Title
People vs. Cantuba
Case
G.R. No. 79811
Decision Date
Mar 19, 1990
Accused-appellants Pio Cantuba and Pedrito Lalaguna, along with co-accused, conspired to murder Atty. Adolfo Celera in 1981. The Supreme Court affirmed their guilt, citing conspiracy and credible witness testimonies, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 79811)

Charges and Proceedings

The amended information accused the defendants of conspiring to commit murder with evident premeditation and using night-time to facilitate the crime. All the accused, with the exception of Penales and Labuyo who were at large, pleaded not guilty during their arraignment. A motion by the defense aimed to include a newly identified participant, Patrolman Torrecampo, in the information, but this matter became moot as the trial proceeded without compliance from the Prosecuting Fiscal.

Trial Court Decision

On April 27, 1987, the trial court found Cantuba and Lalaguna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to indemnify the victim's heirs with P100,000.00 and to pay the corresponding costs. Co-accused Versales, Gerbuela, and Espinosa were acquitted due to insufficient evidence, and the cases against deceased Ricardo Baco and the fugitives Penales and Labuyo were archived.

Factual Overview

The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimonies, which revealed that on the evening of the incident, Atty. Celera was ambushed by Cantuba, who fired a gun at him while Baco stabbed him. The assailants fled the scene, and a witness, Romulo Tama, identified Lalaguna as the rider of a motorcycle involved in the escape.

Appellants' Arguments

Both Cantuba and Lalaguna contested their convictions during the appeal. Cantuba argued that the evidence was inadequate to prove that he fired the fatal shot, while Lalaguna claimed he was improperly convicted based solely on his presence at the scene. They contended that their constitutional rights were violated, emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Court's Analysis: Pio Cantuba's Liability

The court rejected Cantuba's claim, determining that his culpability was established through credible witness accounts. Furthermore, the court held that even if Cantuba did not fire the weapon, he was liable as a co-conspirator; in conspiracy, each participant's acts are attributed to all involved. The court deemed Margie Rotor's testimony, positioning her closer to the victim, as more reliable than that of Torrecampo.

Court's Analysis: Pedrito Lalaguna's Involvement

Lalaguna's assertion that he was merely seen riding a motorbike away from the scene was rejected, as the testimonies of Rotor and Tama corroborated his active participation in the crime. Their a

...continue reading

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