People
v. Ferreras
G.R.
No. 230221
April
10, 2019
FACTS:
The RTC
and CA convicted Edgar Gayon y Ferreras for the crime of Murder under Art. 248
of the RPC. The evidence of the prosecution indicated that on July 19, 2004 at
around 9:40 in the evening, Leyden Gayon [(Leyden)] was in their house in
Sulangan, Matnog, Sorsogon. Her husband is the first cousin of [Rodolfo] while
accused-appellant [Edgar] is the son of Rodolfo. Leyden testified that while
she was in their house having a conversation with Leonora Givera [(Leonora)],
Leyden saw accused-appellant [Edgar] entered their house. According to the
People's witness, [accused-appellant Edgar] sat on the lap of Leonora and
suddenly stabbed Leonora several times. She even saw accused-appellant's knife
embedded on Leonora's right shoulder. Thereafter, Leyden dragged Leonora inside
the house. Leyden claimed that Leonora uttered to her that she was dying and
Leyden likewise heard accused-appellant Edgar told his father Rodolfo
"Papay we have no more problem because I killed your sister.
According
to the defense, That on July 19, 2004 at about 9:40 in the evening[,] [Rodolfo]
was in their house along the road in Sulangan, Matnog, Sorsogon. He claimed he
was not present at the time of the killing. That he was just informed by his
wife and daughter about the incident that his son [accused-appellant Edgar] had
killed Leonora Givera, the following morning. His wife and daughter-in-law had
a previous altercation about their chickens. He did not know of any reason why
[he was implicated in the case]. xx x7 For his part, accused-appellant Edgar
alleged that on July 19, 2004, he arrived home from work but his family was not
there. [He] went back on the road where a ce1iain Toti told him that his family
was not Id. at l. Rollo, p. 3. CA rollo, p. 59. Decision 3 G.R. No. 230221 home
because they had a quarrel with Leonora at Leyden's house, where they were
drinking gin. Thereafter, [accused-appellant Edgar] asked Leonora what [his]
wife did which caused their frequent quarrel. [However,] x x x Leonora pointed
a knife at him and said that his wife kept on fighting back. Leonora then stood
with the knife still pointing at accused-appellant [Edgar], who tried to resist
the instrument. During the struggle, accused-appellant [Edgar] allegedly saw
Leyden's husband approaching with something to hit him, so he pushed Leonora
inside Leyden's house. Accused-appellant [Edgar] testified that he did not
notice if the knife caused any injury. Thus, he left and went back on the road
to look for his family
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA erred in convicting the accused-appellant
HELD:
Yes. He
should be convicted of Homicide. It is settled that findings of fact of the
trial courts are generally accorded great weight; except when it appears on the
record that the trial court may have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied
some significant fact or circumstance which if considered, would have altered
the result. There is also no basis for the Court to appreciate the qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation. There is evident premeditation when the
following elements concur: ( 1) the time
when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly
indicating that the accused had clung to his determination to commit the crime;
and (3) the lapse of a sufficient length of time between the determination and
execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. In this
case, evident premeditation was not established because the prosecution's
evidence was limited to what transpired in the house of Leyden at 9:40 in the
evening of July 19, 2004, when accused-appellant Edgar stabbed Leonora, while
the latter was having a conversation with Leyden. The prosecution did not
present any proof showing when and how accused-appellant Edgar planned and
prepared to kill Leonora. Wherefore, Edgar guilty of Homicide.
No comments:
Post a Comment