Case Digest (G.R. No. 130378)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Arnel Mataro y Elizaga and Nick Perucho y Singson, G.R. No. 130378, March 08, 2001, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.The criminal case arose from two informations filed for murder: Crim. Case No. Q-93-41704 against Arnel Mataro, and Crim. Case No. Q-93-48440 against Nick Perucho. The informations charged that on October 23, 1992, in Quezon City the accused, conspiring together, shot and killed SPO1 Enrique Castillo, Jr. with treachery, superior strength and evident premeditation. The two informations were later consolidated after motions by the complainant and the prosecutor. Both accused pleaded not guilty and were tried in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 88.
At trial the prosecution presented two eyewitnesses, Victor Nilo Fernandez and Reden Guzman, who testified that at about 4:00–4:15 P.M. on October 23, 1992 they saw Castillo stop a Toyota Corona, converse with the occupants, and then the occupants (identified as Mataro and Perucho) alight, return with firearms and shoot Castillo. The NBI medico-legal officer, Dr. Juan Zaldariaga, testified to three gunshot wounds and opined as to positioning when some wounds were inflicted. The investigating officer testified that Fernandez identified both accused in line-ups at Camp Crame and Muntinlupa jail.
The defense offered alibi witnesses and testimony: a vulcanizing-shop proprietor and Amy Pangilinan said they were with Mataro in Antipolo in the afternoon of October 23; Arturo dela Cruz testified Perucho was in Aklan that day. Both accused denied participation. On January 29, 1997, the RTC convicted both appellants of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordered them to indemnify the heirs P725,000.00 as actual damages and P1,000,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay costs.
The accused appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellants challenged (a) that they were convicted despite reasonable doubt and (b) application of the "equipoise rule." They further attacked credibility of the eyewitnesses, pointed to an unproduced declarant (Ebalde) who allegedly described a different vehicle, inconsistent...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in convicting appellants when their guilt was allegedly not proven beyond reasonable doubt or was the equipoise rule applicable?
- Was the killing properly qualified as murder by reason of treachery?
- Were the awards of actual, moral and other damages by the trial court appropriate in amount ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)