Case Digest (G.R. No. L-50300)
Facts:
On March eleven, 1976, in Barrio Magsikap, Rizal, Occidental Mindoro, Romeo Yap and Herminio Amar attacked Felipe Santiago after drinking *tuba* in the evening. The People’s evidence showed that appellants woke and challenged Teofilo Fernandez to come out of his house while both were fully armed, with Romeo carrying a bolo and Herminio later identified as carrying a gun. Appellants then proceeded to the house of Antonio Alonsabe in the same barrio, where Romeo called out and forced Antonio to go with them to Antonio’s father-in-law, Felipe Santiago, after threatening to kill Antonio if he refused. Felipe arrived at about midnight at the balcony near the stairways, and Romeo introduced himself and demanded the truth about something Felipe allegedly did to Romeo’s brother; when Felipe denied any wrongdoing and sensed trouble, he turned toward the door to enter the room, but Romeo hacked him on the back with a bolo while Herminio cocked his gun and aimed it toward Antonio. Felipe w...Case Digest (G.R. No. L-50300)
Facts:
Romeo Yap and Herminio Amar were convicted for murder and the case reached the Supreme Court for automatic review, where the People’s evidence showed that after drinking tuba on March 11, 1976, the accused went to the houses of Teofilo Fernandez and Antonio Alonsabe in Barrio Magsikap, Rizal, Occidental Mindoro, and then proceeded to the house of Felipe Santiago around midnight. Romeo threatened Antonio, forced him to accompany them, and upon Felipe’s appearance on the balcony, hacked Felipe from behind as Felipe was about to enter the room, while Herminio cocked and aimed a gun, preventing succor, after which Felipe was found dead in the house.The accused denied the killing and claimed that their extrajudicial confessions were involuntary and that they were elsewhere (alibi). The trial court nonetheless credited the eyewitnesses Antonio Alonsabe and Eliberda Santiago, upheld conspiracy, appreciated treachery, and also considered evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, nocturnity, and dwelling; it sentenced both to death, though the Supreme Court later modified the penalty.
Issues:
- Whether the trial court erred in giving full weight to the testimonies of the eyewitnesses Antonio Alonsabe and Eliberda Santiago.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the accused’s denials and the defense of alibi.
- Whether the killing was properly qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and aggravated by the attendant circumstances found by the trial court.
- Whether the evidence proved conspiracy between the accused.
- Whether the proper penalty was death or a commuted penalty.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)