G.R. No. 139179 - People vs. Fabros y Castro

The case involves the killing of Hernan Sagario y Cuesta on February 28, 1996, in Zamboanga City, Philippines.
The accused are Jonathan Fabros y Castro (appellant) and Wilfredo Tolentino y Esperat (co-accused), with other persons implicated as minors in the incident.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, Branch 17, initially found Fabros guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

On February 28, 1996, around 7:30 p.m., Fabros, together with his cousins (Sheila Guilayan and Merwin Ledesma), were at their residence in Luyahan, Pasonanca when they were called by their neighbor, Wilfredo Tolentino.
Upon coming to Tolentino’s house, Tolentino revealed his plan to kill Hernan Sagario (Sheila’s stepfather) as a means to relieve the suffering of their relative.
Tolentino instructed Merwin Ledesma to fetch a bolo from their house.
When Hernan Sagario arrived around 8:30 p.m., he went into the kitchen while the accused remained in the living area. Shortly after, Tolentino entered carrying a piece of wood and pursued Hernan.
Tolentino struck Hernan on the right side of the neck with the wood, rendering him unconscious, then ordered Fabros and Ledesma to help carry the victim outside to a nearby creek.
At the creek, Tolentino proceeded to stab Hernan multiple times, causing his instant death; the post-mortem examination revealed death due to cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hemorrhage from a stab wound.

Both accused, Fabros and Tolentino, denied being the actual killers by shifting blame onto one another.
Fabros testified that he had returned home from work and was reluctant to participate fully in the unfolding events.
According to Fabros’ account, after Sheila left to address a cry of distress, he and his cousin Merwin followed but only witnessed Tolentino initiating the attack on Hernan.
Fabros maintained that his involvement was limited to being forced under duress and later assisting in carrying the victim’s body, rather than actively engaging in the killing.
Notably, after the trial court’s decision became final, Tolentino executed an affidavit on July 14, 2000, admitting sole responsibility for the killing and retracting his earlier testimony that implicated Fabros.

Witness testimonies, notably that of Sheila Guilayan, provided detailed accounts of Tolentino's actions—emphasizing his use of a piece of wood and later a bolo—to commit the murder.
There are extensive narratives describing the sequence of events from the initial call to the act of murder, including the movement of the victim’s body to the creek.
The RTC ruled that Fabros’ overt participation in moving the body and his physical presence at the scene evidenced his approval and concurrence in the crime, thereby deeming him a co-conspirator.
The defense, however, argued that Fabros’ involvement was minimal, contended by his later fear and lack of evidence directly linking him to the violent act of murder, especially in light of Tolentino’s later confession.

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Fabros participated in a conspiracy to commit murder.
Whether the act of assisting in moving the victim’s body constitutes the necessary proof of a unified criminal purpose and agreement.

Whether Fabros’ actions can be legally construed as that of a principal in the crime, despite lacking direct physical participation in the killing.
Whether Fabros could be held responsible as an accomplice or accessory based solely on his participation during the aftermath of the murder.

How the conflicting testimonies between prosecution witnesses, particularly Sheila Guilayan, and the later confession of Tolentino affect the overall credibility of the evidence against Fabros.
The role of duress and minimal participation in mitigating criminal intent and, therefore, criminal responsibility.