Case Digest (G.R. No. 130281)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Felix Celeste, G.R. No. 130281, December 15, 2000, Supreme Court En Banc, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. On automatic review is the August 4, 1997 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 114, in Criminal Case No. 96-9270, which convicted Felix Celeste y Sison (appellant) of murder and imposed the death penalty.Appellant and an unidentified man (named as John Doe) were charged with murder for an attack in Pasay City that resulted in the death of Roy Lique. The information alleged that on or about 20 September 1996 Celeste and John Doe conspired and, with evident premeditation and treachery, struck and fatally wounded Lique at the back of the head with a steel pipe.
At trial the prosecution presented five witnesses: eyewitness pedicab driver Angelito Catalan, restaurant floor manager Rosemarie Bebing, SPO2 Antonio Conlu (Pasay City Police), the victim’s brother Marlon Lique, and Dr. Ludovino Lagat (NBI medico-legal officer). Catalan testified he saw Celeste block the victim’s pedicab while another man struck the victim from behind with a pipe; Catalan later identified Celeste in a police lineup. Bebing recounted an earlier incident in which Celeste threatened the victim at the restaurant, and she also identified Celeste in a lineup. The medico-legal report established that the fatal wound was a laceration to the occipital area causing subdural hemorrhage.
The defense offered alibi and other witnesses who placed Celeste elsewhere at relevant times and sought to impeach identifications and accounts given to police. Celeste denied involvement, claimed coerced custodial conduct, and disputed the lineup identifications.
The RTC found the prosecution evidence sufficient to convict and imposed death, ordering elevation of the records to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court. On appeal to this Court via automatic review, appellant urged (1) ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was appellant’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt?
- Were the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation sufficiently established?
- Was there sufficient basis for the award of moral damages (and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)