Case Digest (G.R. No. 119660-61)
Facts:
Pat. Edgardo Herrera y Baltoribio and Pat. Redentor Mariano y Antonio v. Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 119660-61, February 13, 2009, Supreme Court First Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Pat. Edgardo Herrera y Baltoribio and Pat. Redentor Mariano y Antonio, members of the Parañaque Police Station, were charged in Sandiganbayan Criminal Case Nos. 16674 and 16675, together with Pat. Roberto Barrera and Pat. Rodolfo Alcalde, for the murders of Shi Shu Yang and George Go y Tan. The original informations (Dec. 4, 1990) alleged murder but did not expressly state the offenses were committed “in relation to their office.”
After arraignment on March 18, 1992, petitioners pleaded not guilty and filed a joint petition for bail asserting lack of jurisdiction because the informations omitted the allegation that the crimes were committed in relation to office, invoking Bartolome v. People. On the same day the Sandiganbayan ordered amendment of the informations (and ruled that evidence adduced at pretrial and the bail hearing would be deemed reproduced at trial). The amended informations (July 15, 1992) added that the offenses were committed “in relation to their public position or office.” Petitioners were re-arraigned on September 18, 1992, again pleaded not guilty, withdrew their jurisdictional objection, and moved to adopt prior proceedings and evidence.
At pretrial (March 30, 1993) the parties stipulated that the accused were public officers; the cases were consolidated and tried jointly. Prosecution witnesses included Reynaldo Ong (restaurant manager), Edna Go (widow of George Go), Cristina Winterhalter (eyewitness who observed with binoculars from about 80–90 meters), and NBI medico-legal and forensic witnesses who conducted autopsies and tests. Winterhalter testified she saw petitioners and other policemen remove the victims from a patrol van at Timothy Street and observed petitioner Mariano and others fire at and load the bodies into the van. Autopsy reports showed multiple close-range gunshot wounds; paraffin tests on the victims were negative. The defense offered testimony and documentary exhibits including police investigation reports and sworn statements of the accused; petitioners asserted self-defense, fulfillment of duty, and attacked Winterhalter’s credibility.
On December 13, 1994, the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) convicted petitioners Herrera and Mariano of two counts of murder as co-principals, qualifying the crime by treachery and aggravating circumstances (including taking advantage of their public positions), and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties and ordered indemnities and damages. The Sandiganbayan denied reconsideration on March 28, 1995. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court (filed May 30, 1995) raising double jeopardy, limitation of cross-exam...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the amendment of the informations and the re-arraignment of petitioners amount to double jeopardy?
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in limiting petitioners’ counsel from further cross-examining prosecution witness Winterhalter?
- Should the trial court’s acceptance of Winterhalter’s eyewitness testimony be set aside for lack of credibility?
- Did the medico-legal evidence support petitioners’ plea of self-defense?
- Was conspiracy proven such that petitioners may be held as co-conspirators/co-principals?
- Does the presumption of regularity in the performance of official acts justify petitioners’ conduct?
- Did the prosecution establish pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)