Title
People vs. Candado y Sarte
Case
G.R. No. L-34089
Decision Date
Aug 1, 1978
Three men convicted of murder for hacking and stabbing a victim; alibi defense rejected; modified to life imprisonment due to treachery.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-34089)

Applicable Law

The case is analyzed under the Revised Penal Code and the provisions of the 1935 Philippine Constitution, as it predates the 1987 Constitution.

Incident Summary

On September 1, 1970, the defendants allegedly conspired to murder Mario San Juan, inflicting 18 stab wounds and 12 hacking wounds with bladed weapons. The Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, convicted the defendants and sentenced them to death along with accessory penalties, including financial indemnity to the heirs of San Juan.

Testimonies from Prosecution

The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimonies from several witnesses: Dario Nalagan, a Senior Medico-Legal Officer, who confirmed the post-mortem findings and categorized the wounds as indicative of multiple assailants; Rafael Atizado, a police sergeant, who described the investigations leading to the defendants' arrests; and Alberto Fernandez, a key eyewitness, who identified the defendants during the assault on San Juan.

Eyewitness Account

Fernandez testified that he, along with San Juan and another companion, encountered the defendants while they were drinking at a bakery. Upon trying to avoid a confrontation, San Juan was attacked unexpectedly. Fernandez described the brutal nature of the assault in which he and his companion were unable to assist San Juan, leading to his eventual death.

Defense Claims

The defense strategy hinged on denying the defendants' involvement and presenting alibis. Each accused claimed to be at different locations during the incident. For instance, Candado claimed he was driving his calesa during the time of the assault, while Sadie asserted he was working in the market. Maglalang claimed he was out of town.

Issues of Alibi

The court found the defense of alibi to be weak. The testimonies presented by the defense were not corroborated by credible evidence and were undermined by the positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses. The court reiterated that for an alibi to be valid, it must not only establish that the accused was elsewhere but demonstrate the impossibility of being at the scene of the crime.

Assessment of Credibility

The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of Fernandez, credible and compelling. The court emphasized that the suddenness and severity of the attack qualified it as treachery, as San Juan was ambushed while trying to escape.

Conspiracy and Collective Responsibility

The court concluded that conspiracy among the defendants was evident, as they acted cohesively and with a common objective during the assault. The presence of multiple individuals wielding weapons in a premeditated a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.