GR 138454; (February, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138454 ; February 13, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOCEL BEJO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On November 5, 1996, in Roxas City, a heated exchange occurred between jeepney driver Juan Bacuta and two female passersby, Jocelyn Bejo and Marivic Cornel, who were accompanied by Jocel Bejo and Remwel Cornel. The altercation stemmed from a traffic incident. Prosecution witness Nestor Astorga, who was about six meters away, testified that Jocel Bejo and Remwel Cornel suddenly boarded Bacuta’s parked and well-lighted jeep. Jocel Bejo, armed with a nine-inch knife, stabbed Bacuta from behind while Cornel stabbed him from the front right side. Bacuta sustained multiple fatal stab wounds.
Another witness, Corazon Alolor, corroborated the attack from her vantage point, identifying Jocel Bejo and Cornel holding bloodied knives. The victim managed to alight but later died. The accused Jocel Bejo denied involvement, claiming he was elsewhere. The trial court convicted him of Murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength. His co-accused, Harold Bejo, was acquitted, leading to this appeal by Jocel Bejo.
ISSUE
Whether the conviction of accused-appellant Jocel Bejo for the crime of Murder is proper.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the qualifying circumstance. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Astorga and Alolor credible, consistent, and positive. Their identification of the appellant was reliable given the sufficient illumination from a 100-watt bulb and the jeep’s headlights, which allowed a clear view of the incident. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it could not prevail over this positive identification.
However, the Court held that treachery was not sufficiently established. The attack was not proven to be so sudden and unexpected that Bacuta was rendered defenseless from the start, as the initial argument provided a forewarning of potential violence. Instead, the killing was properly qualified by abuse of superior strength. The appellant, together with Remwel Cornel, cooperated to secure an advantage from their combined strength, simultaneously attacking the unarmed victim who was trapped in his driver’s seat. This concerted action ensured the victim had no chance to escape or defend himself. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The award of damages was sustained, with the appellant ordered to pay the victim’s heirs P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.