Case Digest (G.R. No. L-10851)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Sergio Dagatan, et al., G.R. No. L-10851, August 28, 1959, Supreme Court En Banc, Endencia, J., writing for the Court. The prosecution (plaintiff-appellee) charged Sergio Dagatan and Saturnino Dagatan (appellants/accused) with murder; their father Julio Dagatan originally had been joined in the 1937 information but died during the war. The information was initially filed October 6, 1937 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu; the case was submitted for decision but the judge failed to render a decision and most of the records were lost during World War II. In 1949 the provincial fiscal moved to reconstitute the records and, after defense counsel failed to produce copies, a new information was filed on August 8, 1949 against Sergio and Saturnino.At the resumed proceedings the defense moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds; the trial court granted dismissal but the Fiscal appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed (G.R. L-4396, Oct. 30, 1951) and remanded for further proceedings. After retrial the CFI, on April 12, 1954, found both defendants guilty and imposed an indeterminate prison sentence (from prision mayor to reclusion temporal), awarded P3,000 indemnity to the victim’s family, and ordered costs. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated April 16, 1956, held that the qualifying and aggravating circumstances established required a penalty of at least reclusion perpetua — a penalty beyond the Court of Appeals’ power to impose — and therefore certified the case to the Supreme Court.
The prosecution evidence established that on the night of June 11–12, 1937 Victorio Ceniza and Leodegario Into walked near Dawis bridge in Carmen, Cebu, where Into saw the victim struck and beaten by two men later identified as the Dagatan brothers, then thrown into the creek. Into fled after being restrained by Julio Dagatan, who warned him not to report the incident. Dr. Mercado’s autopsy showed drowning as the immediate cause of death, contusions and fractures consistent with blows from a cane and a “caborrata,” and that the victim was alive, though unconscious, when thrown into the water. The chief of police found the “caborrata” broken and hanging in the Dagatans’ house. Appellants testified to an alibi: both claimed to have been in Cebu City that night, employed as taxi drivers and sleeping in the company garage; company records and testimony by the manager Genaro Cabahug were offered to corroborate. The trial court and the Court of Appeals reject...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the plea of double jeopardy bar reprosecution after the original trial judge failed to render a decision following submission?
- Did appellants’ alibi, as presented, sufficiently establish that they could not have been at the scene and thus create reasonable doubt?
- Were the mitigating circumstances (immediate vindication and passion/obfuscation) properly attributable to appellants?
- Were the qualifying and aggravating circumstances proven so as to elevate the offense to murder and require imposition of...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)