Case Digest (G.R. No. 147201)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Sayaboc y Seguba, Patricio Escorpiso y Valdez, Marlon Buenviaje y Pineda, and Miguel Buenviaje y Flores, G.R. No. 147201, January 15, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Davide Jr., J., writing for the Court.On 17 April 1995 an information charged Benjamin Sayaboc, Patricio Escorpiso, Marlon Buenviaje, and Miguel Buenviaje with the murder of Joseph Galam allegedly committed on 2 December 1994 at the Rooftop Disco and Lodging House in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. At arraignment Sayaboc, Escorpiso and Miguel Buenviaje pleaded not guilty; Marlon Buenviaje—arrested only on 10 July 1997—also pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony that Sayaboc was at the Rooftop earlier that day, asked about Galam, and between 5:30–6:00 p.m. shot Galam four times as Galam arrived; witnesses saw Sayaboc flee and board a tricycle driven by Marlon Buenviaje. An autopsy showed four gunshot wounds (two frontal, two from behind). The police thereafter obtained a cartographic sketch and, on 8 March 1995, two witnesses identified Sayaboc at the provincial headquarters. That same day Sayaboc executed an extrajudicial confession—signed and translated into English—stating he shot Galam for P100,000 at the behest of Marlon; the confession was signed by Sayaboc, witnessed by a Fiscal, and acknowledged by Atty. Rodolfo Cornejo of the PAO who had been brought to the station.
At trial the defense for the Buenviajes and Escorpiso sought leave to file a demurrer to evidence but filed the demurrer before obtaining leave; the trial court denied the demurrer and ruled that filing it without prior leave constituted a waiver of their right to present evidence under Section 15, Rule 119 (1985 Rules), thus allowing only Sayaboc to present a defense. Sayaboc denied the shooting, claimed police brutality and retracted the confession, and proffered an alibi and affidavits.
The Regional Trial Court, Bayombong, Branch 27, on 9 November 2000 found Sayaboc guilty of murder (treachery as qualifying circumstance; craft and price as aggravating) and sentenced him to death; it found Marlon guilty as principal and Miguel and Patricio as accomplices in homicide. From that decision the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court raising four principal errors: sufficiency of the ev...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was appellant Sayaboc’s extrajudicial confession admissible given the alleged failure to afford him meaningful advice and a competent, independent, and effective counsel in violation of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution?
- Did the filing of a demurrer to evidence without prior leave waive the right of appellants Marlon Buenviaje, Miguel Buenviaje, and Patricio Escorpiso to present evidence?
- Was there sufficient proof to sustain a conviction for murder (i.e., were treachery, evident premeditation, or aggravating circumstances established)?
- Was conspiracy and thus liability as a conspirator proven as t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)