Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12819)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Isidro Guarnes, Monico Guarnes and Honorio Guarnes, G.R. No. L-12819, December 29, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paredes, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution (the People of the Philippines) charged defendants-appellants Isidro Guarnes, Monico Guarnes and Honorio Guarnes with the murder of Eustiquio Jabonillo. The trial court convicted each defendant of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordered them to indemnify the heirs P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with the legal accessories and costs. The defendants appealed.
The facts as found by the trial court were that on the evening of June 6, 1956, a group who had been serenading left the house of Jovita Jaurequi in Pavia, Iloilo and walked in single file toward the railroad tracks. Eustiquio Jabonillo walked last, strumming a ukelele. As the group crossed the tracks, several witnesses heard a noise and saw Isidro Guarnes stab Eustiquio in the chest. As the victim staggered, Monico Guarnes, armed with a galvanized iron pipe, and Honorio Guarnes, armed with a cane, struck the victim on the back until he fell face down. Bystander Marciano Cabillos tried to intervene but was warned off; Cabillos, Remigio Gumban and Alfonso Hisog ran to the municipal building and later reported the assault to the police. A butcher's knife (Exhibit B) was found at the scene. Dr. Jose Acosta performed a post-mortem and found a stab wound on the left chest and two contusions on the back; death was instantaneous (Exhibit A).
At trial, Isidro testified that he had gone to Jovita’s house earlier, saw a person stealing a chicken and struck that person with a piece of wood; he then grappled with that person, whom he recognized as Eustiquio, and claimed he used a butcher’s knife only in self-defense, fleeing after Eustiquio was wounded and surrendering to authorities the next morning. Monico offered an alibi that he stayed home drinking with visitors that evening and denied owning an iron pipe or participating in the assault. Honorio likewise asserted an alibi (watching his poultry), denied involvement, and noted his small stature. The trial court disbelieved these defenses and credited the eyewitnesses’ testimony.
On appeal the parties framed three principal questions: (1) whether the evidence warranted conviction (which involved credibility of witnesses), (2) whether Mon...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the evidence, considering credibility of witnesses, warrant the appellants’ convictions for murder?
- Were appellants Monico and Honorio Guarnes sufficiently and properly identified as participants in the killing?
- Was the penalty imposed on the appellants appropriate under the law and the evidence, and did any mitigating circum...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)