Case Digest (G.R. No. 120495)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Dominic, German and Harvey, all surnamed Canete, G.R. No. 120495, March 12, 1998, Supreme Court Second Division, Melo, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellants were Dominic, German and Harvey Canete.On June 11, 1988, at about 8:30 p.m. in Sitio Balongis, Barangay Silad, Sugbongcogon, Misamis Oriental, Ramon Paculanan was fatally attacked and Arnold (Boy) Margallo was seriously wounded while returning home with Avelina Paculanan. The three Canete brothers were seen near the scene; witnesses identified them as assailants. Two Informations followed: Criminal Case No. 994-M(88) charging the three with the killing of Ramon (initially tried as homicide), and Criminal Case No. 995-M(88) charging them with frustrated homicide for the attack on Arnold. Physical evidence included bolos and an Indian pana; a bolo was recovered at the scene and an arrow (pana) was removed from the wounded victim.
At trial (joint trial for both cases) the Regional Trial Court convicted the defendants of homicide (Crim. No. 994-M(88)) and frustrated homicide (Crim. No. 995-M(88)). On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed culpability but modified the RTC’s conviction in Crim. No. 994-M(88) from homicide to murder, finding the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength and imposing reclusion perpetua; it likewise increased the penalty for Crim. No. 995-M(88). Because the Court of Appeals increased the penalty, it invoked the amended provisions of Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court and certified the case to the Supreme Court for review rather than entering judgment.
Pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ certification, the Supreme Court ordered surrender and commitment procedures; Dominic Canete, being a minor, had earlier been released on recognizance by DSWD and remained at large, and his appeal was dismissed by the Court on July 24, 1996 (entered September 2, 1996). German and Harvey were committed to detention and did not file supplemental briefs before the Supreme Court; the Court therefore confined its review to German and Harvey based on the record elevated by the Court of Appeals.
At the appellate stage the principal contested defenses were German’s plea of self-defense and Harvey’s alibi. German testified that he was attacked and only used force to repel attackers; Harvey asserted he was at home in the poblacion that night due to his illness and regular treatment. The trial court’s credibility findings were affirmed on many points by the Court of Appeals, but on the crucial is...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the appeal of Dominic Canete should be dismissed and his appeal removed from review.
- Whether German Canete successfully proved the justifying circumstance of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence.
- Whether Harvey Canete’s alibi establishes that he could not have been present at the scene at the time of the crime.
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly elevated the RTC’s homicide conviction to murder on th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)