G.R. No. 177667 - Francisco vs. Spouses Gonzales

On January 29, 2000, in Quezon City, Philippines, the accused—Roger Perez and Danilo Perez—were charged with the murder of Fulgencio Maglente Cuysona.
The incident involved a coordinated assault in which the accused, in complicity with an unidentified man, attacked Fulgencio using a bladed weapon and an icepick, inflicting fatal wounds.
It was alleged that the killing was committed with evident premeditation and treachery, taking advantage of superior strength and using methods that left the victim at an immediate disadvantage.

Eyewitness Ariel Baque testified that while at his residence on 147 Lilac Street, Fairview, Quezon City, he observed Fulgencio standing near a store when he saw Danilo Perez stab Fulgencio at the back, and subsequently Roger Perez stab him in the chest.
Rolando Gangca, another eyewitness and resident of the same street, corroborated that he witnessed a commotion and saw three persons—two actively stabbing the victim while a third restrained him.
Additional witness Araceli Cuysona, the victim’s widow, testified regarding the victim’s death by stabbing and provided details on incurred hospitalization and funeral expenses.
The coordinated testimonies consistently pointed to the role of both accused in the fatal assault, with each playing specific parts in the stabbing.

The defense presented testimony from SPO1 Resty San Pedro of the PNP, who on November 4, 2000, documented the voluntary surrender of both accused at Fairview Police Station 5.
During the investigation, appellant Danilo Perez admitted in an interview—later transcribed into a typewritten confession—that he had stabbed Fulgencio, a confession later marked and signed by him in the presence of counsel.
Appellant Roger Perez testified regarding his whereabouts on the night of the incident, claiming to have been at home with his wife and later asserting that he was unaware of the crime until after being apprehended.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 81, in a decision dated February 11, 2005, found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering payment of indemnity, actual, and moral damages to the victim’s heirs.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated May 31, 2007, affirmed the RTC’s conviction with modification by awarding an additional amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Appellants subsequently filed an appeal challenging several evidentiary and factual issues, including claims regarding the weakness of prosecution evidence, failure to establish corpus delicti, conspiracy, and the propriety of convicting Danilo Perez of murder instead of homicide.

The prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, particularly regarding Roger Perez.
The corpus delicti, defined as the fact of death and the criminal act of stabbing, was not conclusively established due to the absence of the autopsy report and direct medico-legal testimony.
Conspiracy and motive were not proven beyond reasonable doubt against Roger Perez.
The extrajudicial confession of Danilo Perez, though admitted and reiterated in court, should have been converted into a judicial confession but did not exonerate his co-accused.
Danilo Perez should be convicted of homicide only, in light of the defense's contention regarding his sole responsibility and the alleged insufficiencies in the evidence.

The eyewitness testimonies were clear, consistent, and corroborated each other.
The physical evidence and verbal confessions, including the admission by Danilo Perez, were sufficient to establish both the occurrence of the crime and the participation of each accused.
The absence of a direct autopsy testimony did not preclude the establishment of the corpus delicti, as the death was clearly demonstrated by other credible evidence.

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of appellant Roger Perez beyond reasonable doubt.

The central contention revolved around the sufficiency and credibility of the eyewitness testimonies and other evidentiary matters to conclusively identify Roger Perez as an active participant in the stabbing.
The defense argued that conflicting accounts, including alibi testimonies and weaknesses in the prosecution’s documentary evidence (e.g., the lack of a medico-legal autopsy report), should raise reasonable doubt regarding his involvement.

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Danilo Perez of murder instead of the lesser offense of homicide.

The defense stressed that the evidence showed Danilo Perez as the sole participant in the act of stabbing, suggesting that a conviction for homicide would have been more appropriate.
The issue extended to whether the extra judicial confession should have been treated as a judicial confession and its impact on the degree of the offense charged under the applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code.