Case Digest (G.R. No. 54344-45)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Willie Amaguin, Gildo Amaguin and Celso Amaguin, G.R. Nos. 54344-45, January 10, 1994, Supreme Court First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellants are Willie Amaguin and Gildo Amaguin (with Celso Amaguin at large).On 24 May 1977 the Oro brothers—Pacifico and Diosdado—were among a group who left Pacifico’s house in Divinagracia Street, La Paz, Iloilo City after a small fiesta gathering. Witnesses for the prosecution, principally Hernando Oro and Danilo Oro, recounted that Celso called Pacifico, then lunged and stabbed him with a knife; Gildo followed, firing a dart from an “Indian pana” and later stabbing; and Willie appeared armed with a revolver and shot Pacifico, Diosdado and a fleeing Danilo. The affray left Pacifico and Diosdado mortally wounded; Danilo and others were also injured. An autopsy by Dr. Tito Doromal established multiple stab and gunshot wounds on both victims, some of which were fatal.
The defense presented a different account: Gildo and other defense witnesses portrayed the Oros as the aggressors, described Celso as being kicked and shoved first, said Ernie Ortigas fired the shots, and asserted that Gildo was unarmed or used only stones. Willie testified he left a nearby drinking session only after explosions and that the fighting had ended when he arrived; both Willie and Gildo eventually surrendered to police (Willie after five days).
The Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch II, after a joint trial, found Gildo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in Criminal Cases Nos. 8041 and 8042, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and found Willie guilty as an accomplice in both cases and imposed an indeterminate sentence of 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years for each case; both were ordered to pay indemnities, damages and costs. Willie and Gildo appealed, assigning errors including (a) misclassification of the offense as murder (absence of treachery), (b) misidentification of Willie as the gunman, (c) erroneous finding of conspiracy between Gildo and Celso, (d) misappreciation of Gildo’s armament, and (e) failure to apply voluntary surrender and to fix individual liabilities.
...(Subscriber-Only)Issues:
- Should the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings identifying the assailants (especially Willie as the gunman and Gildo as armed with a knife and Indian pana) be disturbed on appeal?
- Was the killing of Pacifico and Diosdado properly classified as murder (treachery present)?
- Was there conspiracy between Gildo and Celso such that Gildo should be held jointly in the crime?
- Was Willie properly characterized as an accomplice to the killings, or should he be held liable only for his own acts (homicide/frustrated homicide)?
- Should voluntary surrender be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance affecting penalties, and what are th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)