People vs. Callao y Marcelino

Factual Background

On July 15, 2006, the victim, Fernando Adlawan, was allegedly attacked at his home in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. The Information charged that the accused, conspiring together, struck Fernando and, by means of treachery, opened his body and removed internal organs which were fed to a nearby pig, acts that caused the victim’s immediate death. After the killing, the case was filed in February 2007 but was archived while the accused remained at large; Hesson was arrested February 18, 2008 and arraigned March 17, 2008, when he pleaded not guilty.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution relied on the testimony of its lone eyewitness, Sario Joaquin, who testified that on the evening of July 15, 2006 he accompanied Hesson, Junello and one Remmy from a flea market to Fernando’s house. Sario recounted that Junello asked Fernando for a lighter, struck him at the nape with a piece of firewood, and hacked him with a bolo; he described Fernando falling motionless, after which Hesson stabbed the victim twice in the chest, sliced open the chest, removed the heart with a knife, and, together with Junello who removed the liver, fed the organs to a pig; the assailants thereafter further mutilated the body before leaving the scene. The prosecution dispensed with other witness testimony after the defense admitted civil liability and the death certificate indicating internal hemorrhage and multiple stab wounds.

Defense Evidence

The defense presented the testimony of Hesson Callao y Marcelino, who denied participation and claimed he was at Fernando’s house cooking when he saw Junello hack the victim and Enrile stab him, after which Hesson fled through a window and hid until morning. Hesson denied Sario’s presence at the scene, asserted fear as the reason for not reporting the incident, and claimed familial ties to the victim as a reason he would not have stabbed him. His account varied in particulars on cross-examination, including inconsistencies on the timing of his family’s relocation and on the number and source of blows he observed.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

The trial court heard testimony and found Sario Joaquin credible. In its Judgment dated January 26, 2015, the court convicted Hesson beyond reasonable doubt of Murder qualified by treachery under Article 248, Revised Penal Code, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered payment of funeral expenses of P15,000, civil indemnity of P50,000, and moral damages of P50,000. The court directed that the case against Junello Amad, who remained at large, be sent to the archives and that an alias warrant of arrest issue.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages in its decision dated August 31, 2016. The CA increased civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000 each, awarded exemplary damages of P30,000, and retained funeral expenses of P15,000, with interest at six percent per annum from finality of the decision. The CA otherwise upheld the trial court’s findings on guilt and treachery.

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The accused-appellant raised three principal assignments of error: first, that conviction rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a lone witness; second, that conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt; and third, that the facts established at most an impossible crime because the victim was already dead before the alleged stabbing by Hesson.

Supreme Court Ruling — Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and CA modifications. The Court upheld the finding that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and sustained the award of damages as modified by the CA, with interest at six percent per annum from finality of the decision.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Witness Credibility

The Court held that the testimony of a solitary eyewitness, when straightforward, categorical and credible, suffices for conviction. It found Sario Joaquin’s account to bear the earmarks of truth and sincerity, corroborated by the death certificate establishing multiple stab wounds. The Court observed no proof of ill motive by Sario, emphasized the trial court’s superior position to observe witness demeanor, and declined to disturb the trial court’s credibility determinations in the absence of arbitrariness or oversight.

Consideration of Flight and Denial

The Court considered Hesson’s flight from the scene and his evasion of arrest for nearly two years as inconsistent with innocence, noting that failure to promptly surrender or to take measures to exonerate oneself may be probative of culpability. It also held that pure denial, unaccompanied by credible exculpatory evidence, merited little weight against the positive identification by the prosecution witness.

Conspiracy and Collective Liability

The Court addressed the contention that conspiracy was not proven and reaffirmed that conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the offense. It found a unity of action and purpose from the sequence of events — planning at the flea market, the pretext of borrowing a lighter, the coordinated attacks, and the mutual mutilation of the victim — which demonstrated a common criminal design. The Court applied the rule that, once conspiracy is established, collective liability attaches and each conspirator is liable as co-principal for acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Impossible Crime Doctrine and Its Rejection

The Court examined impossible crime as defined in Article 4(2) in relation to Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code and set out the requisite elements, including inherent impossibility of accomplishment. It rejected Hesson’s claim that the stabbing constituted an impossible crime because Sario’s testimony that Fernando appeared motionless did not amount to a reliable finding that the victim was already dead when stabbed; Sario did not perform any physical check such as pulse or respiration and was in a