Case Digest (G.R. No. 128966)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Edwin De Vera y Garcia, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. The appeal assails the March 12, 1997 decision of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 57 (Judge Lucas P. Bersamin) in Criminal Case No. Q-92-31323, which convicted Edwin De Vera and Roderick Garcia of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.In an Information dated June 11, 1992, De Vera, Garcia and two others later identified as Kenneth Florendo and Elmer Castro were charged with murdering Frederick Capulong. The Information (later amended to include a .32-caliber firearm) alleged conspiracy and use of treachery and superior strength. At arraignment De Vera and Garcia pleaded not guilty; Florendo and Castro remained at large and were not tried.
The prosecution presented eyewitness Bernardino Cacao who testified he saw Capulong’s car stop, saw Florendo drag Capulong out and shoot him in the head, and saw De Vera in the car with the group. Police found a red sports car at the scene, recovered identification of the victim, and shortly thereafter apprehended De Vera near the subdivision. Police investigative testimony recounts that De Vera, after initial reluctance, admitted being with the group and implicated Garcia; the police recovered a .22-caliber revolver, a black T‑shirt and cap at a grassy spot described by the suspects. Paraffin testing allegedly yielded positive gunpowder nitrates on De Vera’s hands. Statements of De Vera and Garcia were taken at an IBP office in the presence of Atty. Confesor Sansano of the IBP Legal Aid, who testified he advised them of their rights and remained throughout the interview.
De Vera’s defense was that he merely accompanied Florendo and the others, was unarmed, panicked and ran when he heard the shot, and that his extrajudicial statement was coerced after torture at the police station; he later executed a sworn recan...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed murder (i.e., was the evidence sufficient to convict him as a principal/conspirator)?
- Was appellant’s extrajudicial statement admissible against him under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3, Rule 133, Rules of Court?
- If guilty, should appellant be held as a principal (conspirator) or only as an accomplice, and what are the legal conseq...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)