G.R. No. 210615 July 26, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ABENIR BRUSOLA y BARAGWA, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
The prosecution established that on July 12, 2006, accused-appellant Abenir Brusola struck his wife, Delia, on the head with a maso (mallet) inside their home in Muntinlupa City. Their children, Joanne, Abegail, and Kristofer, were present. Joanne testified she saw her restless father suddenly hit her mother, who was seated near the toilet. A second blow hit the wall. When Joanne confronted him, Abenir claimed he saw a man with Delia in the bathroom, but Joanne saw no one. Delia was rushed to the hospital but died the next day from the fatal head injury.
The defense presented a different narrative. Abenir claimed he returned home to find Delia apparently waiting for someone. While in the bathroom, he allegedly saw through a crack in the wall a man kissing and groping Delia outside. Enraged, he grabbed the maso and went out to attack the man, who used Delia as a shield and pushed her towards Abenir, causing them to fall. Abenir claimed he accidentally hit Delia during this struggle while aiming for the paramour, whom he then chased unsuccessfully.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s finding that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, primarily the credible and consistent eyewitness account of daughter Joanne, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Her testimony was clear, straightforward, and corroborated by her siblings regarding the immediate aftermath. The Court rejected the defense of accidental hitting, noting it was inherently improbable and a mere denial. The alleged paramour was never identified or presented, and the crime scene evidence did not support a chaotic struggle outside the house as claimed.
The legal logic centers on the evaluation of evidence and the elements of parricide. For parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove: (1) the death of the victim, (2) that the accused killed the victim, and (3) that the victim was the legitimate spouse of the accused. The death and relationship were uncontested. The element of killing by the accused was proven by Joanne’s positive identification of her father as the one who willfully struck the fatal blow with a maso. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight. The mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation were correctly not appreciated, as the defense failed to prove the factual basis for the alleged illicit affair that could have induced a violent impulse. The award of damages was modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
