G.R. No. L-38786 December 15, 1982
People of the Philippines vs. Welmo Romero

FACTS

Accused-appellant Welmo Romero, along with his brothers, was charged with murder for the stabbing death of Charlie Relano. The information alleged that on April 25, 1966, the accused, with treachery and evident premeditation, attacked and stabbed Relano while he was sleeping in his house in Milagros, Masbate. Appellant was apprehended years later. During his trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim’s wife, Elena Prasmo, and mother-in-law, Filomena Laguerta. The trial court also admitted, without defense objection, the testimony and autopsy report of Dr. Rodolfo Garde, which were originally given during the separate trial of appellant’s co-accused, Jose Romero.
Filomena Laguerta testified that she witnessed appellant and his brother Pludino enter the house, proceed to the room where the victim was sleeping, and successively stab him. The defense presented an alibi, claiming appellant was elsewhere. Appellant also challenged the admissibility of Dr. Garde’s testimony, arguing it violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Dr. Garde and in convicting appellant of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the evidentiary issue, the Court found no reversible error in admitting Dr. Garde’s testimony. Even assuming its inadmissibility, the conviction remained solidly based on the direct, credible, and consistent eyewitness accounts of Filomena Laguerta and Elena Prasmo, who were cross-examined during appellant’s own trial. Their testimonies sufficiently established the fact of death, the nature and location of the fatal wounds, and appellant’s direct participation.
The crime was correctly classified as murder, qualified by treachery, as the attack was launched while the victim was asleep, rendering him defenseless. The Court acknowledged the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. However, it was offset by the mitigating circumstance of a vindication of a grave offense, as the evidence showed the victim and his brother had seriously wounded and caused the death of appellant’s brother just hours before the incident. This proximate provocation sufficiently aroused appellant’s passion, thereby neutralizing the aggravating circumstance. With no net aggravating circumstance, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was proper. The judgment was affirmed.