In a Decision 21 dated, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted accused-appellant for the crime of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole. 18 He claimed, however, that the victim was shot by his companion, Licupa, 19 and that he even reported the shooting incident to the police. Accused-appellant testified that he was able to avoid the bullets because he dropped to the ground. 17 When accused-appelant was the only one left inside, the assailants open fired. 16 He also stated that prior to the shooting, the assailants ordered his wife and children to go out of the house. 15 He surmised that the attack was motivated by revenge because in 1991, he was convicted for killing Arquero's brothers. 14 They were sleeping when Arquero, Loreto Arquero, Licupa, Dionisio Arquero, Ambot Soriano and a certain Amboy fired gunshots at his house. 13Īccused-appellant testified that in the morning of, he was with his family at their house in Sitio Masin, Iraga, Solana, Cagayan. Reyes), the medico-legal officer testified that the victim's wounds perforated his small intestines, colon, and urinary bladder. 11 She identified a list of expenses incurred due to the victim's hospitalization and death, but did not present receipts. 10 On the other hand, Mercilyn Arquero, the victim's widow, testified that Arquero told her that accused-appellant was the one who shot him. 9ĭuring trial, Licupa testified that he knew accused-appellant because he is Arquero's nephew. Licupa and Evangelista carried Arquero using a sledge and brought him to Pedro Arquero's house before taking him to St. Dionisio Evangelista (Evangelista) arrived. 6 Accused-appellant ran away, while Licupa shouted for help. While they were walking towards the other side of the rice paddy, accused-appellant suddenly appeared from the hilly portion of the field and shot Arquero once using a homemade shotgun, hitting the latter on the lower abdomen. On, at around 6:00 a.m., the victim, Roger Arquero (Arquero), fetched his brother-in-law, Rolando Licupa (Licupa) 5 to go to the rice field. The facts, as culled from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, are as follows: Trial on the merits ensued after the pre-trial conference. That in the commission of the offense the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm was present.ĭuring arraignment on 06 February 2002, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. ![]() That on or about May 25, 2001, in the Municipality of Solana, Province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Roberto Bernardo y Fernandez, armed with a gun, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one, Roger Arquero y Cudiamat Alias Rolando, inflicting upon him fatal gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death. The accusatory portion of the Information reads as follows: In an Infonnation 3 dated 26 July 2001, accused-appellant was charged with the crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 04486, which affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Roberto Bernardo (accused-appellant) for the crime of murder. 1īefore this Court is an appeal seeking the reversal of the Decision 2 dated of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. ![]() A dying man's statements, given under proper circumstances, are treated with highest weight and credence. A person aware of a forthcoming death is generally considered truthful in his words and credible in his accusation. ![]() Truth often lies in the lips of a dying man. ROBERTO BERNARDO Y FERNANDEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. ![]() PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLE, VS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |