Title
Roca y Bondario vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 114917
Decision Date
Jan 29, 2001
Petitioner convicted of homicide for stabbing victim; claims of self-defense, defense of relative, and voluntary surrender rejected; penalty affirmed as non-probationable.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 114917)

Applicable Law

The case is governed by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 249 concerning homicide, and Article 248 pertaining to murder. The assessment of relevant circumstances and defenses, such as self-defense and the mitigating factors associated with the penalty, is also guided by Philippine jurisprudence.

Procedural History and Charges

Petitioner was charged on October 15, 1989, with murder for allegedly killing Oliver Diaz on August 1, 1989. After entering a plea of not guilty on December 4, 1989, petitioner later sought to change his plea to guilty for the lesser offense of homicide, which was opposed by the victim's mother. Following a full trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted him of homicide, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment and civil indemnity. His appeal to the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Nature of the Incident

The incident involved a confrontation wherein Lucibar allegedly stabbed Oliver Diaz following a quarrel involving various family members on both sides. Eyewitness testimony provided by Miraflor Salvero indicated Lucibar unexpectedly attacked Oliver from behind with a knife. Conversely, Lucibar claimed to have acted in self-defense during an assault against his brother, stating he only picked up the knife to protect himself from Oliver, who was allegedly armed with a club.

Credibility of Witnesses

Petitioner challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitness, Miraflor Salvero, claiming she was biased due to her relationship with the victim's family. However, the appellate court maintained that mere familial ties did not inherently undermine the credibility of a witness. The courts emphasize the trial judge's unique position to assess a witness's credibility based on demeanor and behavior, absent compelling evidence of bias.

Claims of Self-Defense and Defense of a Relative

Petitioner's assertions of incomplete self-defense and defense of a relative were considered but ultimately rejected. The courts noted that the prosecution effectively demonstrated that the victim was not posing an imminent threat when he was attacked. The required element of unlawful aggression from the victim was absent, as the victim appeared to be retreating rather than attacking when stabbed. Petitioner’s injuries were deemed insufficient to establish a claim for self-defense, as they did not indicate a life-threatening assault.

Voluntary Surrender

Petitioner also claimed a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, arguing he disclosed himself to authorities out of fear for his safety after fleeing the scene. However, the appellate court found this assertion lacking in credibility, indicating he had not surrendered but instead awaited police intervention in Bais City. The established criteria for voluntary surrender were not met, negating this claim for mitigation.

Assessment of Penalty

Petitioner sought a reduced pena

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.