Case Digest (G.R. No. 131924)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Carlito Cortez and Gerry Espana, G.R. No. 131924, December 26, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.On the night of 20–21 August 1992 in Zone 9, Macanhan, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City, Dominador Bislig was fatally stabbed. Military Sergeant Estefanio C. Anobling observed four men — later identified in court as Carlito Cortez, Gerry Espana and two John Does — acting suspiciously near a store. Anobling testified he watched them from about six meters; after Bislig and his nephew Ismael Ledesma arrived, the four went into a nearby house, made signals, then one (identified as Cortez) allegedly stabbed Bislig while another (Espana) held Bislig by the coat and a John Doe held a jungle bolo. Witnesses and Anobling gave chase; one assailant briefly apprehended himself escaped later. Bislig was taken to the hospital and later died; autopsy by Dr. Apolinar Vacalares showed two stab wounds (one anterior chest, one below the right scapula) causing massive hemopneumothorax; the pathologist opined the wounds could have been caused by different instruments.
An Information was filed on 21 August 1992 charging Cortez, Espana and two John Does with murder, alleging intent to kill with evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength (Art. 248 in relation to Art. 14, The Revised Penal Code). At the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City (Decision penned by Judge Alejandro M. Velez), both Cortez and Espana were found guilty as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment; the trial court also ordered payment of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P100,000 as moral damages to the heirs.
On appeal to the Supreme Court (the appeal is from the appealed Decision of the court a quo), the accused-appellants argued the lone eyewitness Anobling was incredulous and biased, relied on inconsistent testimony, that their alibis (they were sleeping in Cortez's brother's house some 50 meters away) were credible, and that the bolo recovered was not the murder weapon. The prosecution relied on Anobling's eyewitness account, the autopsy report, and the factual findings of the trial court.
The Supreme Court reviewed the trial record, witness testimony (including Anobling and the defense witnesses Carlito, Gerry and Gilbert Cortez), and the pathologist's findings. The Court af...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the guilt of accused-appellants for an unlawful killing proven beyond reasonable doubt?
- Were the qualifying circumstances (treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength) sufficiently proven to sustain a conviction for murder rather than homicide?
- Were the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to the heirs properly granted without independen...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)