Title
People vs. Padrones
Case
G.R. No. 150234
Decision Date
Sep 30, 2005
A grenade explosion in 1992 led to a homicide charge against Florante Padrones. Witnesses recanted, and the Supreme Court acquitted him due to insufficient evidence and unreliable testimony.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150234)

Incident Details

On the night of the incident, Elpedio Presto, along with Anastacio and Domingo Lastrella, reported witnessing a confrontation between Florante Padrones and another individual. They alleged that Padrones threw a grenade after pulling its pin during an altercation. These eyewitness accounts were pivotal in the initial investigation but were later recanted by the witnesses due to claims of intoxication and misunderstanding at the time of their statements.

Recantation of Witness Statements

Over two months following the incident, the witnesses executed affidavits retracting their earlier statements. The Lastrellas claimed they were drunk at the time of the incident and uncertain about Padrones's involvement, indicating that their earlier claims were based on hearsay rather than direct observation. Similarly, Presto conveyed that he did not fully understand his original statement and suggested he might have mistakenly identified Padrones.

Charges Filed

By September 4, 1992, multiple charges were filed against Padrones, which included homicide, illegal possession of explosives, and violation of a Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolution due to the nature of the incident occurring during an election period. His arraignment resulted in a plea of not guilty.

Trial Proceedings

During the trial, witness Nathan Hermosura testified for the prosecution, describing Padrones's involvement in the grenade incident. Despite being a new witness to the proceedings, the defense did not object to his testimony. His account contributed to the prosecution's narrative of events but came under scrutiny for inconsistencies, such as the proximity and timing of his observations during the explosion.

Defense Testimonies

Padrones testified in his defense, claiming that he was not the individual who threw the grenade but rather a victim of circumstance amidst a heated altercation with drunk individuals. He also claimed that the witnesses had pointed him out under duress or because of their confusion.

Trial Court Judgment

The trial court ultimately convicted Padrones on all counts, rendering a consolidated sentence that included a prison term for homicide and additional penalties for the other offenses. The court based its judgment on the testimonies presented, particularly accepting Hermosura’s account as credible despite the lack of corroborating evidence from other witnesses.

Appellate Court Review

On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling but modified the characterization of the homicide charge to murder. The appellate court focused on the credible testimony provided by Hermosura, dismissing the defense's claims and emphasizing the prosecution's evidence as sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Credibility of Witnes

...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.