PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v.
ANTONIO ALMOSARA
G.R. No. 223512, July 24, 2019
Lazaro-Javier, J.:
DOCTRINE:
Every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. Xxx Whatever
inconsistencies the child incurred in his testimony did not concern the principal
occurrence or the elements of the composite crime charged but related only to minor
and peripheral matters. As such, their effect on his testimony was negligible, if not
nil, because the inconsistencies did not negate the positive identification of the
appellant as the perpetrator.
Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of
the danger on his person. The decisive factor leans on whether the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.
FACTS:
On December 6, 2000, the victim, Arnulfo was drinking with the appellant Antonio
Almosara together with the three Almosaras. Appellant irritably engaged in a heated
exchange with Arnulfo. Shortly after, appellant and his relatives left. Not long after, the
Almosaras, now armed with bolos, had returned. At that point, Arnulfo was gathering
stones he thought of using to defend himself and his family should the Almosaras be back.
appellant went straight to and pinned down Arnulfo and right then and there repeatedly
stabbed Arnulfo. While Arnulfo was already lying prostrate on the ground, Anthony joined
in and stabbed Arnulfo once in the stomach. Ronnie and Adolfo also joined in and stabbed
Arnulfo a total of six (6) times in the back. The victim’s two minor children saw the killing
of their father, thus testified before the court.
ISSUE/S:
Whether accused-appellant Antonio Almosara is guilty of the crime of murder.
RULING:
Yes, the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of murder. Murder requires the
following elements: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing
was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 such as with
treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity ; and (4) the
killing is not parricide or infanticide. The appellant contended that the second and third
elements are not present in his case – the accused killed him and the killing was attended by
any of the qualifying circumstances mention in Article 248. However, the Court ruled
otherwise.
The children of the victim identified the appellant as the one who killed their father. Indeed,
when the credibility of the eyewitness is at issue, due deference and respect shall be given to
the trial court's factual findings, its calibration of the testimonies, its assessment of their
probative weight, and its conclusions based on such factual findings, absent any showing that
it had overlooked circumstances that would have affected the final outcome of the case. This
rule finds an even more stringent application where the trial court's findings are sustained by
the Court of Appeals. Also, jurisprudential precepts provide that every child is now presumed
qualified as a witness. As to the third element, the essence of treachery hinges on the
aggressor's attack sans any warning, done in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner,
affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Here,
appellant, without any warning, barged into the victim's premises, went straight to pin him
down to the ground, and repeatedly stabbed him. Appellant continued pinning Arnulfo down
to allow his other relatives who had joined into freely take turns in stabbing the helpless
victim. It held that treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned
of the danger on his person. The decisive factor leans on whether the execution of the attack
made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. When the circumstance of
abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter and
may no longer be separately appreciated.
