Case Digest (G.R. No. 134757-58)
Facts:
In People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Langit, G.R. Nos. 134757-58, August 04, 2000, the Supreme Court First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court, resolved issues arising from separate but related criminal prosecutions stemming from the killing of Abelardo Velasquez.The People filed two Informations in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Dagupan City: (1) Criminal Case No. CR-95-01109-D (filed 26 September 1995) charging Reynaldo Langit with illegal possession of a .38 caliber handgun under P.D. No. 1866; and (2) Criminal Case No. CR-95-01115-D (filed 2 October 1995) charging Langit, Diong Docusin, and Patricio Clauna with murder arising from the same July 23, 1995 incident. Docusin was arrested on 26 October 1995, arraigned on 7 March 1996, and after trial was acquitted by Judge Victor Llamas, Jr. on 29 April 1996. Clauna was arrested on 15 May 1996 and likewise acquitted by Judge Llamas (decision dated 9 August 1996). The acquittals in the co-accused trials included civil indemnity findings against the acquitted defendants.
Langit later surrendered, was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and his two cases were consolidated for joint hearings before the RTC (later presided by Judge Erna Falloran Aliposa). The prosecution presented witnesses including eyewitness Prudencio Serote, the victim’s wife Gemma Velasquez, police witnesses (SPO3 Romeo de Guzman, PO2 Francisco Castillo), and an autopsy report by Dr. Amelyn U. Ramos (who did not testify at Langit’s trial due to pregnancy). The prosecution also manifested adoption of evidence introduced in the trials of Docusin and Clauna. The defense put forward Langit’s alibi and witnesses Antonio Ulanday and Trinidad Serote.
On 1 April 1998 the RTC (Judge Aliposa) convicted Langit of aggravated illegal possession of firearm (P.D. 1866) and murder (Art. 248, RPC, as amended by R.A. 7659), imposing reclusion perpetua on each count and awarding civil damages. Langit appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging (inter alia) the admissibility/probative value of a bullet (slug) recovered from the victim, the trial court’s crediting of...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- In separate trials of co-accused for the same incident, is the factual appreciation and findings of one judge who acquitted some accused binding on a succeeding judge who tries another accused?
- Was the slug (bullet) recovered from the victim’s brain inadmissible or so tainted by improper handling that it should have been excluded as evidence?
- Did the evidence establish the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength to sustain a conviction for murder?
- In light of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 8294 (amending P.D. No. 1866), what is the pr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)