Case Digest (G.R. No. 148519)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Rolito Cabical @ Lito y Esteban, G.R. No. 148519, May 29, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court. The prosecution charged Rolito Cabical (accused-appellant) with murder before Branch 27, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya; he pleaded not guilty and was tried.The factual narrative at trial was that on December 3, 1996 at about 5:30 p.m. in Barangay Pieza, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya, eyewitness Joniper Pontino saw Cabical following the victim, Reynaldo Fernando, and then strike Fernando on the nape with a piece of wood, causing an instantaneous fatal head injury. Pontino fled, reported the incident, and barangay officials found Fernando prone outside Cabical’s fence, clutching a sapling. Dr. Elpidio Quines performed the autopsy, noted a single head injury consistent with blunt force, and did not detect alcoholic breath.
The victim’s widow, Esperanza Fernando, testified to the emotional impact of her husband’s death and claimed various damages and an asserted annual income for the deceased derived from farming and trading animals. At trial the defense presented Cabical and his wife, Alice, who claimed self-defense: they said Fernando was drunk, had been insulting Cabical, and—per Alice and Cabical—had a stone and attempted to strike, whereupon Cabical picked up a piece of wood and struck Fernando.
The RTC convicted Cabical of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering civil indemnity, moral and actual damages. Cabical appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors contesting (1) the rejection of his self-defense claim, (2) the court’s failure to consider sufficient provocation as mitigating, (3) appreciation of treachery as aggravating circumstance, and (4) that treachery, if pres...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Cabical’s plea of self-defense correctly rejected by the trial court?
- If self-defense is not established, should sufficient provocation have been appreciated as a mitigating circumstance?
- Did the trial court correctly find the presence of treachery as an aggravating circumstance?
- If treachery is present but not alleged in the information as a qualifying circumstance, does liability nevertheless remain mur...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)