Title
People vs. Atienza y Peralta
Case
G.R. No. L-68481
Decision Date
Feb 27, 1987
Rodelio Refran was stabbed to death in 1981; Narciso Atienza was convicted of homicide after the Supreme Court ruled insufficient proof of treachery, downgrading the charge from murder.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-68481)

Factual Background

On August 22, 1981, Rodelio Refran was murdered shortly after celebrating his birthday. Witness accounts indicated that he was attacked by Narciso Atienza and Rodolfo Ramirez. Edmundo Alba, a neighbor, and witness, testified seeing the attack firsthand, identifying Atienza as the individual who struck the fatal blow with a jungle bolo. Additionally, the victim’s mother, Bienvenida Refran, encountered two men fleeing from the crime scene, although she did not witness the attack itself.

Investigation and Arrest

Following the murder, Narciso Atienza was arrested on November 27, 1981, based on tips from local informants, including Eugenio Estrella, related to the victim. Upon being apprehended, Atienza was taken to the police station but initially refused to provide a statement. Subsequent police line-ups resulted in the identification of Atienza as the perpetrator by the same witnesses who provided testimonies during the investigation.

Charges and Trial

Atienza was formally charged with Murder and Frustrated Murder based on the information accumulated by law enforcement and testimonies gathered from witnesses. During the arraignment on January 18, 1982, Atienza pleaded not guilty. Rodolfo Ramirez remained at large, with a separate case filed against him for the same incident.

Trial Court Decision

The trial court, after reviewing the evidence presented, convicted Atienza of murder based on his direct involvement in the attack on Rodelio Refran. The court found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and consistent, despite Atienza's claims of innocence and his argument that he had attempted to prevent the attack.

Appellant's Allegations

In appealing the conviction, Atienza raised two main points: first, the trial court's decision did not comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding the clarity of the evidence; and second, that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a conviction. The appellate court found the first claim unmerited, confirming that the trial court adequately summarized the evidence and testimonies.

Examination of Treachery

The defendant’s conviction was initially grounded in the presence of treachery, which was argued due to the sudden nature of the attack. However, the appellate court found that this characterization lacked evidentiary support, asserting that treachery must be establish

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.