G.R. No. L-5275 - People vs. Dasig

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5275)

Factual Background

The spouses Norberto Ramil and Jacinta Galasinao, together with their daughter Segunda and son Domingo, were sleeping when they were suddenly awakened by barking dogs and grunting pigs. Ramil rose quietly and went toward a window. At that moment, two intruders entered the house and confronted him. The wife heard whispered talk and saw the intruders in front of her. When she lighted a lamp, the two leveled their guns at her husband and demanded that he produce his pistol. Ramil could not comply because he had no pistol, and the intruders fired at him. Ramil tried to protect himself with his hands, but he was shot and fell in a stooping position, then slumped face down on the floor.

The wife and the children cried for help, but the intruders leveled their guns at them, ordered them to keep quiet, and threatened to kill them if they did not comply. The intruders then entered the bedroom and ransacked the contents of a trunk containing valuables. They took P10 in cash and jewels valued at P180. They then left.

A police chief stationed around twenty meters from the Ramil residence heard three pistol shots and went to the municipal building to fetch a policeman. They passed the house of the Mayor and then proceeded to the Ramil house. When they arrived, the robbers were already gone. They found Ramil dead with multiple gunshot wounds, including injuries to the left eye, right breast, at the back, and at the left index finger. The chief of police found a fired .32 caliber bullet inside the trunk, four empty .32 caliber shells, one near the broken box inside the bedroom, and two others about five meters from the deceased. He also found three .45 caliber empty shells under the house below the body.

An autopsy conducted the following day by a physician of Antatet revealed four gunshot wounds in the locations already indicated, and upon opening the chest cavity, the physician found a .22 caliber slug right at the heart. The record indicated these factual circumstances were not contradicted.

Evidence Supporting the Conviction

The prosecution’s evidence consisted of the testimonies of Jose Mallillin, and Andres Bumanglag, which the trial court treated as corroborative, as well as the ballistic expert’s findings. The expert concluded that the empty .32 caliber cartridges found under Ramil’s house had been fired from the Llama auto-pistol owned by, and licensed in the name of, Mallillin. The expert further found that the .32 caliber slug (Exhibit C) found inside the trunk had also been fired from that same Llama auto-pistol. These conclusions were drawn from identical and congruent striations and matching pin marks across the examined bullet and cartridges.

Mallillin had formerly been a school teacher of Antatet and had lived there, but by the robbery date he was living in Cauayan, a contiguous town. On the evening of December 23, 1949, while traveling home, he testified that he saw four persons near a checkpoint. As he passed by, two grabbed him, and a third snatched his pistol and compelled him to follow them. He later identified the four as Balbino Gabuni, Juanito Dasig, Marcelino Dayao, and a person named Sergio Eduardo, and testified that the four boarded a jeep with two other occupants whom he did not recognize.

The group drove to the junction of the Cabatuan-Antatet roads, where they disembarked and walked toward Antatet. When they were about one hundred meters from the municipal building, Mallillin saw his companions talking with Andres Bumanglag. Mallillin told Bumanglag that he had been held up. At Mallillin’s suggestion, the group asked Bumanglag how the house of Ramil could be entered, and Bumanglag answered that access was possible through a window near a well. Further questions were asked, after which Mallillin was allowed to go away, but only after being warned that if he squealed he would be put to death.

Mallillin’s testimony continued that after Bumanglag left, the group went to a point around fifty meters from Ramil’s house and waited until about midnight. He claimed that Gabuni ordered him to stay beside the road. He stated that Dasig and Eduardo gave him their shoes to keep, while the five, including two unknown persons, approached the house. According to Mallillin, Dasig and Eduardo entered through the window, while Gabuni stayed at the door in front. Mallillin testified that Gabuni gave his carbine to Dayao, and Mallillin’s Llama pistol to Dasig, while Eduardo held a .22 caliber pistol. He testified that five minutes after the three had gone upstairs, he heard three shots, then heard a voice calling for help. He said he became frightened and hurriedly left for Cauayan.

Mallillin claimed that while he was still in Antatet, he heard the police exchange shots with his companions. He arrived in Cauayan at about one o’clock in the morning. He testified that at around four thirty in the morning, Sergio Eduardo called at his house and asked for their shoes. When Mallillin left, he received another warning not to squeal, or he would be killed. Mallillin further testified that he asked for his pistol and was informed it was with Marcelino Dayao, and that he obtained it from Dayao later that same morning. He also testified that Juanito Dasig called at his house that morning and warned him that if he squealed he would be in a bad fix, adding that their two unrecognized companions had gone to Manila to fetch more companions until they reached as many as twenty.

Mallillin testified that he was apprehended on December 31, 1949. He stated that four days before his arrest, he decided, after consultation with his wife, to ask the chief of police of Cauayan to accompany him to Cabatuan so he could relate what had happened. He claimed that the chief of police did not have time to hear him because the chief was leaving for Manila with baggage. Mallillin further testified that when he was taken to the Constabulary barracks on December 31, 1949, he conferred with Lieutenant Panis and was promised that he would be used as a state witness if he disclosed everything. Based on this promise, he made a complete disclosure, which was put in writing but not sworn to before the justice of the peace until January 3, 1950. The trial court received his affidavit as Exhibit 4-Gabuni and Exhibit 3-Dasig-Dayao, which substantially contained the same facts as his testimony in court.

The testimony of Andres Bumanglag corroborated portions of this narrative. He stated that on the evening in question he was playing guitar at the house of one Labog with two companions. When he went home and approached his house, he said he was suddenly held up by two persons. He testified that he was brought before a group belonging to Mallillin’s captors and that he recognized Mallillin, Gabuni, the chief of police of Cauayan, and Dasig. Bumanglag testified that the group questioned him on the number of Antatet policemen, the arms they possessed, the caliber of the weapons, and the persons who had firearms. He stated that he was asked to draw a sketch of Ramil’s house and its position relative to the mayor’s house, including the position of the window through which entry could be gained.

Bumanglag claimed he was frightened after being kicked and threatened at the outset for refusing to answer. He said he was also warned that he should tell what they asked, otherwise both he and Mallillin would be killed. After he had provided the information, he was allowed to go home. A few minutes later, he heard shots, with stray bullets hitting his house and a kapok tree nearby, forcing him and his family to seek shelter.

Bumanglag stated that on January 3, 1950, he made an affidavit before Lieutenant Panis, sworn to before the justice of the peace of Antatet. In that affidavit (Exhibit 5-Gabuni), he mentioned that before the robbery a group of persons, four of whom were armed, came to ask information about Ramil’s house and that on that occasion he saw Mallillin with them, who told him he had been held up by the group.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court credited the testimony of Mallillin and Bumanglag. It also relied on the identification made by Jacinta Galasinao, Ramil’s wife, of one of the appellants by stature. The trial court additionally held that the cartridges and bullets found at the scene were fired from Mallillin’s Llama pistol. Based on these matters, it found that robbery with homicide had been committed by the appellants and imposed the penalties and indemnities stated in the judgment.

The Appellants’ Contentions on Appeal

On appeal, counsel for the appellants argued that Mallillin’s statements should not be admissible against him and should not be admissible against the appellants either, because Mallillin’s confession was allegedly obtained through a promise by Constabulary Lieutenant Panis that Mallillin would be excluded from information and made a state witness. The Court rejected the premise as misconstruing the evidentiary principle invoked. It noted that the evidence against the appellants was not the confession but Mallillin’s testimony in open court.

The appellants’ principal argument was that Mallillin acted as an accomplice, and that his testimony contained flaws in multiple particulars. They invoked falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, requesting that the rule be applied to reject all of Mallillin’s testimony. They further challenged the reliability of his account.

Appellate Court Assessment of Credibility and Corroboration

The Court undertook an evaluation of Mallillin’s testimony, acknowledging that there were points that could not stand careful scrutiny. It first considered Mallillin’s claimed “hold-up” or compulsion. It noted that Mallillin admitted the appellants had been his companions in gambling games such as poker and “pekyo.” The Court also observed the alleged hold-up occurred at the center of town. It noted that defense witnesses claimed Mallillin had been narrating possible robberies that might take place in tow

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-5275)

The case arose from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Isabela that convicted Juanito Dasig, Balbino Gabuni, and Marcelino Dayao of robbery with homicide.
The trial court sentenced the accused-appellants to reclusion perpetua, ordered joint and several indemnity to the heirs of Norberto Ramil in the amount of P4,000, ordered indemnity to the complainant Jacinta Galasinao in the amount of P190, and assessed costs of the prosecution.
The accused-appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting both the admissibility and the credibility of the evidence relied upon by the trial court.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines acted as plaintiff and appellee.
The accused-appellants were defendants and appellants: Juanito Dasig, Balbino Gabuni, and Marcelino Dayao.
The Supreme Court reviewed the conviction for robbery with homicide based on the trial court’s appreciation of testimonial identifications, forensic findings, and the defenses advanced on appeal.

Key Factual Allegations

In the evening of December 23, 1949, at about midnight, Norberto Ramil, his wife Jacinta Galasinao, and their children Segunda and Domingo were asleep in their house near the municipal building of Antatet (now Luna), Province of Isabela.
The spouses were awakened by the barking of dogs and the grunting of pigs, and Ramil got up to investigate.
Two intruders entered the house and confronted Ramil, while the wife heard whispering and saw the intruders in front.
The wife lighted a lamp and the intruders leveled their guns at Ramil and demanded that he produce his pistol.
When Ramil could not produce any pistol, the intruders fired at him, and he fell and slumped face downwards.
The wife and the children cried for help, but the intruders threatened to kill them and commanded them to keep quiet.
The intruders ransacked the trunk containing valuables, taking P10 in cash and jewels worth P180.
The Chief of Police of Antatet, living about twenty meters away, heard three pistol shots, called for assistance, and with a policeman proceeded to the Ramil house.
Upon arrival, the robbers had already gone, and Ramil was found dead with gunshot wounds on specified body locations.
The police and subsequent autopsy disclosed physical evidence including a .22 caliber slug at the heart and multiple empty shells and fired ammunition recovered in and around the premises.
The Supreme Court stated that the basic factual circumstances were not contradicted.

Evidence Relied Upon

The conviction rested on the testimony of Jose Mallillin and the corroborative testimony of Andres Bumanglag, together with forensic ballistic findings by a ballistic expert of the Philippine Constabulary.
The ballistic expert found that empty .32 caliber cartridges recovered under the house had been fired from the Llama auto-pistol possessed by and licensed in the name of Mallillin.
The ballistic expert also determined that the .32 caliber slug identified as Exhibit C, found inside the trunk, had likewise been fired from the same Llama auto-pistol.
The ballistic conclusions were supported by the expert’s comparison of striations and pin marks on the bullet and empty cartridges with those fired from Mallillin’s pistol.
Jose Mallillin testified that four persons were near a checkpoint and that, while he was passing, two persons held him, a third snatched his pistol, and he was compelled to follow.
Mallillin testified that he later recognized among the group Balbino Gabuni, Juanito Dasig, and Marcelino Dayao, and also identified a person named Sergio Eduardo.
Mallillin testified that they boarded a jeep with two other persons he did not recognize, traveled toward the Cabatuan-Antatet roads junction, and then walked toward Antatet.
Mallillin testified that Bumanglag provided information on how to enter the Ramil house through a window near the well, and that Mallillin was allowed to leave with a warning against “squealing.”
Mallillin testified that, after waiting near the house, Gabuni ordered him to stay beside the road, Dasig and Eduardo gave him shoes, and the others approached the house.
Mallillin testified that Dasig and Eduardo entered through the window, while Gabuni stayed at the door and gave a carbine to Dayao and the Llama pistol to Dasig, while Eduardo held a .22 caliber pistol.
Mallillin testified that after five minutes the shots were fired and he heard help-calling, became frightened, and hurriedly left for Cauayan, later hearing police exchange shots.
Mallillin testified that Sergio Eduardo called on him at around 4:30 a.m. asking for the shoes and warned him not to squeal.
Mallillin testified that Dasig later warned him and informed him that two companions had gone to Manila to fetch more accomplices until they reached as many as twenty.
Andres Bumanglag testified that he was playing guitar, was held up on the way home, was brought to a group where he recognized Mallillin, Gabuni as chief of police of Cauayan, and Dasig.
Bumanglag testified that the group asked about the number of policemen in Antatet, the arms and their calibers, and the persons who had firearms.
Bumanglag testified that the group required him to draw a sketch of the Ramil house, its position relative to the mayor’s house, and the position of the window through which entry could be made.
Bumanglag testified that he was threatened and kicked when he initially refused to answer and that Mallillin had told him he too was held up and that they would be killed if he did not comply.
Bumanglag testified that after he was released, shots occurred soon after and stray bullets hit his house area, forcing him to seek shelter.
Bumanglag made an affidavit on January 3, 1950 before Lieutenant Panis, sworn before the justice of the peace, and the affidavit contained substantially the same points about being questioned and seeing Mallillin with the group.
The trial court credited Mallillin and Bumanglag as trustworthy witnesses and also relied on the identification of one accused by Jacinta Galasinao based on stature.
The Supreme Court treated the documentary affidavits and the open-court testimony as part of the total evidentiary basis, while focusing primarily on the in-court testimony for the accused’s culpability.

Admissibility of Mallillin Testimony

The accused-appellants argued that Mallillin’s confession was inadmissible because it allegedly resulted from a promise by Constabulary Lieutenant Panis that Mallillin would be excluded from the information and made a state witness.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument as founded on a misunderstanding of the evidentiary principle invoked by defense counsel.
The Court held that the evidence against the appellants did not rest on Mallillin’s confession as such.
The Court emphasized that the critical evidence against the appellants was Mallillin’s testimony given in ope