GR 136967; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136967 February 26, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAYMUNDO VISAYA alias “JunJun”, JERICHO OCAMPO and DAVID BAUTISTA, accused, JERICHO OCAMPO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of April 20, 1996, accused-appellant Jericho Ocampo and three companions entered ABBIE’s canteen in Calamba, Laguna. While eating, the group discussed harming someone and later talked about vomiting, which prompted the victim, Joseph Reyes, to ask them to stop as he and his wife were dining. After two companions left, Ocampo and Raymundo Visaya approached the counter. Without warning, Visaya repeatedly stabbed the seated victim. Prosecution witnesses Celia Reyes (the victim’s wife) and waitress Magdalena Anasin testified that they heard Ocampo shout “patayin mo na, patayin mo na” (“kill him now”) during the attack. The victim died from multiple stab wounds.
The defense presented a different account. Ocampo claimed he had already exited the canteen to buy cigarettes when he heard a commotion. Returning, he saw Visaya and the victim grappling. He asserted he did not participate in the stabbing and was later invited by Visaya for a drink, where he learned of the stabbing. He did not report the incident and was arrested a year later.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Jericho Ocampo of Murder based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the finding of conspiracy.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s factual findings, especially on witness credibility, are accorded great weight and respect. The prosecution evidence sufficiently established conspiracy. Ocampo’s presence from the planning stage inside the canteen, his act of shouting encouragement to kill during the execution, and his immediate flight with the assailant afterward demonstrated a community of criminal purpose. His conduct after the crime—failing to report it and evading arrest—further indicated guilt. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present as the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim defenseless while seated and eating. The Court found no reason to deviate from the trial court’s assessment. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.