Title
People vs. Callao y Marcelino
Case
G.R. No. 228945
Decision Date
Mar 14, 2018
Hesson Callao and Junello Amad conspired to murder Fernando Adlawan, stabbing him, removing his organs, and feeding them to a pig. Convicted of murder based on credible witness testimony, conspiracy, and treachery, Hesson’s appeal was dismissed.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 228945)

Procedural History

Criminal Case No. 07-25-T was filed on February 14, 2007. Hesson was arrested February 18, 2008 and arraigned March 17, 2008, pleading not guilty. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 45, Bais City) rendered judgment on January 26, 2015 convicting Hesson of Murder (qualified by treachery) and imposing reclusion perpetua with civil and other damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification on August 31, 2016, increasing indemnities and awarding exemplary damages. Hesson appealed to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision on March 14, 2018.

Prosecution’s Factual Account

The prosecution presented one witness, Sario Joaquin, who testified that on July 15, 2006 he accompanied Hesson, Junello, and Remmy to the victim’s house. According to Sario, Hesson and Junello had discussed and agreed to kill Fernando at the market earlier that day. At the victim’s house, Junello obtained a lighter from Fernando and suddenly struck him on the nape, hacked him with a bolo, after which Hesson stabbed Fernando twice in the chest with a knife, sliced open his chest, and removed the heart. Junello removed the liver with a bolo. They fed organs to a nearby pig and mutilated the victim further. Sario stated he watched from the opposite side and did not intervene out of fear; he did not initially report the incident because of threats. The death certificate, admitted by defense, listed internal hemorrhage from multiple stab wounds as cause of death.

Defense Version

Hesson testified in denial. He claimed he was at Fernando’s house preparing rice when he heard commotion and upon looking through a window saw Junello hacking Fernando and a different person, Enrile Yosores, stabbing Fernando. Hesson asserted he escaped by jumping through a window and hid; he denied active participation and denied Sario’s presence (admitting only Remmy’s presence). His testimony was inconsistent on when his family relocated after the incident.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court credited Sario’s testimony as straightforward, categorical, and credible, finding no motive to fabricate. The court found that the prosecution established Hesson’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for Murder qualified by treachery and imposed reclusion perpetua; it also awarded funeral expenses, civil indemnity, and moral damages. The court ordered the case of Junello, who remained at large, sent to archives with issuance of an alias warrant.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages: increased civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000 each and added exemplary damages of P30,000; retained P15,000 funeral expenses. The CA noted the credibility of the lone witness and the attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Hesson’s assignments of error included: (1) conviction based solely on uncorroborated testimony of a single witness; (2) erroneous finding of conspiracy without proof beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) that the proper conviction, if any, should be for impossible crime because the victim was already dead when Hesson stabbed him.

Supreme Court’s Standard on Single Witness Testimony

The Supreme Court reaffirmed settled doctrine: a single witness’ testimony, if positive, credible, spontaneous, and uncontradicted by intrinsic or extrinsic circumstances, may suffice for conviction. Corroboration is necessary only if there is reason to suspect falsification or inaccuracy. The Court examined Sario’s narrative and found it detailed, consistent, and bearing the hallmarks of truth and sincerity; the death certificate corroborated the occurrence of multiple stab wounds and death.

Evaluation of Credibility and Absence of Ill Motive

The Court found no evidence of ill motive or bias on Sario’s part; Hesson’s own testimony denied animus between him and Sario. The trial court’s credibility assessment was entitled to great weight absent arbitrariness or oversight. The Supreme Court declined to disturb the trial court’s findings regarding witness credibility.

Flight and Non-surrender as Circumstantial Evidence

The Court considered Hesson’s immediate departure from the crime scene and his evasion of arrest for nearly two years as circumstantial evidence inconsistent with innocence. An innocent person, the Court observed, would ordinarily take prompt action to exonerate himself.

On Denial as Defense

The Court reiterated that bare denial is insufficient when confronted by a positive identification by a credible witness; denial must be supported by strong evidence to prevail. Hesson failed to produce such evidence.

Impossibility of Crime Argument Addressed

Hesson argued the stabbing could not have caused the victim’s death because, according to a portion of Sario’s testimony, Fernando appeared motionless after being hacked by Junello and Sario thought him already dead before Hesson’s stab. The Court rejected this as proving impossibility: Sario’s belief was an untested observation made under stress (no pulse or breathing checks), and thus insufficient to establish that Fernando was already dead. Even assuming Fernando had been dead, the Court held that Hesson would remain liable due to conspiracy.

Conspiracy and Collective Liability

The Court affirmed the finding of conspiracy between Hesson and Junello. It emphasized that conspiracy may be proven by inference from coordinated acts before, during, and after the crime, and direct proof is not essential. The sequence of overt acts—planning at the market, approach and surprise at the victim’s house, coordinated attacks, and joint mutilation—demonstrated unity of action and common purpose. Under settled law

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.