People V Castillo

PEOPLE v CASTILLO
April 20, 1998| Panganiban

Plaintiff: People of PH | Accused: Robert
Castillo
TOPIC: Aggravating Circumstances
Means of Commission TREACHERY
FACTS
Robert Castillo killed Antonio Domietta by
stabbing him with a bladed weapon. He was
convicted of murder, qualified by evident
premeditation, use of superior strength
and treachery and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.
Version of the Prosecution
May 25, 1993, around 1am: Eulogo Velasco
and Dorie (Employees of Cola Pubhouse
along EDSA) were talking outside of the
pubhouse when Victim Tony Dometita
(customer) came from the pubhouse and told
them he was going home.
Castillo suddenly appeared and stabbed
Tony with a fan knife on his left chest.
Tony pleaded for help, but Castillo stabbed
him again, hitting him on the left hand.
Eulogio tried to help by placing a chair
between Tony and Castillo, then he shouted
at Tony to run away. Tony ran towards the
other side of EDSA, but Castillo pursued him.
Tony died and his body was found
outside the fence of the Iglesia ni Cristo
Compound, EDSA, Quezon City.
Based on testimony by Velasco:
He detailed the way Castillo stabbed Tony
His testimony is corroborated by Melinda
Mercado, who said she saw Castillo
walking away from the pubhouse with
the bladed weapon
Version of the Defense
May 25, 1993: Tony was found dead by
police officers at the alley on the right side of
the Iglesia ni Cristo Church at EDSA in Bago
Bantay.
On the same night, in the area, a tricycle
driver, saw a man being attacked by 2
malefactors. His testimony was recorded on
a blotter in the Barangay Tanods office.
Alibi for Castillio: he was not at the place

during the time of the killing. This was
supported by testimonies of Castillos mother
and neighbor:
Mother: He was asleep in his house at the
time of the incident (9pm to 6am)
Neighbor said she visited him on the night
of May 24, 1993
Also, medico-legal found that the victims
heart and lungs were impaled, making it
impossible for him to traverse the
distance from the pubhouse to Iglesia.
Castillo also claims the TC judge presented
bias against him because he took over from
the prosecution and asked questions in a
leading manner. He also allegedly
interrupted cross-examinations in favor of
the prosecution.
ISSUES/HELD/RATIO (#4 IS RELEVANT TO
DOCTRINE)
1. W/N TC erred in giving credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
NO
Testimony of Velasco that he saw
Castillo stab the victim is clear and
unequivocal. The testimony of Velasco that
the accused stabbed the victim on the left
side of the chest and on the left arm was
confirmed by the medical findings.
The court did not accept the tricycle
drivers testimony, considering that it was
dark and the distance from where he saw the
incident was quite far, it could not have been
possible for him to recognize the victim and
his attackers
He did not notice if the 2 assailants had
weapons
He was around 25 meters away and the
only light was coming from the headlight
of his tricycle
His tricycle was moving and he was in a
hurry
Regarding the stab wounds on the heart and
lungs, medico-legal did not rule out the
possibility that he could have survived
the walk to Iglesia.
2. W/N the TC judge showed partiality and bias
during trial NO
It is a judges prerogative and duty to ask

clarificatory questions to ferret out the truth.
Questions asked by the judge were merely
clarificatory in nature. Castillo failed to
demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the
questions propounded by the trial judge.
3. W/N Castillos alibi standsNO
Castillos defense of alibi cannot prosper,
because he failed to prove that:
He was at some other place at the time
the crime was committed
It was physically impossible for him to be
at the crime scene at the time of the
alleged crime because his house was
near the crime scene
4. W/N THE KILLING WAS QUALIFIED BY
THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF:
Evident premeditationNO
The requisites for evident premeditation
were not proven by the prosecution:
- The time when the offender
determined to commit the crime
- An act manifestly indicating that he
clung to his determination
- A sufficient lapse of time between
determination and execution to allow
himself time to reflect upon the
consequences of his act
Abuse of superior strengthNO
Prosecution failed to prove that the
assailant purposely used excessive force
out of proportion to the means of defense
available to the person attacked. Failed to
prove that there was a marked difference

in the stature and build of Castillo and the
victim
TREACHERYYES
There is treachery because the
following requisites are present:
1. That the means, methods, and
forms of execution employed gave
the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or
to retaliate
The presence of defense wounds
does not negate treachery because
the first stab was inflicted on the
chest. The incised wounds in the
arms were inflicted when the victim
was already rendered defenseless.
2. That such means, methods, and
forms of execution were
deliberately and consciously
adopted by the accused without
danger to his person.
Accused appeared from nowhere
and swiftly and unexpectedly
stabbed the victim just as he was
bidding goodbye to his friend. The
said action rendered it difficult for
the victim to defend himself.
APPEAL DENIED. TC DECISION
AFFIRMED

People V Castillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Castillo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Castillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v CASTILLO

April 20, 1998| Panganiban

Alibi for Castillio: he was not at the place

It is a judges prerogative and duty to ask

prove that there was a marked difference

You might also like