Case Digest (G.R. No. 63396)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Arnulfo Liston alias "Dodong" and Henry "Boy" Bebanco, G.R. No. 63396, November 15, 1989, Supreme Court First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.On the evening of February 8, 1982, at about 8:00 p.m., Cloteldo Batidor was eating with his family in his house in San Isidro, San Francisco, Cebu, when two armed men forcibly entered. According to testimony, one intruder shouted "This is a robbery!" and the other stayed behind; the intruder who confronted Cloteldo was later identified as Arnulfo Liston and his companion as Henry Bebanco. Liston allegedly shot Cloteldo point-blank in the chest; the victim died instantly. The assailants fled after one of them kicked a kerosene lamp on the floor.
The killing was reported that night; Lorenza Batidor (the victim’s wife) and her son Samuel identified Liston and Bebanco as the intruders. The two were arrested the following morning before they could board a pump boat to Cebu City and were charged with murder. At trial, the prosecution presented the identifications of Lorenza and Samuel, the medico-legal description of the wound by Dr. Jose O. Bardenas, and investigative testimony by P/Sgt. Damiano L. Rocacurva.
The accused interposed an alibi defense, claiming they spent the evening at Bebanco’s house and planned an early-morning trip to Cebu City; three defense witnesses offered limited corroboration. Liston also claimed he had demanded a paraffin test at arrest but none was performed. The Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu City (Judge Regino Hermosisima, Jr.) found the identifications credible, ruled that the killing was murder attended by aggravating circumstances (dwelling, nighttime, abuse of superior strength, disregard for age, and use of an unlicensed firearm), convicted both accused and sentenced them to death with accessory penalties, and ordered indemnity to the heirs.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court reviewed credibility findings, the presence and legal effect of aggravating circumstances (including treachery/alevosia), the absence of proof of an unlicensed firearm, and the impact of the Constitution’s ban on the death penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the judgment as discussed below.
Issues:
- Was the conviction for murder supported by sufficient and credible evidence, particularly the eyewitness identifications?
- Was the killing qualified as murder by treachery (alevosia) and were the alleged aggravating circumstances (dwelling, nighttime, abuse of superior strength, disregard of respect due to age, use of an unlicensed firearm) proven?
- Should the death sentences be imposed, or must they be reduced in view of constitutional prohibition and applicable precedent?
- Are the civil liabilities and indemnities imposed appropriate?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)