G.R. No.

95891-92 (digest) February 28, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

OSMUNDO FUERTES @ "Dodo"; AGUSTIN LUYONG @ "Jack" and "Jackie

Pangalan" (at large);

EDGAR GIBONE; FRANCISCO SALVA @ "Bochoy"; and ROLANDO TANO @ "Boy

Negro" and "Brando", accused,

OSMUNDO FUERTES, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

 Brother’s Napoleon Aldeguer (14, male) and Mateo Aldeguer (16, male) were
found at the bottom of a dried creek after being bound, gagged, and mutilated by
accused-appellant Osmundo Fuertes (Dodo) along with Agustin Luyong (Jack,
Jackie), Edgar Gibone, Francisco Salva (Buchoy), and Rolando Tano (Boy
Negro, Brando).
 Fuertes, Gibone, Salva, ang Tano plead “not guilty” to both charges upon
arraignment while Salva was discharged by the trial court in order to be utilized
as witness. After being apprehended and committed to jail, Luyong plead and
was found “guilty”.
 After a joint trial, Tano, Gibone, and Fuertes were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt with Tano and Fuertes as the principals.

ISSUE:

 Osmundo Fuertes appealed alleging that the trial court made a mistake by
relying heavily on the testimony of Francisco Salva as well as finding that there
was a conspiracy between him and the other accused.
  Fuertes countered Salva’s testimony with his own account of where he was at
the time the crime took place and the day after, such as church activities, his duty
as the purok president, and the threats to him and family after being told about
what happened to the Aldeguer brothers. His account of the events was
corroborated and confirmed by his wife.
 Osmundo Fuertes therefore denies any participation in the crime, claiming that
he’s being framed by the officers who first approached him asking whether he
knows where the Aldeguer brothers were (at the time when they were just
presumed to be missing). He also claimed that Francisco Salvo was being
coached and should have his credibility question due to his role in the crime.

RULING:

 The court disagreed with these notions, stating that while the decision had rested
mainly on Salva’s testimony, it was not predicated solely on that. What actually
damaged Fuertes’s plea at innocence were the Sworn Statements made by
Agustin Luyong and Edgar Gibone. The said statements were made separately
in the presence of lawyers both men individually chose, Fiscals Salvador M. Bijis
and Nino A. Batinagana respectively. Both statements bear certification of being
given freely and intelligently.
 The findings of conspiracy were also present in these statements as Gibone
stated as he was called by Fuertes to meet him at his house after he (Fuertes),
Tano, and Luyong were unable to catch the boys the first time.
At the accused-appellant’s home, Gibone heard Fuertes ordering Luyong to kill
the two boys once they caught them which Luyong agreed to and in turn was
handed an envelope containing cash by Fuertes. Agustin Luyong admitted in his
statement that Fuertes did promise him the price of P5,000 if he killed the minors,
which Fuertes failed to carry out.
 Given the testimonies as well as the nature of the crime and how it was carried
out—the hogtying, the gagging, the mutilation despite the gap in age and
strength between the two minor victims and the adult men—it was obvious that
 the accused had planned the murders without even giving the victims the
opportunity to defend themselves. Evident premeditation indicates deliberate
planning and preparation.
 While the initial trial court made an error in equating reclusion perpetua to life
imprisonment, the Court appealed and affirmed the sentence of reclusion
perpetua with the modification that the heirs of the victims be given P50,000
rather than P30,000.

Note:

1. reclusion perpetua – entails at least 30 years in prison after which the convict
becomes eligible for pardon although the maximum period shall not exceed 40 years.

2. life imprisonment – does not appear to have any extent or duration

(Full text was 24 pages.)