Case Digest (G.R. No. 96787)
Facts:
The case revolves around the appeal of Edwin Ibanez y Albante and Alfredo (Freddie) Nulla y Ibanez, who were convicted of murder in Criminal Case No. 3517-M-2004. The incident occurred on August 29, 2004, in Bocaue, Bulacan. The accused, along with an accomplice named Jesus Monsillo y Taniares, were charged with the murder of Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog. The Information specified that the accused attacked Wilfredo using a soil digger (bareta) with intent to kill, which resulted in serious injuries leading to his death.
During the arraignment, both Edwin and Alfredo pleaded not guilty, while Jesus remained at large, resulting in the archiving of his case. The prosecution's case included eyewitness testimony from Wilfredo's wife and daughter, Rachel, who was nearby and observed the events unfold. She recounted how Edwin covered Wilfredo's head and face with a t-shirt, enabling Jesus to hit Wilfredo in the head with an iron bar while Alfredo struck him from the side. I
Case Digest (G.R. No. 96787)
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural History
- The case involves the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff-appellee and three accused:
- Edwin Ibáñez y Albante
- Alfredo (Freddie) Nulla y Ibáñez
- Jesus Montisillo y Taniares (the latter’s case was later archived as he remained at large)
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Malolos, Bulacan, convicted Edwin and Alfredo of murder in Criminal Case No. 3517‑M‑2004.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto.
- The accused-appellants filed an appeal via a Notice of Appeal challenging the decision.
- Charged Offense and Applicable Law
- The accused were charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The statute penalizes acts of homicide committed with treachery, among other aggravating circumstances.
- The factual allegation stated that the accused, armed with a soil digger and an iron bar, executed a premeditated attack resulting in victim Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog’s death.
- Factual Chronology as Presented by the Prosecution
- On or about August 29, 2004, in Bocaue, Bulacan, Wilfredo was invited by Alfredo to a drinking session, where he joined his companions Edwin and Jesus.
- During the drinking session:
- Wilfredo excused himself to urinate.
- Edwin snatched a t‑shirt from a clothesline and hooded it over Wilfredo’s head, rendering the victim temporarily blind.
- Edwin wrestled and pinned down Wilfredo while Alfredo delivered a boxing hit on the left side of his chest.
- Jesus, armed with a long iron bar, struck Wilfredo on the head.
- The sole direct eyewitness was Rachel, Wilfredo’s daughter, who:
- Observed the sequence of events from a nearby location (under a neighbor’s house about three meters away).
- Witnessed the attacks which ultimately led to Wilfredo being found prostrate on the ground by his wife, Rowena.
- Despite efforts to secure medical attention, Wilfredo was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
- Defense Version of Events
- Accused-appellants Edwin and Alfredo claimed:
- They were present on the scene out of curiosity and not for the purpose of perpetrating a crime.
- They maintained that Jesus was the sole individual responsible for killing Wilfredo.
- Edwin contended that he had called a tricycle to transport the victim for medical aid, while Alfredo asserted he only observed the events unfold.
- To support their version, the defense presented witness Aniceta Dosil, who testified that:
- She was engaged in selling doormats with Rachel on the day of the incident.
- After completing sales around 6:00 p.m., she observed the aftermath of a fight between Jesus and Wilfredo.
- Her testimony was based on second‑hand information relayed by another relative (Marilou) and did not place her at the scene when the murder was actually committed.
- The defense sought to discredit the prosecution’s eyewitness testimony by suggesting that the child witness, Rachel, could not have accurately perceived the events given her age and limited education.
Issues:
- Main Issue on Guilt
- Whether the accused-appellants (Edwin and Alfredo) are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
- Specific Issues Raised on Appeal
- Whether the lower courts erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the prosecution’s direct eyewitness, Rachel.
- Whether the lower courts committed reversible error by not giving adequate weight and credence to the defense evidence, particularly the testimony of Aniceta Dosil.
- Whether the conviction should be set aside on the ground that the accused’s guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
- Damages and Award Issues
- Whether the award for damages, including civil indemnity, temperate and moral damages, and exemplary damages, was properly computed.
- Specifically, whether the deletion of the award for loss of earning capacity (claimed at P1,946,180) was appropriate given the evidentiary support (or lack thereof) regarding the victim’s income.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)