A.M. No. P-00-1359 - Casenares vs. Almeida, Jr.

The accused-appellant, Cesar Marcos y Mon, was charged with the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The offense occurred on August 19, 1996, in Brgy. Bayambang, Infanta, Pangasinan, where Cesar allegedly attacked his elder brother, Virgilio Marcos y Mon, with a bolo.
The information alleged that the killing was committed with treachery and evident premeditation, as evidenced by multiple hacking wounds inflicted in a manner that deprived the victim of any opportunity for self-defense.

Around 12:00 noon, Fernando Marcos, Jr., an eyewitness, observed the events near the family residence.
Virgilio was seen approaching the artesian well at the back of the house when Cesar emerged from the kitchen door, armed with a bolo.
Without warning, Cesar attacked Virgilio from behind, striking him first on the nape of the neck and then on the right temporal region.

Fernando’s account noted Cesar’s nonchalant remark, “You go away if you do not want to get involved,” when questioned.
Cesar further taunted by stating, “Your life is not enough to pay the money you squandered,” before fleeing to avoid further involvement.
Upon arrival of assistance led by Kagawad Solomon del Fierro and Chief Catalino Custodio, Virgilio was found lying near the artesian well with severe bleeding from multiple injuries.

After the arrival of the police, Cesar surrendered his bolo to SPO1 Oscar Lagasca and was taken into custody along with Virgilio’s body.
Witnesses, including Fernando and Solomon, accompanied Cesar during his transport to the police station.

Dr. Genaro Merino conducted the autopsy on Virgilio and determined that death was due to hemorrhage from multiple hacking wounds.
The pattern of injuries suggested that the strikes were inflicted predominantly on the right side, lending credence to the prosecution’s claim of treachery.

Cesar claimed that he was ambushed by Virgilio near the artesian well, leading to a struggle during which Virgilio accidentally injured himself when he fell.
He recounted that after the altercation, he returned indoors and remained seated until the police arrived, asserting that his accompanying the police was at their request.

At trial, Cesar pleaded not guilty despite overwhelming eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence linking him to the crime.
The Regional Trial Court of Burgos, Pangasinan, Branch 70, rendered a judgment on January 7, 1998:

Finding Cesar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
Imposing the death penalty, along with awarding damages—a sum for actual damages and moral damages to the victim’s heirs.

Testimonies from prosecution witnesses emphasized the sudden, premeditated attack that left Virgilio defenseless.
Although the charge included evident premeditation, the prosecution acknowledged that this aggravating circumstance was not conclusively proven.
Additional documentation included a certification by the Philippine National Police stating that Cesar voluntarily surrendered with the weapon used.

Whether the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty despite the fact that one aggravating circumstance (evident premeditation) was not proven.
Whether the presence of treachery, as evidenced by the manner of the attack, alone was sufficient to warrant a death sentence.

Whether the blood relationship between Cesar and Virgilio (brotherhood) should be considered as an aggravating circumstance affecting the penalty.
Determining if such relationship, as an aggravating factor, could justify the imposition of a harsher penalty even when one of the originally alleged aggravating circumstances remains unproven.

Whether the voluntary surrender by Cesar, as supported by police certification and his own testimony, qualifies as a mitigating circumstance.
How the mitigating effect of his surrender should offset the aggravating factors, particularly the aggravation due to relationship.

Whether the award of P51,000.00 as actual damages was correctly supported by proof, given the lack of receipts substantiating the expenses claimed.
How the court should adjust the quantum of actual damages based on the requirement that such expenses be corroborated by documentary evidence.