Case Digest (G.R. No. 132287)
Facts:
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Agapito Listerio y Prado and Samson dela Torre y Esquela (G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000), the accused Agapito Listerio y Prado, along with co-accused Samson dela Torre y Esquela, were charged with murder and frustrated murder. The events took place on August 11, 1991, in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, when the accused allegedly attacked Jeonito Araque y Daniel and his brother Marlon Araque y Daniel. The prosecution alleged that both accused, along with other individuals who escaped, conspired to attack the Araque brothers armed with bladed weapons and lead pipes. During this assault, Jeonito was fatally wounded, while Marlon sustained serious injuries.
In Criminal Case No. 91-5842, the amended Information for Murder stated that the accused attacked Jeonito Araque from behind, resulting in fatal wounds that caused his death. Criminal Case No. 91-5843 for Frustrated Homicide charged them with inflicting serious injuries on Marlon Araque, wh
Case Digest (G.R. No. 132287)
Facts:
- Incidents and Charges
- Two separate offenses were charged against the accused and his co-conspirators in the Municipality of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.
- Criminal Case No. 91-5842 charged the accused with Murder for the killing of Jeonito Araque, and Criminal Case No. 91-5843 charged him with Frustrated Homicide for the attempted killing of Marlon Araque.
- Description of the Crimes
- In Criminal Case No. 91-5842 for Murder:
- On or about August 11, 1991, the accused and his cohorts, armed with bladed weapons and GI lead pipes, ambushed and attacked Jeonito Araque.
- They struck Jeonito with deliberate treachery, using superior strength and exhibiting evident premeditation, inflicting fatal stab wounds on his back.
- In Criminal Case No. 91-5843 for Frustrated Homicide:
- On or about May 14, 1991, the accused and his associates similarly attacked Marlon Araque with stab and blunt force—using a knife and lead pipe—to inflict serious wounds.
- Although Marlon sustained injuries that would ordinarily produce death, timely medical intervention prevented his death, rendering the crime as frustrated rather than consummated homicide.
- Evidence and Witness Testimony
- The cornerstone of the prosecution’s case was the eyewitness testimony of Marlon Araque, who:
- Recalled details of the ambush on himself and his deceased brother.
- Identified the assailants in court, pointing out Agapito Listerio, Samson dela Torre, George dela Torre, and others.
- Autopsy findings corroborated the fatal nature of the wounds:
- Jeonito Araque suffered three stab wounds, one of which involved penetration of a vital organ and major blood vessel.
- Marlon Araque’s injuries included lacerations on the head, forearm, and shoulder—with the nature of the wounds indicating the use of both a knife and a blunt instrument.
- Accused-Appellant’s Version and Defense
- The accused, Agapito Listerio, offered an alibi, claiming that:
- He was at his residence or engaged in unrelated activities at the time of the incident.
- He was not present at the scene when the attack occurred.
- His defense further contested:
- The sufficiency of the witness testimony, arguing that it did not clearly and positively implicate him.
- The prosecution’s failure to establish direct evidence of conspiracy, treachery, and aggravating circumstances necessary to support the charges.
- Trial Court and Appellate Proceedings
- The trial court rendered judgment against only Agapito Listerio as his co-accused, Samson dela Torre, evaded trial by escape during the presentation of prosecution evidence.
- In its decision, the trial court found the eyewitness testimony to be candid and credible, and based on the totality of evidence, it convicted the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- The judgment also included:
- Sentencing for murder (reclusion perpetua) and for the frustrated homicide (an indeterminate penalty ranging from six years of prision correccional to ten years and one day of prision mayor).
- Awards of civil indemnities, including actual, moral, and exemplary damages for the death and injuries of the victims—with certain modifications on appeal.
Issues:
- Sufficiency of the Prosecution’s Evidence
- Did the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of the sole eyewitness, establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Was the evidence presented sufficient to demonstrate a clear and positive identification of the accused as one of the assailants?
- Establishment of Conspiracy and Aggravating Circumstances
- Was there adequate proof of an agreement or common design among the accused to commit the quoted crimes?
- Could the acts of the accused be inferred as a coordinated effort (conspiracy) despite the absence of direct agreement evidence?
- Was the element of treachery, which denotes the use of means to ensure the attack’s execution without risk to the perpetrators, properly established?
- Nature of the Offense: Attempted versus Frustrated Felony
- Did the prosecution successfully demonstrate that the crime against Marlon Araque was a frustrated felony (with the subjective phase passed) rather than an attempted homicide?
- Was the intervention of external factors (timely medical attention) sufficient to classify the crime as frustrated?
- Adequacy of the Defendant’s Alibi
- Was the alibi provided by the accused credible and substantial enough to exclude his presence at the scene of the crime?
- How should the reliability of the alibi be weighed against the direct eyewitness identification?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)