People vs. Porras, G.R. No. 114263-64, March 29, 1996

Topic: Art.
249 Homicide
People vs. Porras, G.R. No. 114263-64, March 29, 1996
TOPIC: Art 249
Facts:
On the night of the incident, the accused, Porras and Emelo were flagged down
along M. Gregorio St. and a certain Luciano identified Porras. That they proceeded to
the Aroma Beer House where the victim, Rosendo Mortel was tabled and wherein some
misunderstanding happened and Ronnie Mortel went out and was shot at close range
by either Porras or Emelo.
During the chase given by Catalino Bermas, an Intelligence Operative, he was

shot by Emelo along the way after having told them (Emelo and Real) to go to the
Police Station and Bermas, feeling the effects of his wounds chanced upon Cpl. Dela
Cruz in front of the 501 Beer House and asked for his assistance and they rode in
tandem and pursued the tricycle at the Saulog Terminal Compound where only the
tricycle was left together with the driver Marcelo Real who pointed to the two accused
as the assailants.
A separate indictments are for MURDER and for FRUSTRATED MURDER

respectively. The appealed judgment went for the People, found appellants John Jenn
Porras and Sergio Emelo guilty of MURDER (Criminal Case No. 245-91) and appellant
Sergio Emelo guilty of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE (Criminal Case No. 246-91).
ISSUE:
a.) Whether or not trial court is correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of
Treachery in Criminal Case No. 245-91.
b.) Whether or not the trial court properly discarded the qualifying circumstance of
Treachery in Criminal Case No. 245-91.
Ruling:
a.) No. The court held that the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying
circumstance of treachery in Criminal Case No. 245-91. Treachery must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence, or as conclusively as the killing itself. and to appreciate
it, two conditions must concur, viz: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives
the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (b) that said
means of execution be deliberately and consciously adopted.
In this regard, the prosecution failed to definitively establish the manner in which
the initial assault against the deceased victim was committed to justify the appreciation
of treachery. This hiatus in the prosecution's evidence cannot be substituted by mere
suppositions as what the trial court apparently did. It is a well settled rule that in order to
appreciate treachery as a modifying circumstance in a continuous aggression, as in this
case, the same must be shown present at the inception of the attack. Absent any
showing therefor, treachery as a qualifying circumstance may not be considered
b.) Yes. The court held that the trial court properly discarded the qualifying circumstance
of treachery and correctly ruled that the crime committed is Frustrated Homicide and not
Frustrated Murder as alleged in the information. With respect to the shooting of Sgt.
Catalino Bermas who was fully aware of the risks in pursuing appellants was, at best,
done in a spur of the moment, an act which can hardly be characterized as treacherous
for it was nowhere proved that the same was deliberately adopted to deny Sgt. Bermas
the opportunity to defend himself.
The actual participation of the appellants in the killing of Rosendo Mortel having
been established by the prosecution, they are therefore equally liable pursuant to the
rule on conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy was duly proven by
the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pointing to acts done in concert by
the appellants to carry out their unlawful design, but only with respect to the killing of
Rosendo Mortel. Thus, appellant Sergio Emelo alone should be held liable for the crime
of Frustrated Homicide.
Crim Case 245-91 JOHN JENN PORRAS and SERGIO EMELO guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.
Crim case 246-91 affirmed trial court’s decision that Sergio Emelio is guilty of
Frustrated Homicide.

People vs. Porras, G.R. No. 114263-64, March 29, 1996

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Porras, G.R. No. 114263-64, March 29, 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Art.

During the chase given by Catalino Bermas, an Intelligence Operative, he was

A separate indictments are for MURDER and for FRUSTRATED MURDER

You might also like