People v. Carillo

G.R. No. 129528 (June 8, 2000)

Oscar Carillo, convicted of murder with Eduardo Candare, upheld by court due to strong witness credibility.

Facts:

The case involves the murder of Ritchie P. Sumud-ong, who was attacked on July 10, 1996, in Lower Rizal, Oroquieta City, by accused-appellant Oscar Carillo and his co-accused Eduardo Candare. The amended information charged both with murder, alleging that they conspired to attack the victim with hunting knives, inflicting fatal wounds without giving him a chance to defend himself.

Eyewitness Richard Pabate, a second cousin of the victim, testified that he and Sumud-ong were walking home after playing basketball when they encountered Carillo and Candare, who suddenly attacked Sumud-ong. Pabate described the weapons used: Candare wielded a flat knife, while Carillo used a small, round weapon resembling an ice pick. After the attack, the victim managed to follow Pabate to a nearby store before collapsing.

Another eyewitness, Danilo Anino, corroborated Pabate's account, stating he witnessed the attack from a distance. He described the suddenness of the assault, which left the victim unable to defend himself. The victim's father, Rito Sumud-ong, testified about the funeral expenses incurred, totaling P30,165.00, although he could not provide receipts.

Dr. Ana Lourdes Tancawan conducted the autopsy and reported that the victim died from multiple stab wounds, identifying two distinct injuries: one caused by a sharp, pointed cylindrical instrument (likely the ice pick) and the other by a double-bladed weapon (likely the hunting knife).

Carillo, in his defense, claimed he was not involved in the stabbing and only fled the scene out of fear. Several defense witnesses supported his claim, asserting that only Candare stabbed the victim. However, the trial court found the prosecution's evidence more credible and convicted Carillo of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages to the victim's heirs.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in finding Carillo guilty of murder when he claimed that only Candare inflicted the fatal wounds.
  2. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and reliable.
  3. Whether the medical certificate sufficiently established the nature of the wounds and the weapons used.
  4. Whether the variance in the information regarding the type of weapon used affected the conviction.
  5. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in the commission of the crime.

Arguments:

For the Prosecution:

  • The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts that established Carillo's involvement in the stabbing alongside Candare.
  • The medical evidence indicated that the victim sustained two distinct stab wounds, likely inflicted by different weapons, supporting the claim that both accused participated in the attack.
  • The suddenness of the attack constituted treachery, as the victim was unarmed and unaware of the impending danger.

For the Defense:

  • Carillo argued that only Candare was responsible for the stabbing, asserting that the defense witnesses corroborated this claim.
  • The defense challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly citing their relationship to the victim as a potential bias.
  • Carillo contended that the medical certificate did not definitively prove that he used an ice pick, as the doctor used terms like "probably" and "may."

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Carillo guilty of murder. It reasoned that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and consistent with the physical evidence. The court emphasized that the presence of two distinct stab wounds indicated the involvement of both accused, as the weapons used were likely different.

The court also addressed the defense's arguments regarding the credibility of the witnesses, stating that kinship does not automatically discredit a witness. It noted that the testimonies were consistent with the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim.

Regarding the variance in the information about the weapons used, the court held that it was inconsequential, as conspiracy was established, making each accused liable for the acts of the other. The court confirmed the presence of treachery, as the attack was sudden and left the victim defenseless.

The court modified the civil liability aspect, deleting the actual damages for funeral expenses due to lack of receipts but awarding nominal damages and moral damages to the victim's heirs.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The credibility of witnesses is assessed based on the consistency and compatibility of their testimonies with physical evidence, rather than merely their number.
  • The presence of conspiracy in a crime allows for the liability of each participant for the acts of the others.
  • Treachery can be established even in frontal attacks if the victim is taken by surprise and unable to defend themselves.
  • The requirement for proof in criminal cases is moral certainty, not absolute certainty.