Title
People vs. Inggo y Tambula
Case
G.R. No. 140872
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2003
Appellant convicted of homicide, not murder, after stabbing victim during an argument; treachery unproven, damages adjusted, sentence reduced.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 140872)

Facts:

People of the Philippines v. Pablito Inggo y Tambula, G.R. No. 140872, June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court En Banc, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The case arose from Criminal Case No. 7593 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City, Branch 8, whose decision dated October 6, 1999 convicted respondent-appellant Pablito T. Inggo of murder under Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and sentenced him to death with awards of consequential and moral damages to the victim’s heirs.

The Information charged that on August 15, 1996, in Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte, appellant, armed with a hunting knife and with intent to kill by means of treachery and evident premeditation, wilfully and feloniously stabbed Rosemarie Conde Reinante, inflicting mortal wounds which caused her death. Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment on January 17, 1997, and trial followed.

Prosecution witnesses—house helper Leonisa Insic, store attendant Lando Tangga, and bystander Edmundo Ballares—testified that an argument over change for a P50 beer escalated when appellant loosened his belt, chased and stabbed the victim, and fled toward the cemetery. Leonisa and Lando positively identified appellant in court. Police brought the injured victim to Dipolog hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival. The prosecution introduced physical exhibits and a medical certificate regarding a stab wound on appellant, which the RTC found indicated a self-inflicted wound.

Appellant testified as lone defense witness, claiming an alibi that he had been selling ice cream in neighboring Roxas town that day, that he was waylaid by three men and later maltreated by Katipunan police while detained, and that he sustained a stab wound while in custody. He denied knowing the victim and disowned prosecution exhibits. The trial court rejected appellant’s account, credited the eyewitnesses, found qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, and convicted him of murder, imposing the death penalty and awarding P500,000 consequential an...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Was appellant’s guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Were the qualifying and aggravating circumstances (treachery; disregard of sex; intoxication) sufficiently shown to elevate the killing to murder?
  • Was the death penalty p...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.