People v. Enriquez
G.R. No. 238171
June 19, 2019
FACTS:
The RTC
and CA convicted Arnaldo Enriquez, Jr. for the crime of Murder under Art. 248
of the RPC. On December 30, 2006, at around 9:30 in the evening, Luisa and her
daughter, Jessica, were in their house watching the television when they heard
someone moaning at a nearby house. As they peeped out of the window, they saw a
bloodied Dela Cruz coming out of his house and upon reaching the door got
stabbed in the back by Enriquez with a bread knife. Dela Cruz managed to ask
for help from his uncle's house before collapsing. He was then brought to the
hospital but was unfortunately pronounced dead on arrival caused by multiple
stab wounds in the neck and thorax. On the same date, at around 10:30 in the
evening, Barangay Security Development Officer Obar received a call about a
killing incident in Carreon Village. He went to the reported place and upon
arrival, he saw a person being mauled and learned from an unnamed woman [that
said person is] the one involved in the killing. He arrested this person whom
he later identified as Enriquez. After bringing him to the barangay, Obar
returned to the place and recovered a knife. Meanwhile, Enriquez was
transferred to Camp Karingal.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA erred in affirming Enriquez’s conviction for Murder
HELD:
Yes. It
is established that the qualifying circumstance of treachery must be proven by
clear and convincing evidence. Thus, for Enriquez to be convicted of Murder,
the prosecution must not only establish that he killed Dela Cruz; it must also
be proven that the killing of Dela Cruz was attended by treachery. In a catena
of cases, the Court has consistently held that treachery cannot be appreciated
where the prosecution only proved the events after theattack happened, but not
the manner of how the attack commenced or how the act which resulted in the
victim's death unfolded. In treachery, there must be clear and convincing
evidence on how the aggression was made, how it began, and how it developed.
Where no particulars are known as to the manner in which the aggression was
made or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and
developed, it cannot be established from suppositions drawn only from
circumstances prior to the very moment of the aggression, that an accused
perpetrated the killing with treachery. Accordingly, treachery cannot be
considered where the lone witness did not see the commencement of the assault.
In the instant case, the evidence presented by the prosecution only proved the
events after the initial attack had already happened. The prosecution
witnesses, Luisa and Jessica, did not see the manner of how the attack
commenced or how the acts which resulted in the victim's death unfolded as the
attack started inside the house of the victim. They merely saw Dela Cruz,
already bloodied, coming out of his house. It was only at this point that they
saw Enriquez stab the victim again with a bread knife. Thus, what happened
inside the house is unknown to the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the finding
of the trial court, sustained by the CA, that treachery was present proceeds
only from the fact that the witnesses saw Enriquez stab the already bloodied
victim from behind as he was about to exit his house. Wherefore, Enriquez,
guilty of Homicide.
No comments:
Post a Comment