Case Digest (G.R. No. 132392)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Cesar Marcos y Mon, G.R. No. 132392, January 18, 2001, the Supreme Court En Banc, Puno, J., writing for the Court.In an Information dated October 11, 1996, Cesar Marcos y Mon (the accused-appellant) was charged with the crime of murder for allegedly hacking his elder brother Virgilio Marcos to death with a bolo on or about August 19, 1996 in Brgy. Bayambang, Infanta, Pangasinan. At arraignment Cesar pleaded not guilty and trial followed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Burgos, Pangasinan, Branch 70.
The prosecution’s case was built on eyewitness testimony and medico-legal evidence. Fernando Marcos, Jr., an eyewitness, testified that he saw Cesar suddenly emerge with a bolo and hack Virgilio from behind while Virgilio was stooping at the artesian well; Cesar allegedly hacked the fallen victim again and then sat inside the house with a bloodied bolo on the table until police arrived. SPO1 Oscar Lagasca testified the bolo was surrendered; Dr. Genaro Merino performed the post-mortem, concluding death resulted from hemorrhage due to multiple hacking wounds consistent with a bolo and indicating wounds situated so as to support an attack from behind.
Cesar presented a contrary account: he claimed Virgilio lunged at him with a bolo, they grappled, and Virgilio fell and was fatally wounded by the bolo; he said he remained inside until the police asked him to accompany them to the station. A PNP certification (Exhibit B) indicated Cesar voluntarily surrendered with the weapon.
On January 7, 1998 the RTC found Cesar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code and imposed the death pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the imposition of the death penalty correct, considering the presence of treachery, the unproven allegation of evident premeditation, the aggravating circumstance of relationship, and the claimed mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender?
- Were the awards of actual, moral damages and civil indemnity properly quan...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)