Case Digest (G.R. No. 129051)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Romeo Molina y Flores, G.R. No. 129051, July 28, 1999, the Supreme Court En Banc, Romero, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Romeo Molina y Flores, was charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, for the killing of Domingo Flores allegedly committed on July 14, 1995 in Barangay D'Alarcio, Laoac, Pangasinan. On arraignment Molina pleaded not guilty. After trial, Branch 45, Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta, Pangasinan (Presiding Judge Joven F. Costales) found Molina guilty of murder and imposed the death penalty under RA 7659, ordering execution pursuant to Republic Act No. 8177 (Lethal Injection Law) and awarding indemnity and damages to the heirs.
The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony of the victim’s daughter, Melanie, who testified she saw Molina enter the house at night, strike her sleeping father with a stone, then stab him in the neck and eyebrow; the victim allegedly identified Molina as his attacker before dying. Post-mortem findings showed skull fractures and a stab wound producing fatal intracranial bleeding and blood loss. The defense interposed alibi: Molina claimed he had been beaten earlier that day by persons including the victim, sought treatment at Don Amadeo Perez, Sr. Memorial Hospital, remained in the hospital waiting area until about 11:00 p.m., and later stayed at the house of a nursing attendant, Alejandro Duyag. Defense witnesses (Dr. Noel Obedoza and Duyag) and police witnesses were presented to corroborate aspects of Molina’s account and to point out inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ statements.
Because the trial court imposed death, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The Supreme Court reviewed the record, considered the credibility of the dying declaration and eyewitness identification, examined alleged discrepancies between affidavits and testimony, evaluated the alibi defense, and assessed attendant circumstances (treachery and dwelling) and a claimed mitigating circumstanc...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the evidence (eyewitness identification and the victim’s dying declaration) established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the killing was attended by the aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling.
- Whether the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense exists and, if so, whether it sufficiently offsets the aggravating circumstance to warrant reduction of the pena...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)