Case Digest (G.R. No. 22679)
Facts:
People of the Philippine Islands v. Domingo Olfindo et al., G.R. No. 22679, December 10, 1924, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ostrand, J., writing for the Court.The criminal information charged the defendants with the killing of Maria Magdalena and Aproniano de la Cruz in Viga, Catanduanes, on or about July 10, 1923, alleging murder by choking and drowning and by tying a rope around the neck and drowning. The prosecution framed the case as two killings arising from a common meeting and plan.
At trial the court found Gregorio Tongo, Micael Odi and Domingo Olfindo guilty as principals of the murder of Maria Magdalena and of the homicide of Aproniano de la Cruz; the court also found Domingo Olfindo guilty as an accomplice in the murder of Maria Magdalena. The principals were sentenced to suffer cadena perpetua and the accomplice to fourteen years, eight months and one day of cadena temporal, with accessory penalties and an indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of each deceased.
After judgment the convicted parties filed a motion for a new trial based on an affidavit in which the prosecution’s principal witness, Ignacio Ucero, retracted his courtroom testimony and swore he knew nothing of the events. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial. The defendants appealed from both the conviction and the denial of the motion.
The facts proved at trial (repeated confessions by the accused and witness testimony) showed that during funeral observances for a child of Clemente Odi, several persons gathered, drank tuba, and agreed to kill an alleged witch, Maria Magdalena, and her son Aproniano. Two groups were formed: one (Tongo and Micael Odi among them) killed Aproniano by beating, tying a rope around his neck, drowning him and burying the body; the other group (including Domingo Olfindo and others) initially desisted but later Tongo and Micael Odi, after arranging to have Maria come to Domingo Olfindo’s house, seized her an...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial based on the recantation by the principal witness, Ignacio Ucero?
- Were the two killings one single offense for sentencing purposes, or were they separate crimes requiring se...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)