G.R. No. 139339 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MANUEL CASTILLO Y GOMEZ, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused MANUEL CASTILLO y GOMEZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of PARRICIDE, as defined in Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to suffer the accessory penalties attendant thereto. No civil indemnity is awarded considering the affidavits of desistance by Anacorita and Salvador Castillo which constitutes [sic] a waiver of the civil liability of the accused. (People vs. Renato Linsangan, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 95232 and 95592, January 31, 1992). His immediate confinement at the National Penitentiary is hereby ordered. Costs de oficio. The trial court gave credence to the eyewitness account of Theresa and held that her positive testimony prevailed over the denial of MANUEL. No ill motive could be imputed to her for testifying against him. The frequent sermons she allegedly received from him were not sufficient reason for her damning testimony. Theresa was purely motivated by her desire to seek justice for the wrongful death of her grandmother. When the defense failed to confront prosecution witnesses Theresa and Anacorita with their respective affidavits of desistance, which they executed before they testified, such omission was taken against MANUEL by the trial court. It resolved that the only possible explanation was that they would have repudiated the said affidavits. The trial court likewise did not give any weight to the affidavit of desistance of Theresa and Anacorita, as well as the joint affidavit of desistance of Anacorita and Salvador. None of the affiants was presented to attest to the truth of the allegations therein. Besides, Anacorita and Salvador were not eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime. However, the trial court appreciated in favor of MANUEL the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. [34] MANUEL timely appealed his conviction to this Court, claiming that the trial court erred: I ... IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDING OF GUILTY (sic) BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II ... IN HOLDING THAT NO WEIGHT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE AFFIDAVITS OF DESISTANCE (EXH. 1, 2, & 3), WHILE IN THE SAME BREATH ABSOLVING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF HIS CIVIL LIABILITY ON THE BASIS THEREOF. As to the first assigned error, MANUEL argues that a scrutiny of Theresa's testimony would show that he mauled Rosenda continuously for five hours, from 10:30 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. the following day. Considering that there were other occupants in the house, the disturbance should have awakened the rest of the family members. It was too incredulous to assume that his father, wife and children were too indifferent to allow such violence. Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish any proof that he had earlier harmed his mother or shown any animosity toward her. MANUEL also cites certain inconsistencies i