Title
People vs. Celeste
Case
G.R. No. 130281
Decision Date
Dec 15, 2000
Felix Celeste convicted of murder for the 1996 killing of Roy Lique, qualified by treachery; penalty reduced to life imprisonment, damages adjusted.
murder
reclusion perpetua
witness identification

Case Summary (G.R. No. 12635)

Factual Background

The prosecution presented five witnesses to establish the killing. Angelito Catalan, a tricycle driver, testified that at about 11:20 P.M. on September 20, 1996, while driving along Protacio Street toward Taft Avenue with two women passengers, he saw a man later identified as appellant block the pedicab driven by Roy Lique. Appellant then grabbed the handlebars and effectively stopped the pedicab. Without warning, another man approached Roy from behind and struck him on the back of the head with a lead pipe. Roy fell toward the sidecar while appellant remained in front of the pedicab. Catalan stated that the pipe-wielder ran away and that Catalan, while fearful of being involved, did not immediately relate his observations to police because the officers were then busy interviewing a balut vendor claiming to have witnessed the incident. Catalan later reported what he saw on September 23, 1996, after learning that no other witness could be found. He also identified appellant in a police line-up.

SPO2 Antonio Conlu testified that he received a telephone call at about 1:30 A.M. on September 21, 1996 from Rosemarie Bebing, a floor manager of Suvilla Sing-Along and Restaurant at Pasay City Rotonda, requesting police assistance because appellant, who was then allegedly drunk, was making trouble. Bebing allegedly identified appellant as the suspect in the mauling incident. The police proceeded to the restaurant and invited appellant for investigation. At the station, appellant was apprised of his constitutional rights. Because appellant’s lawyer failed to appear at the inquest, he was temporarily placed in the police safety cell. Later, on September 21, 1996, Bebing and Juliet Bariuan executed voluntary statements, and on September 23, 1996, Conlu arranged a line-up identification by Catalan and asked Bebing to give her sworn statement a second time and identify appellant.

Bebing testified that she worked at the Suvilla Sing-Along and Restaurant on September 19, 1996 and knew appellant because he used to deliver ice there until his services were discontinued. Roy Lique replaced appellant as delivery boy and had been delivering ice for only about two weeks before his death. Bebing stated that on September 19, 1996 at around 11:00 P.M., she met appellant at the club, where he complained about being replaced. She told him to talk to the owner, Margarita Sureta, but she was already sleeping and nobody wanted to awaken her. Bebing went out of the restaurant and was followed by appellant and a companion. Roy then entered. Bebing testified that appellant suddenly struck Roy at the back of the head, causing Roy to reel forward, almost falling to the ground. Bebing intervened, after which appellant pacified himself but angrily threatened Roy, and she overheard remarks implying that Roy would be harmed for continuing to deliver ice. Bebing also related that appellant kicked Roy’s pedicab very hard and that Roy was instructed to leave after receiving payment for the ice. She testified that the incident was witnessed by many people in the club, including GRO Juliet Bariuan. Bebing further stated that on the next day, September 20, 1996 at about 11:00 P.M., she saw Roy deliver ice and leave toward Taft Avenue and Protacio Street. She learned when she reported again that Roy was killed the night before. She claimed that she went to the police station around 1:00 A.M. to give her statement and around 2:00 A.M. on September 23, 1996 to give her statement a second time and identify appellant in a line-up.

Marlon Lique, elder brother of Roy, testified on Roy’s age, his coming to Manila, and the family’s funeral-related expenses, transportation of Roy’s body to Monreal, Masbate, burial, and the wake costs. He placed moral damages at P300,000.00.

Dr. Ludovino Lagat, an NBI Medico-Legal Officer, conducted the post-mortem examination on September 21, 1996. He found injuries including a lacerated wound at the occipital area at the back of Roy’s head measuring four centimeters by three centimeters, and abrasions and contusions elsewhere. He testified that the fatal wound was inflicted by a hard object from behind. He concluded that death resulted from traumatic head injuries causing subdural hemorrhage.

For the defense, Roberto Remot, a security guard of EDSA-Taft Center, testified that the security office was about 15 meters away from appellant’s stall. He stated that gates 1 to 6 closed around 10:00 P.M. and gate 7 remained open as an exit gate for tenants and helpers. Remot testified that on September 20, 1996 at about 10:00 P.M., he saw appellant in his stall, later saw him go to the sleeping quarters, and about two hours later saw appellant under the stall. He also testified he did not see appellant enter or exit through gate 7. On September 21, 1996 at 8:00 P.M., he again saw appellant in his stall from 8:00 to 10:00 P.M.

Two members of the Civilian Volunteers Organization (CVO) testified for the defense. Alfredo Reyes Gumilao stated that on September 20, 1996 between 9:00 and 10:00 P.M., while driving a barangay jeep past Protacio Street near Taft Avenue, he was informed a pedicab with a dead man in it was causing traffic. He approached, saw a body slumped face down, noticed blood on the pavement near where the head was leaning, and helped load the victim as ordered by police. The victim was brought to Pasay City General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

Finally, appellant testified in his defense. He denied any participation. On cross-examination, he admitted that Suvilla Sing-Along Restaurant had once been a customer but he had not been there for some time. He stated that on September 21, 1996 he was about to cross the street when two police officers accosted him, grabbed him by the neck, forced him into their jeep, and brought him to the Pasay City Police Station. He alleged that during the alleged police line-up, Catalan could not point to him as the killer until Police Officer Palma went in and pointed to him. Appellant denied that Bebing identified him in a line-up.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court, after trial, convicted appellant beyond reasonable doubt for murder and sentenced him to death, applying Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The court ordered payment to Roy Lique’s heirs of at least P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P26,000.00 as actual damages, and P200,000.00 as moral/exemplary damages. Because the penalty imposed was death, the trial court directed transmittal of the record to the Supreme Court for automatic review within the period prescribed by Section 10, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Appellant’s Assignments of Error and Issues

On automatic review, appellant challenged the conviction for being unsupported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, contending that the evidence did not establish treachery and evident premeditation. He further argued that the award of moral damages lacked adequate basis.

The issues distilled by the Court were: whether appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt; whether treachery and evident premeditation qualified the killing into murder; and whether there was sufficient basis to award moral damages.

The Court’s Evaluation of Eyewitness Credibility

Appellant attacked the credibility of Angelito Catalan. He suggested that Catalan’s account that appellant blocked the victim’s pedicab by holding the steering bar was improbable because a person in front of a moving pedicab would be run over. Appellant also questioned Catalan’s claim that he did not notice where the pipe-wielder fled and argued that Catalan’s assertion that he reported the incident to police was contradicted by a police blotter which allegedly indicated that hospital security reported the incident.

The Court declined to disturb the trial court’s assessment of credibility. It reiterated that a trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility is accorded great respect on appeal, absent arbitrariness, or the overlooking of material facts and circumstances of weight and influence. The Court found that Catalan positively identified appellant. It noted that Catalan was close to the incident, at about six or seven meters, and had no reason to falsely testify. It also held that when there is no evidence showing improper motive and no compelling reason to conclude otherwise, the testimony must be given full faith and credit, and credible positive testimony is sufficient to support conviction.

Conspiracy and Appellant’s Criminal Liability as Principal

Appellant further argued that his guilt was not sufficiently established because the prosecution evidence allegedly showed he did not deliver the fatal blow. He asserted that because the prosecution failed to prove a conspiracy between him and the unidentified pipe-wielder, he should be acquitted.

The Court rejected the argument. It held that although Catalan did not personally see appellant strike the victim with the pipe, Catalan saw appellant block the pedicab, thereby enabling his companion to strike Roy from behind. The Court characterized appellant’s act as indispensable to the completion of the crime and as indicative of conspiracy. It stated the doctrinal elements: a conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree on the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, and proof of conspiracy requires only a common purpose and unity in execution. The Court emphasized that it was not necessary for all conspirators to actually kill the victim. Each conspirator is liable as co-principal because the act of one is deemed the act of all. Thus, it ruled that appellant performed real and effective acts to carry out the killing by blocking and holding the pedicab, depriving the victim of any means of escape and rendering him vulnerable to the sudden attack from behind.

Qualification: Treachery and Evident Premeditation

Appellant insisted that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms