Case Digest (G.R. No. 93435)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Gregorio Madridano y Tacbao alias Tata and Ronnie Dag-on y Laghay, G.R. No. 93435, October 22, 1993, First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.On the evening of March 2, 1989, in barangay Old Nongnongan, San Carlos, Bukidnon, three men robbed Luzmin Dag‑on and shortly thereafter returned to the victim Perlita Dag‑on’s dwelling. According to Perlita and other prosecution witnesses, the three took Perlita, Luzmin and a six‑year‑old child outside to a clearing; one of the men detained Luzmin while the others overpowered, restrained and twice raped Perlita. The child witnessed the assault. Perlita later told her father and authorities; on the same day Dr. Carlos Gamboa examined her and recorded healed hymenal lacerations and superficial abrasions, but no spermatozoa on vaginal smears.
At the Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Judges found both Madridano and Ronnie Dag‑on guilty of rape and imposed reclusion perpetua, civil indemnity of P15,000 and costs. Notices of appeal were filed by Atty. Leo G. Rey of the Public Attorney’s Office, who failed to file briefs and explained that, after filing notices, he had interviewed the convicts who allegedly confessed and asked to be relieved. The Court required explanation; only Madridano replied denying any admission and requesting new counsel. The Supreme Court appointed Atty. Romeo B. Igot as counsel de oficio for Madridano, who proceeded with the appeal; Ronnie Dag‑on did not comment and is deemed not to have appealed, making his conviction final and executory. The judgment is reviewed here only as to appellant Madridano.
Madridano’s defense at trial was denial and alibi: he claimed to have been working on his uncle’s farm in a different barangay from February 25, 1989 until his arrest on May 24, 1989; two witnesses (his uncle and a neighbor) corroborated his presence there. Ronnie likewise pleaded alibi (stating he was in Davao) but without co...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Whether appellant Madridano’s appeal proceeded properly despite his original counsel’s failure to file a brief and his subsequent substitution of counsel.
- Substantive: Whether the prosecution proved Madridano’s guilt for rape beyond reasonable doubt in view of the victim’s testimony, the medical findings (healed hymenal lacerations; absence of spermatozoa), and the claimed alibi.
- Substantive: Whether Madridano may be punished for two rapes when the information charged him with only one.
- Substantive/Remedial: Whet...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)