Title
People vs. Perez
Case
G.R. No. 179154
Decision Date
Jul 31, 2009
Two men, Roger and Danilo Perez, were convicted of murder for stabbing Fulgencio Cuysona in Quezon City, with eyewitnesses confirming their involvement. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict, citing credible testimonies, conspiracy, and qualifying circumstances like treachery and superior strength.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179154)

Events Leading to the Case

An information was filed on August 1, 2000, charging the appellants with murder, specifically alleging that they conspired to kill Fulgencio Maglente Cuysona by stabbing him multiple times. Eyewitnesses Ariel Baque and Rolando Gangca testified to witnessing the attack firsthand, detailing the sequence of events, including the involvement of a third unidentified attacker.

Testimonies of the Prosecution

Eyewitness Ariel Baque provided critical testimony that he saw both Danilo and Roger Perez stab Cuysona. Despite the defense's attempts to undermine Baque's credibility by suggesting he had ulterior motives, he consistently maintained his account during cross-examination. Rolando Gangca corroborated Baque's testimony, identifying both appellants with specificity in their roles during the attack.

Defense's Presentation

In their defense, the appellants presented witnesses including SPO1 Resty San Pedro, who confirmed that Danilo Perez admitted to the stabbing during an interview at the police station. Danilo’s confession was reduced to a written statement, which he signed in the presence of his lawyer. Despite this, the defense relied heavily on alibis and claims that the testimonies against Roger Perez were unreliable.

The Trial Court's Decision

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City found both appellants guilty of murder on February 11, 2005, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay damages to Cuysona's heirs. The court held that the prosecution had established the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including intent, treachery, and conspiracy.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling with modifications, specifically increasing the damages awarded to the victim's heirs. The appellants contested the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the eyewitnesses, arguing that the trial court erred in upholding their convictions without adequately considering their defense.

Issues on Appeal

The appeal raised several issues, notably whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of Roger Perez beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the trial court erred in convicting Danilo Perez of murder instead of homicide. The appellants further argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish various essential elements of the prosecution's case, including conspiracy and corpus delicti.

Affirmation of Convictions

Upon reviewing the evidence, the appellate court concluded that the trial court correctly assessed the eyewitness testimony. The court emphasized that the credibility of eyewitnesses is accorded considerable deference, especially when the trial court had the opportunity to observe their demeanor. The court also reinforced that motive is not a necessary element for conviction when overwhelming evidence of guilt exists.

Findings on Conspiracy and Motive

The court established that conspiracy could be inferred from the actions of the appellants

...continue reading

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