Title
People vs. Delos Santos
Case
G.R. No. 135919
Decision Date
May 9, 2003
Appellant accused of murdering victim with 21 stab wounds; claimed alibi dismissed due to credible eyewitness testimony. Conviction upheld; penalty modified; damages awarded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135919)

Charges and Plea

On February 23, 1998, an Information was filed charging delos Santos with murder, alleging he attacked Flores using a kitchen knife with evident premeditation, treachery, and superior strength. During his arraignment, delos Santos pleaded "not guilty," setting the stage for a full trial where both the prosecution and defense presented their respective witnesses.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution presented several witnesses, including Marcelino de Leon, Marvin Tablate, Dr. Benito Caballero, and Romeo Flores. Eyewitness De Leon testified that he observed delos Santos stabbing Flores multiple times after approaching the group. Tablate corroborated this account, adding that he attempted to intervene but was unsuccessful. Dr. Caballero provided a forensic analysis, indicating Flores suffered twenty-one stab wounds, eleven of which were fatal, leading to death by massive hemorrhages.

Defense's Arguments

Delos Santos, supported by witness Sonny Bautista, claimed he was at his aunt's house, some 40 meters away from the crime scene during the incident. The defense suggested that Flores was not involved in any altercation with delos Santos, arguing that inconsistencies in witness testimonies should create reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.

Trial Court's Decision

On October 2, 1998, the trial court found delos Santos guilty of murder with treachery as a qualifying circumstance and imposed the death penalty based on the brutality of the crime. Additionally, the court ordered delos Santos to pay substantial civil damages to Flores' heirs, including amounts for lost earning capacity, actual and moral damages, among others.

Appeal and Assigned Errors

Delos Santos appealed the trial court decision, asserting errors in the court’s reliance on eyewitness testimony and the imposition of damages. He contended that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and argued the absence of clear motive weakened the prosecution’s case.

Discussion on Credibility of Witnesses

The appellate review emphasized the trial court's primary role in assessing witness credibility, defending the decision to accept the testimonies of De Leon and Tablate as generally consistent given the context. The court noted that discrepancies among witnesses often do not undermine the overall credibility if the key facts remain undisputed.

Analysis of Motive

The appeals court addressed the defense claim regarding the lack of a discernible motive, clarifying that proof of motive is not always a prerequisite for conviction, particularly when the accused’s identity has been firmly established through eyewitness accounts.

Delay in Witness Statements

The issue of the delay in the eyewitnesses coming forward—two months after the incident—was also scrutinized. The court acknowledged that such reluctance can stem from fear of retaliation and noted that it does not inherently discredit credibi

...continue reading

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