GR 139412; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139412 ; April 2, 2003
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JAIME CASTILLANO, SR., RONALD CASTILLANO and JAIME CASTILLANO, JR., accused, RONALD CASTILLANO and JAIME CASTILLANO, JR., appellants.
FACTS
The case stemmed from the killing of Diosdado Volante on July 8, 1996. Animosity existed between the Volante and Castillano families after Diosdado confronted Jaime Castillano, Sr. about indiscriminate gunfire. On the evening of the incident, Luz Volante, the victim’s wife, saw Jaime Sr., Ronald, and Jaime Jr. approach their house. Jaime Sr. fired a shot, after which he and his sons barged in. Luz witnessed Ronald and Jaime Jr., armed with bladed weapons, take turns stabbing her husband. Ronald also struck Diosdado with a pipe, and Jaime Sr. fired his gun, hitting the victim’s thigh. Luz fled and later found her husband mortally wounded. The police, responding to a report, found the victim’s body and a bolo and scabbard at the scene. A manhunt led to the apprehension of the three Castillanos in a jeepney. An autopsy revealed multiple stab and incised wounds and a gunshot wound, with the cause of death being hypovolemic shock.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of appellants Ronald Castillano and Jaime Castillano, Jr. for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Luz Volante to be credible, natural, and consistent. Her positive identification of the appellants as the perpetrators, who were known to her, was accorded full faith and credit. The defense of alibi proffered by the appellants was inherently weak and could not prevail over Luz’s positive testimony. The Court upheld the finding of treachery (alevosia), qualifying the killing to murder. The attack was sudden and unexpected, executed in a manner that deprived the victim, who was tired and reclining, of any chance to defend himself. The appellants, together with their father, employed means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves. The Court modified the awarded damages but sustained the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each appellant, in accordance with Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as there were no modifying circumstances.