GR 248311; (March, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 248311 , March 23, 2022
Pepe Gumawid @ Kappit, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Pepe Gumawid was charged with Homicide, along with Ronaldo Balingit, for the death of Bello Bucsit. The prosecution’s version, based on eyewitness accounts from the victim’s mother (Lydia) and daughter (Jamaica), was that on October 23, 2013, after an altercation at a wake where petitioner punched the victim, petitioner and Ronaldo followed the victim to his house. Petitioner shouted threats, and they threw stones at the house. When the victim came out and hit petitioner with a steel pipe, Ronaldo held the victim’s hands, allowing petitioner to stand up and stab the victim twice, causing his death. The defense, including petitioner, denied the charge. Petitioner claimed the victim struck him first with a pipe, causing him to lose consciousness, and he did not stab the victim. The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide but acquitted Ronaldo due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and maintaining his defense.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed petitioner’s criminal conviction for Homicide.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court found no compelling reason to depart from the uniform factual findings of the lower courts. The alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were on minor matters and did not affect their credibility. The positive and categorical identification of petitioner as the one who stabbed the victim prevails over his defense of denial, which is inherently weak. The elements of Homicide were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; and (3) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of Murder. The penalty and damages awarded by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, were in accordance with law and jurisprudence. The petition was denied for lack of merit.