Case Digest (G.R. No. 184172)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Luis Antonio Garchitorena, G.R. No. 184172, March 22, 2010, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. On appeal is the 21 January 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR‑HC No. 00290 affirming the conviction of appellant Luis Antonio Garchitorena for parricide by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.On or about 16 August 2000 the victim, Flordeliza Tabla Garchitorena, was found dead in the bedroom she shared with appellant. Police investigator PO3 Florencio Escobido discovered blood on the carpet, a 9 mm pistol and two live bullets; appellant initially told Escobido that the spouses had quarreled and that he had cocked the pistol twice, given it to his wife and said, "kung guilty ka, ituloy mo," whereupon the victim allegedly took the gun and shot herself. A ballistic examination was requested.
Medico-legal evidence comprised autopsy findings by Capt. Michael Maunahan (Medico‑Legal Report No. M‑078‑00) showing a gunshot entry at the right temporal region with a downward-leftward trajectory; Dr. Edgar Savella, NBI medico-legal officer, opined the wound was "unnatural and unlikely" to be self‑inflicted. Forensic paraffin testing by P/Sr. Insp. Grace Eustaquio indicated absence of powder nitrates on the victim's hands. Family and other witnesses testified that the victim had appeared troubled and fearful of her husband; a cousin said the victim was left‑handed.
Appellant and Aigel Camba testified for the defense. Appellant presented a suicide narrative: after an argument about a burnt hole in the carpet, the victim grabbed the gun, threatened suicide, and—despite his efforts to retrieve it—shot herself; Camba heard a single gunshot and appellant's exclamation afterwards. On rebuttal, Police Inspector Leonard Arban testified that appellant's in‑custody statement differed materially from his court testimony.
On 26 April 2004 the RTC convicted appellant of parricide, relying substantially on circumstantial evidence and disbelieving appellant's suicide defense because of inconsistencies between his prior statements and his trial testimony and because the events narrated were "contrary to human experience."...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed the crime of parricide?
- Did the trial court and the Court of Appeals properly rely on circumstantial evidence and appellant’s inconsistent statements to reject the d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)