PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JORIE WAHIMAN y RAYOS (EN BANC)
G.R. No. 200942 June 16, 2015
Facts:
On April 2, 2003, Buensuceso, the manager of Stanfilco-Dole, Phils. in Malaybalay City, was on his way back to the company staff house on board his Isuzu pick-up after attending a despedida for one of his employees. When he was about to enter the gate of the staff house, he was gunned down by persons riding in tandem on a black motorcycle. The guard on duty, David Azucena, who was then opening the gate identified one of the assailants as herein appellant. During trial, the prosecution submitted in evidence the extrajudicial confession of appellant taken during the preliminary investigation of the case, admitting the killing of Buensuceso.
However, when it was appellant’s turn to testify, he narrated that at the time of the killing, he was at Landing Casisang, Malaybalay City attending the birthday celebration of his brother-in-law. The RTC rendered its Decision finding appellant guilty as charged. On appeal, the CA found no reason to depart from the trial court’s findings.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
Yes, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Revised Penal Code provides the elements of murder, to wit:
(1) Person was killed;
(2) Accused killed him;
(3) Killing attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances –
(b) in consideration of a price, reward or promise.
In the present case, the Court held that appellant’s contention that he lacked legal intervention and assistance during the taking of his extrajudicial confession was totally belied by the testimony of Atty. Dumlao that he rendered assistance to the appellant throughout the entire proceedings and carefully explained to the latter the consequences of his admission. He informed appellant of his rights and that anything he says may be used in evidence against him. Appellant then proceeded to narrate that he was hired by Laranjo and Canadilla, for and in behalf of a certain Alonzo who owns a quarry in San Isidro, Valencia, to kill the victim for a fee. Appellant then narrated how he met with Laranjo, Canadilla and Alonzo; how he received payments and instructions; how he planned the killing; and how he executed the plan. Appellant insisted on giving his extrajudicial confession.
Notwithstanding, it must be stressed that appellant’s conviction was not based solely on his extrajudicial confession. The prosecution likewise presented the eyewitness account of Azucena who testified that immediately after hearing gunshots, he saw appellant about five meters away from the Isuzu pick-up of the victim. Appellant was riding in tandem aboard a black motorcycle and was holding a gun. The ballistic report also confirmed that the slugs found at the crime scene were fired from the firearm earlier confiscated from the appellant. Moreover, appellant was not able to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene at the time of its commission.
Hence, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)
G.R. No. 200942 June 16, 2015
Facts:
On April 2, 2003, Buensuceso, the manager of Stanfilco-Dole, Phils. in Malaybalay City, was on his way back to the company staff house on board his Isuzu pick-up after attending a despedida for one of his employees. When he was about to enter the gate of the staff house, he was gunned down by persons riding in tandem on a black motorcycle. The guard on duty, David Azucena, who was then opening the gate identified one of the assailants as herein appellant. During trial, the prosecution submitted in evidence the extrajudicial confession of appellant taken during the preliminary investigation of the case, admitting the killing of Buensuceso.
However, when it was appellant’s turn to testify, he narrated that at the time of the killing, he was at Landing Casisang, Malaybalay City attending the birthday celebration of his brother-in-law. The RTC rendered its Decision finding appellant guilty as charged. On appeal, the CA found no reason to depart from the trial court’s findings.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
Yes, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Revised Penal Code provides the elements of murder, to wit:
(1) Person was killed;
(2) Accused killed him;
(3) Killing attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances –
(b) in consideration of a price, reward or promise.
In the present case, the Court held that appellant’s contention that he lacked legal intervention and assistance during the taking of his extrajudicial confession was totally belied by the testimony of Atty. Dumlao that he rendered assistance to the appellant throughout the entire proceedings and carefully explained to the latter the consequences of his admission. He informed appellant of his rights and that anything he says may be used in evidence against him. Appellant then proceeded to narrate that he was hired by Laranjo and Canadilla, for and in behalf of a certain Alonzo who owns a quarry in San Isidro, Valencia, to kill the victim for a fee. Appellant then narrated how he met with Laranjo, Canadilla and Alonzo; how he received payments and instructions; how he planned the killing; and how he executed the plan. Appellant insisted on giving his extrajudicial confession.
Notwithstanding, it must be stressed that appellant’s conviction was not based solely on his extrajudicial confession. The prosecution likewise presented the eyewitness account of Azucena who testified that immediately after hearing gunshots, he saw appellant about five meters away from the Isuzu pick-up of the victim. Appellant was riding in tandem aboard a black motorcycle and was holding a gun. The ballistic report also confirmed that the slugs found at the crime scene were fired from the firearm earlier confiscated from the appellant. Moreover, appellant was not able to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene at the time of its commission.
Hence, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment