Case Digest (G.R. No. 128607)
Facts:
On June 24, 1989, at approximately 4:00 a.m., the victim, Julieto Malaspina, was attending a benefit dance at Dump Site, Tudela, Trento, Agusan del Sur, accompanied by Godofredo Llames, Honorio Osok, and Alberto Toling. The petitioner, Alejandro Fuentes, Jr., approached Malaspina, made a remark about his haircut, and suddenly stabbed him in the abdomen with a hunting knife. Malaspina fell, his companions rushed to help, and petitioner fled the scene. Before dying, Malaspina identified Alejandro Fuentes, Jr. as his assailant. Autopsy performed on July 24, 1989, by Dr. Porfirio L. Salubre confirmed death was caused by a stab wound in the left lumbar region causing perforation of the intestines. Petitioner claimed that it was actually his cousin, Zoilo Fuentes, Jr., who stabbed Malaspina and that he was with Zoilo at the time of the incident. Petitioner alleged he fled due to threats from people wielding weapons who intended to harm those from San Isidro, his place of origin. He a
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 128607)
Facts:
- Incident and Immediate Circumstances
- On the morning of June 24, 1989, at around 4:00 AM, Julieto Malaspina and his companions were at a benefit dance at Dump Site, Tudela, Trento, Agusan del Sur.
- Petitioner Alejandro Fuentes, Jr., approached Malaspina, commented on his haircut, and suddenly stabbed him in the abdomen with a hunting knife.
- Malaspina fell and before dying, identified Alejandro Fuentes, Jr. as the assailant.
- Autopsy and Medical Report
- Dr. Porfirio L. Salubre conducted the autopsy on July 24, 1989, and reported that Malaspina died due to a stab wound at the left lumbar region with penetration of intestines.
- Petitioner’s Defense and Explanation
- Petitioner alleged that it was his cousin, Zoilo Fuentes, Jr. (alias "Jonie"), who stabbed Malaspina.
- He claimed he was talking with “Jonie” when the incident occurred and fled upon hearing threats against people from San Isidro.
- Petitioner said he sought refuge in his brother’s house, where “Jonie” admitted stabbing Malaspina in retaliation for a boxing match incident, and then escaped through a window.
- Petitioner was arrested on the morning of June 24, 1989, while in a store in the barangay.
- Trial and Conviction
- The Regional Trial Court of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, convicted petitioner for murder qualified by treachery.
- Sentence: an indeterminate prison term of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal.
- Monetary awards: P50,000.00 indemnity to the heirs of Malaspina and P8,300.00 as actual damages plus costs.
- Appeal and Issues Raised
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- Petitioner urged error in his positive identification by witnesses and challenged the actual damages award.
- Petitioner highlighted a discrepancy between eyewitness testimonies (stabbing on right lumbar region) and medical report (left lumbar region).
- Petitioner also relied on the alleged confession of Zoilo Fuentes, Jr., claiming it should exonerate him under the exception to the hearsay rule.
- Witness Testimonies and Identification
- Three prosecution witnesses positively identified petitioner as the knife wielder; all knew him well and had no motive for false testimony.
- Petitioner’s own witness, Nerio Biscocho, testified that "Jonie" Fuentes and Alejandro Fuentes, Jr. were in fact the same person, casting doubt on petitioner’s defense.
- Alleged Confession of Zoilo Fuentes, Jr.
- Felicisimo Fuentes, uncle to both, testified that Zoilo verbally admitted killing Malaspina and showed the knife used, requesting help for legal matters.
- Zoilo fled following the alleged confession.
- P/Sgt. Benjamin Conde, Jr., upon investigation, was informed Zoilo had fled and was unavailable for arrest or testimony.
Issues:
- Whether the identification of petitioner as the killer is reliable despite the conflicting testimony about the stabbing location.
- Whether the alleged confession of Zoilo Fuentes, Jr. is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, thereby exonerating petitioner.
- Whether the penalty imposed on petitioner is correct.
- Whether the award of P8,300.00 as actual damages is supported by sufficient evidence.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)