Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 199 views

    40 Rivera vs. People Digest

    Uploaded by

    Gerolyn Del Pilar
    The court upheld the conviction of Eusebio Enfectana and Erwin Enfectana for the murder of Leo Boco. [1] The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were found to be credible and consistent. [2] Eusebio Enfectana failed to prove his claim of self-defense, as the evidence showed he was not unlawfully aggressed upon by the victim. [3] The element of treachery was established, as the sudden and unexpected attack prevented the victim from defending himself.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    40 Rivera vs. People Digest

    Uploaded by

    Gerolyn Del Pilar
    199 views3 pages
    The court upheld the conviction of Eusebio Enfectana and Erwin Enfectana for the murder of Leo Boco. [1] The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were found to be credible and consistent. [2] Eusebio Enfectana failed to prove his claim of self-defense, as the evidence showed he was not unlawfully aggressed upon by the victim. [3] The element of treachery was established, as the sudden and unexpected attack prevented the victim from defending himself.

    Original Description:

    hhh

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court upheld the conviction of Eusebio Enfectana and Erwin Enfectana for the murder of Leo Boco. [1] The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were found to be credible and consistent. [2] Eusebio Enfectana failed to prove his claim of self-defense, as the evidence showed he was not unlawfully aggressed upon by the victim. [3] The element of treachery was established, as the sudden and unexpected attack prevented the victim from defending himself.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    199 views3 pages

    40 Rivera vs. People Digest

    Uploaded by

    Gerolyn Del Pilar
    The court upheld the conviction of Eusebio Enfectana and Erwin Enfectana for the murder of Leo Boco. [1] The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were found to be credible and consistent. [2] Eusebio Enfectana failed to prove his claim of self-defense, as the evidence showed he was not unlawfully aggressed upon by the victim. [3] The element of treachery was established, as the sudden and unexpected attack prevented the victim from defending himself.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    SECOND DIVISION

    G. R. No. 132028. April 19, 2002

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUSEBIO ENFECTANA, alias Toytoy, and
    ERWIN ENFECTANA, accused-appellants.

    FACTS:

    On November 2, 1994, at about 11:00 oclock in the morning, at the National Highway, Barangay
    Cabay, Balangkayan, Eastern Samar, Philippinesthe above-named accused conspiring,
    confederating and helping one another, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and
    treachery and without justifiable cause, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
    bumped Leo Boco and the complainant Adelaida Boco with the trycicle (sic) of the accused, when
    the victim has just alighted from a passenger jeepney, then attacked, assaulted, hacked, stabbed
    and wounded Leo Boco with the use of sharp bladed weapons, which the accused provided
    themselves for the purpose, thereby inflicting injuries upon Leo Boco, which injuries caused the
    instantaneous death of Leo Boco, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim, in such
    amount as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines and
    other related laws and caused injuries on the complainant, Adelaida Boco, when she was bumped
    by the trycicle (sic) named Pepit owned and operated by the herein accused and driven by co-
    accused Erwin Enfectana.

    CONTRARY TO LAW, with the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of: Evident
    premeditation, Conspiracy, Treachery and advantage taken due to superior strength or
    means employed to weaken the defense of the victim.

    Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter trial ensued.
    ISSUE:

    (1) whether the trial court properly gave credence to the version of the prosecution while
    disbelieving that of the defense;

    (2) whether there is self defense on the part of Eusebio Enfectana; and,

    (3) whether the circumstance of treachery should be appreciated to qualify the offense to
    murder. Likewise, we must further inquire into the propriety of the civil indemnity and damages
    awarded by the trial court.

    RULING:

    1ST ISSUE:

    The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Adelaida Boco and Dominador Dialino were both
    positive and categorical. The assertion of appellants that they contradicted each other has no
    support in the records. Moreover, even if we were to agree with appellants that there were
    inconsistencies in their testimonies, they refer only to trivial and immaterial details. Thus,
    assuming these inconsistencies to be present, they tend to show that the witnesses were being
    spontaneous and were not coached or rehearsed. Settled is the rule that minor inconsistencies
    do not affect the credibility of a witness. On the contrary, they may be considered badges of
    veracity or manifestations of truthfulness on material points and they may even heighten the
    credibility of the witness.21cräläwvirtualibräry

    2ND ISSUE:

    As for the issue of self -defense, it is an established principle that once this justifying circumstance
    is raised, the burden of proving the elements of the claim shifts to him who invokes it.

    Given the fact that the relationship between the parties had been marred by ill will and
    animosities, and pursuant to the rule on the burden of evidence imposed by law on the party
    invoking self-defense, the admission of appellant Eusebio Enfectana that he killed Leo Boco made
    it incumbent upon appellant to convincingly prove that there was unlawful aggression on the
    part of the victim which necessitated the use of deadly force by appellant. Unfortunately,
    appellant miserably failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
    As found by the trial court:

    The version of the accused [appellant] that it was Leo Boco who was the unlawful aggressor and
    that Leo Boco attacked and stabbed him while he was inspecting his tilted tricycle on the highway
    cannot be given faith and credit it being an afterthought, self-serving and expert invention and/or
    imagination sans truth.27cräläwvirtualibräry

    Weighing the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense, we agree with the trial
    courts conclusion that the prosecutions version is more in accord with the natural course of
    things, hence more credible.

    3RD ISSUE

    Anent the third issue, we also agree with the trial court that treachery is present in this case. The
    victim and his wife were suddenly attacked as they were coming down from a jeepney. They had
    no idea that they were going to be assaulted. The manner by which the appellants commenced
    and perpetrated their assault, (1) by trying to bump Leo and Adelaida Boco, making the former
    lose his balance and more susceptible to an attack, and (2) by simultaneously attacking Leo Boco,
    hence preventing him from putting up any semblance of defense, shows beyond any doubt that
    there was alevosia in this case. Settled is the rule that an unexpected and sudden attack under
    circumstances that render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself
    constitutes alevosia.28cräläwvirtualibräry

    You might also like