Crim Case Digest 3rd Batch
Crim Case Digest 3rd Batch
Crim Case Digest 3rd Batch
For its part, the defense presented as its sole witness ballistics expert Vicente R.
De Vera who was the chief of the Ballistics Division of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service.
After examining the autopsy report, De Vera testified against the likelihood of an armalite
being used to kill the victim and posited that the gunshot wounds were more consistent
with those inflicted by bullets from a .45 caliber pistol.
After the parties presented their respective evidence, On June 1, 1995,
the trial court finally rendered its decision that accused Floro Malejana was
guilty beyond doubt of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248
Revised Penal Code, without mitigating or aggravating circumstances
present, hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and one day of
reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as
maximum and to indemnify the heirs of Janus Roces P50,000.00 for his
death.[17]
On appeal, the decision of the trial court was upheld by
Appeals with the following modification that the penalty to
be RECLUSION PERPETUA. Pursuant to Section 13 of Rule 124 of
Criminal Procedure, as amended, let the entire record of this
elevated to the Supreme Court for review.
the Court of
be imposed
the Rules on
case is (sic)
Issue:
Whether or not THE TRIAL COURT AS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT FLORO MALEJANA OF
MURDER AND IN NOT ACQUITTING HIM NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HIS
GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Whether or not THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING TREACHERY AS
PURPOSELY EMPLOYED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO COMMIT THE
ALLEGED CRIME IN THE INFORMATION.
Held:
No, Based on the evidence on record, the prosecution was able to establish
that appellant was issued a firearm and shot the victim thrice in the body on July 28,
1990.Thats why the decision of the trial court was upheld by the Court of Appeals with
the following modification. In light of these premises, the Court finds no reversible error
in the decision of the trial court. The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the RPC
isreclusion perpetua to death. Considering that neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the imposition by the appellate
court of reclusion perpetua is proper pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2 of the RPC.
No. this Court agrees that treachery attended the slaying of Roces. This qualifying
circumstance can be appreciated when the killing was sudden and unexpected and the
victim is not in a position to defend himself. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of
any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the
aggressor. The existence or non-existence of treachery is not dependent on the success
of the assault, for treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was
forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack
made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. Thus, even a frontal
attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be
in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.
To reiterate treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was
forewarned of the danger to his person. Neither does the fact that other people were
present during the shooting negate the attendance of treachery.