[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
185 views1 page

People Vs Oco

Raul Oco, Armando Lozano, Dave Samson, and Eutiquiano Pacaa were arrested and charged for a shooting incident that resulted in one death. During the trial, witnesses positively identified all the accused as the assailants. While the accused presented alibis, the court found the witness testimonies to be more credible. The court convicted Raul Oco as the principal but acquitted the other three due to inconsistent identifications. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, finding that positive identification by credible witnesses was sufficient for conviction regardless of whether accomplices took measures to hide identities or a motive was established.

Uploaded by

LUNA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
185 views1 page

People Vs Oco

Raul Oco, Armando Lozano, Dave Samson, and Eutiquiano Pacaa were arrested and charged for a shooting incident that resulted in one death. During the trial, witnesses positively identified all the accused as the assailants. While the accused presented alibis, the court found the witness testimonies to be more credible. The court convicted Raul Oco as the principal but acquitted the other three due to inconsistent identifications. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, finding that positive identification by credible witnesses was sufficient for conviction regardless of whether accomplices took measures to hide identities or a motive was established.

Uploaded by

LUNA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

SPO1 ARMANDO LOZANO, DAVE SAMSON,


EUTIQUIANO PACAA, JR., and RAUL OCO
G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003
Facts:
Oco, Lozano, Samson and Pacaa were arrested corresponding to the shooting
incident happened on November 24, 1997 and were detained at the BBRC for the
duration of the trial. During the trial, the prosecution presented twelve witnesses
while the defense presented thirty-one witnesses.
On the cross- examination conducted the witnesses positively and directly
pointed out all the accused persons as the assailants of the surviving
victim Herminigildo Damuag and the late Alden Abiabi who died on that incident.
Though, the four persons indicted through the crime presented their own alibis in
order to be acquitted, the court gave more account to the testimonies presented by
the appellants. Further, the trial court found the appellant guilty as principal of
crime murder and frustrated murder while his three co - accused were acquitted
due to the inconsistent identification.
Issue:
Whether or not the court erred on their conviction rendered to Raul Oco as a
principal due to the incredulous identifications between them with his co-accused.
Ruling:
No, the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the court on review. The
appellant claims that the fact that his co-accused used helmets to hide their
identities would make it more logical for him to use also a helmet while shooting at
Abiabi and Damuag in plain view of many witnesses and he has no motive of killing
the victims. Yet, the court finds that motive is not an essential element of a crime,
and it need not to be proven for purposes of conviction. Since he was positively
identified by at least two credible witnesses as one of the assailants the fact that his
companions wore helmets does not make his identification by the eyewitnesses
incredulous, giving into account with Solicitor Generals observation that criminals
carry out their criminal designs differently. Some cover their faces, but others boldly
perform their criminal acts in full view of the public.
The Court also finds Damuags testimony credible as it is replete with details
and corroborated on material points by Ronald Barellano, also a credible witness.
These two eyewitnesses had no ulterior motive to be untruthful in their
identification of appellant as one of the culprits and as the one who killed and shot
the victims. Thus, this shows that Raul Oco was the principal by direct participation
of the crime committed.

You might also like