G.R. No. 124392 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FEDERICO ABRAZALDO @ “PEDING,” ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Court finds accused Federico Abrazaldo @ Peding guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic 7659, and in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed while the public authorities were engaged in the discharge of their duties and that the crime was committed at nighttime, which aggravating circumstances are not offset by any mitigating circumstance, accused Federico Abrazaldo is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Death. Accused Federico Abrazaldo is ordered to pay an indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased Delfin Guban. Accused is also ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Delfin Guban the total sum of P27,000.00 as actual expenses, plus costs. SO ORDERED . In appreciating treachery and the aggravating circumstances under paragraphs (5) and (6) of Article 14, [25] Revised Penal Code, the trial court held: We now come to the issue of whether or not evident premeditation was present. The prosecutions evidence is wanting on this point. However, there is no question that there was treachery as the accused embraced Delfin Guban and suddenly stabbed him with a knife. The victim was not in a position to defend himself at the time of the attack. The deceased was stabbed without any warning. He was given no chance to defend himself. Treachery, therefore, qualifies the killing of the victim and raises it to the category of murder. The prosecution has established thru the testimony of Gregorio Guban that at the time of the incident on July 15, 1995, the members of the barangay tanod, namely: Rosendo Fajardo, Sr., Delfin Guban and Alfredo Laceste were performing their duties as members of the barangay tanod. (See p. 6 tsn September 18, 1995). This is an aggravating circumstance under paragraph 5, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. The members of the barangay tanod who are public authorities were engaged in the discharge of their duties at the time of the stabbing incident. Besides, the incident was committed during nighttime, that was 10:00 in the evening. Accused took advantage of the darkness of the night for the successful consummation of his plan to kill Delfin Guban. Accused-appellant, in his Appellants Brief, ascribes to the trial court the following errors: I THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE BY THE ACCUSED TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. II THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE RECOVERY OF THE ALLEGED WEAPON USED IN STABBING VICTIM AT THE HOUSE OF THE AUNT OF ACCUSED BOLSTERED THE CASE AGAINST HIM DESPITE LACK OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS VERACITY. III THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE TESTIMONY EXTRACTED BY THE PROSECUTION FROM DEFENSE WITNESS MARITESS ABRAZALDO WHICH HAD NO SUFFICIENT BASIS AT ALL. IV THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY