Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    People v. de Vera, 312 SCRA 640

    Uploaded by

    rolan.mercado
    People v. De Vera, 312 SCRA 640, August 18, 1999

    Copyright:

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

    People v. de Vera, 312 SCRA 640

    Uploaded by

    rolan.mercado
    6 views2 pages
    People v. De Vera, 312 SCRA 640, August 18, 1999

    Original Title

    People v. De Vera, 312 SCRA 640

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    People v. De Vera, 312 SCRA 640, August 18, 1999

    Copyright:

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

    People v. de Vera, 312 SCRA 640

    Uploaded by

    rolan.mercado
    People v. De Vera, 312 SCRA 640, August 18, 1999

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest

    90. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDWIN DE VERA


    G.R. No. 128966 | August 18, 1999

    Facts:
    • Edwin de Vera y Garcia, together with Roderick Garcia, Kenneth Florendo
    and ElmerCastro, was charged with Murder before the RTC of Quezon City in
    connection with the killing of one Frederick Capulong.De Vera and Garcia
    pleaded no t guilty during arraignment. The other two accused, Florendo and
    Castro, were at large. During trial, the prosecution presented as witness one
    Bernardino Cacao who testified that he saw De Vera in the car, where an
    altercation later occurred. Thereafter, he saw Florendo drag out of the
    vehicle and apparently disabled Capulong and shot him in the head moments
    later. • Aside from Cacao's testimony, the prosecution also presented De
    Vera's extrajudicial statement which established that he knew that Florendo
    intended to ķill the victim and that the three co-accused were carrying
    weapons and that he acted as a lookout to watch for passersby. Thereafter,
    the trial court convicted De Vera and his co- accused Garcia of the crime
    charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
    ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim. In ruling that the crime
    committed was murder, the trial court found that the killing was attended by
    treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. One of
    these was enough to qualify the crime as murder; the two others constituted
    generic aggravating circumstances. • The trial court explained that the
    evidence established evident premeditation, for Florendo's group acted with
    deliberate forethought and tenacious persistence in the accomplishment of
    the criminal design. • Treachery was also proven, because the attack was
    planned and performed in such a way as to guarantee the execution of the
    criminal design without risk to the group. There was also abuse of superior
    strength, because the attackers took advantage of their superiority in
    numbers and weapons. •Furthermore, the trial court found that it was indeed
    Florendo who actually shot the victim. However, it convicted De Vera as a
    principal because the scientific and forensic findings on the criminal incident
    directly and substantially confirmed the existence of conspiracy among the
    four accused. Aggrieved, De Vera appealed his conviction before the Supreme
    Court.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting De Vera as principal?
    Ruling:
    Yes. The testimony of the prosecution eyewitness contained nothing that
    could inculpate De Vera. Aside from the fact that he was inside the car, no
    other act was imputed to him. Mere presence does not amount to conspiracy.
    Indeed, the trial court based its finding of conspiracy on mere presumptions,
    and not on solid facts indubitably indicating a common design to commit
    murder. Such suppositions do not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

    Ratio:
    The fact that De Vera was at the locus criminis in order to aid and abet the
    commission of the crime did not make him a conspirator; at most, he was
    only an accomplice. Moreover, the prosecution evidence has not established
    that De Vera was part of the conspiracy to kill Capulong.De Vera 's
    participation, as culled from his own statement, was made after the decision
    to kill was already a fait accompli.

    You might also like