People vs. Castro, 847 SCRA 232, G.R. No. 211053 November 29, 2017
G.R. No. 211053. November 29, 2017.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEGFRED L. OROZCO, MANUEL D. OSIR, and ALBERTO B. MATURAN, accused,
ERNIE N. CASTRO, accused-appellant.
Ponente: LEONEN, J.:
Doctrines:
To sustain a conviction under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that a person was killed, that the accused killed him, that the killing was not parricide or infanticide, and that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned under this Article. It is admitted that Mata was killed and that accused-appellant was one of those responsible for the stabs that led to his death. The only element disputed in this case is that the killing was attended by circumstances which qualify the crime as murder.
In People v. Dela Cruz, 612 SCRA 738 (2010), there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. For treachery to be considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. The circumstances proved by the prosecution amply show that treachery attended the killing of Mata: As above stated, Mata was completely helpless. His hands were held by two other persons while he was stabbed. To make matters worse, four persons, who were armed with knives, ganged up on Mata. Certainly, Mata was completely deprived of any prerogative to defend himself or to retaliate. Accused-appellant claims that the prosecution failed to prove that treachery attended the killing of Mata, positing that the finding of treachery was based only on the fact that Orozco stabbed Mata suddenly in the back, which is insufficient to establish treachery. This argument has no merit. Contrary to accused-appellant’s contention, the finding of treachery was not based only on Orozco’s act of swiftly stabbing Mata from behind. As observed by the Court of Appeals, Mata was helpless against a group of persons with knives, who ganged up on him and held his hands while stabbing him.
Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Its existence may be inferred and proved through acts that show a common purpose, a concert of action, and a community of interest. In this case, the prosecution proved the common purpose of all the accused, a concert of action, and a community of interest.
The trial court’s factual findings, assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, and conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the highest respect. When these have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, this Court will generally not reexamine them. Here, the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court found Lalona’s testimony to be credible, considering that it was candid, categorical, and straightforward.
Murder is committed if treachery is employed in a killing that does not fall within the definition of parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Angelio, 667 SCRA 102 [2012])
The crime of murder qualified by treachery is penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with reclusion perpetua to death. (People vs. Baldomar, 667 SCRA 415 [2012]) People vs. Castro, 847 SCRA 232, G.R. No. 211053 November 29, 2017