G.R. No. 79811 - People vs. Cantuba

The case involves the murder of Atty. Adolfo Celera in Masbate on or about December 23, 1981.
The accused-appellants include Pio Cantuba and Pedrito Lalaguna, with additional co-accused such as Gualberto Versales (alias Berting), Satur Gerbuela, Ricardo Baco, Rogelio Penales (alias Pugo), Romeo “Totong” Labuyo, and Mayor Moises Espinosa.
Atty. Celera, a practicing lawyer involved in politically charged litigation—including a rape case and a subsequent damages suit against Mayor Espinosa—became a target amid heightened tensions.

The accused were charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code in a specially amended information describing premeditated killing using night-time conditions and personal violence.
The amended charges stated that the accused, acting in concert, attacked and inflicted mortal wounds upon Atty. Celera by shooting him in several parts of his body and stabbing him, leading directly to his death.
Upon arraignment, six of the accused pleaded not guilty, while two, Penales and Labuyo, were not arraigned having remained at large.
A motion was filed by the defense to order the Prosecuting Fiscal(s) to investigate and supplement the Amended Information by including an additional confessed participant, Pat. Torrecampo. Although granted, this order was ultimately moot since the trial proceeded without compliance by the Fiscals.

Pio Cantuba and Pedrito Lalaguna were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua along with additional orders for indemnification and cost payment.
Co-accused Versales, Gerbuela, and Mayor Espinosa were acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence.
The case against the deceased accused, Ricardo Baco, was dismissed, and cases involving those still at large (Labuyo and Penales) were placed in the archives.

The trial court’s determination was largely based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses—Margie Rotor, Romulo Tama, and Pat. Torrecampo—with detailed reconstruction provided by the Solicitor General.

On December 21, 1981, Patrolman Rodolfo Torrecampo, although under suspension and acting as bodyguard for Mayor Espinosa, was involved in fetching both Romeo “Totong” Labuyo and Pio Cantuba for the operation.
On December 23, 1981, the group, which included the detainee Ricardo Baco, converged in various locations including a provincial jail, the house of a provincial guard (Saturnino Gerbuela), and the Sunrise Disco Pub where the murder was to take place.

At the Sunrise Disco Pub, Atty. Celera was present after leaving a Christmas party and visiting a nearby telephone company.
Margie Rotor, a witness, observed that Pio Cantuba approached the scene carrying a gun.
Torrecampo provided specific instructions to the group, including handing Labuyo a pistol and designating Cantuba to signal when the victim appeared.
As the group dispersed and regrouped, moments before the attack, Cantuba was noted holding a firearm while the assemblage awaited their designated victim.
Upon Atty. Celera’s arrival at the scene, gunfire and subsequent stabbing—committed by Ricardo Baco—occurred, bringing about the fatal injuries.

Witnesses, including Margie Rotor and a bystander (Romulo Tama), reported observing a speeding motorbike (or “tricycle”) that seemed intent on running over the fallen victim.
Further investigation led by Technical Sgt. Randolf Arizala traced a distinctive blue Yamaha Motorbike, which eventually contributed to identifying Pedrito Lalaguna as its rider.
Atty. Celera was transported to Masbate Provincial Hospital where his injuries, consisting of multiple gunshot and stab wounds, proved fatal.

The appellants, Pio Cantuba and Pedrito Lalaguna, raised three principal issues on appeal:

That there was no conclusive proof that Cantuba fired the fatal shot.
That Lalaguna’s conviction was based solely on his being seen driving a motorbike after the crime, which by itself did not establish adequate proof of his participation.
That the findings violated their constitutional right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The defense argued for a re-investigation and inclusion of Pat. Torrecampo as an accused; however, this motion did not alter the substantive resolution of the trial.

Whether the trial court erred in finding that Pio Cantuba was the one who fired the fatal shot, particularly in light of alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Whether the evidence marshalled eliminated any reasonable doubt regarding Cantuba’s direct culpability.

Whether convicting Lalaguna solely on the basis of his being seen driving the motorbike (or “tricycle”) away from the scene was sufficient to establish his active participation in the murder.
Whether testimonial variations and the circumstances properly substantiated his involvement as a co-conspirator.

Whether the trial court disregarded the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the overall evidentiary and legal proceedings sufficiently met this burden, or if the appellants’ constitutional rights were compromised.