People v. Cabildo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 19, 1999, at 11:00 p.m., Joy Herrera was driving a tricycle. Freddie Cabildo, Jesus Palao, Jr., Rodrigo Abian, and Rene Tamba blocked their path, forcibly pulled Herrera from the tricycle, and mauled him. Rocky Daquer, passing by with passengers, alighted to pacify the group. Palao threatened Daquer with death and drew a fan knife. Daquer and Herrera ran in separate directions. Cabildo pursued Daquer, grabbed his jacket causing him to fall. Palao stabbed Daquer twice, hitting him in the lower left side of his back. Cabildo and his group continued to maul Daquer until the police arrived. Daquer sustained an abrasion on his left knee and a stab wound at his left lumbar area, which were expected to heal in 15 days. Procedural History: Cabildo, Palao, and Abian were charged with frustrated homicide. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found them guilty of frustrated homicide, sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty and ordering them to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the finding of conspiracy but modified the conviction to attempted homicide, noting the wounds were not fatal. The CA imposed an indeterminate penalty for attempted homicide. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Freddie Cabildo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He questioned the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the competency of a witness, and argued that his guilt was not established by the requisite quantum of evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the victim's role in the tricycle are material to affect the outcome of the case. Whether the testimony of a witness who did not witness the stabbing incident is competent. Whether the petitioner's guilt for attempted homicide was established by the requisite quantum of evidence. Whether conspiracy was sufficiently established among the accused. Whether the crime committed was frustrated homicide or attempted homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the inconsistencies in witness testimonies were trivial and immaterial. It held that conspiracy was sufficiently established by the concerted actions of the accused, and that the crime committed was attempted homicide, not frustrated homicide, due to the superficial nature of the stab wound.
Ratio Decidendi
On the materiality of inconsistencies in witness testimonies: The Court held that inconsistencies pointed out by the petitioner regarding whether Herrera was a driver or a passenger of the tricycle were too trivial and immaterial to affect the trial court's conclusions. These discrepancies did not relate to the essential elements of the crime committed against Daquer. The Court reiterated the principle that findings of fact of the trial court, its assessment of witness credibility, and its conclusions will not be disturbed on appeal unless cogent facts were overlooked or misconstrued. On the competency of a witness who did not witness the stabbing: The Court found that the testimony of Herrera, who admittedly did not witness the stabbing of Daquer, was not intended to establish the stabbing incident itself. Instead, Herrera's testimony was meant to establish the fact that a commotion preceded the attack on Daquer. Furthermore, any contradicting estimates of the length of the knife by Herrera did not detract from the undisputed fact that a stab wound was inflicted on Daquer. The competency of Herrera as a witness to the stabbing incident should have been raised at the opportune time during trial, not on appeal. On the establishment of guilt by the requisite quantum of evidence: The Court affirmed that the petitioner's guilt was established by the requisite quantum of evidence, primarily based on the clear and positive testimony of the victim, Rocky Daquer. Daquer positively identified his assailants and the manner by which the crime was committed. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a single credible witness, especially the victim, is sufficient to support a conviction due to the natural tendency of victims to remember their malefactors. On the establishment of conspiracy: The Court disagreed with the petitioner's assertion that conspiracy was not sufficiently established. It found that conspiracy could be deduced from the concerted acts of Cabildo, Palao, and Abian towards the realization of their common unlawful goal of stabbing Daquer. Palao's threat to kill Daquer, coupled with his immediate drawing of a knife and pursuit of Daquer, along with Cabildo's act of holding Daquer and Abian's participation in the chase and subsequent mauling, demonstrated a joint purpose and design. The Court noted that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence but can be inferred from the conduct of the parties. On the classification of the crime as attempted vs. frustrated homicide: The Court agreed with the CA that the crime committed was attempted homicide, not frustrated homicide. This was based on the medical findings that the stab wound sustained by Daquer was superficial, measuring only 2 centimeters long and 5 centimeters deep, and that no vital organ was hit. The Court concluded that these injuries, barring unforeseen complications, would heal within 15 days and were not life-threatening, thus, not all acts of execution that would have produced homicide were performed.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy can be inferred from the concerted acts of the accused, even if not proven by direct evidence, demonstrating a joint purpose and design. The testimony of a single credible witness, especially the victim, is sufficient to support a conviction.