Title
People vs. Herdez
Case
G.R. No. 130809
Decision Date
Mar 15, 2000
Maximo Hernandez convicted of murder for fatally striking Edgardo Torres with a wooden plank during a group assault, affirmed by the Supreme Court with damages awarded.
murder
conviction
witness testimony
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 130809)

Factual Background

The Supreme Court found that on January 3, 1992, at around 4:45 p.m., Patricia Malunas de la Cruz was in her house at 2422 M. Hizon St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, when a man known only as “Tambol” arrived to look for Edgardo Torres, who lived with her in the same house. Because Edgardo was away, Patricia went to fetch him. While they walked home, they encountered Gerry Caniesa, who had a prior argument with Edgardo, standing outside an apartment door with Ricardo and Orlando Soriano and other companions. Gerry summoned Edgardo, but Edgardo only said “Tomorrow,” prompting Gerry to demand “Ngayon na!” and swear “Fuck you!”.

The Court held that Edgardo then entered the apartment but was instantly beaten by Gerry and four other identified men: Ricardo Soriano, Orlando Soriano, Meo Caniesa, and Antonio Claudio. The attackers used pieces of wood; Meo allegedly wielded a hammer and a bolo and hacked Edgardo’s foot twice. Edgardo was thrown out onto the pavement, bleeding and almost unconscious. The Court further found that accused-appellant, who was standing outside the apartment, held Edgardo’s hands and violently pushed him, causing Edgardo to fall on his back. Accused-appellant then took a piece of wood sized about two inches by three inches and hit Edgardo’s head, which the Court described as causing Edgardo’s brain to spill out. Accused-appellant then fled on foot, while the other suspects hid.

Edgardo was brought to the Chinese General Hospital and died the same night upon admission. His family spent P22,250.00 for hospital and funeral expenses. The Court noted that the prosecution’s evidence placed accused-appellant at the scene and connected him to the fatal head blow.

Medical Findings and Character of the Wounds

A post mortem examination performed by Dr. Manuel Lagonera, Medico-Legal Officer of the Western Police District–Philippine National Police (WPD-PNP), showed extensive injuries. Externally, Edgardo sustained multiple abrasions and lacerated wounds, particularly in the head and facial regions, and hacking wounds on both lower legs that lacerated anterior muscles and fractured the left tibia. Internally, the examination revealed massive sub-aponeurotic hemorrhage with depressed fracture of the left parieto-temporal bone and occipital bone, as well as massive sub-arachnoid hemorrhage with contusion of the parieto-temporal lobes. The Court emphasized that the findings also included linear fractures extending to the sella turcica. The cause of death was stated as blunt head injuries.

Dr. Lagonera opined that the hacking wounds were not fatal and that the lacerated wounds could have been caused by a blunt instrument.

Investigation and Arrest

A security guard of the Chinese General Hospital called the WPD to report admission of a victim from a clubbing incident along M. Hizon Street in Blumentritt, Manila. WPD operatives went to the reported place and arrested Orlando Serrano y Lapuz, Ricardo Serrano y Lapuz, and Antonio Claude y Salvador. The Court noted that these three were later released for insufficiency of evidence. Accused-appellant, along with Gerry and two other unidentified suspects, remained at large.

Juanita Lacson, aunt of the deceased and a resident of 2422 M. Hizon Street, testified that Edgardo had lived with her since he was thirteen years old. She stated that on January 3, 1992, as she was leaving the house, she saw accused-appellant hit the deceased on the head with a piece of wood. She further explained that she reported the incident after going to the police station, and she attributed the delay in filing a formal complaint to the accused and several other men allegedly going into hiding immediately after the incident.

The Court also recorded that on February 4, 1992, Emilia Torres de Ramos informed the WPD that accused-appellant was roaming in the area around M. Hizon Street. Operatives arrested accused-appellant the same day. The information was filed in the RTC of Manila, Branch 37 on February 7, 1992, charging accused-appellant with murder, including conspiracy, and alleged the use of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength.

Defense Version and Corroborating Witnesses

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and presented a narrative aimed at negating his participation in the fatal blow. He claimed he was a resident of 2445 M. Hizon Street and worked as a vendor. He also stated he was appointed Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the barangay tanods in Barangay 365, Zone 37, Sta. Cruz, Manila, and that his duties included maintaining peace and order.

He testified that around 4:30 p.m. on January 3, 1992, he tried to help Amelia Estipular pacify the deceased who was allegedly chasing someone with a knife in a nearby house. He said that upon reaching the place, he saw certain individuals, including the deceased. According to him, when he did not respond to the deceased’s question, the deceased pulled a balisong and tried to stab him. He claimed that before the stab could be inflicted, Gerry Caniesa struck the deceased multiple times. Accused-appellant asserted that he attempted to go after Gerry but failed because Gerry was holding a piece of wood. Accused-appellant said he then saw Edgardo being loaded on a pushcart for hospital admission, and that Juanita and the barangay chairman arrived. He explained that he did not report the incident to the barangay chairman because he was not asked, and he decided to go home without volunteering information to police.

The defense presented Danilo de Guzman, accused-appellant’s cousin and neighbor, who testified that he saw Gerry chase and strike the deceased with a bladed weapon, and later claimed that Gerry and Orlando Serrano hit the deceased several times while accused-appellant arrived and was allegedly also confronted when the deceased tried to stab him. Danilo stated he did not tell police earlier because officers “hastily left,” and he claimed he then reported to a policeman named “Chico.”

Another defense witness, Amelia Sandico Estipular, sister of Antonio Claudio, corroborated the defense narrative that Gerry hit the deceased with a piece of wood several times and that accused-appellant positioned himself at the door while the deceased tried to stab him. A further witness, Antonio Claudio, testified that the deceased chased Gerry inside the house while holding a fan knife and that later he saw Amelia with accused-appellant. Antonio admitted that he had been charged for Edgardo’s death before the RTC of Manila, Branch 31 and that the case against him was dismissed, but he claimed that during his trial he learned and testified that Gerry delivered the fatal blow. The defense used this testimony to support the claim that accused-appellant was not the one who inflicted the lethal head injuries.

RTC Proceedings and Conviction

The trial court did not give credence to accused-appellant’s account. In its decision dated May 30, 1997, the RTC convicted him beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The RTC held that there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances. It ordered payment of P22,500.00 as actual damages and awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages to Edgardo’s heirs, citing Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and People v. Leodegario Ramos, et al., G.R. No. 110600 (August 7, 1996) as basis for moral damages. The RTC did not award civil indemnity.

Issues on Appeal and Parties’ Contentions

On appeal, accused-appellant contended that the RTC erred in crediting prosecution witnesses. He argued that testimonies should not have been accepted without reservation because witnesses executed affidavits implicating him about a month after the incident, which he claimed cast doubt on truthfulness. He also maintained that he was allegedly named only after investigation and that the witnesses fabricated his identity to extort money from him.

The prosecution and the RTC, as sustained by the Supreme Court, countered that the credibility of witnesses is primarily for the trial court, absent facts that undermine that credibility. They further maintained that delay in reporting or in executing affidavits does not automatically discredit witnesses when the delay is sufficiently explained, and that the evidence supported accused-appellant’s delivery of the fatal blow.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Credibility and Participation

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the awards. It held that the RTC’s findings on credibility remained controlling, because appellate courts do not interfere with the trial court’s credibility assessments when no substantial oversight is shown. The Court ruled that the fact that witnesses executed affidavits implicating accused-appellant after a month did not detract from their truthfulness, since delay in divulging perpetrators’ names, when sufficiently explained, does not impair credibility.

The Court credited the explanations given by the prosecution witnesses. It noted Patricia’s testimony that she thought Juanita had already reported to the police immediately. It also accepted Juanita’s belief that her prior report was sufficient. It found that accused-appellant failed to show that the delay was unreasonably suspicious.

On accused-appellant’s claim that he was never mentioned to authorities during early investigation, the Supreme Court relied on an advance information filed on January 3, 1992, which allegedly already tagged accused-appellant as a suspect through PO3 Alfredo de la Rosa’s records. The Court also regarded as supportive the circumstance that the witness who reported the incident to PO3 de la Rosa was Romeo de la Cruz, not Juanita, which it treated as consistent with the prosecution’s account that accused-appellant was identified early as a suspect.

The Court further found accused-appellant’s behavior inconsistent with his claimed innocence. It observed that although accused-appellant asserted he was at the scene because he was asked by Ameli

...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