**Facts:**
– **Incident and Initial Circumstances:**
– The victim, Thelma Subosa, previously married to Primo Subosa with 14 children, cohabited with Warlito Huesca until his death.
– Early on June 14, 1993, after Warlito’s burial, intruders forcibly entered Subosa’s house, declared a “hold up”, tied her, and fatally shot her.
– Her children, Ellyn and Roselyn, identified the assailants as Claudio Barcimo, Jr., Ronnie Abolidor, and Francisco Comoda, corroborated by kerosene lamp lighting.
– **Legal Process:**
– **Arraignment and Trial:**
– The accused pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
– Prosecution witnesses included Ellyn and Roselyn Sobusa.
– Defense from Claudio Barcimo, Jr. cited an alibi, denying involvement.
– **Conviction at RTC:**
– On January 31, 2000, the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 31, found the accused guilty of murder, imposing reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnities and damages.
– **Appeal:**
– Claudio Barcimo, Jr. alone appealed, challenging witness credibility, evidence of treachery, nighttime aggravation, and lack of appreciation for voluntary surrender.
**Issues:**
1. **Credibility of Identification by Witnesses:**
– The appellant questioned the reliability of Ellyn and Roselyn’s identification of the assailants.
2. **Presence of Treachery:**
– Whether the attack on the victim involved treachery, hedging her defense options.
3. **Consideration of Nighttime as Aggravating:**
– The trial court’s assessment of nighttime contributing to the crime.
4. **Voluntary Surrender Consideration:**
– Whether the appellant’s surrender met criteria to mitigate punishment.
**Court’s Decision:**
– **Witness Credibility:**
– The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting no oversight or misunderstanding of crucial facts. Ellyn and Roselyn’s testimonies were coherent and consistent, identifying Claudio Barcimo, Jr. clearly due to proximity and familiarity.
– **Treachery:**
– The Court confirmed the presence of treachery since the victim was defenseless, lying down, and effectively restrained, ensuring no defensive action could be taken.
– **Nighttime:**
– **The Issue:** Evaluating the relevance of the crime’s occurrence at night.
– **Resolution:** The Court clarified that while nighttime itself is not a mitigating factor, the conditions under which the murder occurred (i.e., the victim being awakened and defenseless) were integral to establishing treachery.
– **Voluntary Surrender:**
– **The Issue:** Assessing the voluntariness and timing of the appellant’s surrender.
– **Resolution:** The surrender did not qualify as voluntary because it wasn’t spontaneous and came significantly after the incident, aiming more to clear his name rather than to submit unconditionally to justice.
**Doctrine:**
1. **Witness Identification Credibility:**
– Established that positive identification by credible witnesses outweighs alibi and denial.
2. **Treachery:**
– Reaffirms treachery in a scenario where the victim is incapacitated or unable to defend (`Art. 14, Paragraph 16, Revised Penal Code`).
**Class Notes:**
– **Elements of Murder (Article 248, Revised Penal Code):**
– Treachery: Ensuring commission without risk from defensive actions by the victim.
– Presence of intent to kill, use of superior strength, and disregard for moral inhibitions.
– **Treachery and Nighttime in Criminal Law:**
– Treachery qualifies the crime elevating it from homicide to murder.
– Nighttime can imply premeditation but needs contextual establishment like defenseless state.
– **Alibi in Defense:**
– Positive identification by credible witnesses nullifies the defense of alibi unless strong evidence places the accused elsewhere unmistakably.
– **Voluntary Surrender Requirements:**
– Surrender should be spontaneous, unconditional, and timely to manifest genuine repentance and recognition of law.
**Historical Background:**
– **Context:**
– Reflects post-Martial Law adjudications in the Philippines where judicial scrutiny anchored heavily on witness credibility against standard defenses like alibi.
– Highlights evolving jurisprudence on suitably compensating victims’ heirs analogous to modern socio-economic dynamics.
Leave a Reply