View full case

PEOPLE v. JULIAN SILVEDERIO III Y JAVELOSA

FACTS:

The case involves an appeal filed by Julian Silvederio III y Javelosa (accused-appellant) challenging the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02344, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 12-71289 for Murder.

Accused-appellant was charged with Murder for the shooting of Glenn N. Lasafin (victim) on May 10, 2012, in the City of Iloilo. The prosecution alleged that while the victim and a companion were on their way to the restroom during a drinking spree at Aura Chillout Lounge, accused-appellant accosted them and shot the victim multiple times, causing his death.

Leopoldo Vasquez, a bouncer at Aura, witnessed the incident and saw accused-appellant holding a .38 revolver. Accused-appellant ran away and threw the gun, which was later found by a security guard. Vasquez and the security guards chased accused-appellant until he was apprehended by the police.

Accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was at Aura with friends on the night of the incident. He alleged that he was attacked by a group from another table, hit with a bottle, and fell to the floor. Accused-appellant heard gunshots but denied involvement in the shooting.

The RTC found accused-appellant guilty of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The CA affirmed the conviction and increased the damages awarded to the victim's heirs. Accused-appellant now appeals the decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the Information did not sufficiently allege the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the elements of murder were properly established in this case.

  2. Whether treachery was present in the commission of the crime.

  3. Whether the accused waived the insufficiency in the allegation of treachery in the Information.

  4. Whether the credibility of the witness is questionable.

  5. Whether the minor inconsistencies and discrepancies in the witness' testimony affect his credibility.

  6. Whether or not the phrase "without eligibility for parole" should be appended to the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed.

RULING:

  1. The elements of murder were properly established in this case. The court found that the victim was killed, the accused killed him, the killing was attended by treachery, and the killing was not parricide or infanticide.

  2. Treachery was present in the commission of the crime. The court affirmed that treachery was properly appreciated in this case. The victim was already injured and unable to defend himself when the accused approached and shot him. The form of attack ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the accused.

  3. The accused waived the insufficiency in the allegation of treachery in the Information because he failed to question the sufficiency of the Information by availing any of the remedies provided under the procedural rules.

  4. The Court found no reason to disturb the finding of the trial court in finding credence to the witness' version of the events. The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses.

  5. The minor inconsistencies and discrepancies in the witness' testimony do not affect his credibility. Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony referring to minor details that do not touch the essence of the crime do not impair the credibility of a witness.

  6. The phrase "without eligibility for parole" should not be appended to the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The elements of murder are the following: (1) that a person was killed, (2) that the accused killed him or her, (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.

  • Treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tends directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. To appreciate treachery, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.

  • The accused waives any waivable defects in the Information by failing to avail the remedies provided under the procedural rules.

  • The trial court's assessment of witness credibility is accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect.

  • Minor inconsistencies and discrepancies in a witness' testimony that do not touch the essence of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witness.

  • In cases where the penalty prescribed by law is composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied. (Article 63, Revised Penal Code)

  • The proper amounts of civil indemnity and damages to be awarded depend on the penalty imposed. In cases where the penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of Republic Act No. 9346, the amounts are P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. In cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua only, the amounts are P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. (People v. Jugueta)