Title
People vs. Castelo y De Castro
Case
G.R. No. L-48070
Decision Date
Dec 26, 1984
Medardo Castelo was acquitted of murder after the Supreme Court found insufficient evidence, citing unreliable witness testimony, inadmissible hearsay, and a credible alibi, upholding the presumption of innocence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48070)

Charges and Lower Court Decision

Medardo Castelo was charged with murder, having allegedly conspired with his brother Romulo Castelo (who remained at large) to kill Ricardo Villanueva. The Regional Trial Court of Batangas found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, citing treachery as the qualifying circumstance. The court sentenced Castelo to suffer reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Remo Madlangbayan, an alleged eyewitness and barrio captain, who recounted hearing gunshots and witnessing the assailants after the shooting. Other witnesses provided additional accounts claiming to have seen Castelo and his brother at the scene of the crime shortly after the incident. Medical examination established that Villanueva died from multiple gunshot wounds.

Defense and Alibi

In his defense, Medardo Castelo denied any involvement in the murder, claiming he was at a clinic caring for his sick brother at the time of the incident. This alibi was supported by his brother but was challenged by the prosecution. The defense aimed to discredit the eyewitness testimony of Remo Madlangbayan, suggesting it was fabricated due to a personal vendetta against the accused.

Issues of Credibility and Evidence

The credibility of the prosecution’s primary witness, Remo Madlangbayan, was called into question due to inconsistencies in his testimony, the significant delay in reporting the crime, and the absence of corroborative evidence from other eyewitnesses. The court noted that the conviction should be based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence rather than the weaknesses of the defense, a principle that was neglected in the lower court's ruling.

Hearsay Evidence and Due Process Violations

Dominador Sornito, another witness, had died before the trial, leaving his sworn statement as hearsay evidence that the trial court improperly relied upon. The court's reliance on such statements violated the constitutional right of confrontation, undermining the integrity of the conviction. Furthermore, the testimony of Numeriano Sandro contradicted earlier statements he had made, as he recounted being coerced into making a statement against the accused.

Reasonable Doubt and Final Decision

The failure of the prosecution to establish the credibility of its wit

...continue reading

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