Case Digest (G.R. No. 131117)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Nelson Carino, Domingo Banhaon, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Boy Corcolon, Joselito Lito Calong-Calong and Boy Pansit, G.R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. The appeal followed the September 30, 1996 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 160 (originally filed as Criminal Case No. 3953-94-C in the RTC of Calamba, Laguna), which convicted appellants Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Boy Corcolon, Lito Calong-Calong and Domingo Banhaon of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, civil indemnity and moral and exemplary damages.The information charged six persons (including accused Nelson Carino and Boy Pansit) with conspiring to kill Ruben A. Velecina on July 30, 1989 in Barangay Bayog, Los Baños, Laguna, alleging treachery, abuse of superior strength and the aid of armed men. Nelson Carino and Boy Pansit remained at large; the other accused were arrested, arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The case was transferred from Calamba to Pasig and re-docketed to Branch 160.
Prosecution evidence established that the victims were celebrating a pre-nuptial party the night of July 29–30, 1989; several men in separate vehicles arrived around midnight, and six persons entered an alley and posted near the kitchen. Witnesses Valentin Velecina (the victim’s brother) and Edwin Botero (a guest) testified that four of those men—identified in court as Nelson Carino, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon and Lito Calong-Calong—fired into the house while Domingo Banhaon and Boy Pansit acted as lookouts; Ruben Velecina later was found mortally wounded. The police recovered empty shells; the autopsy by Dr. Ruben Escueta recorded multiple through-and-through gunshot wounds and massive intrathoracic hemorrhage as cause of death.
The witnesses initially delayed reporting the incident; both later gave sworn statements in August 1993 after Mayor Antonio Sanchez and some bodyguards were arrested in an unrelated case. Botero entered the DOJ Witness Protection Program. The appellants offered denials, alibi testimony and explanations that some identifications were mistaken or motivated by hostility.
The RTC ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in crediting the prosecution witnesses and disbelieving the appellants’ denials and alibis?
- Was conspiracy among the accused established beyond reasonable doubt?
- Were the qualifying and aggravating circumstances — particularly treachery, abuse of superior strength, and the aid of armed men — proven and properly appreciated?
- Can appellant Domingo Banhaon invoke voluntary surrender or his failure to escape during a jail break as mitigating or exculpatory circumstances?
- Were nocturnity and the use of unlicensed firearms valid aggravating circumstances?
- Were the penalty and the awards of civil indemnity, exemplary, moral and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)