View full case

PEOPLE v. GERRY CUENCA Y MEDRANO

FACTS:

Gerry Cuenca, Crisanto Agon, and their co-accused appealed their murder conviction. The Information stated that they conspired to attack and kill Wilfredo Castillo. During the trial, Marcial Morillo testified that he witnessed the assault and identified the appellants and their co-accused as the assailants. Morillo saw Gerry and Jackson Cuenca repeatedly hit the victim with pieces of wood while Crisanto and Bernie Agon held the victim's hands. The witness saw the appellants and their co-accused carry the victim's body towards Calabarzon Highway. The following day, the victim's body was found in a well.

Feliciano reported his brother's death to the police, and an investigation was conducted. Dr. Corazon Sabile conducted an autopsy on the body and determined the cause of death to be multiple stab wounds. Marcial Morillo informed Ruben Castillo about witnessing the mauling incident and later reported it to the police.

The defense presented a different version of events, claiming that the appellants and their co-accused were elsewhere during the crime. They alleged that Wilfredo Castillo attacked Jackson Cuenca and that a commotion occurred outside Yolanda Cuenca's house. The trial court, relying on Morillo's testimony, convicted the appellants.

The trial court found that conspiracy was present in the killing, rejecting the defenses presented by the accused. The appellants raised several alleged errors in the trial court's decision, but the court found no sufficient basis to reverse the conviction.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of the lone eyewitness.

  2. Whether the trial court erred in not considering that the victim died of multiple stab wounds and not due to injuries caused by a piece of wood.

  3. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the defense of alibi of the accused-appellants in the appreciation of the whole evidence presented by the prosecution and defense.

  4. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness affect his credibility and the verity of his testimony;

  5. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the victim died from injuries caused by a piece of wood rather than from multiple stab wounds.

  6. Is the defense of alibi sufficient to exculpate the accused?

  7. Did treachery attend the killing?

  8. Was there conspiracy among the accused?

  9. Whether the award for actual damages should be reduced from P35,850 to P7,300

  10. Whether the award for loss of earning capacity in the amount of P4,800,000 should be deleted

RULING:

  1. The Court finds no cogent basis to reverse appellants' conviction. The trial court did not err in giving full faith and credence to the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Marcial Morcillo. The testimonies of both the prosecution and defense witnesses, as well as other pieces of evidence, support Morcillo's account of the incident.

  2. The Court agrees with the trial court that conspiracy attended the killing. Despite the discrepancy between the cause of death stated in the information and the testimony regarding the use of a piece of wood as the instrument of the crime, the evidence still supports a finding of conspiracy among the accused.

  3. The Court further upholds the trial court's ruling in not considering the defense of alibi in the appreciation of the evidence. Alibi, being easily fabricated, must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the alibi defense was not substantiated.

  4. The inconsistencies in the witness's testimony are insignificant and immaterial to the essential fact testified to -- the killing of the victim. The witness remained steadfast in his narration of what he had witnessed and his credibility was not affected. The trial court's assessment of the witness and his credibility is entitled to great weight and is conclusive and binding, as long as it is not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of significant facts or circumstances.

  5. In the absence of direct evidence, appellants can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence. The totality of the evidence, consisting of the positive identification of appellants as members of the group that mauled the victim, the witness's observation of appellants acting in unison to beat and carry the unconscious body of the victim, the recovery of the victim's corpse with multiple injuries near the place of the mauling, appellants being the last persons seen with the victim before he died, the flight of other accused and their continuous evasion of arrest, and the lack of motive for the witness to testify against appellants, shows beyond reasonable doubt that appellants were responsible for the killing. The trial court did not err in concluding that the victim died from injuries caused by a piece of wood rather than from multiple stab wounds.

  6. Defense of Alibi

  7. The defense of alibi is considered as the weakest of all defenses and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. In this case, the Court found that the accused failed to establish that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime. Their claim of being at another location during the crime was dismissed because the distance between the other location and the crime scene was just a few kilometers away and could be traveled in a few minutes. The positive identification of the accused by an eyewitness prevailed over their alibi defense.

  8. Conspiracy and Treachery

  9. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that treachery attended the killing. Treachery exists when the means of execution employed by the offender ensures the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from the defense of the victim. In this case, the accused, together with their co-accused, held the victim while others beat him with a piece of wood. The victim was unarmed and defenseless, fulfilling the criteria for treachery. The Court also found that there was conspiracy among the accused because they acted in concert to achieve the same objective of beating up and killing the victim.

  10. The Court affirmed the reduction of the award for actual damages from P35,850 to P7,300.

  11. The Court deleted the award for loss of earning capacity in the amount of P4,800,000.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Credibility of eyewitness testimony can be determined based on the assessment of the trial court, considering the testimonies of both prosecution and defense witnesses, as well as other pieces of evidence.

  • Conspiracy can be inferred from the collective act of the accused in furtherance of a common objective.

  • Discrepancies in the cause of death between the information and the testimony of witnesses do not negate the existence of conspiracy if other evidence supports its finding.

  • Alibi must be established by clear and convincing evidence to be considered as a valid defense.

  • Inconsequential inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of witnesses do not necessarily affect their credibility or the verity of their testimonies. So long as the testimonies agree on substantial matters, their credibility and testimonies remain intact.

  • The factual findings of the trial court, especially regarding witness testimonies, are accorded great weight and are binding unless tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of significant facts or circumstances.

  • The testimony of a single credible and positive witness is sufficient for conviction, as truth is established by the quality rather than the quantity of evidence.

  • Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict if the following requisites are present: (1) more than one circumstance is proven, (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and (3) the combination of all the circumstances proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, to the exclusion of all others. Direct eyewitness testimony is not always required when circumstantial evidence is sufficiently established.

PARTIAL DIGEST

  • Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

  • Treachery exists when the means of execution employed by the offender ensures the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from the defense of the victim.

  • Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement and decide on the commission of a felony. It is not necessary to prove prior agreement, it is enough that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.

  • The court has the power to modify the amount of damages awarded by the trial court if it finds that the amount is excessive or inadequate.

  • In awarding damages for loss of earning capacity, the court must consider the age, life expectancy, and earning capacity of the victim, as well as the victim's income prior to the injury.