Title
People vs. Parreno y Atido
Case
G.R. No. 144343
Decision Date
Jul 7, 2004
Anthony Cruz was fatally stabbed by appellants Ricson Parreno and Delbert Quindo during a confrontation. The Supreme Court affirmed their murder conviction, citing treachery, and awarded damages to Cruz’s heirs.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 144343)

Charges and Pleas

An Information was filed against the appellants charging them with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with allegations that they acted with treachery and abuse of superior strength. The appellants entered a plea of not guilty, leading to a trial.

The Case for the Prosecution

Witnesses testified that Anthony Cruz, along with his friends, encountered the appellants and their group in front of Rizal High School. Initially, an altercation ensued, leading Anthony and his friends to flee. Anthony was eventually cornered and stabbed in the back by Parreno, leading to his immediate death. Eyewitnesses Simplicio Genova, Jr. and Frederick Sabangan provided detailed accounts of the attack, identifying the appellants as the perpetrators.

The Case for the Appellants

The appellants presented alibis, asserting lack of involvement in the crime. Quindo claimed that Julius Sorongon was the actual assailant, while asserting that they were simply present at the scene. They also raised questions about the reliability of the identification made by prosecution witnesses, emphasizing the conditions of visibility and suggesting inconsistencies in testimonies.

The Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court found both appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualifying the crime with treachery due to the method of attack which offered the victim no chance to defend himself. The court ruled that the physical disparity (number and weaponry) contributed to the offense being committed with abuse of superior strength, although this was absorbed under the circumstances of treachery.

The Appeal

On appeal, the appellants contested the trial court’s findings on the appreciation of treachery and abuse of superior strength. They argued that mere numerical superiority did not equate to abuse and highlighted issues concerning the evidence of blood on Parreno's clothing, as well as questioned the integrity of witness identifications.

The Court's Ruling

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, bolstering the credibility of the prosecution witnesses who positively identified the appellants. It emphasized that the characteristics of treachery were met due to the unarmed nature of the victim and the suddenness of the attack. The court dismissed the defense’s claims that conditions negated credibility and underscored the weight of the eyewitness accounts, which were

...continue reading

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