People v. Lumahang

 

People v. Lumahang

G.R. No. 218581

March 27, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Lumahang for the crime of Murder and Slight Physical Injuries. On December 14, 2008, around nine o'clock in the evening, Alberto Poraso, Rodel Velitario and Augusto Pornelos were attending a wake in Joan of Arc Street, Barangay Gulod, Novaliches, Quezon City when appellant appeared fuming mad. Suddenly, appellant approached Pornelos from behind and stabbed him in a hook motion with knife in his left hand. Pornelos, who was hit on the buttocks, quickly ran towards an alley. Without warning, appellant then turned his ire on Velitario and stabbed him repeatedly on different parts of his body. Dr. Joseph Palmero, medico-legal examiner of Velitario, found two (2) stab wounds in the latter's abdomen, one (1) incise wound on the left shoulder and another on the left posterior thigh. He found multiple abrasions on the Velitario's right collar bone and on both toes which were presumably caused by a scuffle between said victim and his assailant. It was determined that the cause of Velitario's death was the multiple stab wounds he sustained on the abdomen, which among others, hit his left kidney. Dr. Palmero estimated that based on the depth of the wounds, the assailant was within an arm's length from the victim and that the weapon used was a bladed knife measuring around eight (8) cm. long. On the other hand, Dr. Engelbert Ednacot of the Quezon City General Hospital, examining physician of Pornelos, found a stab wound on the latter's right buttocks, which he concluded to be a non-fatal wound that required treatment for around seven (7) days. In his medical opinion, the victim was attacked from behind.

ISSUE:

                Whether the CA erred in convicting Lumahang despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt/ Whether the CA erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.           

HELD:

                No. The crime is only Homicide, not murder. It is well-settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court.  Thus, when the case pivots on the issue of the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses, the findings of the trial courts necessarily carry great weight and respect as they are afforded the unique opportunity to ascertain the demeanor and sincerity of witnesses during trial. The Court has oft pronounced that denial is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime.Thus, as between a categorical testimony which has the ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial and alibi on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.

In this case, Lumahang simply denies that he stabbed the victims, and, at the same time, claims that he was just protecting his cousin. The Court, however, cannot give more weight to Lumahang's denial over the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution. Moreover, the Court cannot also give credence to Lumahang's claim of defense of relative, as none of the elements to successfully invoke the same was sufficiently proven in this case. Suddenness of the attack by itself, is inadequate to support a Finding of treachery. It must be coupled with proof that the victim was completely deprived of a real chance to defend himself against the attack thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. It is, thus, decisive that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate. the Court held that treachery was not present because the attack was frontal, and hence, the victim had opportunity to defend himself. While a frontal attack, by itself, does not negate the existence of treachery, when the same is considered along with the other circumstances, like the attack not being unexpected, it already creates a reasonable doubt in the existence of the qualifying circumstance. From the foregoing, the Court must perforce rule in favor of the accused and not appreciate the said circumstance. Wherefore, Lumahang guilty of Homicide        and Slight Physical Injuries.