Case Digest (G.R. No. 220977)
Facts:
PO1 Celso Tabobo III y Ebid v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220977, June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.On January 19, 2005, Manuel Zachary Escudero y Araneta was robbed and shot dead in Manila; two suspects were arrested and detained at Police Station 9 (PS‑9). The following day, while PO2 Jesus De Leon was interviewing one detainee, Victor Ramon Martin y Ong, Martin allegedly grabbed De Leon's service firearm; a scuffle ensued and the weapon discharged. Police Officer 1 Celso Tabobo III (petitioner), who heard the shot, went to the scene and fired two shots, one striking Martin in the chest; Martin later died at the hospital.
Petitioner was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 41. At trial the prosecution presented, among others, the crime‑scene physician and relied on a Crime Report prepared by SPO2 Edmundo C. Cabal. The defense intended to call PO2 De Leon as its key witness, but De Leon’s direct testimony was not completed and, because petitioner’s counsel repeatedly failed to appear at numerous hearings, the RTC struck off De Leon’s initial testimony and deemed the presentation of the defense’s evidence waived. The RTC found that petitioner failed to prove the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger and convicted him of homicide in a Decision dated May 15, 2013, sentencing him to reclusion temporal.
Petitioner posted cash bail and appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated January 23, 2015, the CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term and awarded P50,000 civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs; its Resolution of October 12, 2015 denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court, arguing primarily that he was denied due process because of his c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petitioner denied due process such that his conviction should be set aside and the case remanded for a new trial because of his counsel’s gross negligence in failing to present crucial defense evidence?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming petitioner’s conviction for homicide despite documentary statements (affidavits/ sworn statements and the Crime Report) suggesting that petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)