Case Summary (G.R. No. 167333)
Factual Background
During a school alumni dance on June 12, 1993 at Bulabog Elementary School in Sorsogon, prosecution witnesses Philip de Ramon and Mario Lasala, together with the victim Erwin de Ramon, observed the petitioner and one Herman Licup pass by; the petitioner allegedly suddenly stabbed Erwin below the navel with a machete, then left, while Licup also struck but missed; Erwin pulled the weapon from his body, inflicted a wound on Licup, and later succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. Post-mortem examiner Dr. Myrna Listanco found two stab wounds, one chest and one abdominal, and opined that one or two assailants probably inflicted the injuries with distinct weapons, a sharp instrument for the chest wound and a bladed instrument for the abdominal wound.
Defense and Evidentiary Record
The petitioner maintained an alibi and denial, testifying that he remained in the school compound with his wife and child, left during a disturbance, and learned of the stabbing en route home from a barangay tanod; he alleged ill will by Philip and Lasala. He presented witnesses Angeles Jasareno and Arnulfo Palencia who testified that the petitioner and his family stayed in the dance hall and went home together, rendering it impossible for him to have committed the stabbing. The record also contains, according to the petitioner, a res gestae declaration by Licup admitting stabbing the victim, which the petitioner later characterized as newly-discovered evidence.
RTC Proceedings and Verdict
On February 10, 2003, the Regional Trial Court found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide under Article 249, Revised Penal Code, applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment from ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; co-accused Herman Licup was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence and his bond was cancelled and discharged.
Court of Appeals Decision
The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in a decision promulgated October 22, 2004, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC conviction and sentence. The CA ordered costs against the appellant and otherwise affirmed the RTC's findings.
Issues Presented on Review
The petitioner sought review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court, advancing two principal contentions: that the CA erred in affirming conviction despite Licup's immediate admission after the incident that he had stabbed the victim; and that Licup's res gestae statement constituted newly-discovered evidence creating reasonable doubt as to the petitioner’s guilt. The State contended that the petition raised factual questions unsuitable for Rule 45 review and that the evidence the petitioner sought to introduce was not newly-discovered under the applicable standards.
Scope of Review and Preliminary Legal Principle
The Court reaffirmed that under Section 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari raises only questions of law; questions of fact are ordinarily not cognizable because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The Court reiterated the well-established exceptions permitting appellate reexamination of factual findings, including when findings rest on speculation, are manifestly mistaken, display grave abuse of discretion, or where the CA manifestly overlooked undisputed relevant facts, among other narrowly defined circumstances. The Court found none of those exceptions present here and therefore declined to disturb the unanimous factual findings of the RTC and the CA.
Newly-Discovered Evidence Doctrine and Application
The Court explained that the doctrine of newly-discovered evidence applies principally to motions for a new trial or reopening of the trial court record and is rarely appropriate on appeal. The Court set forth the requisites for newly-discovered evidence applicable in such late proceedings: (1) discovery after trial; (2) inability to discover and produce the evidence at trial despite reasonable diligence; (3) materiality and not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching character; and (4) weight sufficient that the evidence would probably change the judgment. Applying these requisites, the Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the first two elements because, with reasonable diligence, he could have procured a certified copy of the police blotter containing Licup’s alleged res gestae declaration and produced other relevant documents and witnesses during trial.
Sentencing Error and Legal Framework
The Court addressed the sentencing scheme. It observed that homicide is punished with reclusion temporal under Article 249, Revised Penal Code and that the courts applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The RTC had set an indeterminate penalty from ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court held that the lower courts erred in fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence at seventeen years and four months, the ceiling of the medium period of reclusion temporal, without specifying the justification for so imposing. Relying on Article 64, Revised Penal Code, the Court stressed that the seventh rule of that article requires courts, "within the limits of each period," to determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime. The absence of any specification rendered the imposition arbitrary.
Modification of Indeterminate Sentence
Because the trial and appellate courts did not explain the reason for imposing the ceiling of the medium period, the Court held that, in default of such justification, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence should be the lowest of the
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 167333)
Parties and Posture
- Pedro Ladines was the petitioner convicted of homicide by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Sorsogon City, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals and thereafter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court.
- People of the Philippines and Edwin de Ramon appeared as respondents in the criminal prosecution and appeal.
- The RTC rendered judgment on February 10, 2003 convicting the petitioner and imposing an indeterminate sentence, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in a decision promulgated on October 22, 2004.
Factual Background
- The information charged that on June 12, 1993, in Sorsogon, the accused, with intent to kill and conspiring, attacked and stabbed Erwin de Ramon, causing mortal wounds resulting in instantaneous death.
- Witnesses Philip de Ramon and Mario Lasala testified that the petitioner and a certain Herman Licup passed by the victim during a school dance and that the petitioner suddenly stabbed the victim below the navel with a machete.
- The victim sustained two stab wounds, one to the chest and one to the abdomen, and was rushed to a hospital where he died.
- Dr. Myrna Listanco performed the post-mortem and opined that the chest wound could have been caused by a sharp instrument other than a bladed weapon while the abdominal wound was consistent with a sharp bladed instrument.
Trial Evidence
- The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony of Philip de Ramon and Mario Lasala and the post-mortem report of Dr. Listanco to establish the assault and the fatal injuries.
- The defense offered an alibi and denial, asserting that Pedro Ladines was with his wife and child at the venue and left before the stabbing occurred.
- Defense witnesses Angeles Jasareno and Arnulfo Palencia testified that they remained with the petitioner during the dance and that it was impossible for the petitioner to have committed the stabbing.
- The record contained an alleged res gestae declaration by Herman Licup admitting that he stabbed the victim, which the petitioner later invoked as exculpatory evidence.
RTC Judgment
- The RTC found Pedro Ladines guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide under Article 249, Revised Penal Code and applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
- The RTC imposed an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor as the minimum to 17 years and four months of reclusion temporal as the maximum, and ordered payment of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
- The RTC acquitted Herman Licup for insufficiency of evidence and cancelled the bond posted for his liberty.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the RTC decision finding the petitioner guilty of homicide.
- The CA rejected the contention that Licup's admission created reasonable doubt and held that the RTC findings were supported by the records.