Case Digest (G.R. No. 92020)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Eliseo Martinado y Aguillon, Hermogenes Martinado y Aguillon and John Doe, G.R. No. 92020, October 19, 1992, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellants were Eliseo Martinado y Aguillon and Hermogenes Martinado y Aguillon, with a third unapprehended suspect identified as John Doe alias "Rolly".On 17 November 1986 Assistant City Fiscal Arturo A. Rojas filed an information charging the two brothers and John Doe with murder; after a reinvestigation an Amended Information (4 March 1987) and a 2nd Amended Information (10 March 1987) charged Robbery with Homicide under paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused were arraigned on 22 September 1987, pleaded not guilty, and bail was denied. Trial proceeded with prosecution witnesses testifying to seeing the accused at the victim’s sari-sari store, the stabbing of the victim Juan Matias, and the subsequent disappearance of certain personal effects; the medico-legal officer testified as to stab wounds as cause of death.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 124, Kalookan City) rendered judgment on 2 February 1989 (promulgated 22 February 1989) finding both accused guilty of robbery with homicide and sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnity and restitution. Eliseo was absent at promulgation because he had escaped custody on 6 August 1988; a warrant was returned unserved and he was re-arrested only on 10 April 1989 in Leyte. Counsel filed a notice of appeal for both accused on 2 March 1989 and the trial court ordered the records transmitted to the Supreme Court, but the clerk erroneously sent them to the Court of Appeals on 19 February 1990, which forwarded them to the Supreme Court on 22 February 1990. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal in a Resolution dated 12 March 1990.
Before the Court, appellants assigned errors contesting (1) that robbery with homicide was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and (2) that conspiracy with "Rolly" was not established. The Supreme Court first addressed the procedural question whether Eliseo’s appeal could be entertained despite his escape, in light of the Court’s then-recent decision in People v. Mapalao (197 SCRA 79 [1991]) which curtailed the right to appeal of accused who escape and remain at large at judgment promulgation. The Court then reviewed the trial evidence, found the robbery element unsustained for lack of proof of asportation, but upheld the convi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the appeal of accused Eliseo Martinado properly given due course despite his escape prior to promulgation of judgment?
- Was the crime of robbery with homicide proven beyond reasonable doubt against the accused?
- Was conspiracy with the unapprehended "Rolly" established such that the acc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)