Case Digest (G.R. No. 127663)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Rolando Valdez, G.R. No. 127663, March 11, 1999, the Supreme Court En Banc, Melo, J., writing for the Court. Accused-appellant Rolando Valdez was charged in two informations arising from a September 17, 1995 shooting at Sitio Cabaoangan, Barangay Nalsian, Manaoag, Pangasinan. In Criminal Case No. U-8747 the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor charged Valdez, together with Bernardo Castro and one John Doe, with the complex crime of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated Murder (Article 248 in relation to Article 48 and Article 6, Revised Penal Code). In Criminal Case No. U-8749 he was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions (Presidential Decree No. 1866).The prosecution adduced eyewitness and victim testimony (notably William Montano and Randy Tibule) that, at about 8:00–8:30 p.m., the victims were riding a motorized tricycle to a party when armed men—including the accused—flagged them down and opened fire. Four persons (Ramon Garcia, Jr., Jean Marie Garcia, Willy Acosta and Sandra Montano) died from gunshot wounds; two (William Montano and Randy Tibule) were seriously wounded but survived due to timely medical care. Investigative statements initially named Bernardo Castro and two unidentified companions; subsequent statements, trial testimony, and a joint police affidavit (Exhibit 7) variously referred to Castro and other assailants. Some prosecution witnesses later recanted or disclaimed earlier identifications as to Castro.
Branch 45, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Urdaneta, Pangasinan convicted Valdez on October 24, 1996 of the complex crime of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated Murder and sentenced him to death (under RA 7659 and other applicable laws) and separately convicted him of illegal possession of firearm under PD 1866 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua; the trial court also awarded civil indemnities and damages to victims/heirs. Valdez sought relief before the Supreme Court to reverse his convictions and assignments of error challenged witness inconsistencies, recantations, identity, motive, alleged suppression of police testimony, and the trial court’s treatment of the PD 1866 count. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and rendered the decision under review (modifying penalties and dismissing the PD 1866 case).
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in accrediting eyewitness identification and convicting the accused despite alleged discrepancies between investigative affidavits and in-court testimony and alleged recantations?
- Did the trial court err in finding the presence of aggravating circumstances (evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength) and treachery?
- Whether the facts support conviction for a complex crime under Article 48 (one act constituting two or more felonies) or for separate counts of murder and frustrated murder?
- Whether Valdez could be separately convicted of illegal possession of firearm under PD 1866 after the enactment of Republic Act No. 8294.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)