Facts:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES charged
Felipe Ulep @ Boy Ulep, together with William Ancheta, Edgardo Liling Areola, Antos Dacanay, Lito dela Cruz and Ely Calacala, in an Information dated November 2, 1987 with robbery with multiple homicide and frustrated murder for acts alleged to have occurred on March 20, 1987 at Manggahan, Bicos, Rizal, Nueva Ecija; appellant was arrested on January 5, 1990, pleaded not guilty at arraignment on January 25, 1990, and was granted a separate trial before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 30. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Alfredo Roca and his daughter Virgilita Roca-Laureaga, and medical witness Dr. Aurora Belsa, who testified that between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. the assailants arrived in an owner-type jeep with trailer, that Antos Dacanay, Edgardo Areola and William Ancheta shot Marjun Roca who fell and was again fired upon, that appellant and others fired upon Alfredo’s hut, that Benita Avendano-Roca and Febe Roca died of fatal gunshot wounds, and that the assailants thereafter loaded thirty-five sacks of palay from Alfredo’s farm onto the trailer and left; the defense presented appellant’s testimony that he was working in a neighboring farm and saw ten strangers and a grenade incident but did not see his co-accused or hear gunfire, and the testimony of neighbor Federico Catalan who partially corroborated appellant’s account but admitted hearing a gunshot at about 1:00 p.m.; on October 16, 1998 the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide and sentenced him to
reclusion perpetua with awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, burial expenses and reparation for the stolen palay, and appellant timely appealed from that decision assigning errors as to the admission of prosecution testimony without formal offer under
Rule 132, Section 34 and
Section 35, the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence, and the trial court’s alleged disregard of defense evidence.
Issues:
Did the trial court err in admitting the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite the prosecution’s failure to make a formal offer as required by
Rule 132, Section 34 and
Section 35? Was the guilt of appellant for
robbery with homicide proven beyond reasonable doubt? Did the trial court err in disregarding the evidence adduced by the defense, including appellant’s alibi?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: