People vs. Ofiza

Digested by: Rona Mae O Canoy
PEOPLE vs. RODELIO LLOBERA y OFIZA

G.R. No. 203066. August 5, 2015.
Ponente: Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.

Topic: Criminal Law: Murder
Principle:
Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses
and the negative averments of the accused, the former indisputably deserves more
credence and evidentiary weight."
Facts:
Questioned in the present notice of appeal is the Decision dated November
11, 2011 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modifications the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Malolos City, finding accused-appellant
Rodelio Llobera y Ofiza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder,
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay
the heirs of the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
That on or about the 22nd day of March, 2005, in San Jose del Monte City,
province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, armed with an improvised shotgun (sumpak) and with
intent to kill one Cristituto Biona, Jr. y Billones, with evident premeditation and
treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
shoot with the use of an improvised shotgun the said Cristituto Biona, Jr. y Billones,
hitting him on his abdomen, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wound which caused
his death.
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged.
The prosecution, in presenting its case, offered the testimonies of Betty dela
Cruz (Betty) and Rosebert Biona (Rosebert), relatives of the victim who witnessed
the shooting incident firsthand.
Betty, an aunt by affinity of the victim, testified that on March 22, 2005, at
around 11:00 p.m., a commotion took place in front of her house as certain
persons threw stones at each other ("nagbatuhan"). When the commotion was
over, she and her kin, including the victim, went out of the house to find out what
happened. It was then that accused-appellant, who suddenly emerged from a
nearby house armed with an improvised shotgun, shot the victim on the left side of
his body. Betty testified that she is familiar with accused-appellant as the latter is
her barangaymate and she always sees him when she passes by his house.
Rosebert, a cousin of the victim, corroborated Betty's testimony. He recounted
that, at the time in question, he was beside the victim as they were talking to each
other when accused-appellant suddenly appeared and shot the victim. He testified
that he was able to positively identify accused-appellant at the time of the shooting
because the place where the shooting occurred was illuminated by the moon, the
lights from the neighbors' houses, and the lamp gasera at his uncle's house.
RTC Ruling:
RTC finds the accused Rodelio Llobrera y Otiaza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The RTC reasoned that accused-appellant's denial and alibi cannot prevail over the
positive identification of Betty and Rosebert. Besides, according to the RTC, accused-
appellant's claim of physical impossibility has no basis because, as attested to by
accused-appellant himself, it takes only one and a half hours to reach the scene of the
crime coming from accused-appellant's house.
RTC also ruled that treachery attended the killing of the victim for the prosecution's
evidence shows that accused-appellant suddenly and unexpectedly appeared and
shot the victim who did not sense any danger upon him.
CA Ruling:
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and merely modified the award of damages.
The appellate court gave full credence to the positive identification of Betty and
Rosebert, especially in the absence of any ulterior motives on their part. Moreover, a
review of Roderick's testimony showed that while it took an hour and a half to reach
the scene of the crime from accused-appellant's house, that is by public
transportation. Should one travel by private car, it would only take about fifteen
minutes to traverse said distance. The appellate court then rejected accused-
appellant's claim of physical impossibility.
The appellate court also affirmed the finding of treachery. It held that accused-
appellant's mode of attack was such that the victim appeared not to have seen him
prior to, during, or after the attack, leaving him no chance to defend himself.
Arguments of the Accused:

Accused-appellant avers that Betty and Rosebert probably misidentified him. For one,
contrary to Betty's claim, he and Betty were not barangaymates, as he resides in
Barangay Mojon, while Betty resides in Barangay Minuyan. While accused-appellant
admits that he used to visit Barangay Minuyan every Sunday, the probability that Betty
would chance upon him as to make her familiar with his identity and physical
characteristics is very low. For another, Rosebert was merely vacationing in Barangay
Minuyan when the shooting incident transpired. Not being a resident of Barangay
Minuyan, Rosebert is not familiar with the locals residing in Barangay Minuyan and in
the nearby barangays as to enable him to pinpoint accused-appellant as the one who
shot the victim. All in all, accused-appellant argues that Betty and Rosebert probably
misidentified him as the perpetrator of the crime, especially since there were other
suspects.
Accused-appellant also questions the appreciation of treachery in the case at bar. He
claims that while the prosecution alleged that the victim was suddenly shot by
accused-appellant, it failed to establish that accused-appellant contemplated on the
means or method to ensure the victim's killing without affording the latter a chance to
defend himself.
Arguments of the Plaintiff:

As to Rosebert's familiarity with accused-appellant, although the former was merely a
visitor in Barangay Minuyan, the antecedent events show that he had a good glimpse
of accused-appellant prior to the shooting incident.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonnable doubt for the
crime of murder.
SC Ruling:
As to accused-appellant's culpability, the clear and categorical testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses obviate any doubt that on March 22, 2005, accused-
appellant shot the victim with a shotgun, causing the latter a fatal wound which
brought about his untimely death.
Accused-appellant's defense of denial is unconvincing. "[D]enial is intrinsically a weak
defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit
credibility. To be sure, it is negative, self-serving evidence that cannot be given
evidentiary weight greater than that of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
matters. Time-tested is the rule that between the positive assertions of prosecution
witnesses and the negative averments of the accused, the former indisputably
deserves more credence and evidentiary weight."
As to the finding of treachery, we affirm the rulings of the RTC and the Court of
Appeals. The RPC, in Article 14 (16), defines treachery as the direct employment of
means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from
the defense which the offended party might make.

People vs. Ofiza

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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. Ofiza

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digested by: Rona Mae O Canoy

PEOPLE vs. RODELIO LLOBERA y OFIZA

Ponente: Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.

Arguments of the Accused:

Arguments of the Plaintiff:

You might also like