3 PEOPLE V CASTILLO

Facts: Facts accdg to Appellee:

May 25, 1993 at around 1 am, Eulogio Velasco, floor manager of

the Cola Pubhouse along EDSA, Project 7, Veterans Village, QC,
was sitting outside the Pubhouse talking with his co-worker,
Dorie. Soon, Antonio Tony Dometita, one of their customers,
came out of the pubhouse. As he passed by, he informed Eulogio
that he was going home. When Tony was about an armslength
from Eulogio, appellant Robert Castillo suddenly appeared and,
without warning, stabbed Tony with a fan knife on his left chest.
Castillo stabbed him once more (left hand). Tony ran towards the
other side of EDSA, but Castillo pursued him. Eulogio came to
know later that Tony had died. His body was found outside the
fence of the INC Compound in EDSA.

Dr. Bienvenido Munoz, the medico-legal officer who autopsied

Tonys cadaver, testified that the proximate cause of Tonys death
was the stab wound on his left chest. Tony also suffered several
incised wounds and abrasions, indicating that he tried to resist the
attack.

FACTS according to Defense:

On May 25, 1993, Tony was found dead by police officers at the
alley on the right side of INC, EDSA.

Theory of prosec: Tony was stabbed by the Castillo as testified to

by Leo Velasco. The corroboration of Leo Velascos testimony is
that of Melinda Mercado who stated that Leo Velasco informed
her that Tony was stabbed. Robert Castillo was walking away
from the pubhouse with the bladed weapon. Leo detailed the way
Castillo stabbed Tony.

Defense claims that the deceased died in the alley at the right
side of the church. That Tony was attacked by two malefactors as
testified to by Edilberto Marcelino, a tricycle driver who saw two
people ganging up on a third. The same witness saw the victim
falling to the ground. A report of Edilberto Marcelino to the
 Barangay Tanods Office was made in the blotter of the Barangay.

The court gave full credence to the testimonies of the two

prosecution witnesses, who positively identified the
appellant as the killer.

Issue/Holding 1st issue: W/N TC failed to appreciate evidence of accused that

: there was a stabbing incident near INC
SC: The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter that
peculiarly falls within the power of the trial court, as it has the
opportunity to watch and observe the demeanor and behavior of the
witnesses on the stand. Appellant failed to provide any substantial
argument to warrant a departure from this rule.
2nd Issue: W/N TC failed to appreciate implications of medical
finding that heart and lungs of victim were impaled and that the
place where victim was found was different from place witnesses
said they saw accused chase after victim +
3rd Issue: W/N TC showed prejudice against accused and asked
questions but never appreciated matters favorable to accused like
“Frontal wounds” and “Defense wounds” which negate treachery
and superiority.
SC: That the trial judge believed the evidence of the prosecution more
than that of the defense, does not indicate that he was biased. He
simply accorded greater credibility to the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses than to that of the accused.

Ruling: GUILTY. Prosecution was unable to prove the aggravating

circumstance of evident premeditation. Killing was NOT qualified
by abuse of superior strength. To properly appreciate the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, the
prosecution must prove that the assailant purposely used
excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense
available to the person attacked. The prosecution did not
demonstrate that there was a marked difference in the stature
and build of the victim and the appellant which would have
precluded an appropriate defense from the victim.
BUT QUALIFIED BY TREACHERY. Treachery is committed
when two conditions concur: that (1) the means, methods, and
forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate and (2) such means,
methods, and forms of execution were deliberately and
 consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.
These were present when the accused appeared from nowhere
and swiftly and unexpectedly stabbed the victim just as he was
bidding goodbye to his friend, Witness Velasco. This rendered it
difficult for the victim to defend himself. The presence of defense
wounds does not negate treachery because, as testified to by
Velasco, the first stab, fatal as it was, was inflicted on the chest.

Comments

3 PEOPLE V BIBAT

Facts: Gari Bibat was convicted by the RTC of Manila with the crime of
murder.
October 14, 1992, Bibat, conspiring and confederating with
others, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation,
attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of
LLOYD DEL ROSARIO Y CABRERA, by stabbing him with a
bladed weapon hitting him on the chest and abdomen, which
caused his death.

Based on evidence: Gari Bibat stabbed to death one Lloyd del

Rosario on October 12, 1992 at around 1:30 p.m. along G.
Tuazon cor. Ma. Cristina Sts., Sampaloc, Manila. The victim was
on his way to school waiting for a ride when he was stabbed.
Thereafter the suspect fled while the victim was brought to the
United Doctors Medical Center (UDMC) where he was
pronounced dead on arrival.

The incident was witnessed by Nona Avila Cinco, a laundry

woman, who testified that on October 14, 1992, while she was at
Funeraria Gloria waiting for her bettor, she saw a person about
one meter away talking to the accused. (“Puntahan mo na.
Siguruhin mo lang na itumba mo na”)

After hearing the accused, Cinco left towards Honrades Street to

see another bettor. Then she saw the accused along Honrades
Street, entering an alley. She walked along with the accused.
She and the accused were even able to look at each other.

While the Lloyd Del Rosario was going out of a gate, the
accused hurried towards the victim and took a pointed object
 from a notebook, then stabbed the victim in the left chest twice.

She was only about 4 to 5 meters away from the scene of the
crime. Then Bibat fled and the victim shouted for help. Upon
hearing the shouts of the victim, the accused returned and
stabbed the victim again in the middle part of the chest. Cinco
then left the scene of the crime after the accused ran away.

Issue/Holding: 1st Issue: W/N TC ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND

CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE ALLEGED
EYEWITNESSES NONA AVILA CINCO AND ROGELIO
ROBLES

- The Court discerns no basis for disturbing the finding and

conclusion arrived at below on the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses.
In the matter of credibility of witnesses: general rule is that the
factual findings of the trial court should be respected. The judge
a quo was in a better position to pass judgment on the credibility
of witnesses, having personally heard them when they testified
and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. It is
doctrinally settled that the evaluation of the testimony of the
witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the
highest respect, because it had the opportunity to observe the
witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth.

2nd: W/N TC ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE

VERSION OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT THAT HE WAS NOT AT
THE SCENE OF THE CRIME WHEN THE SAME HAPPENED.

The accused relies on the defense of alibi, an inherently weak

defense. In a long line of cases, this court has held that alibi is
generally considered a weak defense because of the facility with
which it can be fabricated.

Appellant failed to convince the court that it was physically

impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at G. Tuazon
cor. Ma. Cristina Sts. He claimed that during the stabbing
incident at around 1:30 p.m., he was reviewing for an oral
examination at Arellano. But TC noted that the site of the crime
was not far from Arellano. He could have easily sneaked back to
 the scene of the crime considering that the two places are just
near each other.

3rd: W/N TC ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCE OF EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.

The presence of the first requisite of evident premeditation have

been thoroughly and sufficiently established. The determination
or conception of the plan to kill the victim could be deduced from
the outward circumstances that happened on the fateful day of
October 14, 1992. Records show that at 11:30 in the morning of
October 14, 1992, witness Nona Cinco saw the accused with
some companions at Funeraria Gloria. She personally heard the
plan to kill someone. Another prosecution witness, Florencio
Castro, who works at the Funeraria Gloria also saw the group of
in the said place. At around 1:30 in the afternoon, Nona Cinco
saw the appellant for the second time. She saw the appellant
hurry towards the victim, take a pointed thing from a notebook
and with the use of such weapon, stabbed the victim on the
chest. These overt acts clearly evinced that the appellant clung
to his resolution to kill the victim.

From the time Nona Cinco heard the plan to kill someone at
11:30 up to the killing incident at 1:30 in the afternoon of the
same day, there was a sufficient lapse of time for appellant to
reflect on the consequences of his dastardly act.

Ruling: The killing of the deceased was aggravated by evident

premeditation, because two hours had elapsed from the time
appellant clung to his determination to kill the victim up to the
actual perpetration of the crime.

Comments