People vs. Callao y Marcelino

Facts:

This is People of the Philippines v. Hesson Callao y Marcelino, G.R. No. 228945, March 14, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. The appellant is Hesson Callao y Marcelino (accused‑appellant); the respondent is the People of the Philippines (plaintiff‑appellee); co‑accused Junello Amad remained at large and was ordered archived by the trial court.

The case arose from an Information filed February 14, 2007 charging Hesson and Junello with murder allegedly committed on July 15, 2006 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Hesson was arrested February 18, 2008 and arraigned March 17, 2008, pleading not guilty. The prosecution presented a lone eyewitness, Sario Joaquin, who testified that he accompanied Hesson, Junello and one Remmy Casello to the victim Fernando Adlawan’s house; Junello struck and hacked Fernando, after which Hesson stabbed, sliced open Fernando’s chest, removed his heart (and Junello removed the liver), and they fed the organs to a pig. The defense was denial: Hesson testified he was at Fernando’s house but hid when the attack occurred, claimed Enrile Yosores and Junello did the killing, and denied Sario’s presence.

The Regional Trial Court (Branch 45, Bais City) in Criminal Case No. 07‑25‑T rendered judgment on January 26, 2015 finding Hesson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder qualified by treachery under Article 248, Revised Penal Code (RPC) and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua; it also ordered civil indemnity, moral damages and funeral expenses, and archived the case against Junello. Hesson appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, Eighteenth Division, in a decision dated August 31, 2016 (CA‑G.R. CEB‑CR‑HC No. 02007), affirmed the conviction but modified the damage awards (increased civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000 each, added exemplary damages P30,000, retained funeral expenses P15,000). Hesson then appealed to the Supreme Court by the appeal provided under Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.

In his assignments of error Hesson asserted that (1) the conviction rested solely on uncorroborated testimony of the lone witness; (2) conspiracy was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) the proper co...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Was the conviction valid where it rested primarily on the uncorroborated testimony of a lone eyewitness?
• Was conspiracy between Hesson and Junello proved beyond reasonable doubt?
• Should the accused have been convicted of an impossible crime rather than murder because the victim was already dead ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)