Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Violin
Case
G.R. No. 114003-06
Decision Date
Jan 14, 1997
Dioscoro Astorga Jr. was killed, and Darmo Astorga wounded in a politically motivated attack. Accused convicted of murder with treachery; frustrated murder charge reduced to slight physical injuries.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 114003-06)

Factual Background

On the evening of December 31, 1985, Dioscoro Astorga Jr. and his brother, Darmo, were at their sister's house when Allego arrived, asking for assistance with a local dispute. After agreeing to help, the Astorgia brothers traveled to Barangay San Jose with Allego. After drinking alcohol, Allego invited the brothers to stay the night at his house. On January 1, after being invited for food and drinks by Allego, the situation escalated, leading to the fatal shooting of Dioscoro Jr. and the injury of Darmo by the accused-appellants.

Judicial Proceedings and Charges

Two informations were filed against the accused for murder and frustrated murder. While all accused except Cesar Allego entered pleas of not guilty, the trial court ultimately convicted Antonio Violin, Eutiquio Cherriguene, and Remegio Yazar of murder and frustrated murder, acquitting Catalino and Miguel Figueroa due to insufficient evidence. In their appeal, the primary focus was on the credibility of testimonies and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Evidence and Testimony

Darmo Astorga, the surviving brother, testified that he witnessed the shooting and provided detailed accounts of how the attacks were carried out. He claimed that the assault was politically motivated due to their family's political status and prior threats made against Dioscoro Jr. The defense presented alibi testimonies asserting none of the accused were present during the crime. However, the court upheld Darmo's account as credible, emphasizing that positive identification outweighs an alibi defense, particularly given the circumstances of the attack.

Analysis of Defensive Claims

The defense argued that Darmo could not effectively identify the assailants given the physical restraints of crawling under a table for cover. However, the court dismissed these claims, positing that the urgency of seeking safety precluded leisurely consideration of hiding options. The subsequent injuries to Darmo were determined to be non-life-threatening and superficial, further underscoring the distinction between outright intent to kill versus incidental harm during the attack.

Qualification of the Crime

The trial court initially ruled the murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by craft and abuse of superior strength. However, the appellate court found that while treachery was present as the victims were attacked unexpectedly, the circumstances of craft and abuse were not sufficiently established. Since treachery inherently embodies the element of superior strength, craft was deemed redundant in this context.

Ruling and Sentencing

The appellate court modified the original verdicts, affirmin

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.