PEOPLE v. QUITA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff Appellee,  -versus – GREGORIO QUITA alias "GREG", Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 212818

January 25, 2017

FACTS:

On November 17, 2002 at around 8:30 in the evening he was at home at Greenland Street, Better Living Subdivision, Parafiaque City having just arrived from work, when his daughter told him that Roberto was having a dri.nking session nearby; that while on his way to fetch Roberto, he saw three persons fighting; that when he went near the trio he saw Gregorio holding Roberto's hand at the back while Roberto was being stabbed by Fleno; that when he shouted9 his son's assailant') took to their heels; and that he ran afrer them, but when the two reached a dark alley he no longer pursued them. He then went back to where roberto was lying.

Gregorio made a total denial that he had ever known the victim or met him even once. He claimed that prior to the incident in question he was residing at No. 10 SMI Compound, Sucat, Kupang, Muntinlupa City. In 2004 he transferred his family to Paliparan 3, Dasmarifias City in Cavite, where his parents had a piece of land. Here, he found work as a tricycle driver. Sometime in the early part of January 2007, while driving his tricycle, someone told him to go to Parafiaque City because a warrant for his arrest was waiting for him there. He went with that person to Parafiaque City because he knew he did not commit any crime. But when he got there, he was at once brought to the Special Investigation Division at the Parafiaque Coastal Area, where he was told to sign a blank piece of paper, which, according to the person who brought him there, meant that he had killed somebody from the Better Living Subdivision in Parafiaque City. After signing the blank piece of paper he was detained in jail and was told that ifhe believed he was innocent of the accusation against him, he should prove his innocence in court.

The RTC ruled guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime MURDER While the CA modified the ruling increasing the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not accused appellant is guilty of murder.

Rulings:

As the CA ruled that There is treachery when 'the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms 01 the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the oftended party might make. These means or methods are made in the form of a swift, deliberate and unexpected attack, without any warning and affording the victim, which is usually unarmed and unsuspecting, no chance at all to resist or escape the impending attack. Holding the hands of the victim to his back while he was being stabbed rendered hint defenseless against the perpetrators thereby insuring the execution of the crime without risk to the offenders of any defense that the victim might make.

The testimony of the witness that the assailant was in front of the victim when he was stabbed was corroborated by the testimony of the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on the victim that since the wounds were located anteriorly, it is possible for the assailant to inflict the fatal wound in front of the victim, although he did not discount the fact that the assailant could be at the back of the victim holding  And, because of the positive identification of the accused-appellant, his alibi deserved scant consideration. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed.

As SC rulings, Gregorio's appeal before this Court is predicated essentially upon the selfsame lone assignment of error set forth in his Brief with the CA. Since the factual findings by the CA are binding upon this Court, especially when the CA's findings unite with the RTC's factual findings, as in this case, this Court is not at liberty to reject or disturb the factual findings of both lower courts. Indeed, this Court is satisfied that the factual findings of both lower courts are in accord with the evidence on record.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.