Case Digest (G.R. No. 110515)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Valentin Matibag y Alday and Wenceslao Castillo y Abitria, G.R. No. 110515, July 18, 2000, Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.On November 8, 1990, Atty. Rufino Carlos was shot at close range while seated in his car outside his house in Capistrano Subdivision, Lucena City; his wife Mrs. Amparo Carlos, some seven meters away, witnessed the shooting and the victim was later pronounced dead. Police recovered seven empty shells beside the car and two slugs inside; the autopsy showed seven gunshot wounds and death from hypovolemic shock due to injuries to the ascending aorta.
An Information charged Manuel Alcala, Eligio Bautista, Wenceslao Castillo, Dominador Ortiz and Valentin Matibag with murder; Alcala remained at large but later surrendered, Bautista, Castillo, Ortiz and Matibag pleaded not guilty, and Alcala did not testify. The NBI was called in; agents obtained identifications of Matibag from Mrs. Carlos and another witness, Edna Crisologo, and Matibag was later brought to Manila where he gave a narrative implicating himself as the shooter acting on orders of Warden Bautista for a consideration of P50,000 and alleging he had been temporarily released from jail to commit the killing.
On March 18, 1991, NBI ballistician Ireneo Ordiano tested .45 pistols issued to several Quezon Provincial Jail personnel and compared test shells with the seven shells recovered at the scene; he reported that the shells ES‑1 to ES‑7 possessed similar individual characteristic markings with test shells fired from an automatic .45 pistol Serial No. 81811 — the pistol issued to Assistant Provincial Warden Wenceslao Castillo — while the two bullets recovered from the body (EB‑1, EB‑2) showed insufficient individual markings for definitive identification.
At trial Ortiz executed a sworn statement placing Castillo, Bautista, Nipales and himself in a plan to “liquidate” Atty. Carlos, and said the group used Castillo’s firearm and paid Ortiz P5,000; Nipales later died in detention. Matibag and Ortiz later claimed their NBI statements were coerced; Bautista denied participation and denial that Matibag was released; Castillo denied ever relinquishing possession of his pistol; the defense presented a jail guard’s “detail book” and Governor Rodriguez who testified Matibag said he was coerced. The trial court convicted Matibag and Castillo of murder with aggravating circumstances (evident premeditation and, as to Castillo, advantage taken of public position) and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordered each accused to pay P50,000 as death indemnity, acquitted Bautista, Ortiz and Alcala, and credited Matibag for time served.
Matibag and Castillo separately appealed, assigning errors attacking (a) the credibility of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction of accused‑appellants proper given challenges to the credibility of the sole eyewitness and alleged inconsistencies in her testimony?
- Did the evidence support findings of conspiracy and evident premeditation?
- Were the ballistic findings admissible and sufficient to connect Castillo’s issued firearm to the killing?
- Could the trial court properly consider the extrajudicial statement of Edna Crisologo though she was not presented as a witness?
- Were the trial court’s awards of death ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)