SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240544. June 26, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CORNELIO CANLAS, JR. y ABO A.K.A. "HOGAN", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated26 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240544 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus CORNELIO CANLAS, JR. y ABO a.k.a. "HOGAN,"accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case as against the applicable law and jurisprudence, the Court finds the appeal 1 to have no merit and that the Court of Appeals (CA) did not commit any reversible error in the assailed Decision. 2 The facts and the evidence presented by the prosecution support the conviction of accused-appellant Cornelio Canlas, Jr. y Abo a.k.a. "Hogan" (Canlas) of the crime of Murder. The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the CA, there being no supplemental briefs filed, were sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.
It is well-settled that in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court. 3 Here, after examining the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to vacate the Regional Trial Court (RTC)'s appreciation of the evidence, which was affirmed by the CA. HTcADC
First, Canlas questions the positive identification by eyewitness Joshua Talamera (Talamera) of Canlas since the incident happened at night and Talamera was riding his bicycle in front of Manuel Del Rosario y Belarmino a.k.a. "Bogging" (victim) at a distance of three-arm's length. However, as consistently ruled by the RTC and CA, this contention is without merit. The CA correctly ruled that the inconsistencies in the testimony of Talamera are minor and trivial matters that do not affect the essential facts of the case. Also, although Talamera was riding his bicycle in front of the victim, his attention was called by the former and upon looking back, he actually saw Canlas stabbed the victim from behind. Moreover, even if there is doubt as to the lighting conditions or visibility of the surroundings at the time of the incident, it is important to point out that Talamera was already familiar with Canlas prior to the incident, thus it was easier for him to recognize and identify him.
Second, the CA and the RTC correctly ruled that the sudden and unexpected attack by Canlas was attended by treachery such that the former was unable to react or defend himself. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, 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. 4 These elements are extant in the facts of this case. As testified by Talamera, although the stab wounds of the victim were in his chest, Canlas actually stabbed him from behind by putting his arms in front of the victim and pulling the weapon inward thus penetrating his chest.
Furthermore, even assuming that the attack was frontal, this fact does not mean that there is no treachery. Time and again, the Court held that a frontal attack does not necessarily negate the presence of treachery. A frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and unexpected, and the victim is unarmed, as in this case. 5
At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself because he was riding his bicycle when Canlas suddenly and unexpectedly hitched behind him and stabbed him. Also, it is obvious that Canlas consciously and deliberately adopted the particular method of attack he used against the victim to ensure the execution of the crime. This can be inferred from the fact that he suddenly rode the bicycle of the weaponless victim from behind and when they fell on the ground, his companions arrived and mauled the victim to make certain that the victim would not be able to defend himself or escape. Thus, the suddenness of Canlas' attack and circumstances under which it was committed made it impossible for the unsuspecting victim to put up a defense, ensuring Canlas' execution of the crime without risk to himself. Hence, all the elements of treachery are present. CAIHTE
Finally, Canlas' alibi that he was at his sister's house at the time of the incident, corroborated by the testimony of his sister, defense witness Charlene Canlas, is also unavailing. The Court has consistently assigned less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it is corroborated by relatives since we have established in jurisprudence that, in order for corroboration to be credible, the same must be offered preferably by disinterested witnesses. 6
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to ADOPT the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated January 17, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08864. The Decision finding accused-appellant Cornelio Canlas, Jr. y Abo a.k.a "Hogan" guilty of Murder is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal February 6, 2018, rollo, pp. 13-14.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-11. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
3.People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1064 (2017).
4.People v. Lagman, 685 Phil. 733, 745 (2012).
5.People v. Salvatierra, 342 Phil. 22, 36 (1997).
6.People v. Aquino, 724 Phil. 739, 755 (2014); See People v. Baroquillo, 671 Phil. 771, 786-787 (2011).