CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS
We stress that the CA and the RTC's assessments on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies are given the highest degree of respect,[13] especially if there are no facts or circumstances of weight or substance that were overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied, which could affect the result of the case.[14] Moreover, the trial court has the best opportunity to determine the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, having evaluated their emotional state, reactions, and overall demeanor in open court.
TREACHERY
Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to them arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
In order for treachery to be appreciated, two requirements must be established:
"(1) the victim was in no position to defend himself or herself when attacked; and,
(2) the assailant consciously and deliberately adopted the methods, means, or form of one's attack against the victim."[19]
In a catena of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that treachery cannot be appreciated where the prosecution only proved the events after the attack happened, but not the manner of how the attack commenced or how the act which resulted in the victim's death unfolded.
In treachery, there must be clear and convincing evidence on how the aggression was made, how it began, and how it developed. Where no particulars are known as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, it cannot be established from the suppositions drawn only from the circumstances prior to the very moment of the aggression, that an accused perpetrated the killing with treachery.
Accordingly, treachery cannot be considered where the lone witness did not see the commencement of the assault.[21]
Whereas, evident premeditation has the following elements, viz:
"(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; [and]
(3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act."[23]
Specifically, the prosecution must establish that a sufficient amount of time had lapsed between the malefactor's determination and execution.[24] The Court will not appreciate evident premeditation absent showing that there was enough time that had lapsed between the conception and execution of the crime to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of their acts.[25]
In the absence of clear and positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences of evident premeditation, no matter how logical and probable, are insufficient."[27] Verily, the CA correctly discounted evident premeditation because there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was decided, and how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Nighttime could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance absent evidence suggesting that John Francis especially sought or took advantage of nocturnity to facilitate the commission of the crime or conceal his identity as he stabbed the victims inside their home.[29]
Likewise, abuse of superior strength requires the purposeful use of excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.[30]
Also, the prosecution failed to present evidence to show the relative disparity in age, size, strength, or force between John Francis and his victims. The presence of John Francis who was armed with a bolo, is insufficient to indicate superior strength against the three unarmed victims.[31]
Neither ignominy nor cruelty attended the commission of the crimes. Ignominy refers to the means employed by the accused that acids disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.[32]
In cruelty, ''it must be shown that the accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain."[33]
However, the infliction of multiple stab wounds upon the Maglantay family does not denote the deliberate intention on the part of John Francis to humiliate them[34] or increase their suffering.[35]
Taken together, John Francis is liable only for three counts of homicide for failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged qualifying circumstances. On this point, it must be recalled that John Francis entered a plea of guilty when he was arraigned.[36]
The mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt has the following elements, to wit: "(1) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution."[37]
[ G.R. No. 250852. October 10, 2022 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOHN FRANCIS SUALOG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
LOPEZ, M., J.
FOOTNOTES
read here https://pastepeso.com/ufm14nmd1
SUGGESTED READINGS
FOLLOW US!
📎 Bio
🛒 Shop
⚖️ Blog
🤝 Business
Commenti