Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5275)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5275)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Juanito Dasig, Balbino Gabuni and Marcelino Dayao, G.R. No. L-5275, August 25, 1953, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.
The defendants—Juanito Dasig, Balbino (Balbino) Gabuni and Marcelino Dayao—were respondents in a criminal action originating in the Court of First Instance of Isabela. The CFI convicted them of robbery with homicide, sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, ordered joint and several indemnities (P4,000 to the heirs of Norberto Ramil and P190 to Jacinta Galasinao), and imposed prosecution costs; the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.
On the night of December 23, 1949, Norberto Ramil and his family were awakened by noises; two intruders confronted Ramil at a window, demanded his pistol, and upon his failure to produce one shot and fatally wounded him. The intruders threatened the rest of the household, ransacked a trunk and took P10 and jewels worth P180. The Chief of Police and others found the body, several empty shells (.32 and .45 calibers) and a fired .32 slug in the trunk; a physician later performed an autopsy and found four gunshot wounds and a .22 slug at the heart.
At trial the prosecution chiefly relied on the testimony of Jose Mallillin (who was later apprehended and whose pistol was forensically linked to .32 cartridges found at the scene), the corroborating testimony of Andres Bumanglag, ballistic expert evidence from the Philippine Constabulary linking a Llama auto-pistol registered to Mallillin to some of the .32 evidence, and the identification by Ramil’s wife of one appellant by stature. Mallillin testified that he had been forced by a group—later identified to include the appellants and one Sergio Eduardo—to accompany them to the vicinity of Ramil’s house, that two men entered the house while others kept watch, and that he heard shots and fled. Mallillin’s written statement was taken by Lieutenant Panis and was sworn to later; he was promised use as a state witness when first questioned.
The trial court credited Mallillin and Bumanglag and found the physical and ballistic evidence consistent with the testimony, convicting the appellants. On appeal the appellants argued (1) that Mallillin’s confession was tainted because of Lieutenant Panis’s promise of immunity, (2) that Mallillin was an accomplice whose inconsistent or flawed testimony should be rejected under the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and (3) that their alibi evidence established reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reviewed the record on appeal and affirmed the conviction.
Issues:
- Is Mallillin’s written statement and the promise by Lieutenant Panis to use him as a state witness such that his confession (and/or testimony) is inadmissible against the appellants?
- Does Mallillin’s status as an accomplice and the inconsistencies in his testimony require rejection of his entire testimony under the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?
- Do the totality of the admissible evidence, including ballistic findings and the witnesses’ testimonies, prove the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and render their alibi defenses insufficient?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)