Case Digest (G.R. No. 7284)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Datumanong Monadi and Mascara Monadi; People of the Philippines v. Racid Lucman and Palawan Lucman, G.R. Nos. L-3770-71. September 27, 1955, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.On the evening of November 14, 1947, at about 7:30 p.m. in Dansalan, Lanao, Pangandaman P. Aguam was shot in the back as he was entering his house and died minutes later. Four men were thereafter charged in two separate informations: Datumanong Monadi and his brother Mascara Monadi (Criminal Case No. 362, with a co-accused Moro Mapupuno), and first-cousins Racid Lucman and Palawan Lucman (Criminal Case No. 446). The two cases were tried jointly before the Court of First Instance of Lanao.
The prosecution presented extensive eyewitness testimony (17 witnesses and 3 rebuttal witnesses) describing that Makasindig Umpat saw the deceased wiping his shoes while the Monadi brothers ran from under an avocado tree toward two gasoline drums, and saw Palawan emerge from behind the drums and fire the fatal shot; other witnesses saw several armed men running from the scene and identified Racid and Palawan among them. The defense presented about 29 witnesses asserting alibi for the Monadi brothers (they claimed to have been in Bayang, several hours by boat from Dansalan) and that Racid and Palawan were at the houses of the Alontos and later assisted the victim’s family and attended the burial.
After an ocular inspection and evaluation of credibility, the trial court (Judge Ramon O. Nolasco) found Palawan the actual shooter and convicted him as principal of murder (reclusion perpetua and P2,000 indemnity), while finding Datumanong, Mascara and Racid to be accomplices (indeterminate sentences and joint indemnity of P2,000). The trial court relied on witness identification, the proximity of the accused to the victim at the time of the shooting, the visibility of the scene, and established motive grounded in guerrilla-era promotions, selection for integration into the Military Police Command, and a prior killing of a Monadi brother that had led to litigation implicating relatives of the deceased.
Pending appeal, appellants filed a motion for new trial with the Supreme Court based on purportedly newly discovered affidavits claiming other persons were the real killers and alleging fabrication and payment of prosecution witnesses. The Solicitor General opposed, and the Court denied the motion for new trial as the affidavits were not newly discovered within the legal meaning and would only impeach credibility. On appeal to this Court from the trial court’s judgment, the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the motion for new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence should be granted.
- Whether the evidence as a whole proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the four accused should be convicted as principals or merely as accomplices, and whether modifying the sentences to reclusion ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)