Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32792)
Facts:
People of the Philippines charged Adones Abatayo with double murder in an Information alleging that, on or about September 10, 1993 in Mandaue City, he attacked and struck Dominador Basalan and Teofredo Basalan with a G.I. pipe, causing their instantaneous death. After arraignment, the case proceeded with prosecution witnesses, including an eyewitness, Juanito Gutang, whose direct testimony was completed on November 22, 1994, followed by partial cross-examination; the continuation of cross-examination was deferred due to the witness’s illness, and the appellant did not object to subsequent trial steps, including the prosecution’s presentation of other witnesses and the offering of Juanito’s affidavit as documentary evidence.The Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56, convicted the appellant of two counts of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. On appeal, the appellant challenged the use of Juanito’s incomplete cross-examination, the sufficien
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32792)
Facts:
- Charges and indictment
- The appellant, Adones Abatayo, was charged with double murder in an Information dated January 31, 1994.
- The Information alleged that on or about September 10, 1993, in the City of Mandaue, Philippines, and within the court’s jurisdiction, the appellant, with deliberate intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked assaulting and striking Dominador Basalan and Teofredo Basalan with a G.I. pipe, inflicting mortal wounds on their heads causing their instantaneous death.
- The appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, assisted by counsel.
- Pre-trial and prosecution evidence; handling of witness Juanito Gutang
- The prosecution’s first witness was Juanito Gutang.
- Juanito’s direct examination was terminated during the trial of November 22, 1994.
- The appellant’s counsel began cross-examination of Juanito but later prayed for resetting because counsel still had many questions.
- The trial court granted the resetting.
- During the continuation on January 23, 1995, Juanito failed to appear due to fever.
- The public prosecutor asked that further cross-examination be deferred until Juanito recovered and that the prosecution be allowed to present its second witness, Apolonio Quilag, and the appellant did not object.
- The court granted the motion but warned that if Juanito would not appear to continue his testimony by the next trial date, Juanito’s testimony would be stricken off the record.
- The warning was not contained in the order issued by the court on the same date.
- On March 2, 1995, the public prosecutor presented PO2 Alfredo Andales, and thereafter the victims’ mother Silvina Basalan.
- On April 17, 1995, the hearing was cancelled after the parties admitted the authenticity of Dr. Ladislao Diola, Jr.’s necropsy report and agreed to dispense with his testimony.
- On May 22, 1995, the public prosecutor manifested readiness to offer documentary evidence and rest the case.
- The prosecution offered in evidence the affidavit of Juanito as part of documentary evidence.
- The appellant objected to admission of the affidavit for the purpose offered.
- The trial court nevertheless admitted the affidavit and the public prosecutor rested the case.
- Case for the prosecution; events surrounding the killings
- Teofredo Basalan and Dominador Basalan (aged 24 and 26, respectively) lived with their mother Silvina Basalan in Colon, Naga, Cebu City.
- They worked as stay-in construction workers at the construction site of the Gaisano FCDC in Ibabao, Mandaue City.
- Around 7:00 p.m. on September 9, 1993, after a hard day’s work, laborers Juanito Gutang, Apolonio Quilag, Pedro Esconia, and an unidentified co-worker retired early in their quarters.
- Around 3:00 a.m. the following day, Juanito was awakened by an unusual thud similar to someone striking somebody.
- Juanito got up and saw the appellant from a distance of about three (3) meters hitting Teofredo and Dominador with a lead pipe.
- Juanito woke up co-workers and told them what he had witnessed.
- Apolonio saw the victims already lying in a pool of blood.
- Juanito and co-workers reported the incident to the security guards, who called the Mandaue City police station.
- Meanwhile, the appellant hurriedly left the job site and brought his personal belongings.
- PO2 Alfredo Andales conducted an on-the-spot investigation.
- At the crime scene, he found the victims’ bloodied corpses with their respective heads smashed.
- He found a galvanized iron (G.I.) pipe, identified as the weapon used.
- His investigation revealed that the night before the killings, the victims and the appellant had an acrimonious quarrel over some misplaced construction tools, later recovered.
- The policemen recorded the incident in the police blotter, with the appellant as the prime suspect.
- In the afternoon of the same day, the bodies were brought to Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes where Dr. Ladislao V. Diola, Jr. conducted a post mortem examination.
- Dr. Diola signed a necropsy report stating that the victims died due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to injuries to the head.
- By agreement, the parties dispensed with Dr. Diola’s testimony after the defense admitted the findings in the necropsy report.
- On September 16, 1993, Juanito and Apolonio subscribed and swore to the truth of their respective affidavits before the public prosecutor.
- Testimony of the victims’ mother
- Silvina testified that she fainted when she learned of the death of her two sons.
- She spent around P 50,000.00 for the wake and funeral.
- She testified that the death caused her emotional pain, but she left it to the court to determine its monetary equivalent.
- Defense evidence; alibi and denial; corroborating witnesses
- The appellant testified that he worked for Super Metro Gaisano as a construction worker sometime in mid-August 1993.
- On September 9, 1993, after rendering overtime work for two hours, he decided to go home and left around 7:00 p.m.
- He hitched a ride home in the company vehicle driven by his neighbor, Charmel Ralago, and arrived home around 9:00 p.m.
- The following morning, his uncle dropped by and asked him to accompany to Carcar, Cebu for the towns fiesta; he acquiesced.
- After the fiesta, he returned home but no longer reported for work and went to Bohol.
- He returned home in December 1993 for the holiday season.
- He claimed he was surprised when arrested in August 1994 for the killings of the Basalan brothers.
- Bernabe Hinario testified to corroborate the alibi: at about 9:00 p.m. on September 9, 1993, he saw the appellant arrive from work as usual, greeted him, and was invited to attend the next day’s fiesta in Carcar but declined because of work; they then parted ways.
- Leonora Abatayo, the appellant’s mother, testified that she was at home when the appellant arrived at about 9:00 p.m. on September 9, 1993, and that after breakfast the following morning, he left with his uncle, Fransico Malubay, to attend the Carcar fiesta.
- Trial court disposition; basis of conviction and sentencing
- The trial court found the appellant gu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting and crediting Juanito Gutang’s testimony despite incomplete cross-examination
- Whether the court should have ordered the striking out of the entire testimony of Juanito due to the accused’s alleged deprivation of the right to confront and cross-examine the witness.
- Whether Juanito Gutang’s incomplete testimony should have been given probative value
- Whether the unfinished testimony was inherently implausible.
- Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the defense evidence of alibi and denial.
- Whether treachery and evident premeditation qualified the killing to murder
- Whether the prosecution proved treachery beyond reasonable doubt, considering that the lone eyewitness did not see how the assault started.
- Whether the prosecution proved evident premeditation beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether, absent qualifying circumstances, the proper offense was homicide rather than murder.
- Whether the appellant’s alibi and denial created reasonable doubt
- Whether the trial court erred in disbelieving alibi.
- Whether the defense corroboration by Bernabe Hinario should outweigh Juanito’s identification.
- Whether denial could prevail over positive identification.
- Whether the Information’s treatment for two offenses was proper, and the penalty to be imposed
- Whether there was an issue of duplicity in charging double murder through only one Information.
- Whether the appellant waived defect by failing to object before trial.
- Whether the penalty should follow the rules on judgment for two or more offenses and indeterminate sentencing.
- Whether the awards of damages...(Subscriber-Only)