G.R. No. 215715 , August 31, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. EDCEL COLORADA, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Edcel Colorada was charged with Murder for hacking the 98-year-old blind victim, Genoviva Barraza, on the neck with a long bolo on December 20, 2000, in Jaro, Leyte. The Information alleged the qualifying circumstances of abuse of superior strength and treachery, and the aggravating circumstance of disregard of respect due to age and sex. During trial, the prosecution presented eyewitness Apolinario Caigoy, who testified he saw the accused-appellant, after shouting for a fight, enter the victim’s house and hack her on the neck while she was on the porch. The victim’s sons, Ernesto and Leonilo Encajas, also testified. Ernesto stated he saw the accused-appellant dragging his wounded mother and was himself hacked, injuring his fingers. Leonilo testified that upon arriving home, his mother identified the accused-appellant as her attacker before she died. Dr. Winston Villaflor confirmed the cause of death was a deep hacking wound to the neck causing massive blood loss. The defense presented only the accused-appellant, who claimed he was trying to pacify a fight between the victim’s sons when he was attacked by Ernesto with a bolo, and that he saw the victim already wounded when he fell over a fence. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. All elements of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code were present: (1) the victim was killed, as proven by the Death Certificate; (2) the killing was not infanticide or parricide; (3) the accused-appellant killed the victim, as established by the credible and consistent eyewitness account of Apolinario Caigoy; and (4) the killing was attended by treachery and abuse of superior strength. The Court held that treachery was present due to the sudden and unexpected attack on the blind and elderly victim, who had no opportunity to defend herself. The Court rejected the accused-appellant’s challenges to the eyewitness’s credibility, ruling that minor inconsistencies did not affect the witness’s credibility and that it was not contrary to human experience for an assailant to attack a vulnerable victim. The Court also found the accused-appellant’s flight after the incident indicative of guilt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and the awarded damages, as modified by the Court of Appeals (including civil indemnity, moral damages, and interest), were sustained.