Title
People vs. Fuentes y Pitelo
Case
G.R. No. L-32756
Decision Date
Mar 28, 1983
Rogelio Fuentes conspired in a 1969 Manila robbery-homicide, stabbing Manuel delos Santos; intoxication mitigated the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-32756)

Applicable Law

The case revolves around the crime of robbery with homicide as defined under existing Philippine laws at the time of the incident. The decision is guided by the provisions relevant to robbery and homicide, and related aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Facts of the Case

On October 17, 1969, both Rogelio Fuentes and Rodolfo Nartea, along with unidentified accomplices, conspired to commit robbery against Manuel delos Santos y Valdez. During the robbery, they fatally stabbed Delos Santos, resulting in his death. The stabbing was described in detail, revealing multiple wounds inflicted with a balisong knife. The police investigation revealed a witness, Eduardo Lozana, who observed the crime and later identified the attackers.

Trial Court's Decision

The lower court found Fuentes guilty of robbery with homicide, citing the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and the use of superior strength due to the number of attackers. Consequently, the trial court sentenced Fuentes to death, mandating him to pay damages to the victim’s heirs.

Response of the Accused

Rogelio Fuentes did not explicitly file an appeal; however, the law requires that death sentences be reviewed by the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, Rogelio contended that he was not the person known as "Boy Lelit," a name associated with one of the attackers, claiming a lack of identity with the term and providing an alibi that he was at home during the crime.

Analysis of Evidence

The Supreme Court analyzed witness testimonies, including that of Eduardo Lozana, who identified Fuentes as "Boy Lelit." Contrary to the defense's claims, evidence, including Fuentes' own sworn statement, substantiated his identity as the attacker, affirming his participation in the crime.

Assignment of Errors

The primary argument from the appellant was centered around the identification as "Boy Lelit." The Court concluded that Lozana's testimony, corroborated by Fuentes’ own admission in his statement, satisfied the burden of proof required for a conviction.

Examination of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

While the crime was marked with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, the Court noted that the crime was impulsively committed following a period of intoxication, which justifies the

...continue reading

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