plants such as bamboo and coconut trees. He was so shocked by the incident that he just stood there and watched. He asked the accused why he stabbed the victim, to which the accused replied that he was jealous. At the trial, Roel identified the murder weapon (long bolo) used in the killing of the victim.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in affirming Romeo’s conviction for Murder despite the fact that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt for Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

                Yes. Romeo committed the crime of Homicide, instead of Murder. It is settled that findings of fact of the trial courts are generally accorded great weight; except when it appears on the record that the trial court may have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied some significant fact or circumstance which if considered, would have altered the result. This is axiomatic in appeals in criminal cases where the whole case is thrown open for review on issues of both fact and law, and the court may even consider issues which were not raised by the parties as errors.The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. based on the testimonies of the two defense witnesses the attack was preceded by an altercation between Romeo and the victim.Both Loreto and Gregorio testified that it was the victim who first assaulted the accused. This should prevail over the testimony of the prosecution witness, Analyn, that Romeo immediately stabbed the victim, more so considering that Analyn's testimony is uncorroborated by the other prosecution witness, Roel Pilo (Roel), who testified that he did not see how the attack began s he was walking in front of the victim.