Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24866)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Gilberto Llamoso y Ortacio, Dominador Aguilar y Dayao, Oscar Padilla, and Lagim Lagunera, G.R. No. L-24866, July 13, 1979, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The prosecution charged Gilberto Llamoso, Dominador Aguilar, Oscar Padilla, Lagim Lagunera and others with robbery in band with homicide for the February 28, 1963 holdup of the Motor Vehicles Office (MVO) in Manila that resulted in the death of Patrolman Domingo Daracan and the loss of P23,778. The trial court (Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVIII, Criminal Case No. 69139) acquitted Oscar Padilla, dismissed the case against Lagim Lagunera for insufficiency of evidence, and convicted Llamoso and Aguilar, imposing the death penalty on each and ordering indemnities to the government and to the victim’s heirs. The trial court found aggravating circumstances (use of a motor vehicle and nighttime) and rejected defenses including duress and alibi as to the convicted defendants.During the pendency of review, appellant Llamoso filed a Motion for New Trial (filed September 21, 1965) alleging trial errors and newly discovered evidence (an anticipated exculpatory statement by a fellow convict). This Court took the motion up with the merits (Minute Resolution, November 2, 1965) but found the grounds unavailing because the supposed new evidence was known to appellant at trial and the motion failed to meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence (citing People v. Mangulabnan and People v. Amboloquio). While automatic review was pending, the Bureau of Prisons certified the death of Dominador Aguilar (died March 28, 1971), and on June 30, 1971 the Court received the death certificate.
The prosecution’s case at trial rested on eyewitness identification (taxi driver Raul Empedrado), extrajudicial confessions by Llamoso and Aguilar (various signed statements affirmed before the fiscal), fingerprint evidence lifted from the getaway taxi (latent print matched to Aguilar by expert Bonifacio Marcelo), paraffin tests showing powder residue on the hands of appellants, ballistic evidence (empty shells recovered), and the autopsy of the slain policeman. Llamoso admitted signing extrajudicial statements but claimed they were obtained by force; Aguilar initially denied participation but later gave extrajudicial statements and was fingerprinted and tested. The trial court found the confessions voluntary and corroborated, found Empedrado’s identification credible, rejected Aguilar’s alibi because of the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was appellant Llamoso’s Motion for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence proper and sufficient to warrant a new trial?
- Does the death of appellant Dominador Aguilar during the pendency of automatic review extinguish his criminal liability?
- Were the extrajudicial confessions of appellants Llamoso and Aguilar admissible as voluntary and trustworthy evidence?
- Was the identification by taxi driver Raul Empedrado, together with fingerprint and forensic evidence, sufficient t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)