People v. Casemiro

 

People v. Casemiro

G.R. No. 23112

January 16, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Alex Casemiro and Jose Catalan, Jr. of murder. At 9pm, Mary Ann’s husband was invited by Casemiro and Catalan, both already drunk, to butcher a duck. After 20 min. Mary with her 14 years old brother Christopher Belino, decided to look for her husband. 15 meters away from them, they witnessed Casemiro stabbing the victim 5 times using a knife while Catalan is holding the victim. Catalan also stabbed the victim 8 times using an ice pick. The scene was well lit by a big bulb atop a Samar Electric Cooperative post. According to Catalan, he is the cousin of Mary Ann and he met her husband only once. He was in Gandara, Samar on an extended vacation to attend to her deceased father’s 40-day novena. That at the time of the incident, he was watching a cartoon tv show until 2am when he was informed by Mary Ann about her husband’s death. He was questioned in the Police station but said he did not know anything and was allowed to go home. Later on, he was arrested by the Police. He claimed that he is not a habitual drinker. On the other hand, Casemiro’s defense was that he was with his mother and father in their house and that they live close to the victim, he often sees the latter. He said that at 9pm to 8am, he slept. He did not have any altercation with the victim nor the spouse. He met Catalan in jail and Mary Ann had only pinpointed on him the next day when neighbors accused him.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not they are liable for murder.

HELD:

                Yes. Art. 248 of the RPC elements of murder: 1.) That a person is killed. 2.) That the accused killed him or her. 3.) That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248. 4.) That the killing is not parricide or infanticide. Mary Ann categorically identified the perpetrators. It is elementary that alibi and denial are outweighed by positive identification that is categorical, consistent and untainted by any ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter. Normally, where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness does not appear to be biased, her assertion as to the identity of the malefactors should be accepted. There is treachery when the offenders employ means, methods or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the victim might make. In this case, the accused invited the victim under the pretense of butchering a duck and brought him to a place where there were no houses. The victim was unarmed while the accused wielded a knife and an ice pick. the victim was stabbed multiple times on the chest, held by the arms by the other, and again stabbed multiple times on the back even after he had fallen down. These circumstances indubitably prove treachery; execution of the attack gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and said means of execution was deliberately adopted by accused-appellants. Abuse of superior strength would be absorbed in treachery.