People v Estonilo Sr, , GR 201565, Leonardo-De Castro, J.

FACTS:

Accused-appellants Ex-Mayor Carlos Estonilo, Sr. (Carlos, Sr.) , Mayor Reinario Estonilo (Rey), Edelbrando Estonilo (Edel), Eutiquiano Itcobanes (Nonong), and Calvin Dela Cruz (Bulldog) seek liberty from the judgment of conviction rendered by the (RTC), which found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Murder with Direct Assault. With four others, they were all charged in an information saying they were armed, conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping one another, with the intent to kill with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one FLORO A. CASAS, while in the performance of his duty being the District Supervisor of public schools, hitting the latter on the different parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death. The accused pleaded not guilty. However, the prosecutor did not indicate whether the ex-mayor and mayor was at the crime scene. They provided 9 witnesses.

Felix, son of the victim, said that Ranio told Floro that the Mayor wanted to see him at his house. Floro was asked why in the program of Federation of 7th day Adventist, the photo of Cotero (mayoralty candidate) was bigger than the Mayor. Floro said because Cotero paid the program which angered the Mayor. Felix remembered that Mayor mentioned the district supervisor plays crucial role on COMELEC’s choice in picking teachers to serve during election. Felix was discredited by asking why he took a long time to file an affidavit and about the drug case he got bailed out from.

Post-mortem results to sustained gunshot wounds from more than one firearm. Witness Serapion heard gunshots and saw six persons coming out the school who approached Mayor’s vehicle parked near the school. He heard the men telling Mayor, “Mission accomplished.” He was again discredited by bringing up the pending criminal case. Antipolo also testified seeing the gunmen in the premises but the defense also attempted to discredit him by bring up a criminal case for homicide. Elsa, wife of Floro, testified on the nature of her husband’s work. Mayor was angered because during the ceremony Cotero’s name was announced. Diego corroborated Elsa’s testimony. Rosalinda testified that Mayor went to their house saying that his husband will be killed following Floro.

Bobong was cross examined where he admitted that it was his affidavit that was imposed to Servando to sign. He also admitted that he was one of the accused in the kidnapping of Servando. RTC found the accused guilty on the crime of Murder with Direct Assault under Art 248, 148, and 48 of RPC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not they are guilty.

RULING:

YES.

Guilty of direct assault. The testimonies did not suffer of material inconsistency. To successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be established: (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; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide Essentially, the prosecution evidence consists of both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. The testimony of the eyewitness Antipolo is direct evidence of the commission of the crime.

Treachery was also present in the killing. Two elements must concur: (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 essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. The alibi was weak since there is positive identification, since the officers are politicians hence positive identification could not have been mistaken.

Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. Accused-appellants committed the second form of assault, the elements of which are that there must be an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in authority or his agent; the assault was made when the said person was performing his duties or on the occasion of such performance; and the accused knew that the victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is, that the accused must have the intention to offend, injure or assault the offended party as a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority.

1. People v. Estonilo, Sr..pdf

Download PDF • 107KB