Name: _____________________________________

Section:_____________________

CASE TITLE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HESSON

CALLAO Y MARCELINO AND JUNELLO AMAD, ACCUSED, HESSON CALLAO Y
MARCELINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
[ G.R. No. 228945. March 14, 2018 ]

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, the events took place in Guincalaban, Tayasan, Negros Oriental, at a flea

market where Sario Joaquin (also known as Sario) was present with his friends Hesson,

Junello, and Remmey. Hesson and Junello had planned to kill a person named Fernando

Adlawan, allegedly under the orders of Enrile Yasores. Sario, however, claimed that he was

not involved in the plan and had doubts about the motive for killing Fernando. Later that

night, at around 8:00 PM, Hesson, Junello, Remmy, and Sario left the flea market and went to

Fernando's residence. Sario stated that he went along with them because Hesson threatened to

harm him if he refused, knowing that Sario overheard their plan. The crime unfolded when

Junello approached Fernando, asking for a cigarette lighter. After Fernando gave him the

lighter, Junello attacked Fernando on the nape with a piece of firewood. Junello then used a

bolo to hack Fernando's body, causing him to lose consciousness. While Fernando was lying

on the ground, Hesson stabbed him twice in the chest with a knife. Hesson and Junello

proceeded to feed Fernando's organs to a nearby pig. Sario, on the other hand, claimed that he

was merely a spectator, standing on the opposite side during the incident. Sario admitted that

neither he nor Remmy attempted to stop the accused or flee the scene out of fear that they

would be killed as well. Later on, Remmy was reportedly killed by Enrile during the town

fiesta of Guincaloban.

During the trial, Sario's testimony was presented as evidence against Hesson. Hesson,

however, asserted his defense of denial, claiming that he was at home resting on the night of
the incident and was only invited by Fernando to his house. Hesson alleged that upon arriving

at Fernando's place, he witnessed Junello stabbing Fernando and saw Enrili assisting in the

act. Hesson argued that he had no connection or animosity with Sario, Junello, or Enrile. On

January 26, 2015, the trial court found Hesson guilty of the crime of murder qualified by

treachery, based on the credibility of Sario's testimony, which was described as

straightforward and identifying Hesson without hesitation. Subsequently, Hesson appealed

the verdict to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a Notice of Appeal but was immediately

denied.

ISSUES:

Hesson, presumably a party involved in a court case, has analyzed the court's decision

and identified several errors. First, Hesson believes that the court's order was primarily

influenced by the testimony of a witness named Sario, without providing any further details

or explanation. Second, Hesson argues that the trial court made a significant mistake by

finding a conspiracy to commit murder without establishing the necessary elements of such a

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Lastly, Hesson points out that the court failed to recognize

that the crime committed was not murder but instead an impossibility.

THE COURT RULING:

The court ruled that Hesson was found guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt

based on the testimony of the witness Sario. The court emphasized that the quality of

evidence mattered more than the quantity, and it is not uncommon to reach a guilty verdict

based on the testimony of a single witness. The elements of an impossible crime include the

act being considered a crime, malicious intent, and the act being inherently impossible or the

means being insufficient or ineffective. In the case of Intod v. Court of Appeals, it was further

clarified that the act cannot result in a crime against individuals or property due to inherent

impossibility or inadequate/ineffective means.

Hesson has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the murder of Fernando. The

prosecution established the presence of treachery, qualifying the killing as murder under

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of murder under this article include the

death of a person, the accused causing the death, the presence of qualifying circumstances,

and the killing not falling under parricide or infanticide.

CASE PRINCIPLES:

The idea and penalties regarding impossible crimes are explained in paragraph 2 of

Article 4, along with Article 59, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). As stated in Article 4

on criminal liability, individuals can be held accountable for a crime against individuals or

property, unless the act itself is inherently impossible to carry out or if the means used

are inadequate or ineffective.