Case Digest (G.R. No. 152715)
Facts:
Rogelio Soplente, jointly charged with his cousin Nicanor Soplente, appealed his conviction for homicide arising from the stabbing death of Joel Notarte on May 4, 1988 in Lagao, General Santos City; both were originally charged also with frustrated homicide for the wounding of Eduardo Leyson. The RTC acquitted Rogelio of frustrated homicide but convicted him of homicide while acquitting Nicanor and holding both jointly liable for civil indemnities; the CA affirmed, and Rogelio petitioned to this Court claiming self-defense.Issues:
- Did the evidence establish that Rogelio acted in self-defense in killing Notarte?
- May the appellate courts disturb the factual findings of the trial court given alleged overlooked material facts and witness contradictions?
Ruling:
The Court REVERSED the CA and RTC findings and ACQUITTED Rogelio Soplente of the crime charged, ordering his immediat Case Digest (G.R. No. 152715)
Facts:
- Background of the prosecution and appeal
- Rogelio Soplente (Petitioner) and his first cousin Nicanor Soplente were jointly charged in two informations arising from events on the night of May 3 to early morning of May 4, 1988, at Purok Sta. Cruz, San Pedro St., Lagao, General Santos City.
- Criminal Case No. 5093 charged them with frustrated homicide for stabbing Eduardo Leyson VI (Leyson) at about 12:30 a.m., May 4, 1988, with a knife; Criminal Case No. 5094 charged them with homicide for stabbing Joel Notarte (Notarte) resulting in his death at the same time and place.
- The prosecution presented primarily the testimonies of Gracidio Gulle, Renato Besinga, and Leyson as witnesses to the events.
- Prosecution factual narrative
- A group including Leyson, Notarte, Besinga, Gulle and others were drinking at Diola’s store and watching an amateur singing contest on May 3, 1988.
- During the contest, tension arose when Rogelio and Nicanor allegedly asked some members of the group about a confrontation; Penequito, a policeman, intervened and admonished the Soplente cousins not to cause trouble.
- Around 12:30 a.m., as some dispersed, a commotion occurred when the Soplente cousins passed by the group; witnesses testified to sudden stabbings of Leyson and Notarte.
- Gulle testified he saw Notarte fall and Leyson wounded and chasing Rogelio, but he did not see the actual stabbing.
- Besinga testified he saw Rogelio stab Leyson and saw Nicanor stab Notarte from a distance of about thirty meters.
- Leyson testified he was taken by surprise and was stabbed by Rogelio while standing with arms akimbo; he drew a gun and fired a shot in the air; he pointed out that Nicanor stabbed Notarte.
- Defense factual narrative
- Rogelio and Nicanor testified they initially were watching the singing contest and were provoked earlier by some persons who tapped Nicanor’s shoulder and provoked him.
- Later, as Rogelio and Bukay sought Bukay’s children, Rogelio found himself suddenly surrounded by about ten persons led by Leyson; Leyson drew a revolver and fired; Rogelio parried the gun, which discharged.
- Rogelio admitted stabbing Leyson and Notarte but asserted he acted in self-defense, claiming Leyson fired at him, he was kicked by Notarte, and that the attackers were armed with canes and a lead pipe.
- Rogelio surrendered voluntarily before dawn and turned over the knife used; Nicanor was later picked up by police.
- Trial court disposition and monetary awards
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, acquitted Nicanor for lack of participation and conspiracy.
- The RTC acquitted Rogelio in Criminal Case No. 5093 (frustrated homicide as to Leyson) but convicted him of homicide in Criminal Case No. 5094 (death of Notarte).
- The RTC found mi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Principal legal questions presented
- Whether self-defense was validly established by Rogelio Soplente with respect to the killing of Joel Notarte.
- Whether the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and absence of sufficient provocation were present.
- Ancillary issues bearing on the principal question
- Whether the trial court’s and the Court of Appeals’ factual findings on witness credibility and the sequence of events should be disturbed.
- Whether contradictions or inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ tes...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)