Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25325)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Pableo Dramayo, Paterno Ecubin, Priolo Billona, Francisco Billona, Modesto Ronquilla, Crescencio Savandal and Severo Savandal, G.R. No. L-25325, October 29, 1971, Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court.On January 9, 1964, in Barrio Magsaysay, Municipality of Sapao, Surigao del Norte, the deceased Estelito Nogaliza was slain. Prior to the killing Nogaliza had been the alleged offended party in a robbery for which Dramayo and Ecubin (the eventual appellants) had been implicated and later convicted. On the morning of the killing, Dramayo allegedly proposed to a group that included Ecubin, the Billonas, Ronquilla and the Savandals that Nogaliza be killed so he could not testify in the robbery case; Dramayo and Ecubin were to ambush Nogaliza while the others were to keep watch nearby.
As Nogaliza returned, Dramayo accosted him and Ecubin struck him with a piece of wood; Dramayo repeated stabbed him with a short pointed bolo while Nogaliza lay prostrate. Dramayo later told the widow he had seen the corpse; police noticed blood on Dramayo’s trousers which he attributed to a skin ailment of his daughter. The injuries inflicted (two in the epigastric region, one in the right lumbar region, and another in the left breast) caused Nogaliza’s death.
An information charging conspiracy and murder named seven defendants. At trial the lower court convicted Pableo Dramayo and Paterno Ecubin beyond reasonable doubt of murder (qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by nighttime) and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, while Crescencio and Severo Savandal were used as state witnesses and Priolo Billona, Francisco Billona and Modesto Ronquilla were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence; the trial court also ordered indemnity (initially P10,000) and directed enactment of prior robbery sentences before the murder sentence. The judgment of the trial court was dated September 8, 1965.
The two convicted defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. They argued principally that (a) because the information charged conspiracy among seven defendants but only two were convicted while others were acquitted or used as state wit...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the conviction of appellants stand despite the fact that the information alleged a conspiracy among seven persons while only two were convicted and others were acquitted or used as state witnesses — i.e., does that circumstance create a reasonable doubt requiring acquittal?
- Did the trial court fail to consider material facts or misappraise evidence such that its factual findings and conviction ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)