Case Digest (G.R. No. 253305)
Facts:
On August 26, 1970, the People of the Philippines filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cotabato City an information (docketed as Criminal Case No. 40) for robbery with homicide against Karunsiang Guiapar and Sapal Dadas for acts committed on or about June 3, 1969 in the Municipality of Nuling, Province of Cotabato (treated as the same as Sultan Kudarat). The information alleged that the accused, in conspiracy with Karim Abo who remained at large, with intent of gain and by means of force and violence, took and carried away a revolver (caliber .38) and a wallet containing P70.00, belonging to Patrolman Demetrio Fernandez, without the latter’s consent, and on the occasion of the robbery assaulted, hit, attacked, and stabbed him with a hard wood and a hunting knife, causing several stab wounds that directly caused his death. At arraignment on October 26, 1970, both accused pleaded not guilty. On March 17, 1971, Sapal Dadas, after being re-arraigned, pleaded guilty to robbe...Case Digest (G.R. No. 253305)
Facts:
On August 26, 1970, an information for robbery with homicide was filed in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato City against Karunsiang Guiapar and Sapal Dadas, arising from the June 3, 1969 assault and killing of Patrolman Demetrio Fernandez in the Municipality of Sultan Kudarat. Both accused pleaded not guilty on October 26, 1970.On March 17, 1971, Sapal Dadas changed his plea and pleaded guilty, and with the trial court’s consent he testified for the defense, while the prosecution later presented eyewitness Kasan Lampak and other witnesses. The trial court found Guiapar in conspiracy and sentenced him to death, appreciating treachery and the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and craft; it also imposed indemnities and confiscated Exhibit B. On automatic review, the Court considered the credibility of the witnesses, including Lampak, and reassessed the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, ultimately modifying the penalty.
Issues:
- Whether Guiapar could be convicted despite Sapal Dadas’ testimony being allegedly inconsistent with the trial court’s finding of participation.
- Whether the testimony of Kasan Lampak was an afterthought and whether it was credible.
- Whether evident premeditation and craft were properly appreciated as aggravating circumstances.
- Whether abuse of superior strength could be appreciated, and whether treachery properly qualified the offense.
- Whether the offense was correctly classified as robbery with homicide and whether Guiapar was liable as a principal despite not necessarily inflicting the fatal injury.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)