Case Digest (G.R. No. 90603)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Angel Fabros y Sarmiento alias Boy Fabros, and Danilo Fernando, G.R. No. 90603. October 19, 1992. The Supreme Court First Division. Cruz, J., writing for the Court.On July 1, 1988, at about 7:30 p.m., four armed men entered the house of Juan Siobal in Barangay Salcedo, San Manuel, Tarlac; they forced Juan and his son Jovito outside and shot them to death. Two of the intruders wore handkerchiefs over their faces; the other two did not. No robbery or sexual assault occurred; the intruders apparently intended only to kill the two men.
More than four months after the killings, Anita Siobal Fernandez (daughter) identified two of the unmasked assailants as Angel Fabros and Danilo Fernando, who were thereafter charged with double murder. Anita testified that the intruders claimed to be Constabulary soldiers (ununiformed but armed), closed the doors and windows, separated the family, tied Juan and Jovito, dragged them out, and that she and the household later heard five shots. Anita's mother, Martina Castro Siobal, corroborated Anita and explained that fear and nightly threats explaining she would be killed prevented earlier identification.
Both accused denied participation and pleaded alibi. Fabros said he worked as a machinist at Asian Engine Rebuilders and was at work that night; he presented a daily time record and payroll showing a punch-out at 8:02 p.m. and overtime. Co-workers testified Fabros worked until 8:00 p.m. Fernando said he had been playing mahjong from about 9 a.m. on July 1 until the next morning; Zenaida and Basilio Delfin corroborated his presence. The trial judge (Judge Romeo D. Magat) found the prosecution witnesses more credible, convicted both appellants of double murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua with civil indemnities, funeral expenses, and costs.
The accused appealed to the Supreme...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations — accepting the delayed identification by Anita and Martina and rejecting the appellants' alibis — entitled to be upheld on appeal?
- Did the information charging two murders in a single information violate Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure so as to vitiate the convictions?
- Were the killings a single complex crime or separate murders, and what are the applicable circumstances and proper penalty given the presence of treachery, evident premeditation, an...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)