Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31568)
Material Facts — Eyewitness Testimony
Two principal eyewitnesses for the prosecution testified that on October 12, 1964, at about 5:00 p.m. Rosa Dapulag (the victim’s daughter) saw Romualdo and Dionisio step out of a store and accost her father; one of them stabbed the victim in the upper left arm with the wound exiting near the left armpit; when the victim turned, a second stab to the back and abdomen was inflicted; as the victim tried to flee, Fernando met him and struck him with a fist, causing him to fall, whereupon Romualdo inflicted an additional wound to the knee. Alberto Uy, another eyewitness, testified similarly, placing Romualdo and Dionisio as assailants, hearing prior statements by Honorio Dorico inciting violence, and identifying the weapons as bolos called “Depang.” Two other intended witnesses (Fernando Dones and Purita Becario) left for Manila before trial and were not presented.
Forensic Evidence — Autopsy
The autopsy showed multiple stab wounds: (1) a left mid-lateral arm stab traversing to the axillary/thoracic region (penetrating and fatal), (2) a right dorsolateral thorax stab, (3) a left dorsolateral abdominal stab penetrating to the ventral aspect of the abdomen two inches above the umbilicus, (4) a left knee wound, and (5) a contusion on the right ear. The pathologist concluded there were four stab wounds, two of which were penetrating and fatal (hitting vital organs such as the aortic arch and small intestines), caused by sharp pointed instruments; cause of death was shock from severe hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds.
Defenses Presented at Trial
- Romualdo: asserted self-defense, claiming the victim first attacked him with a bolo, they grappled for the weapon, and Romualdo stabbed in repelling the attack; he also claimed he surrendered immediately after the incident.
- Fernando: pleaded alibi, supported by testimony that he was at the beach earlier on the day in question and returned home upon hearing the news.
- Dionisio: denied participation (non-participation/bystander position), asserting he was present only as a bystander and implicated due to familial relation.
Trial Court Findings and Original Sentence
The Court of First Instance convicted all three defendants of murder, applying treachery and the aggravating circumstance of superior strength, and sentenced each to death; awarded indemnity (P12,000) and moral damages (P6,000).
Issues on Appeal
The appellants assigned five errors, summarized: (1) the trial court erred in discrediting Fernando’s alibi and in finding prosecution witnesses credible; (2) the trial court erred in rejecting Romualdo’s plea of self-defense; (3) the trial court erred in finding Dionisio participated in the killing; (4) the trial court erred in finding conspiracy among the three accused; and (5) overall error in convicting the appellants as charged.
Court’s Analysis — Alibi (Fernando)
The Court reiterated the settled rule that alibi is a weak defense and must be supported by strong, convincing evidence, particularly when the prosecution presents positive eyewitness identification. The Court found positive identifications of Fernando by eyewitnesses Rosa and Alberto. Testimony offered to support Fernando’s alibi (Agripino Calupo) did not establish that it was physically impossible for Fernando to be at the crime scene because the distance between the beach and the site (about 300 meters) could be traversed in minutes. The Court also noted that the absence of Rosa and Alberto from the preliminary witness list or their not having given sworn statements earlier did not preclude their trial testimony; Section 1, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court allows the prosecution to call witnesses not named in the complaint or information. Consequently, Fernando’s alibi was rejected.
Court’s Analysis — Self-Defense (Romualdo)
The Court set out the elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation by the person defending. The Court found that Romualdo failed to prove self-defense clearly and convincingly. The autopsy wounds and their locations (notably penetrating stabs from behind/side to the chest and abdomen) indicated blows inflicted when the victim’s back or side was exposed, inconsistent with a forward thrust during a direct mutual grapple for a weapon. The nature and direction of the fatal stab wounds suggested they were not the result of an immediate defensive thrust in close mutual combat. Further, Romualdo’s conduct in discarding the weapon after the stabbing and the lack of sustaining defensive injuries weakened his self-defense claim. The Court emphasized the requirement that one asserting self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence rather than on the prosecution’s weaknesses. Romualdo’s proof was insufficient, so the plea of self-defense failed.
Court’s Analysis — Participation (Dionisio)
Dionisio’s denial of participation was weighed against direct eyewitness testimony identifying him as one of the assailants. The Court upheld the trial court’s credibility determinations, noting that trial courts have superior opportunity to assess witness credibility. The absence of an established motive for Dionisio was not dispositive: motive is relevant primarily when identity is in doubt. Given credible positive identifications by witnesses, the Court found participation proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Court’s Analysis — Conspiracy
The Court examined whether there was proof of a prior conspiracy requiring unity of purpose and unity in execution. Evidence showed Romualdo and Dionisio (and Honorio Dorico) were together before the attack and that Honorio voiced an inciting statement immediately before the assault. The Court concluded, however, that joint or simultaneous action alone does not establish conspiracy; there must be proof of prior concert as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. The circumstances better support
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-31568)
Procedural Posture and Nature of the Case
- Appeal and automatic review from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Samar, Branch IV, which convicted Romualdo Dorico, Dionisio Ballonico and Fernando Dorico of murder and sentenced each to death, with indemnity and moral damages and costs. (Decision by Esguerra, J.)
- Criminal complaint filed October 13, 1964, charging the three accused with murder committed on October 12, 1964 in barrio Makiwalo, Mondragon, Samar; allegation included conspiracy, premeditation, treachery and mutual assistance.
- The appeal raises five assigned errors directed at the trial court’s findings and credibility assessments and claims of defenses: (1) disregard of Fernando Dorico’s alibi and unreliability of prosecution witnesses; (2) failure to accept Romualdo Dorico’s plea of self-defense; (3) failure to find non-participation by Dionisio Ballonico; (4) erroneous finding of conspiracy among the three accused; (5) general error in convicting the appellants.
- Case decided en banc on November 29, 1973 (153 Phil. 458), resulting in modification of the trial court’s judgment.
Parties and Relationships
- Plaintiff-Appellee: The People of the Philippines.
- Defendants-Appellants: Romualdo Dorico, Fernando Dorico (brothers), and Dionisio Ballonico (their first cousin).
- Victim: Gervacio Dapulag, resident of barrio Makiwalo, Mondragon, Northern Samar.
- Other persons identified in the record: Rosa Dapulag (daughter of deceased, eyewitness), Alberto Uy (eyewitness), Honorio Dorico (father of Romualdo and Fernando, uncle of Dionisio), Estropio Dorico (brother of Romualdo and Fernando, owner of a store), Castor Dorico (another brother), Julio Cerenado, Mayor Olimpio de Guia, Agripino Calupo, Juan Cabalitan, Francisco (Fernando) Dones, Purita Becario (Purita Vicario), Ceferino Vicario.
Facts as Alleged by the Prosecution (Eyewitness Accounts)
- Date and time of incident: October 12, 1964, at about 5:00–5:30 p.m.
- Location: Near the store of Estropio Dorico in barrio Makiwalo, Mondragon, Northern Samar.
- Rosa Dapulag’s testimony (eyewitness and daughter of the deceased):
- She was about 30 meters behind her father as they both walked toward Estropio Dorico’s store en route to the farm.
- She saw Romualdo Dorico and Dionisio Ballonico come out of the store and accost her father.
- Romualdo allegedly immediately stabbed her father in the upper left arm with the wound exiting at the inner part and penetrating the left armpit.
- When the father turned, Dionisio allegedly stabbed him on the left side of his back with the wound exiting on the abdomen.
- As Gervacio attempted to run, Fernando Dorico allegedly emerged from Castor Dorico’s store and struck Gervacio with a fist, causing him to fall.
- Romualdo allegedly hacked the victim on the knee.
- The three accused allegedly challenged bystanders while the victim lay helpless.
- Rosa hired a jeep to take her father to the hospital but he was already dead; she identified the motive as resentment over Gervacio’s insistence on filing a criminal complaint against Romualdo for the earlier killing of Patrocinio Megenio (Case No. C-1511).
- Alberto Uy’s testimony (eyewitness inside Estropio Dorico’s store):
- He was inside Estropio’s store at the time, attempting to buy cigarettes; present in the store were Honorio Dorico, Romualdo, Dionisio, and Julio Cerenado drinking “Mallorca.”
- He heard Honorio point to Gervacio and say that Gervacio was responsible for instigating the complaint against Romualdo.
- Romualdo and Dionisio went out and accosted Gervacio; Alberto Uy corroborated Rosa’s sequence up to Fernando boxing the victim, but differed in that Dionisio first stabbed and Romualdo followed.
- He identified the weapons as bolos called “Depang.”
- After witnessing the incident he left for his uncle Ceferino Vicario’s house out of fear.
- Two additional witnesses (Fernando Dones and Purita Becario/Purita Vicario) were expected to testify but left for Manila before trial without leaving forwarding addresses; affidavits by Francisco Dones and Purita Vicario executed during preliminary investigation are in the record as Exhibits “F” and “G.”
Autopsy and Medical Evidence (Exhibit "B")
- Autopsy describes multiple wounds, with measurements and anatomical locations:
- One clean cut incised stab wound on the left mid-lateral arm 4-3/4 cms (2 inches) long, penetrating and exiting at the inner left arm 1-1/4 inches long and hitting the upper lateral thorax below the left armpit; stab wound measures one inch long, 3-1/2 inches deep.
- One clean cut incised stab wound on the right dorso-lateral upper aspect of the thorax, measuring 1-1/2 inches long by 1-1/4 inches deep.
- One clean cut incised stab wound on the left dorso-lateral aspect of the abdomen 2 inches long, penetrating to hit the left ventral aspect of the abdomen two inches above the umbilicus, measures 1-1/4 inches long.
- One clean cut incised stab wound on the left knee measuring 1-1/2 cms long by 1 cm deep.
- One contusion on the right pinna (ear).
- Autopsy conclusions:
- There were four stab wounds, two of which were penetrating (through-and-through) and fatal in nature because they hit important organs (aortic arch and small intestines).
- Wounds were caused by sharp-edged pointed and bladed instruments; other wounds contributed to hemorrhage.
- Cause of death: shock from severe hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds.
Defenses Asserted by the Accused
- Romualdo Dorico: Plea of self-defense.
- Account: He was in Estropio Dorico’s store when Gervacio arrived, called him, accused him of slashing carabaos; Gervacio allegedly unsheathed his bolo and slashed at Romualdo who parried, ducked and after grappling for the bolo, Romualdo wrested possession; Romualdo alleges that Gervacio then stabbed him on the left side, prompting Romualdo to stab Gervacio twice more and once on the knee, after which Gervacio fell.
- Romualdo asserted he surrendered to Mayor Olimpio de Guia after the incident.
- He denied the presence of Alberto Uy and Rosa at the scene and claimed Fernando and others were not present.
- Romualdo argued that throwing away the weapon immediately after the incident and lack of his sustaining a scratch are not determinative against self-defense.
- Fernando Dorico: Defense of alibi.
- Account: On the morning of October 12, 1964, Fernando was on his farm, returned at about 3:00 p.m., later went to the beach to buy fish where he met Agripino Calupo; they then returned to the poblacion together; on the way they heard news that Gervacio had been killed by Romualdo; Fernando went home immediately for fear of retaliation.
- Agripino Calupo testified he met Fernando at the beach at the relevant time, corroborating an alibi.
- Fernando argued prosecution eyewitnesses’ testimony (Alberto Uy and Rosa) were unreliable and that their names did not appear in the original criminal complaint or as having given statements to police.
- Dionisio Ballonico: Denial of participation (non-participation).
- Account: He and his wife and son were in Estropio’s store; he saw Gervacio call Romualdo, and up to the point where Romualdo hacked Gervacio on the knee he corroborated Romualdo’s account, but denied participating in stabbing the deceased.
- He contended inclusion as a defendant was due to kinship with the Doricos and that he protested his unjust implication to the Mayor, Judge and Chief of Police.
Charge and Content of the Criminal Complaint
- Complaint (excerpted): Allegation that on or about 5:30 p.m., October 12, 1964, within the jurisdiction of the court, the accused conspired and mutually helped one another with deliberate intent and intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, and then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally assaulted, attacked and stabbed to death Gervacio Dapulag, resulting in mortal wounds and death. (Page 1, Vol. I, folder of exhibits.)
Trial Court Findings and Sentence (Court of First Instance of Samar)
- The trial court found all three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder qualified with treachery and with the presence of the aggravating circumstance of superior strength, not offset by any mitigating circumstance.
- Sentences imposed by trial court (as quoted in the record):
- Each accused (Romualdo, Dionisio and Fernando) sentenced to death (supr