Case Digest (G.R. No. 168050)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 168050)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Bernardino Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc, Puno, J., writing for the Court. The case arose from Criminal Case No. 1125 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino, and was later docketed as CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 00060 at the Court of Appeals (CA).The Information charged Bernardino Gaffud, Jr. and two John Does with double murder by means of fire for the deaths of Manuel Salvador and his daughter Analyn Salvador, allegedly killed when their house at Sitio Biton, Barangay Wasid, Nagtipunan, Quirino, was set afire on the evening of May 10, 1994. The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed the charges after the accused failed to submit a counter‑affidavit during preliminary investigation. At arraignment on June 6, 1995, Gaffud pleaded not guilty.
At trial the prosecution presented six witnesses (including the victims' relatives, the barangay captain, an eyewitness who identified the appellant near the burning house, the investigating police officer, and the autopsy physician). Testimony established that on the night in question two gunshots were heard, the victims’ house was seen burning, three persons were observed leaving the scene—one holding a flashlight identified by a witness as the appellant—and later the charred remains of the two victims were found. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and the autopsy report (admitted by defense stipulation) showing cremation and a probable gunshot wound.
The defense advanced alibi: appellant testified he was at home entertaining visiting in‑laws that night and corroborated this with his wife and an in‑law. The defense also adduced an admission by the accused that he fled the area later because of threats he claimed were made by members of the Ilongot tribe.
The RTC convicted appellant of two counts of murder and sentenced him to death for each count, plus civil and other damages (Decision dated August 28, 2002). Because the death penalty was imposed, the case was subject to automatic review and was transferred to the CA for appropriate action pursuant to this Court’s Resolution (citing People v. Mateo). The CA, in a Decision dated March 31, 2005, dismissed appellant’s appeal, modified the RTC judgment by finding guilt for the complex crime of double murder and imposing a single death penalty, and adjusted the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages and nominal damages.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court under Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 00‑5‑03‑SC) for review. On appeal appellant argued principally that (1) the RTC failed to determine whether conspiracy existed though the Information alleged conspiracy, and (2) conviction was not supported because conspiracy and any overt act by him were not proved.
Issues:
- Is the RTC’s failure to resolve the alleged conspiracy fatal to appellant’s conviction?
- Was the circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Do the killings constitute two separate counts of murder or a single complex crime of double murder, and what is the appropriate penalty in light of subsequent law?
- Are the awards of civil indemnity, moral, exemplary and nominal damages properly assessed, and is nighttime an aggravating circumstance here?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)