Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 187682 -

G.R. No. 187682 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROMAN LACADEN Y PARINAS, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Cited Laws

RA 557,RA 56RA 659RA 9346RA 436RA 753,RA 7659RA 755,RA 655,RA 676,RA 7659,RA 671,RA 188,RA 708,
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations the Court finds the accused Roman Lacaden y Parinas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder in Crim. Case No. 21-4985 and hereby sentences him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is also ORDERED to pay the heirs of the deceased Danny Lacaden the sums of P22,360.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations the Court finds the accused Roman Lacaden y Parinas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder in Crim. Case No. 21-4985 and hereby sentences him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is also ORDERED to pay the heirs of the deceased Danny Lacaden the sums of P22,360.00 as actual damages, P75,000.00 as death indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. In Crim. Case No. 21-4986, the Court also finds the accused Roman Lacaden y Parinas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder and hereby sentences him to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years of prision correccional , as maximum. He is also ORDERED to pay the offended party Jay Valencia the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages. [6] The RTC accorded full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It held that the defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of Jay that accused-appellant was the assailant. Ruling that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, the trial court found that the means of execution employed by accused-appellant was deliberately or consciously adopted by them and did not give the victims any opportunity to defend themselves against the attack. It was not proven that the firearm used was unlicensed. The trial court also did not discuss the allegation of the generic aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. Via Notice of Appeal, accused-appellant appealed the RTC ruling with the Court of Appeals, where the case was docketed as CA-GR HC No. 02848. The Court of Appeals was convinced that the trial court correctly found that the prosecution discharged the quantum of evidence needed to prove the guilt of accused-appellant. By its Decision promulgated on 30 September 2008, the Court of Appeals concurred in the factual findings of the trial court, and affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for Murder and Attempted Murder, decreeing: In fine, taking into consideration the factual and legal circumstances of this case, We are convinced that all the elements of murder and attempted murder are present in the case at bar and the Appellant's guilt was aptly proven by the prosecution beyond an iota of doubt. WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein appeal is hereby DENIED for evident lack of merit. The challenged Decision, supra , is AFFIRMED in toto . [7] This case is now with us in view of the Notice of Appeal interposed by accused-appellant from the Court of Appeals Decision. In its Resolution of 20 July 2009, the Court accepted the appeal and required the parties to submit their supplemental briefs, if they so desire. The parties waived the filing of supplemental briefs and adopted the Briefs earlier filed with the Court of Appeals. Accused-appellant prays for his acquittal and the reversal of the judgment of conviction in the two criminal cases, on the following assignment o