Title
People vs. Caranzo y Catindig
Case
G.R. No. 76743
Decision Date
May 22, 1992
Rosemarie Balignasay, Jaime Caranzo, and Arturo de Vera conspired in the 1983 killing of Antonio Eugenio, Jr. Balignasay was convicted of parricide; Caranzo and de Vera of homicide. SC affirmed with modified penalties and damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 76743)

Nature of the Appeal

This appeal arises from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 99, which found the accused guilty of homicide and parricide. The trial court sentenced Arturo de Vera to ten years and one day to fourteen years and eight months of imprisonment, Jaime Caranzo to twelve to fourteen years and eight months of imprisonment, and Rosemarie Balignasay to life imprisonment.

Charges Against the Accused

The amended information charged Rosemarie Balignasay with parricide, while Jaime Caranzo and Arturo de Vera were charged with murder. The prosecution alleged that all three conspired to kill Antonio Eugenio, Jr. They were accused of stabbing him multiple times, leading to his death.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution provided multiple pieces of evidence, including the autopsy report from Dr. Dario Gajardo, who testified about the stab wounds on the victim's body. According to his findings, the cause of death was "cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds." Additionally, testimonies from the victim’s mother, Cristina Eugenio, and brother, Rodrigo Eugenio, supported the prosecution's case, detailing an altercation that occurred prior to the victim being fatally stabbed.

Defense's Version of Events

The defense claimed self-defense by Arturo de Vera, asserting that the victim ambushed him with a knife, and he was forced to retaliate. Both Rosemarie and Jaime Caranzo denied their involvement in the crime, asserting they had no knowledge of the attack.

Evaluation of the Evidence and Conspiracy

The crux of the appeal involved the alleged conspiracy among the accused. The trial court found that there was a concert of action between the parties, characterized by joint participation in the stabbing of the victim. The defense argued that the prosecution's evidence failed to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly concerning the location of the stabbing.

Appellant's Assignments of Error

Rosemarie Balignasay raised four main assignments of error, asserting that the trial court erred in various aspects concerning motive, the sequence of events leading to the stabbing, and the existence of conspiracy. She contended that if the fatal wound was inflicted inside the house, the victim could not have fled to the location where he was eventually found.

Legal Principles Relevant to Conspiracy

It was emphasized that in cases of conspiracy, the act of one is considered the act of all. A

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.