People v. Entienza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During a fiesta in Barrio Bulak, Dalaguete, Cebu, on May 15, 1965, appellant Teodulo Abrigana, along with brothers Dionisio and Agapito Entienza, attended the celebration. Julian Entoma also attended with his family. A misunderstanding arose between Julian Entoma and Celso Entoma, on one hand, and Abrigana and Dionisio Entienza, on the other. Patrolman Pacifico Paz intervened when Julian Entoma complained that Abrigana pointed an unlicensed pistol at him and others. Abrigana fled when accosted by Paz. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Cebu found Teodulo Abrigana guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Julian Entoma. Dionisio Entienza and Agapito Entienza were convicted as principal and accomplice, respectively, in the murder of Celso Entoma, but they did not appeal. The Petition: Appellant Abrigana appealed the decision, assailing the credibility of prosecution witnesses and insisting on his alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the murder of Julian Entoma was established beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the killing was attended by treachery.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with the modification that the indemnity of six thousand pesos, payable to the heirs of Julian Entoma, should be raised to twelve thousand pesos. Costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused-appellant for the murder of Julian Entoma: The Court found that the guilt of appellant Abrigana was established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution eyewitnesses, Gil Zambrano, Alicia Entoma, and Paulina Quitara, who were well-acquainted with Abrigana, unequivocally identified him. Furthermore, Julian Entoma himself identified Abrigana in his dying declaration. Abrigana's alibi was not given credence because he admitted being near the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and his claim of being chased by Patrolman Paz did not preclude his return to the scene. The admission of Dionisio Entienza that he killed Julian Entoma in self-defense was not given credence, appearing to be a fabrication, especially since Dionisio did not appeal and had previously pointed to Abrigana as the assassin in a sworn statement, indicating an agreement for Dionisio to stab Celso and Abrigana to stab Julian. On whether the killing was attended by treachery: The Court ruled that the killing of Julian Entoma was attended with treachery (alevosia). Appellant Abrigana deliberately and unexpectedly stabbed Entoma in the back, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to himself and preventing the victim from making any defense. Nocturnity was merged with treachery. Premeditation, although alleged, was not proven. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court on appellant Abrigana is in accordance with law, as there were no generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Main Doctrine
The killing of Julian Entoma was attended with treachery (alevosia), as appellant deliberately and unexpectedly stabbed the victim in the back, thus insuring the consummation of the killing without risk to himself, and the victim was unable to make any defense. Nocturnity is merged with treachery. Premeditation was not proven. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is in accordance with law.