Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5275)
Facts of the Case
On the night in question, while Ramil and his family were asleep, they were awakened by suspicious noises. Ramil approached a window, where he encountered two intruders demanding his firearm. When Ramil claimed he did not possess a gun, they shot him multiple times, resulting in his death. The assailants proceeded to steal cash and jewelry from the family. Police investigation yielded ballistic evidence linking the firearms used to the defendants and identified the circumstances of the robbery through testimonial evidence.
Evidence Presented
The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of Jose Mallillin and Andres Bumanglag. Mallillin narrated an event where he was initially accosted by the defendants, who later planned the robbery. He was coerced into maintaining silence about the incident with death threats if he disclosed any information. Bumanglag corroborated Mallillin’s account, detailing his own experience of being threatened to provide insights about the Ramil household's layout which the robbers utilized.
Confession and Testimony Validity
Defense arguments targeted the admissibility of Mallillin's testimony, asserting that it stemmed from an involuntary confession prompted by a promise of immunity by Constabulary Lieutenant Panis. However, the court distinguished between confessions and testimonies given in court, ruling that Mallillin's open court testimony was valid. The defense further raised the principle of "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," claiming inconsistencies in Mallillin's testimony tainted the entire narrative.
Analysis of Accomplice Testimony
The court analyzed the reliability and credibility of Mallillin's testimony in light of the principles regarding accomplices. Inconsistencies did exist, yet his testimony was substantiated by physical evidence, including the firearms' operability linked to him and corroborated by eyewitness accounts. The court emphasized that not all shortcomings in testimony warrant wholesale dissent of a witness's credibility unless indicative of deliberate falsification.
Defense Claims of Alibi
Each defendant presented their alibi as a defense. Dasig claimed to be at home caring for his ailing wife, but the supporting witness provided ambiguous testimony lacking concrete evidence. Gabuni asserted he was on duty, yet the testimony regarding police patrols contradicted the pla
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-5275)
Case Overview
- The defendants, Juanito Dasig, Balbino Gabuni, and Marcelino Dayao, appeal a judgment from the Court of First Instance of Isabela.
- They were found guilty of robbery with homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
- The defendants were ordered to jointly indemnify the heirs of the victim, Norberto Ramil, in the amount of P4,000, and the complaint, Jacinta Galasinao, in the amount of P190, along with costs of prosecution.
Factual Background
- On December 23, 1949, around midnight, Norberto Ramil and his family were sleeping when they were awakened by unusual noises.
- Ramil approached a window and was confronted by two intruders who demanded his pistol.
- Failing to produce a firearm, Ramil was shot multiple times, leading to his death.
- The intruders proceeded to ransack the house, stealing cash and jewelry valued at P190.
Evidence and Testimony
- The Chief of Police responded to gunshots and discovered Ramil's body with multiple gunshot wounds.
- A ballistics expert confirmed that the bullets and shells found at the scene were fired from a Llama auto-pistol owned by Jose M