G.R. No. L-10851 - People vs. Dagatan

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10851)

Factual Background

The prosecution’s evidence established that at about eleven o’clock in the evening of June 11, 1937, Leodegario Into noticed two men sitting on the railing of Dawis bridge in Carmen. He recognized these men as Sergio Dagatan and Saturnino Dagatan. Without warning, Sergio attacked Victorio Ceniza using a wooden cane described as about four and one-half feet long and one and one-fourth inches in diameter, striking Victorio on the shoulder. Saturnino then assisted Sergio by beating Victorio using a leather-covered rod with a hard metal end, locally known as “caborrata.” Victorio fell unconscious immediately.

The Dagatan brothers then placed the limp body of Victorio in the middle of the road to make it appear he had been struck by an automobile. After Sergio reconsidered, he proposed that they throw the body into the sea so that others would believe he had died by drowning. Sergio threw the body into the water. As Leodegario Into witnessed the beating, he began to run, but Julio Dagatan held him and appeared at the scene.

Julio admonished Sergio not to kill Leodegario because he was their relative and had committed no fault. Leodegario was taken to the Dagatans’ house. During the night, Julio told Leodegario that they had to kill Victorio because Victorio had besmirched the Dagatan family’s honor by allegedly assisting in the elopement of Lucila Dagatan with Victorio’s first cousin, Eleuterio Yara, who later abandoned Lucila and returned to Leyte. Julio further warned that they would “caution” Leodegario on pain of life, and if the incident became known to government authorities, they would kill him. Leodegario spent the night in the house and, the next morning, was released after being given fresh fish to take home so that he would not be scolded by his father. Before he left, he received a final warning not to report the incident. At the time Leodegario departed by truck, the vehicle had to stop near the bridge because many people were looking at the floating body; Leodegario did not speak.

On June 12, 1937, Domingo F. Buot, chief of police of Carmen, was notified by Florentina Laping that there was a body floating in a creek. Buot went to the site, identified the body as Victorio Ceniza, and saw a crowd viewing the corpse, with photographs taken by Isabelo Neis (Exhs. D and E). Buot notified the justice of the peace and Dr. Mercado for an autopsy. Between nine and ten in the morning, Dr. Mercado found that the immediate cause of death was drowning, as the lungs and stomach contained plenty of water. He also found contusions on different parts of the body caused before it was thrown into the water, broken bones in the left arm consistent with a hard and blunt instrument like a cane or caborrata, and that Victorio was still alive though unconscious when thrown into the water.

Police investigation determined that Leodegario Into was the last person seen with the deceased before his death. Into, when questioned, recounted the incident in a manner that led to the prosecution of the accused. During the investigation, the police found the middle portion of the caborrata, broken and hanging on a post at the Dagatan house.

Defense Evidence and Trial Theory

The defense relied on alibi and contested physical presence. Appellants asserted that on the night in question they were not at Dawis bridge in Carmen but were in Cebu City. Sergio Dagatan testified that he had been a driver of the A & B Taxicab in Cebu since 1924. He claimed that on June 11, 1937, he did not go to Carmen because from about eight in the morning of June 10 up to about eight in the morning of June 11, he drove continuously on duty within Cebu City. He stated that his shift system required two drivers to take turns in driving the same taxi for twenty-four hours.

Sergio further testified that on June 11, after he turned over his receipts around eight in the morning to Genaro Cabahug, he had breakfast and then slept in the upper part of the garage where drivers rest. He stated he did not return to his home at Pag-utlan, Danao, because he had to wait for his wife and brother Epifanio, who was taking a boat from Cebu to Manila. He asserted that he slept in the garage with his wife and small child and that he did not leave Cebu City for the whole day.

On cross-examination, Sergio admitted he had a house in Pag-utlan and lived with his family there. He also admitted that although he was free to go home on June 11, he preferred to stay in the garage in Cebu so that he could resume duty the next day. He also stated that he ordinarily went home during off-duty time unless he had an important engagement in Cebu, such as when his brother had to leave for Manila. Sergio claimed he did not know Victorio Ceniza or witness Leodegario Into until the case was heard before Judge De la Rama.

Saturnino Dagatan testified that he was also a driver of the A & B Taxi, that on June 11, 1937, he was driving within Cebu City and did not go outside the city, and that he did not go to Carmen. He explained that gasoline rationing and company rules required permission and replacement of gasoline if the driver went beyond city limits. He stated that Cebu to Carmen would consume about ten liters of gasoline and that he could not have been at the place of the crime because he was in Cebu from six to twelve in the evening.

However, on cross-examination, Saturnino admitted the existence of abundant public transportation between Cebu and Carmen and conceded that if he drove himself, it would take about forty minutes to reach Carmen from Cebu. He also referred to company forms showing recorded trips and fares (Exhs. 2 and 2-A). He testified that company records were produced in court at the first hearing and were seen by Judge De la Rama.

To corroborate their alibi, appellants presented Genaro Cabahug, the person in charge of the taxi company at the time. Cabahug described the practice that drivers were normally allowed to drive only within Cebu City. If they had to travel beyond city limits, they had to notify the office and request additional gasoline if needed. He testified that on June 11, he remembered Sergio resting in the garage and Saturnino on duty until relieved the following morning. He stated that Sergio was not driving at that time because Saturnino was on duty and that the two drove the same taxi in alternating shifts. He also testified that he could not remember the exact whereabouts of all drivers on that day and that he only particularly recalled appellants because of the incident involving a relative of his.

Cabahug further acknowledged that he could not remember where Saturnino was at specific hours, such as six in the evening, ten in the evening, or midnight. He stated he presumed Saturnino was within Cebu City because company records had indicated that. He acknowledged, though, that even if the books recorded Saturnino as driving within the city, Saturnino could have left the taxi in a place in Cebu and taken another form of transportation to Carmen without the company’s knowledge.

Procedural History and Certification

The case reached the Supreme Court only after an extended procedural sequence tied to the destruction of the original records during the war. The information charging Julio, Sergio, and Saturnino with murder was filed on October 6, 1937 before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. After the case had been submitted for decision, the trial judge failed to dispose of it. When the last war broke out, all records except the docket entry were destroyed.

On February 22, 1949, the Provincial Fiscal moved that the original records be reconstituted, that defense counsel be ordered to produce any copies of pertinent papers, and that if defense counsel had none, the prosecution be allowed to file a new information against Sergio and Saturnino, considering Julio had died during the war. Because defense counsel failed to appear and produce copies, a new information was filed on August 8, 1949 charging Sergio and Saturnino with murder. The defense moved to dismiss on the ground of jeopardy, and the trial court granted the motion.

The prosecution appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the matter for further proceedings, holding that jeopardy had not set by reason of the trial judge’s failure to decide the case after submission for decision, since the case had not been terminated by dismissal or conviction (G.R. L-4396, October 30, 1951; cited as 90 Phil., 294). After remand, the Court of First Instance conducted a new trial, and after submission of evidence by both prosecution and defense, the court rendered judgment on April 12, 1954. It found both accused guilty of murder and imposed prison terms of from six years and one day of prision mayor to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, together with joint and several civil liability in the amount of P3,000.00 to indemnify the family of the deceased, Victorio Ceniza.

From that conviction, appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Appellate Issues and the Parties’ Positions

Before the Supreme Court, appellants challenged their conviction and raised, among others, the defense of double jeopardy and the credibility of their alibi. The Court of Appeals, in its certification, described that the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation had been used to elevate the offense to murder, and it further noted aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of superior strength and nighttime, as well as mitigating circumstances appreciated by the trial court: (a) that the act was committed in immediate vindication of a grave offense against the accused’s spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate or natural brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees; and (b) that the accused acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to produce passion or obfuscation.

The Court of Appeals, however, expressed reservations about those mitiga

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-10851)

The case was certified by the Court of Appeals after a resolution dated April 16, 1956 recounted the procedural history and material circumstances of the prosecution for murder against Julio Dagatan, Sergio Dagatan, and Saturnino Dagatan, with Julio being deceased at the time of the later proceedings.
The appeal before the Court concerned the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of First Instance of Cebu in a judgment dated April 12, 1954, finding Sergio Dagatan and Saturnino Dagatan guilty of murder.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines acted as the plaintiff and appellee.
Sergio Dagatan and Saturnino Dagatan were the accused and appellants.
The original murder charge was filed on October 6, 1937 against Julio Dagatan, Sergio Dagatan, and Saturnino Dagatan before the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
The original trial did not result in a decision because the trial judge failed to dispose of the case, and during the last war, the records were destroyed except for the docket entry.
On February 22, 1949, the Provincial Fiscal moved to reconstitute the original records and sought production of copies of pertinent papers by defense counsel Filemon Sotto.
When defense counsel failed to appear and produce copies, the Provincial Fiscal moved for leave to file a new information, invoking the fact that Julio Dagatan had died during the last war.
A new information was filed on August 8, 1949, charging Sergio Dagatan and Saturnino Dagatan with murder.
The defense moved for dismissal on double jeopardy, and the court granted the motion, but the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings after an earlier appeal (cited in the decision as G.R. L-4396, October 30, 1951, with reference to 90 Phil., 294).
After remand and trial, the Court of First Instance rendered its decision on April 12, 1954, sentencing each accused to an indeterminate term and ordering indemnity and costs.
The accused interposed an appeal to the Court from the judgment.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecution evidence established that on June 11, 1937, at about eleven o’clock in the evening, near the Dawis bridge in Carmen, Cebu, Victorio Ceniza was attacked while walking with Leodegario Into after both had made purchases in the market.
Into identified the assailants as Sergio Dagatan and Saturnino Dagatan, brothers.
Sergio struck Victorio on the shoulder with a wooden cane and Saturnino beat him using a leather-covered rod with a hard metal end locally known as “caborrata.”
Victorio fell unconscious immediately after the assault.
The Dagatan brothers placed the victim in the middle of the road to simulate that an automobile hit him.
Sergio then changed the plan and ordered that the victim be thrown into the sea to make it appear that he died by drowning, and Sergio threw the body into the water.
When Into attempted to run, Julio Dagatan (father of the appellants) held him and restrained Sergio from killing Into, stating that Into was a relative and had no fault.
Julio allegedly explained the motive to Into, stating that Victorio had besmirched the Dagatan family honor by allegedly assisting an elopement involving Lucila Dagatan and Eleuterio Yara, who later abandoned her and returned to Leyte.
After the assault, Into was brought to the Dagatan house, where he was again warned not to kill him so long as Into would be cautioned on pain of life if the incident came to the attention of government authorities.
Into stayed overnight, was allowed to return home the following morning after being given fresh fish, and was warned again not to reveal the incident.
The prosecution evidence included that Into observed the floating body near the bridge while people gathered, but did not report the incident, and he also did not tell his parents upon returning home.
The police investigation was triggered by a report by Florentina Laping, and Chief of Police Domingo F. Buot found the body and notified the justice of the peace and Dr. Mercado.
The autopsy by Dr. Mercado found drowning as the immediate cause of death, contusions from injuries inflicted before the body was thrown into the water, broken bones in the left arm caused by a hard blunt instrument consistent with a cane or “caborrata,” and that the victim was still alive though unconscious when thrown into the water.
Into told the police everything he knew, leading to the prosecution of Sergio Dagatan and Saturnino Dagatan.
The chief of police found the “caborrata,” broken at the middle, hanging on a post in the Dagatan house, and this physical exhibit was treated as corroborative of the testimony.

Defense Theory of Alibi

The defense raised alibi, asserting that at the time of the killing near the Dawis bridge, the appellants were not in Carmen but were in Cebu, a distance described as about forty kilometers.
Sergio Dagatan testified that he had been a driver of an A & B Taxicab in Cebu since 1924 and that on June 11, 1937 he was on duty for about a twenty-four hour stretch driving within the city.
Sergio claimed t