G.R. No. 91262 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. WILFREDO LLAGUNO, JUDY REYES @ FLORANTE REYES @ LORENZO PEDROSA AND A CERTAIN "ATIS," ACCUSED, JUDY REYES @ FLORANTE REYES @ LORENZO PEDROSA, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, he is ordered immediately released, unless he is also detained for another cause. xxx" On October 26, 1987, Fiscal Generosa Labra requested a resetting of the case because no witness for the prosecution was available. Atty. Vicente Cabahug, the appellants counsel, objected on the ground that the remaining accused, Judy Reyes, was detained, adding that a previous warning had already been given to the prosecution in the last hearing during which it also failed to present any witness. Thus, the trial court provisionally dismissed the case: [9] "In view of this, the instant case as against JUDY REYES is hereby ordered provisionally dismissed. The accused Judy Reyes, @ Florante Reyes is hereby ordered released from the BBRC [10] unless he is also detained for another case. Two days after, on October 29, 1987, Atty. Ramon B. Ceniza [11] representing the Citizens Legal Assistance Society of the Philippines (CLASP) as private prosecutor, and with the conforme of Asst. Fiscal Labra, filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying for the reinstatement of the case against the appellant. [12] In an Order dated November 2, 1987, the trial court granted the motion and trial thereafter ensued. After the evidence from both parties had been presented, the assailed Decision penned by Judge Jose P. Burgos was promulgated, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: [13] "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, this Court finds the accused Judy Reyes alias Florante Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not of the complex crime as charged in the information but of the offense of MURDER defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the aggravating circumstances of employing means to weaken the defense or means to insure or afford impunity, the use of a motor vehicle, commission of the offense at nighttime and in an uninhabited place and sentence is hereby rendered ordering the accused to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with the accessory penalties under the law, to indemnify the heirs of Bienvenido Mercado the sum of Thirty [Thousand] (P30,000.00) Pesos and [to] pay the costs." On September 26, 1989, the accused through Counsel Cabahug filed a Notice erroneously appealing the judgment to the Court of Appeals [14] Correcting the lapse, [15] the Court of Appeals in a letter dated December 6, 1989 [16] forwarded the records of the case to this Court. After this Courts receipt of all pleadings and documents, the case is now ripe for resolution. [17] The Facts According to the Prosecution The solicitor generals summary of the facts is as follows: On February 5, 1987 at 8:30 oclock in the morning, the appellant Judy Reyes, chief security and rattan controller at GF International Export Inc., Cebu City, informed Tomas Banzon, the company duty guard, that he caught a thief on February 4, 1987 (TSN, November 24, 1987, p. 26). Appellant then took Banzon to his room where a person named Bienvenido Merc