CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION- 2

(Special Crime Investigation with Legal Medicine)

ACTIVITY NO . 1

CASE STUDY/ CASE DIGEST

People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

Rodolfo Hilario y Martinez, Rodrigo Hilario y Martinez, and John Doe, Accused
Rodrigo Hilario y Martinez, Accused-Appellant.

QUESTIONS

1. Supply the Six Cardinal Points of Criminal Investigation based on the Facts
of the Case.
What specific offense was The offense committed was murder qualified that
committed? was qualified by treachery.
The offense was committed on October 30,1990 at
When was the offense committed?
about 8:30 PM.
The offense was committed in front of Mang Jack’s
Where it was Committed?
store located at L.Lupa St. ,Caloocan City, Metro Manila
The brothers, Rodolfo Hilario y Martinez and Rodrigo
Who Committed it? Hilario y Martinez together with their Cumpadre
committed the offense.
The act was committed due to a case of mistaken
Why it was Committed? What was identity. The people who committed the offense wanted
the motive of the Accused? and planned to kill Berong, however they accidentally
killed his friend Carlos instead.
The offense was committed through the
conspiracy of the 3 accused. At 2 o’clock in the
afternoon of October 30,1990 they planned the
killing of Bertong, and decided to execute the
plan at night. The plan they created consisted of
Rodrigo furnishing the weapons which are a bolo
and a foot-long ice pick and the one who will act
as a look-out, Rodolfo who is the back-up and
How it was Committed? their Cumpadre who will be the one to go for the
kill. On the night of October 30,1990, at Mang
Jack’s store Bertong and Carlos were both
wearing white. Then later on, the 3 executed
their plan without knowing that Bertong already
removed his shirt, which lead to Carlos Reyes
being mistakenly and bluntly stabbed by the
Cumpadre at the back, causing Carlo Reyes’s
death.

2. What was this case all about?

The case is about the murder case of Carlos Reyes, and how the accused was
found guilty with murder.

3. Where was the original jurisdiction of this case? What courts were involved in
the trial and review of this case?

The original jurisdiction of this case was at the Supreme Court, since the
Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction over cases in which the penalty is reclusion
perpetua or higher. The courts involved in the trial and review of this case are lower
court (Regional Trial Court) and the Supreme Court.
4. Were all the accused was apprehended ? Who was charge and what was the
charge? What was the qualifying circumstances mentioned in the information
that qualifies it to murder?

No, only one of the accused was apprehended. Rodrigo Hilario Y Martinez was
the one charged with murder. The qualifying circumstances mentioned in the
information that qualified it to murder are; the offense was not parricide or homicide,
and the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery, which without a
doubt existed due to the fact that the victim was attacked and stabbed unexpectedly.

5. Did the accused pleads guilty or not guilty? If the accused pleaded guilty
what was the effect of this in the trial of the case?

The accused pleaded guilty. If the accused pleaded guilty, the trial of the case
will be dismissed earlier, and the accused will be given a less severe punishment or
penalty since he invoked the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilt.

6. Did both courts find the presence of conspiracy in this case? What is
conspiracy and how does this affects the criminal liability of the accused ?

Yes, both courts found the presence of conspiracy in this case. Conspiracy is an
agreement that two or more persons come up with concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. The existence of conspiracy is decisive in determining
whether two or more persons who participated in the commission of an offense are
liable as co-principals or accomplices or are exempt from criminal liability. If an express
or implied conspiracy is proven, all conspirators may be regarded as co-principals
regardless of their participation in the execution of a crime. Their liability is collective
and joint. In this case, the actions of the conspirators manifest a common purpose,
which is to kill Bertong. They planned to kill Bertong and are all present on the crime
scene the night the offense occurred, making them all co-principals. In a conspiracy, all
the acts of conspirators that are aligned with a common purpose to commit a crime, is
in contemplation of the law, the act of each one of them. Hence, all three accused are
liable for murder. This is why, although the Cumpadre was the one who killed Carlos
Reyes, the accused-appelant was still charged with the crime of murder.

7. Who was the personalities involved in this case and what was their
participation on the incident and during the trial?

The following are the personalities involved in this case along with their
participation on the incident and during the trial:

 Carlos Reyes - Victim

  Berong - target for killing
 Rodrigo Hilario y Martinez - Accused-Appelant
 Rodolfo Hilario y Martinez – Accused
 Cumpadre/John Doe – Unidentified accused
 Danilo Manzanares – Witness
 Grey Reyes – Father of the victim and filed a complaint together with the
witness against the accused.
 Virginia Reyes – Mother of the victim
 NBI Senior Agent Ferdinand Lavin – Agent-on-the-case.

8. What was the alibi of the accused? Does his alibi prevailed over the positive
identification of the prosecution witness? Discuss the ruling of the court on
the matter.

The alibi of the accused included his declaration that he is a barangay tanod of
Barangay 32, Caloocan City, and that on the night of October 30, 1990 he was assigned
on 12-hour duty shift at the Barangay Hall from 6 o’clock in the afternoon up to 6
o’clock in the morning of the following day. The accused also added that he, together
with five tanods conducted a roving patrol at 2 o’clock in the morning that lasted until 6
o’clock in the morning.

The accused also claimed that Danilo’s testimonies are lies, and that the former
dragged him in this case is because he harboured a grudge against him. According to
the accused, he and Danilo had a fight on April 22,1991 and that it was Danilo who
treacherously waited and attacked him near the Barangay Hall after he had an argument
with the former’s wife. Despite his statements, the alibi of the accused did not prevail
over the positive identification of the prosecution witness.

The court ruled that the defense of alibi of the accused cannot overcome the
evidence on record especially Danilo’s categorical and credible testimony which identifies
him as one of the perpetrators of the crime, and according to the court, positive
identification always prevail over alibi.

9. Was the accused in this case was convicted in the lower court? What was the
penalty?

Yes, the accused in this case was convicted in the lower court. For being found
guilty for the crime of murder, the accused was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, together with all the accessory penalties imposed by law, and to pay
1/3 of the costs. He is further sentenced to pay jointly and severally with his co-accused
the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the victim Carlos Reyes, and
 P30,000.00 for actual funeral expenses, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.

10.Why was the accused was convicted despite the facts that he and his cohorts
did not killed their intended target instead they killed the wrong person?

The accused was convicted despite the facts that he and his cohorts failed to kill
their intended target instead they killed the wrong person because according to Article 4
of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a
felony, although the wrongful act done be different from that which is intended. One
who intentionally commits a felony is responsible and can be held liable for all the
consequences that may naturally or logically result from his action, intended or not.

11.Was the accused satisfied by the decision rendered by the lower court? What
was the alleged errors in the decision of the lower court?

No, the accused was not satisfied rendered by the lower court. He continued to
claim innocence by pointing out three alleged errors in the decision of the lower court.
First is that the trial court erred in giving credence to star witness Danilo Manzanares’s
testimony which was obviously fabricated and rehearsed. Second is that the trial court
erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
despite the fact that the star witness Danilo Manzanares’s testimony was uncorroborated
by those who were likewise present at the store. The third and the last one is that the
trial court failed to consider the alibi of the accused that he was with the roving team of
barangay tanods on that fateful night despite the inherent weaknesses of the testimony
of the star witness Danilo Manzanares who admitted holding a grudge against the
accused.

12.Choose one in the three errors raised before the Supreme Court by the
accused appelant and discuss it briefly in your own understanding.

One of the three errors raised before the Supreme Court by the accused
appellant is that the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder despite the fact that the star witness Danilo Manzanares
testimony was uncorroborated by those who were likewise present at the store. This
means that the accused claimed that the Trial court made an error or a mistake in
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He backed up this assertion with the fact
that other customers who were present at the store the night the incident occurred did
not corroborate or support the testimony of the key witness Danilo Manzanares. The
accused implied that since there is no person that was present at the store that can
support Danilo’s testimony, the trial court’s decision in finding him guilty beyond
reasonable was wrong. The accused made the implication that the trial court erred or
 made an error in finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt since no one who was in
the store could corroborate the star witness' evidence.

13. Did the Supreme Court set aside and reversed the decision of the lower
court?

No, the Supreme Court did not set aside and did not reverse the decision of the
lower court. Aside from that, the Supreme Court also supported the decision of the
lower court, giving the same penalty and punishment to the accused-appellant.
However, there is a difference. The Supreme Court did not appreciate the qualifying
circumstance of “evident premeditation” in this case, and only used treachery as a
qualifying circumstance for the crime of murder; contrary to the Lower court which
appreciated both the qualifying circumstances of “evident premeditation” and treachery
in this case.

14. Did the higher court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of “evident
premeditation” in this case? Why was the case was not downgraded into
Homicide?

No, the higher court did not appreciate the qualifying circumstance of “evident
premeditation” in this case. The higher court did not appreciate the circumstance of
“evident premeditation” in this case due to the fact that the person who became the
victim or the one that got killed was different from the person whom the defendant
proposed to kill. The case was not downgraded into homicide despite the absence of the
qualifying circumstance “evident premeditation” since it clearly appears in record that
the assault is attended by treachery. Treachery, according to Article 248 of the Revised
Penal code is a qualifying circumstance of murder. Treachery is the suddenness and
unexpectedness of the assault on the part of the person attacked. Treachery clearly
exists in this case, since Carlos Reyes was attacked unexpectedly and with deliberate
intent to kill, not giving him any chance to struggle or defend himself.

15.Did this activity enhances your understanding of the institution of criminal

case? What were the lessons you have learned in this case study?

Yes this activity enhanced my understanding of the institution of criminal case.

From this study, I learned the meaning of different words that are used in criminal
investigations or case such as treachery and conspiracy. I also learned about certain
laws and qualifying circumstances that are important in determining the offense
committed by a suspect.
Prepared by : Prepared for:

Carlo Louise D. Manoles Alberto Peñafiel

Second Year - Alpha Police Master Sergeant
Student Instructor