Case Digest (G.R. No. 128073)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Rene Mamalias y Fiel, G.R. No. 128073, March 27, 2000, Supreme Court First Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Rene Mamalias y Fiel, was charged (Criminal Case Nos. 93-115102–03) with murder for the killing of Francisco De Vera y Del Valle and frustrated murder for the wounding of Alexander Bunag y Figueroa, allegedly committed on August 9, 1992 in Tondo, Manila. The informations alleged that two unidentified men shot De Vera three times (killing him) and wounded Bunag by a stray bullet. Mamalias pleaded not guilty; his alleged co-accused remained at large.
At trial the prosecution presented two witnesses: police investigator SPO3 Manuel Liberato and Dr. Remigio Rivera (who treated Bunag). Liberato produced a Booking Sheet, Arrest Report and a Progress Report indicating that an eyewitness, Epifanio Raymundo, came to the police and identified Mamalias; Liberato also recounted that Mamalias allegedly admitted acting as lookout and receiving payment. Raymundo’s sworn statement was in the police file but Raymundo did not testify in court; other identified witnesses (including Bunag and De Vera’s heirs) could not be located and did not appear.
The defense presented Mamalias as its sole witness, who denied involvement and claimed he was at home at the time of the shooting and that he was arrested without a warrant and without counsel during custodial investigation. On May 15, 1995, the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 33, convicted Mamalias of murder (Article 248, RPC) and frustrated murder (Article 6 in relation to Article 248), imposing reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity for De Vera’s heirs. Counsel erroneously appealed to the Court of Appeals; because the penalty was reclusion perpetua, the complete records were transmitted to this Court on February 24, 1997. Subsequent inquiries revealed that Mamalias had been released or otherwise coul...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court retain jurisdiction to decide the appeal when the accused-appellant has escaped or cannot be located during the pendency of the appeal?
- Was the guilt of the accused-appellant proven beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain his convictions for murder an...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)