People v. Guro.

 

People v. Guro.

G.R. No. 230619

April 10, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Angel Guro for the crime of Murder under Art. 248 of the RPC. Jefferson, the witness, son of Jesus testified that while at their home in Cubao, his father was called from Venus de los Santos, Jefferson’s cousin. When they fetch Joemarie, his brother and passing by Parang, Marikinca City, they saw around 5 persons waiting for him at the computer shop. When Jefferson asked what was the problem, he was suddenly pushed and fell down. Upon getting himself up, he saw his father on his knees and another hitting him with a chair, mauling and stabbing him.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not CA erred in convicting the accused of murder

HELD:

                Yes.  Guro committed the crime of Homicide as the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not present in the killing of Jesus. As to Guro's allegation that the illumination and condition of visibility on the area, the distance of the eyewitnesses to the victim, and the suddenness of the attack, as well as the immediate flight of the assailant, cast doubt on the alleged positive identification of witnesses, it must be stressed that these circumstances were raised for the first time on appeal. Guro had all the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses as to these circumstances during trial, but this he did not do. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.

Furthermore, Guro merely interposed the defense of denial. He denied that it was him who had stabbed Jesus, and adverted to a certain Peping, as the assailant. However, aside from such bare allegation, Guro did not adduce any evidence to corroborate such claim and establish that a certain Peping actually stabbed Jesus. Meanwhile, as stated earlier, prosecution witnesses Jefferson and Joemarie positively identified Guro in open court as the person who stabbed Jesus. The prosecution was unable to prove that Guro intentionally sought the victim for the purpose of killing him. Well settled is the rule that the circumstances which would qualify a killing to murder must be proven as indubitably as the crime itself.33 There must be a showing, first and foremost, that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such execution, without risk to himself. In People v. Santos, “mere suddenness of the attack is not sufficient to hold that treachery is present, where the mode adopted by the appellants does not positively tend to prove that they thereby knowingly intended to insure the accomplishment of their criminal purpose without any risk to themselves arising from the defense that the victim might offer.38 Specifically, it must clearly appear that the method of assault adopted by the aggressor was deliberately chosen with a view to accomplishing the act without risk to the aggressor.