Case Digest (G.R. No. 186538)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Ausencio Comillo, Jr., Lutgardo Comillo and Romulo Altar, G.R. No. 186538, November 25, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. The case is an appeal from the Court of Appeals decision affirming with modification the Regional Trial Court’s conviction of the three accused for murder.On December 18, 1999, at about 8:30 p.m. in Escalo Street, Barangay 11, Llorente, Eastern Samar, victim Pedro C. Barbo was assaulted, struck with a ukulele and stabbed; he later died from a stab wound that penetrated his intestine and a large blood vessel. An information for murder was filed in the RTC on March 14, 2000. At arraignment on December 13, 2001, the accused‑appellants pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.
The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Joselito Bojocan and Marcos Borac, victim’s wife Luz Barbo, and Dr. Roy C. Cayago, together with affidavits, the death certificate, medical certificate and an anatomical sketch. The witnesses testified that Ausencio embraced and held Pedro, Romulo struck Pedro’s forehead with a ukulele, and Lutgardo stabbed Pedro; they were six and ten meters away respectively and the scene was well‑lighted. Medical testimony confirmed the fatal stab wound.
The defense offered the appellants’ testimonies and that of Irene Torilio. Ausencio pleaded alibi (claiming he was at home in bed with fever); Lutgardo invoked self‑defense (asserting a struggle for a knife); Romulo pleaded defense of a stranger (he hit Pedro to aid Lutgardo). Irene, a family friend, partially corroborated Ausencio.
The RTC, Branch 2, Eastern Samar, convicted the three of murder on August 6, 2004 and imposed the death penalty plus P50,000 civil indemnity. The motion for reconsideration was denied on November 7, 2005. On June 24, 2008, the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CEB CR‑HC No. 00503 affirmed with modification: it reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua, retained civil indemnity P50,000, an...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction of appellants properly affirmed, i.e., did the prosecution prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the eyewitness accounts and the defenses of alibi, self‑defense, and defense of a stranger?
- Was the qualifying circumstance of treachery adequately proved to elevate the killing to murder and to justify exemplary damages, and were other aggravating or mitigating circumstances correct...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)