PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs.
GODOFREDO MACARAIG y GONZALES, Accused-AppellantG.R. No. 219848
June 7, 2017
Facts:At around one o'clock in the morning, Francis and Joven both decided to go home. On his way home, Francis saw appellant following Joven. Thereafter he saw appellant approach Joven from the back and stab the latter. After stabbing Joven, appellant saw Francis and ran after him. Sensing his life was in danger, Francis went inside his house, got a bolo and flashlight. He then went back outside but saw appellant run away upon seeing him.
Francis pursued appellant and caught up with him. Conscious of the possibility that appellant was armed, Francis maintained his distance. Francis asked him why he stabbed Joven, but appellant did not answer. Francis shouted for help. A friend heard his shouts and heeded his call. Appellant, on the other hand, escaped into the rice field.
Joven, despite the stab wounds, managed to get home and was able to seek help from his parents Julio and Corazon. Heles, cousin of the victim, saw Julio carrying his son outside their house. Together, they boarded Joven in a tricycle and brought him to Poblacion where they boarded an ambulance which brought them to Bicol Medical Center. On their way to the hospital, Heles asked Joven about the identity of his assailant. Joven categorically told him it was appellant. Joven however expired and was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.
Appellant, in his defense, set forth in his brief the following version of facts: that the night before the incident, Joven was throwing stones in the window of one Crobalde's house. When Macaraig told Joven to stop throwing stones, the latter left the place; that after a dinking (sic) spree, he was about to go to the house of Crobalde when two (2) unidentified men followed him and another man was waiting for him. One of the men tried to stab him with a balisong but it was the latter's companion who was hit. When he noticed that one of them was carrying a bolo, he ran away.
The RTC found the appellant guilty of the crime of murder. Appellant prays for the reversal of the judgment of conviction arguing that the lower courts erred in convicting him of murder and in not considering his theory of self-defense.
Issues:
(1) WON appellant acted in self-defense
(2) WON appellant is guilty of murder.
Held:
(1)
No.
To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the RPC.
At the outset, appellant was uncertain as to who were the men who assaulted him and whether the victim was one of those men who allegedly attempted to stab him. Further, appellant claims that it was not him but the victim's companion who ended up stabbing him since appellant was able to evade the blows. Evidently, without a clear showing that the victim attacked or tried to attack appellant, the Court finds that unlawful aggression cannot be deemed to have occurred.
(2)
Yes, the accused-appellant is guilty of murder qualified by treachery; having stabbed Joven from his back.
It is well to note that by invoking self-defense, the accused-appellant, in effect, admitted to the commission of the acts for which he was charged. Contrary to the accused-appellant's claim of self-defense, the Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently established accused-appellant's culpability. The testimonies of Francis and Dr. Tan, as well as the victim's dying declaration, undoubtedly support the version set forth by the prosecution that the accused-appellant went behind and collared Joven and then suddenly proceeded to stab him with a knife.
It bears to note that the wounds on the victim's body, particularly on the abdomen area, match the prosecution's narration of events. Moreover, Joven's statement prior to his death, naming accused-appellant as the assailant who stabbed him, proves accused-appellant's guilt of the crime charged. /bvs
June 7, 2017
Facts:At around one o'clock in the morning, Francis and Joven both decided to go home. On his way home, Francis saw appellant following Joven. Thereafter he saw appellant approach Joven from the back and stab the latter. After stabbing Joven, appellant saw Francis and ran after him. Sensing his life was in danger, Francis went inside his house, got a bolo and flashlight. He then went back outside but saw appellant run away upon seeing him.
Francis pursued appellant and caught up with him. Conscious of the possibility that appellant was armed, Francis maintained his distance. Francis asked him why he stabbed Joven, but appellant did not answer. Francis shouted for help. A friend heard his shouts and heeded his call. Appellant, on the other hand, escaped into the rice field.
Joven, despite the stab wounds, managed to get home and was able to seek help from his parents Julio and Corazon. Heles, cousin of the victim, saw Julio carrying his son outside their house. Together, they boarded Joven in a tricycle and brought him to Poblacion where they boarded an ambulance which brought them to Bicol Medical Center. On their way to the hospital, Heles asked Joven about the identity of his assailant. Joven categorically told him it was appellant. Joven however expired and was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.
Appellant, in his defense, set forth in his brief the following version of facts: that the night before the incident, Joven was throwing stones in the window of one Crobalde's house. When Macaraig told Joven to stop throwing stones, the latter left the place; that after a dinking (sic) spree, he was about to go to the house of Crobalde when two (2) unidentified men followed him and another man was waiting for him. One of the men tried to stab him with a balisong but it was the latter's companion who was hit. When he noticed that one of them was carrying a bolo, he ran away.
The RTC found the appellant guilty of the crime of murder. Appellant prays for the reversal of the judgment of conviction arguing that the lower courts erred in convicting him of murder and in not considering his theory of self-defense.
Issues:
(1) WON appellant acted in self-defense
(2) WON appellant is guilty of murder.
Held:
(1)
No.
To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the RPC.
At the outset, appellant was uncertain as to who were the men who assaulted him and whether the victim was one of those men who allegedly attempted to stab him. Further, appellant claims that it was not him but the victim's companion who ended up stabbing him since appellant was able to evade the blows. Evidently, without a clear showing that the victim attacked or tried to attack appellant, the Court finds that unlawful aggression cannot be deemed to have occurred.
(2)
Yes, the accused-appellant is guilty of murder qualified by treachery; having stabbed Joven from his back.
It is well to note that by invoking self-defense, the accused-appellant, in effect, admitted to the commission of the acts for which he was charged. Contrary to the accused-appellant's claim of self-defense, the Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently established accused-appellant's culpability. The testimonies of Francis and Dr. Tan, as well as the victim's dying declaration, undoubtedly support the version set forth by the prosecution that the accused-appellant went behind and collared Joven and then suddenly proceeded to stab him with a knife.
It bears to note that the wounds on the victim's body, particularly on the abdomen area, match the prosecution's narration of events. Moreover, Joven's statement prior to his death, naming accused-appellant as the assailant who stabbed him, proves accused-appellant's guilt of the crime charged. /bvs
No comments:
Post a Comment