Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 159 views

    20 - People v. Espinoza

    Uploaded by

    Katrina Janine Cabanos-Arcelo
    Three men were convicted of murder for hacking a man to death with machetes based on eyewitness testimony and the dying identification of the victim. On appeal, the defendants argued the conviction was improper because the weapons were not presented, but the court upheld it because eyewitness testimony and identification were sufficient evidence even without the weapons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    20 - People v. Espinoza

    Uploaded by

    Katrina Janine Cabanos-Arcelo
    159 views2 pages
    Three men were convicted of murder for hacking a man to death with machetes based on eyewitness testimony and the dying identification of the victim. On appeal, the defendants argued the conviction was improper because the weapons were not presented, but the court upheld it because eyewitness testimony and identification were sufficient evidence even without the weapons.

    Original Description:

    People v. Espinoza digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Three men were convicted of murder for hacking a man to death with machetes based on eyewitness testimony and the dying identification of the victim. On appeal, the defendants argued the conviction was improper because the weapons were not presented, but the court upheld it because eyewitness testimony and identification were sufficient evidence even without the weapons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    159 views2 pages

    20 - People v. Espinoza

    Uploaded by

    Katrina Janine Cabanos-Arcelo
    Three men were convicted of murder for hacking a man to death with machetes based on eyewitness testimony and the dying identification of the victim. On appeal, the defendants argued the conviction was improper because the weapons were not presented, but the court upheld it because eyewitness testimony and identification were sufficient evidence even without the weapons.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People v. Espinoza (1993) Puno, J.

    Petitioner: People of the Philippines


    Respondents: Rogelio Espinoza y Ali, Victor Espinoza
    y Ali and Julian Magbaril y Ombrador
    Concept: Object Evidence
    Brief Facts: Three accused were convicted of murder.
    The conviction was based on the testimonies of
    eyewitnesses attesting to seeing them hack the victim
    to death together with the dying declaration of the
    victim identifying the three accused as his assailants.
    On appeal to the SC, they invoked several defenses
    including the failure of the prosecution to present the
    bolos used in the crime which allegedly weakened
    the evidence against them. The SC affirmed their
    conviction.
    DOCTRINE: There was no showing that the "bolos"
    were recovered from the scene of the crime. It is likely
    that these "bolos" were disposed by the assailants to
    conceal the instruments of the crime. But even without
    the "bolos" as evidence, there can be no doubt that the
    victim died due to hacking by means of "bolos" based
    on the testimony of Lucresio. It cannot also be doubted
    that the numerous wounds suffered by the victim were
    due to hacking by means of sharp bladed instruments.

    4.

    5.

    6.

    (implied)
    The failure to present the weapons used by the
    accused in committing the crime does not suffice to
    weaken the case of the prosecution. The crime can still
    be proved by other means such as testimonies of
    eyewitnesses and declarations of the victim on his
    dying moment identifying his assailants.
    FACTS:
    1. Rogelio Espinoza, Victor Espinoza, and Julian
    Magbaril were charged with and convicted of
    MURDER by the RTC of Malaybalay, Bukidnon for
    hacking to death a certain Renato Salvar.
    2. According to witness LUCRECIO CRODA:

    On August 30, 1988, at around 7:00 o'clock in


    the evening, he was in the living room of his
    house in Bukidnon, when he heard cries for
    help.

    As he went down the stairs, he saw the Rogelio


    Espinoza, Victor Espinoza and Julian Magbaril
    drag the victim away from the road towards his
    house.

    At a distance of approximately three fathoms


    (units of six feet) from his house, he positively
    recognized the victim as Renato Salvar.

    He also witnessed Rogelio and Victor Espinoza


    hack the victim several times with their long
    bolos while Magbaril held back the victim who
    was lying on his back.

    Overcome with fear, he rushed back to his


    house. He then assisted his wife who was in
    near-faint after witnessing the incident.
    3. According to witness CHARLITO GUEVARRA:

    On the night of the incident, he was watching


    the coronation ceremonies of the fiesta queen
    at the barrio hall when he received information
    from his brother, about a hacking incident.

    He immediately went to the place and there


    saw the victim Renato Salvar, seriously

    7.
    8.

    wounded and lying on his back. He was able to


    talk to the victim who was then still conscious
    and coherent in speech.

    When he asked the victim who was responsible


    for hid condition, the victim answered They
    betrayed me.

    The victim identified the three accused as his


    assailants
    According to witness SIMPLICIO SALVAR:

    He was able to talk to the victim in his dying


    moment and the victim identified the three
    accused as his assailants who allegedly
    waylaid him.
    Simplicio Salvar (brother of victim) together with
    his father and other companions boarded Renato
    Salvar in a truck to seek medical assistance in Don
    Carlos. Two hours later, while they were on their
    way to the hospital, the victim died. Upon noticing
    this, they did not proceed to Don Carlos. Instead,
    they returned to their house to bury the victim.
    The three accused interposed the defense of alibi.

    Victor and his brother Rogelio alleged that they


    were in the house of Julian Magbaril earlier in
    the evening where they took their supper at
    approximately 7:30 in the evening. They left
    Magbarils house around 8:30 pm to return to
    their houses.

    Julian Magbaril testified that he was in his


    house on the night of the incident. He testified
    that at around 7:30 pm. The other two accused
    and another Basilio Deconlay were in his house
    in connection with the payment of the fighting
    cocks that the brother bought from Deconlay.
    At around 8:30 pm, the two brothers left while
    Deconloy stayed overnight.
    The Appellate Court imposed the penalty of
    Reclusion Perpetua.
    The accused-appellants appealed, raising the
    following errors:
    a. The Trial Court and the CA erred in giving
    credence to the testimony of the lone alleged
    eyewitness (Croda)
    b. The Trial Court and the CA erred in not acquitting
    all the appellnts based on the ground that the
    prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond
    reasonable doubt.

    ISSUE:
    WON the conviction of the three accused is proper
    (YES)
    RATIO:
    There is no cogent reason to reverse the ruling
    of the appellate court.
    - Eyewitness Lucresio Croda, positively identified the
    three accused as the assailants. His house is at
    least three (3) fathoms away from the scene of the
    crime.
    Moreover, during the hacking incident, the place
    was illuminated by the moon.
    - In People vs. Jacolo, the court held that: Where
    conditions of visibility are favorable, and the
    witness does not appear to be biased, his assertion
    as to the identity of the malefactor should normally
    be accepted. This is particularly true, in this case,

    where the defense failed to impute any improper


    motive on the part of Croda for testifying against
    the appellants.
    Rogelio Espinoza himself admitted that the
    witnesses are his friends and that he could not
    think of any reason why they testified against him.
    Lucresio also testified in detail how the accused,
    taking advantage of their superior strength, hacked
    to death the victim using a long bolo.
    The testimony of a witness, mentioning the details
    of an incident that could not easily be concocted,
    deserves credence for it indicates sincerity and
    truthfulness in the narration of events. The credible
    testimony of a lone witness can provide a rational
    basis for conviction.
    The trial court correctly gave great weight to the
    testimony of Croda. The probability that he
    committed a mistake as to the identity of the
    appellants whom he had known for 6 years is nil.
    The fight for truth is not necessarily won by the
    party with the more numerous witnesses. It is the
    quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that
    counts in assessing their credence.
    In an attempt to discredit Croda as witness, the
    defense assert that: Lucresio did not volunteer as a
    witness immediately after the crime was
    discovered
    SC: After witnessing the incident, Lucresio rushed
    back to his house for fear of his life and opted to
    attend to his wife who had just given birth. We take
    judicial notice of the fact that people usually shy
    away from any involvement in criminal cases due
    to its inconvenience, if not the danger. Lucresio's
    initial hesitation to report the crime due to the
    shocking experience should not be counted against
    his credibility.
    [RELEVANT] Defense: The prosecution failed
    to present the "bolos" which were used in the
    commission of the crime. This weakened the
    evidence against them.
    SC: There was no showing that the "bolos"
    were recovered from the scene of the crime.
    It is likely that these "bolos" were disposed
    by the assailants to conceal the instruments
    of the crime. But even without the "bolos" as
    evidence, there can be no doubt that the
    victim died due to hacking by means of
    "bolos" based on the testimony of Lucresio. It
    cannot also be doubted that the numerous
    wounds suffered by the victim were due to
    hacking
    by
    means
    of
    sharp
    bladed
    instruments.
    Their participation in the merciless killing is further
    buttressed by the fact that before the victim died,
    he disclosed to the witnesses the name of his
    assailants. Utterances made immediately after a
    startling occurrence and before the declarant had
    an opportunity to fabricate a false statement can
    be considered as part of the res gestae pursuant to
    Sec 42 of the Revised Rules of Evidence 1.

    1 Sec 42, Rule 130. Part of the Res GestaeStatements made


    by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or
    immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the
    circusmtances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of
    res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal
    act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance,
    may be received as art of the res gestae.

    Defense: The testimonies of the witnesses are not


    credible because they are relatives of the victim.
    SC: Relationship of the witnesses to the victim per
    se does not affect their credibility. Their defense
    consists of alibi which cannot prevail over the
    positive identification by an eyewitness who had no
    improper motive to falsify testify. As between the
    positive declarations of the prosecution witness
    and the negative statements of the appellants, the
    former deserve more credence and weight.
    The SC gives full credit to the factual findings of
    the trial court considering that it is in the best
    position to weigh conflicting declarations of
    witnesses as it was able to observe their demeanor
    and conduct while giving their testimonies.

    DISPOSITIVE: Three accused are guilty beyond


    reasonable doubt
    The penalty for Murder is reclusion temporal in its
    maximum period to death. In the absence of any
    mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the proper
    penalty is reclusion perpetua. The proper indemnity
    should be P50,000.00.
    Digest maker: Kat

    You might also like