Case Digest (G.R. No. 87216)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Domingo de Mesa y Pantaleon, G.R. No. 87216, July 28, 1990, the Supreme Court Second Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Domingo de Mesa y Pantaleon (appellant) and his cousin Mario de Mesa (accused-at-large) with the killing of Sgt. Renato Santos, owner of Yolly's Canteen in Quezon City. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104 (Special Criminal Court), rendered a decision on February 1, 1989, convicting Domingo of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnity of P100,000 to the heirs of the victim, and imposing costs. Domingo appealed to this Court.
On January 19, 1988, at about 3:45 p.m., three men — accused-appellant Domingo, his cousin Mario, and another man — entered Yolly's Canteen, drank beer, and engaged in a verbal exchange with Sgt. Renato Santos. Two prosecution witnesses — Crisostomo Mapalad, a canteen helper who knew the appellant, and Beatrice Alpanoso Perez, the victim's sister-in-law — testified that Mario taunted Santos and that, as Sgt. Santos rose, Mario pushed him while Domingo stabbed Santos in the left chest. The victim fired three shots but later died at MCU Hospital.
Appellant was arrested on January 20, 1988, at the BLTB bus terminal in Pasay City; Mario remained at large. The information initially misnamed the appellant as Dominador de Mesa y Pantaleon, which the prosecution corrected during trial. At trial the defense presented only the appellant, who denied stabbing Sgt. Santos, accused Mario of being the stabber, and said he fled when Mario ordered him to run; he also claimed Mario was carrying a knife when they entered the canteen. The appellant further suggested ill feeling between himself and Mapalad as a possible motive for false testimony.
The trial court credited the prosecution witnesses, found treachery present, and convicted Domingo of murder. He raised two assignments ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in relying on the prosecution witnesses and rejecting the appellant’s testimony?
- Was the conviction properly for murder (with treachery) rather than for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)