Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44680)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Dominador Molo, G.R. No. L-44680. January 11, 1979, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam, writing for the Court.The prosecution (plaintiff-appellee, The People of the Philippines) charged Dominador Molo (defendant-appellant) with murder in an Information filed May 31, 1976. The fatal incident occurred on April 9, 1976 at Sitio Dacotan, Barrio Tambac, Romblon, where the victim, Venancio Gapisa, was attacked with a bolo and later died from hemorrhage due to multiple incised wounds. The case was tried as Criminal Case No. 571 before the Court of First Instance of Romblon, Eleventh Judicial District.
At trial the prosecution presented the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s wife, Simeona Gapisa, the testimony of the victim’s son Alejandro Gapisa and neighbor Roman Mangaring (who related the victim’s ante-mortem statements), and the autopsy report by Dr. Victorio Benedicto (Exhibits “A” and “A-1”). The defense asserted an alibi and offered testimony of the accused, his wife, Police Patrolman Rodolfo Manunggay and offered a bolo and scabbard as exhibits. After investigation, Molo was arrested the day after the killing, waived the second stage of preliminary investigation, and was detained; a complaint was filed in the municipal court and subsequently the information was filed in the trial court.
The trial court, finding treachery as a qualifying circumstance and dwelling, recidivism and reiteration as aggravating circumstances (while noting one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which was offset), convicted Molo of murder and on September 3, 1976 imposed the death penalty and awarded P12,000 civil indemnity to the heirs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court by automatic review of the judgment imposing capital punishment.
Before the Court, appointed counsel for appellant assigned two errors: (1) the conviction was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) identification of appellant as the assailant was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The Solicitor General, assisted by other government counsel, urged affirmance, arguing positive identification by the eyewitness and the victim’s dying declarations, the sufficiency of proof for treachery and the aggravating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code, and that voluntary surrender did not apply because appellant was arrested.
The Supreme Court consid...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction of Dominador Molo supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was the identification of Dominador Molo as the assailant established beyond reasonabl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)