Case Digest (G.R. No. 72975)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Juanito Jutie, G.R. No. 72975, March 31, 1989, First Division, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Juanito Jutie, who was tried jointly in the information with co-accused Pedro Aboy y Paris (Aboy), although Aboy was tried separately.On December 13, 1982, Elpidio Nepuscua was shot dead in Barangay Longos, Calasiao, Pangasinan. Aboy was arrested the next day, arraigned, tried separately, convicted of murder on August 15, 1983, and his conviction became final (he did not appeal). Jutie remained at large until his arrest on October 16, 1983. He pleaded not guilty and was tried by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Lingayen, Pangasinan.
At trial, prosecution eyewitness Roberto Joves, then 14 years old, testified that he and his brother saw Aboy and Jutie chasing Nepuscua; Aboy shot with a .30 carbine, then Jutie fired with a short firearm. The police found three empty .30-caliber shells at the scene. Dr. Juan T. Zabala, municipal health officer, performed the autopsy and described seven gunshot wounds of varying sizes and trajectories, opining they were caused by two different kinds of firearms and that two wounds were fatal. Jutie denied participation, claiming he only ran after Aboy and later hid at a relative’s house out of fear.
The trial court, on September 24, 1985, convicted Jutie of murder with treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered joint indemnity with Aboy (P12,000 moral; P2,000 actual), and costs. Jutie appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors challenging the suff...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to convict appellant Juanito Jutie of murder beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the trial court err in crediting the testimony of prosecution witness Roberto Joves despite alleged contradictions between his earlier statements and his in-court testimony?
- Was the trial court correct in giving weight to Dr. Juan T. Zabala’s testimony that two different firearms were used, notwithstanding that he was not a ballistics e...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)