People of the Philippines Vs. Romeo D. Calinawan
G.R. No. 226145
Feburary 13, 2017
This as an appeal from the Decision of the CA which affirmed the Decision of the RTC convicting the accused-appellant Romeo D. Calinawan a.k.a. “Meo” of murder, defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the RPC.
FACTS:
At around midnight on September 26, 2007, Marigor Silan, Janice’s 7 year old daughter, saw Calinawan stabbing her mother in the kitchen. Thereafter, Calinawan quickly fled the scene. Meanwhile, Jonathan Nevado, Janice’s brother and neighbor, was awakened by shouts coming from his sister’s house. He rushed to her house and saw her sister’s children crying. After bringing her children to his house, he want looking for Janice whom he saw outside a neighbor’s house pleading for help. Seeing her bloodied, he carried her and asked who stabbed her, and she answered Calinawan who did it. Then, Jonathan brought Janice to the hospital. When Darwin, Janice’s husband, arrived at the hospital, he also asked who stabbed her and she reiterated that it was Calinawan. After three days, Janice died in spite of the medical treatment in the hospital.
The accused claimed that on the bight of the stabbing incident, he went to his mother’s house, and arrived there at around 7:30 in the evening. From 8:00 to 9:00 in the evening, he was drinking with his older brother. At around 2:00 in the morning the following day, Calinawan was awakened by police officers asking him about the killing of Janice. He said he knew nothing about it, but he was still invited by the police to go with them.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Calinawan was positively identified as the assailant.
2. Whether the killing of Janice was attended with treachery.
HELD:
1.
The witness recognized the accused through identifying marks which would make the latter unmistakably stand out from the other individuals. In the case at bench, Marigor’s family and Calinawan had been neighbors for a long time. Hence, she was familiar with the latter’s unique physical characteristics, particularly his amputated fingers. Through this distinct physical feature of Calinawan, Marigor was able to identify him in open court as the one who stabbed her mother. Thus, her identification was credible, even she was not able to clearly see his face, but saw the notable feature on his hand, which set him apart from others.
The witness recognized the accused through identifying marks which would make the latter unmistakably stand out from the other individuals. In the case at bench, Marigor’s family and Calinawan had been neighbors for a long time. Hence, she was familiar with the latter’s unique physical characteristics, particularly his amputated fingers. Through this distinct physical feature of Calinawan, Marigor was able to identify him in open court as the one who stabbed her mother. Thus, her identification was credible, even she was not able to clearly see his face, but saw the notable feature on his hand, which set him apart from others.
Marigor’s positive identification was further bolstered by the statement of Janice to Jonathan that it was Calinawan who stabbed her.
The courts a quo considered the said statement as an admissible dying declaration. For a dying declaration to be deemed an exception to the hearsay rule, the following conditions must concur: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was conscious of his impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case of Murder, Homicide, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim.
In this case, the Court notes that in her affidavit, Janice said she thought she could survive the attack. In view of this, there seems to be a doubt whether she was aware of her impending death.
Granting there is such doubt, Janice’s statement, nevertheless, is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule for being part of res gestae. In order for a statement to be a part of res gestae, the following elements must concur: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statement was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statement concerns the occurrence in question and it’s immediately attending circumstances. All the forgoing elements are present in the case at bench.
2.
Other than Marigor’s first-hand account, no other witness actually saw the stabbing incident. Obviously, her narration of the events that unfolded was crucial in determining how the killing was perpetrated because she was the only one who actually saw its execution. Her testimony, however, was lacking in details; thus, it is insufficient to conclude that the killing was attended with treachery. Absent of clear and convincing evidence on how the attack was perpetrated, the conclusion that there was treachery is nothing more but an assumption. It is unfortunate that the particular means, manner or method of attack was never clearly illustrated in her testimony leaving the evidence for murder wanting.
Other than Marigor’s first-hand account, no other witness actually saw the stabbing incident. Obviously, her narration of the events that unfolded was crucial in determining how the killing was perpetrated because she was the only one who actually saw its execution. Her testimony, however, was lacking in details; thus, it is insufficient to conclude that the killing was attended with treachery. Absent of clear and convincing evidence on how the attack was perpetrated, the conclusion that there was treachery is nothing more but an assumption. It is unfortunate that the particular means, manner or method of attack was never clearly illustrated in her testimony leaving the evidence for murder wanting.
Killing is Homicide only if not attended by qualifying circumstances. Without the qualifying circumstances, the SC held that Calinawan is only found guilty of Homicide.
No comments:
Post a Comment