Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12435)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Edgardo Castro, Boy Cortez, Arnold Olmos and Roberto Vinoza @ Roberto Vioza, G.R. No. 122671, November 18, 1997, Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Accused-appellants Edgardo Castro and Roberto Vinoza (with co-accused Boy Cortez and Arnold Olmos, who remained at large) were indicted for murder in Criminal Case No. 2323‑M‑90 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Bulacan. The information charged that on 25 October 1990, the four assailants, armed with an ice‑pick and a bladed instrument, conspired and attacked Luis Cabantog with evident premeditation, treachery and abuse of superior strength, causing wounds that resulted in death.
Only Castro and Vinoza were arrested and arraigned; both pleaded not guilty and were tried. The prosecution presented witnesses including Valentino Fernandez (the lone eyewitness), Dr. Alberto Bondoc (medical officer who performed the autopsy), the victim’s father Sotero Cabantog, and Police Investigator SPO1 Conrado Umali. The defense offered the accused and several alibi witnesses (Ligaya Magdirila Caparas, Maria Gilda Gonzales). Valentino testified that he saw the four scale the fence and stab the victim, but he first reported the incident by a sworn statement only on 11 July 1991.
The RTC found Valentino credible, rejected the alibi defense, appreciated treachery and the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and nighttime (later treated as absorbed in treachery), convicted Castro and Vinoza of murder and sentenced them to 17 years and 1 day to 20 years reclusion temporal, and awarded damages (including P70,000 stated in the dispositive). The RTC decision was promulgated 18 May 1993.
The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a 14 June 1995 decision the CA affirmed the conviction but imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it deleted the P70,000 award for lack of a finding and instead ordered P50,000 civil indemnity. Because of the third paragraph of Section 13(2), Rule 124 of the Rules of Court (procedural rule governing appellate imposition of penalties), the CA refrained from entering judgment and certified the case to the Supreme Court.
The appeal to the Supreme Court was taken via the CA’s certification. Supplemental briefs were filed for appe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the appellants waive any objection to warrantless arrest by failing to raise it before the RTC and the Court of Appeals?
- Did the prosecution prove the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt, considering that the case rested largely on the testimony of a lone eyewitness, Valentino Fernandez?
- Were the circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength and nocturnity properly appreciated and applied?
- Did the trial court err in imposing the penalty of seventeen years and one day to twenty years of reclusion temporal instead of reclusion perpetua (or the appropriate substituted penalty) given the applicable law?
- Was the trial court’s award of P70,000.00 moral damages proper de...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)