Title
People vs. Rodico y Serrano
Case
G.R. No. 107101
Decision Date
Oct 16, 1995
Two brothers, Victorio and Marlo Rodico, convicted of murder for stabbing Dominador delos Santos in 1990, upheld by the Supreme Court based on credible eyewitness testimonies and conspiracy.
murder
positive identification
eyewitnesses
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 107101)

Factual Background

The Information alleged that on December 25, 1990, the accused conspired and acted together, with intent to kill and by taking advantage of superior strength, to stab Dominador delos Santos y Escano. The fatal injury was described as a stab wound penetrating 2.5 cm in the right upper quadrant, perforating and lacerating the liver, and damaging hepatic vessels, resulting in the victim’s death.

Arraignment and Trial Court Disposition

Upon arraignment, appellant and Marlo Rodico pleaded not guilty. After a joint trial, the trial court rendered a Decision dated May 15, 1992, convicting appellant Victorio Rodico and Marlo Rodico of the crime charged. The dispositive portion imposed reclusion perpetua and ordered the accused to jointly and solidarily pay the heirs of the deceased P50,000.00 as compensatory damages; P20,000.00 as moral damages; and P9,100.00 as actual funeral expenses. Appellant was committed to the National Penitentiary pending appeal, subject to the cancellation of bail bond.

The Prosecution’s Evidence

The prosecution relied principally on the testimonies of witnesses Nilda Tuviera, Erna dela Rosa, Teresita delos Santos, Pat. Alexander Sevidal, and Dr. Eufracio Jovellanos, Jr., supported by documentary exhibits. When Marlo Rodico testified and when appellant remained at large, the prosecution used the same testimony and exhibits to establish appellant’s guilt.

Pat. Alexander Sevidal testified that on December 25, 1990 at about 7:15 p.m., he responded to a telephone call and interviewed the victim at the Tayug Eastern District Hospital. The victim allegedly gave an ante mortem statement thumbmarked with his own blood. Sevidal also testified that on December 26, 1990, he brought Marlo Rodico to the police station for custodial investigation, where Sevidal took Marlo’s sworn statement denying participation and allegedly pointing to appellant as the assailant. On January 3, 1991, Sevidal took Erna dela Rosa’s sworn statement, which implicated Marlo and two other unknown persons as the assailants.

Erna dela Rosa, a twelve-year-old student, testified that on December 25, 1990 at about 7:15 p.m., while she and several children watched games at the Nazareth Church premises on Rizal Street, she noticed a commotion outside. She stated that she saw Marlo Rodico stab Dominador delos Santos, who lay on the ground, once in the stomach, while two unknown persons held the victim’s hands and feet. She said she had a view from about three (3) to four (4) meters away and that the place was “too bright.” After the stabbing, the three assailants allegedly ran toward the elementary school.

Nilda Tuviera, a nine-year-old Grade III pupil, corroborated Erna’s account. She testified that she saw Marlo Rodico stab the victim once in the abdomen, with two companions holding the victim—one holding the hands and another holding the feet. She further related that after the assailants ran toward the school, the victim rose, threw stones, and fell again. When asked by the trial court, Nilda testified that she was about five (5) to six (6) meters away and that the street was illuminated by a fluorescent lamp near the electric post that enabled her to recognize Marlo Rodico and other assailants.

Teresita delos Santos, the victim’s daughter, testified that she heard her father’s ante mortem statement as taken down by Sevidal. She also testified that the victim asked her to fight for his rights and whispered that he was about to die, and that funeral and medicine expenses amounted to about P9,000.00.

Dr. Eufracio Jovellanos, Jr. performed the autopsy. He found a stab wound penetrating 2.5 cm and perforating and lacerating the liver, with hepatic vessels damaged. He opined that the injury was of a kind from which the victim might not have survived for more than thirty (30) minutes to one (1) hour, and he testified that the victim made an ante mortem statement before dying.

After appellant was taken into custody and arraigned, the prosecution recalled Nilda Tuviera and Erna dela Rosa. Each testified that while they did not know appellant’s name during earlier direct examinations, they could recognize his face. On recall, both positively identified Victorio Rodico as the person who held the victim’s feet while Marlo stabbed the victim. Their identification was reinforced by their earlier testimony describing the companion who held the feet.

The Defense Evidence

The defense consisted mainly of denial and mutual accusation. Marlo Rodico and Victorio Rodico accused each other of stabbing the victim.

Marlo Rodico testified that around 6:00 p.m. on December 25, 1990, he and a group including Tony Geronimo and Zaldy Geronimo were in the house of Felicidad Padillo. He claimed he left at about 6:45 p.m. and that while he and Daniel Asuncion walked toward the plaza, they saw appellant grappling with the victim near Rizal Street by the Nazareth Church. He stated that during the grappling they rolled on the ground, the victim shouted for help, and appellant ran away. He claimed he did not report the incident because he was arrested at around 2:00 a.m. the next day.

Appellant Victorio Rodico also testified, as his own and only witness. He claimed that at about 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. on December 25, 1990, he, Marlo, Daniel Asuncion, Zaldy Geronimo, and Tony Geronimo were at Felicidad Padillo’s house. He said that Marlo invited him and Daniel for a stroll. During the stroll along Rizal Street, he said a man riding a bicycle appeared. He testified that Marlo ran to the rider and stabbed him once in the stomach. He claimed that he and Daniel ran toward the elementary school while Marlo followed. He stated that Marlo threatened him not to reveal his involvement or he would be “next,” and that appellant allegedly went home and did not tell anyone because he feared Marlo. On cross-examination, appellant maintained his version, testified that the man on the bicycle came within about six (6) meters before Marlo attacked, and confirmed that he even remained silent to his wife and lawyer out of fear. He further testified that when he was informed Marlo accused him, he immediately surrendered to the police, and that he was unaware of the warrant issued on January 4, 1991, and that before learning of Marlo’s accusation, he stayed in his barrio in Caipilan, Tayug.

Appellant’s Assignments of Error and Arguments

Appellant assigned three errors, all focused on alleged insufficiency of evidence: first, that the trial court erred in concluding that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; second, that it erred in finding conspiracy; and third, that it erred in not acquitting him for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellant argued, in substance, that the eyewitnesses Erna dela Rosa and Nilda Tuviera did not identify him by name during their initial direct examinations; that the victim’s ante mortem statement did not mention him; that the credibility and competency of the eyewitnesses were doubtful; and that the prosecution failed to prove motive.

Issues

The decisive issues were whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Victorio Rodico participated as charged; whether the evidence established conspiracy to kill; and whether the trial court properly appreciated the applicable qualifying and aggravating circumstances, including the role of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and the possible mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court affirmed in toto the assailed Decision of the court a quo.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

On identification, the Court rejected appellant’s contention that the failure to name appellant during the first direct examinations created reasonable doubt. The Court held that although Erna and Nilda did not mention appellant’s name initially, upon recall after appellant was in custody, both positively identified him as the person who held the victim’s feet while Marlo stabbed the victim. The Court also found no basis to doubt their identification and narrative, given their asserted proximity and the presence of bright lighting and illumination. The Court relied on the trial court’s assessment that the adolescent witnesses’ narration was “clear, straightforward and convincing,” and it declined to disturb the trial court’s findings on credibility absent a showing that the trial court overlooked significant facts.

The Court further ruled that the omission of appellant’s name from the victim’s ante mortem statement did not weaken the prosecution’s case where appellant was positively identified by eyewitnesses. The Court also sustained the competence of the witnesses despite their youth, noting that tender age does not automatically disqualify testimony and that minor witnesses may convict when their testimony is otherwise credible.

With respect to motive, the Court held that lack of proof of motive does not bar conviction where the evidence establishes identity beyond reasonable doubt.

On conspiracy, the Court explained the concept that conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a felony and a decision to carry it out. It held that even if no proof showed a previous agreement, conspiracy was evident from the manner of the attack. The prosecution evidence established that Marlo stabbed the victim once in the abdomen while appellant held the victim’s feet and another unknown assailant held the victim’s hands. These concerted acts demonstrated a common purpose to kill. The Court reiterated that once conspiracy is shown, each conspirator becomes liable as a co-principal regardless of the extent of participation because the act of one is the act of all in contemplation of law. The Court emphasized that even if appellant held only the feet without inflicting the stabbing injury, that participation facilitated the killing and rendered him co-principal.

On qualifying circumstances and errors in appreciation, the Court stated that the trial court erred in appr

...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