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.
murder
conviction
prosecution eyewitnesses

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179154)

Factual Background: The Stabbing and the Witness Accounts

Eyewitnesses Ariel Baque and Rolando Gangca testified on the stabbing incident. Baque stated that on January 29, 2000, at about 9:30 in the evening, he saw the victim Fulgencio standing in front of a store directly in front of Baque’s house at 147 Lilac Street, Fairview, Quezon City. Baque testified that Danilo Perez stabbed Fulgencio at the back, after which Roger Perez stabbed him at the chest. Baque further narrated that Fulgencio tried to run, but was blocked by an unidentified man described as having blond hair who held Fulgencio’s arm so he could not escape; the three then took turns stabbing the victim.

Gangca likewise testified that on the same evening at about 9:30, while at home in Lilac Street, he saw Fulgencio being stabbed by Danilo Perez and Roger Perez. He described that three persons were involved: two stabbing the victim while another held the victim’s hands. Gangca stated that Danilo used an icepick and Roger used a stainless steel knife, with the two taking turns stabbing the victim.

The widow, Araceli Cuysona, testified that her husband died because he was stabbed and that she was abroad at the time; she reported P877.00 for hospitalization and P30,000.00 for funeral expenses.

Defense Evidence and Danilo’s Admission

The defense presented witnesses including SPO1 Resty San Pedro. The parties stipulated, in substance, that on November 4, 2000, at about 10:30 in the evening, both appellants voluntarily surrendered at Fairview Police Station 5 with counsel, that they were interviewed by SPO1 San Pedro, and that Danilo Perez admitted during the interview that he stabbed Fulgencio to death. The prosecution reduced Danilo’s oral admission into a typewritten question-and-answer form, which Danilo read and voluntarily signed in the presence of counsel. The defense marked the signatures and the admission sheet, including a document showing Danilo’s claim of sole responsibility.

Additionally, the direct examination of Danilo Perez was dispensed with during the hearing, and the defense later elicited from Danilo during cross-examination that he admitted stabbing the victim and that he surrendered and gave the statement only on November 4, 2000, about ten months after the stabbing incident and after a warrant of arrest had been issued.

Other defense witnesses provided contextual testimony. Francisco Dayola, Jr. testified that on January 29, 2000, he was near a store awaiting its closing and later heard shouts; when he went out, he saw the victim’s body but did not see the attacker. He testified that someone told him the victim had been stabbed by Ariel Baque’s cousin, which he admitted he failed to mention to the police, and he also testified that he did not inform the victim’s wife because she was abroad. Roger Perez testified that he was a jeepney operator and store owner, that on January 29, 2000 at about 8:30 in the evening he was at home drinking with co-workers and friends, excused himself to sleep, and later learned that Fulgencio had been stabbed; he said he was investigated by the police and then allowed to go home, and that he was apprehended again on February 4, 2000 while at home.

Trial Court and Appellate Dispositions

On February 11, 2005, the RTC found both appellants guilty of murder qualified by treachery, imposing reclusion perpetua and awarding, jointly and severally, P50,000.00 as indemnity, P39,877.00 as actual damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages, with detention deducted from sentence. The RTC’s findings included the conclusion that the offense was murder and that treachery qualified the killing.

The Court of Appeals, on May 31, 2007, affirmed the RTC conviction but modified the award by adding P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Issues Raised by the Appellants

The appellants urged that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, principally challenging (1) the credibility of eyewitnesses as allegedly perjured and fabricated, (2) the absence of proof of the corpus delicti because the prosecution did not present the medico-legal officer and the Medico-Legal Report, (3) failure to establish conspiracy and motive, (4) the alleged error of admitting certain documentary exhibits identified as “C,” “E,” and “F” as hearsay against Roger, (5) the alleged legal effect of Danilo’s confession as a judicial confession due to Danilo’s testimony in court, and (6) the contention that Danilo should have been convicted of homicide and sentenced under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Parties’ Arguments Before the Supreme Court

The appellants framed the case around denial and alibi, stressing that Roger allegedly was asleep when the stabbing occurred and that Danilo alone stabbed the victim. They also argued that without the autopsy physician’s testimony and report, the prosecution failed to prove the fact and nature of death, and that conspiracy and motive were not established beyond reasonable doubt. They maintained that the trial court and appellate court erred in fully crediting the eyewitnesses.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the eyewitness testimony was clear, straightforward, consistent, and categorical, and that appellants failed to show any ill motive on the part of witnesses to falsely implicate them. The OSG argued that even absent the doctor and Medico-Legal Report, the prosecution proved corpus delicti through credible proof of the victim’s death and that the death followed the stabbing. It added that motive was not indispensable and that conspiracy could be proved by circumstantial evidence. Finally, it argued that treachery and abuse of superior strength attended the commission, justifying murder.

The Court’s Evaluation of Eyewitness Credibility

The Court sustained the lower courts’ assessment of the prosecution eyewitnesses. It reiterated that findings of fact of the trial court, including its calibration of witness credibility and probative weight, were accorded high respect, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Applying these principles, the Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment. It characterized Baque and Gangca’s testimony as positive, clear, and straightforward, noting that they underwent lengthy and rigorous cross-examination yet did not waver. The Court also emphasized that the witnesses not only identified the appellants but also narrated the roles and specific acts of each appellant in the killing. It further found no evidence showing ill motive to prevaricate.

Denial and Alibi Rejected

The Court held that Roger’s defenses of denial and alibi failed. It ruled that alibi could not prosper merely by asserting that the accused was elsewhere; the accused had to show that it was physically impossible to have been at the scene at the time of the commission. The Court found Roger’s account unconvincing because Roger’s home was only a few meters from where the crime happened. It also rejected Roger’s claim that he was asleep with his wife by pointing out that Roger’s testimony was not corroborated by his wife, who was claimed to have been with him when the victim was stabbed. The Court added that bare denial and alibi were self-serving and could not prevail over positive and unequivocal eyewitness identification. It held that Baque’s identification of Roger as present during the stabbing, coupled with the proximity of his position to the stabbing incident, foreclosed Roger’s defenses. The Court thus sustained conviction as to Roger based on direct eyewitness testimony.

Effect of Danilo’s Claimed “Sole Responsibility”

The Court rejected Danilo’s apparent argument that because he admitted he killed the victim, Roger should be exonerated. The Court reasoned that acceptance of such reasoning would effectively grant automatic exemption from liability to a co-accused merely because one accused elected to plead guilty or claimed sole participation. It held that Roger’s culpability had to be determined from evidence of his participation in the offense charged. The Court found that the prosecution proved Roger’s participation in the stabbing.

Finding of Conspiracy

The Court upheld the finding of conspiracy. It reiterated that conspiracy existed when two or more persons agreed to commit a felony and decided to carry it out. Direct proof of prior agreement was not required, as conspiracy could be inferred from the mode of execution and from the acts of the accused showing joint purpose, concerted action, and community of interest.

Applying these principles, the Court found conspiracy established by the events described by eyewitnesses. It noted that Danilo first stabbed the victim at the back, followed by Roger stabbing the victim at the chest. When the victim tried to run, an unidentified blond-haired man blocked the victim’s path and held his arm so he could not escape, while the three continued to stab the victim. The Court held that these acts demonstrated appellants’ unanimity in design, intent, and execution, supported by closeness and coordination reflecting a common purpose to bring about the victim’s death.

Motive Not an Essential Element

The Court also declared that Roger’s alleged lack of motive would not preclude conviction. It stressed that motive was irrelevant in murder where reliable eyewitness identification established culpability beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, once eyewitness testimony was credited and the prosecution proved the killing and participation of the appellants, motive became immaterial.

Proof of Corpus Delicti Without Autopsy Report

On the claim that corpus delicti was unproven because the prosecution did not present the autopsy physician and the Medico-Legal Report, the Court ruled otherwise. It defined corpus delicti as the fact that a crime had been committed. It clarified that corpus de

...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