Case Digest (G.R. No. 153477)
Facts:
In People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Malabago y Villaespin, the respondent-appellant, Pedro Malabago y Villaespin, was charged by information dated January 7, 1994 with parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, for having hacked to death his wife, Letecia R. Malabago, on the evening of January 5, 1994 at Barangay Gulayon, Dipolog City. Eyewitness Guillerma Romano, the victim’s mother, testified that she saw the accused strike her daughter twice with a bolo, causing instantaneous death. A bloodied bolo was recovered near the appellant’s residence, and a medico-legal report confirmed death by massive hemorrhage. The Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 10, on May 10, 1994, convicted the appellant of parricide with the death penalty and awarded civil indemnity of P50,000 to the victim’s heirs. The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court en banc, decision rendered December 2, 1996.Issues:
- Is the imposition o
Case Digest (G.R. No. 153477)
Facts:
- Information and charge
- On January 7, 1994, the People filed an information accusing Pedro Malabago y Villaespin of parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659, alleging that on the evening of January 5, 1994, at Barangay Gulayon, Dipolog City, he wilfully hacked his wife, Letecia R. Malabago, with a bolo, causing her instantaneous death and damage to her heirs.
- The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 6598 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Dipolog City.
- Prosecution evidence
- Guillerma Romano (mother-in-law) testified that at around 7:00 PM she saw Letecia seated outside her sari-sari store under kerosene lamp light; she heard an argument over money and jealousy, then observed Pedro strike Letecia twice with a bolo—first on the right side of her face and then on the lower left face/scarf—causing her to collapse lifeless.
- Police investigation disclosed a bloodied bolo in a nearby pineapple plantation; medical findings (Exh. B, C) recorded death from “cardio-respiratory arrest; shock hemorrhage, massive; hack wounds, multiple.”
- Defense evidence and trial events
- Accused pleaded not guilty, claiming he was in the poblacion of Dipolog City and unaware of his wife’s killing; his son Allandel testified the mother-in-law bore animus.
- Guillerma, her husband Catalino, and the three children signed affidavits of desistance and moved to dismiss the case, but the RTC denied the motion.
- On May 10, 1994, the trial court convicted Pedro of parricide, imposed the death penalty and P50,000 civil indemnity; upon automatic review, the Supreme Court took cognizance.
Issues:
- Constitutional and jurisdictional questions
- Whether the death penalty under R.A. 7659 violates fundamental human rights and is thus unconstitutional.
- Whether due process was violated by the trial judge’s interventions, divesting the court of jurisdiction.
- Alleged errors in conviction and sentencing
- Failure to prove a valid marital relationship.
- Failure to prove the fact and cause of death.
- Failure to establish chain of custody over the bolo.
- Selective acceptance of inconsistent/inadmissible testimony.
- Improper dismissal of appellant’s alibi defense.
- Erroneous appreciation of treachery as an aggravating circumstance.
- Refusal to consider voluntary surrender as mitigating.
- Improper award of civil indemnity for unproven death.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)