Title
People vs. Sagadsad
Case
G.R. No. 88042
Decision Date
Nov 13, 1992
Alicio Bulan was murdered in 1981 by multiple assailants using stones, a bamboo pole, a bolo, and a knife. The Supreme Court upheld convictions for most accused, rejecting self-defense claims and alibis, while acquitting one due to insufficient evidence.
murder
conspiracy
denial

Case Summary (G.R. No. 88042)

Information and Conviction in the Trial Court

The prosecution filed an information on August 31, 1981, charging that on or about April 16, 1981, the accused, confederating and helping one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, and superiority of strength, attacked Alicio Bulan. The information alleged that they struck him with a stone and a bamboo pole, hacked him with a bolo, and stabbed him with a knife, causing wounds that directly caused his instantaneous death. Upon arraignment, all accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. After trial, the RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. It imposed reclusion perpetua on all except Ramon Atendido, who was sentenced to ten years and one day of prision mayor to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal. The RTC also ordered the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P30,000.00 and to pay costs.

Prosecution Evidence: Medical Findings and Eyewitness Account

The prosecution presented Dr. Ernesto Tamayo, Municipal Health Officer of Dimasalang, Masbate, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the victim’s body. He testified that the observed hematomas at the root of the nose, at the mouth, and at the forehead could have been caused by hard blunt instruments such as a stone and a bamboo pole. He further testified that the hack and stab wounds were probably inflicted by sharp bladed instruments such as a bolo and a knife. He considered most wounds fatal, and the death certificate he issued stated that death was due to “multiple hacking wounds, scalp wounds and multiple stab wounds.” On cross-examination, Dr. Tamayo admitted that he was not informed where the incident occurred and that hack and stab wounds could have been caused by the same sharp bladed instrument and inflicted by one or several persons.

The prosecution also relied heavily on Fortunato Tamayo, an eyewitness. He testified that he knew the accused as he frequented their place when he was not yet married. On April 16, 1981, he went to Matugnao, Palanas, Masbate to lay bets on a cockfight sponsored by Barangay Captain Ramon Atendido, where Alicia Bulan and Rodito Alutaya were already participating. At about five o’clock in the afternoon, Fortunato testified that he invited Bulan and Alutaya to go home. As they were about to leave, Bulan was suddenly hit on the face by a stone thrown by Gregorio Sagadsad. Fortunato further testified that as Bulan staggered, Aliner Atendido struck him at the back of the head with a bamboo pole about two arms length. Bulan fell face down. Fortunato then stated that Osias Atendido hacked Bulan at the side of the right temple with a bolo. At that point, Fortunato testified that Ramon Atendido told a group “to kill him (Bulan) and I will take care of everything,” and Manuel Atendido then stabbed Bulan with a hunting knife. Fortunato testified that he saw these acts from about twenty meters, and after hearing Osias say they would kill the victim’s companions to prevent reporting, he ran away and later summoned police authorities.

Police Testimony and Defense Attacks on Its Reliability

The prosecution presented Cpl. Ariel Batiancela of the Integrated National Police assigned at Palanas Police Station. He testified that during his investigation on the night of April 16, 1981, Ramon Atendido voluntarily surrendered and admitted that he alone killed the victim. Cpl. Batiancela testified that he brought Ramon to the police station but that he did not file the case at the Fiscal’s office. On cross-examination, he stated that according to Ramon Atendido, there was no “hantak” or cockfight on that day; instead, the victim and Fortunato Tamayo allegedly went to Ramon’s house to retrieve a machete confiscated earlier during a dance, and that the other accused were not around when Ramon hacked the victim to death.

Victim’s Father and Alleged Attempts at Amicable Settlement

Gregorio Bulan, the father of the victim, testified that Andresito Tamayo informed him about his son’s death at the hands of Gregorio Sagadsad and the brothers Ramon, Jesus, and Aliner Atendido. Gregorio Bulan testified that he verified the incident and found that his son was hacked, stoned, and stabbed to death. He admitted he did not report the matter to police immediately because his wife fainted and he had to attend to her. He also testified that Pat. Batiancela, described as a nephew of the accused Atendidos and a policeman assigned at Palanas Police Station, approached him and his wife to propose an amicable settlement, allegedly offering P3,000.00. At trial, Gregorio Bulan testified that he asked for P18,000.00 for damages, P1,000.00 for attorney’s fees, and P500.00 for litigation expenses, while the accused were already in jail.

Defense Evidence: Denial, Self-Defense for Ramon, and Alibis

In defense, Gregorio Sagadsad denied the charge. He claimed he went to Yati, Liloan, Cebu City on April 9, 1981 with Jesus Atendido to sell buri midribs, returned in May, and speculated that he was implicated because he had been the barangay tanod who confiscated the weapon Bulan used in stabbing someone during a benefit dance in February 1981.

Vicente Caayon testified that on the day in question at about six o’clock in the evening, Bulan arrived at Ramon Atendido’s yard armed with a bolo and shouted demanding return of his weapon, which Ramon allegedly said had already been turned over to the station commander. Caayon testified that Bulan attempted to go up Ramon’s stairs but was hit by a stone and fell. Caayon claimed Ramon had armed himself with a bolo and fought back. He testified that Gregorio Sagadsad and Manuel and Jesus and Osias Atendido were not around, and he stated that another person, Nemesia Alfornon, witnessed from inside Ramon’s house. Caayon also testified that Bulan was killed inside Ramon’s house after Ramon accepted the challenge. He further testified that a week later Ramon told him to testify in court.

Nemesia Alfornon corroborated Caayon as to time and encounter. She claimed she did not see Gregorio Sagadsad or Jesus and Osias Atendido during the incident. She testified that the incident took place in the yard, that Ramon hacked Bulan, that Ramon Tamayo fled, and that she jumped out a window where she said she was watching. She stated she learned Bulan was dead and that Ramon surrendered to authorities the next morning. She also testified Ramon came later to ask her to testify.

Jesus Atendido testified in support of his defense. He stated he lived about one hundred meters from Ramon’s house. He claimed that on April 9, 1981 he left for Cebu City to work at Pier 4, stayed for two months, then returned in June. He testified that since 1979 he had been employed by Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. for loading and unloading, and that he worked upon receiving salary.

Osias Atendido also asserted non-participation, testifying that for over a month starting April 2, 1981, he stayed in Nursery, Masbate, helping in construction of a health center with a mason, and that he only went home on weekends. He claimed he only learned of the incident when he was arrested.

Ramon Atendido, the self-confessed assailant, denied the presence of his brothers and Gregorio Sagadsad. He raised self-defense by stating that Bulan challenged him and told him to “get down” and that Ramon threw a stone to frighten him off. Ramon then claimed he was compelled to fight back in self-defense. Ramon testified that after the incident he surrendered to Cpl. Batiancela. On cross-examination, he admitted that he confessed he killed Bulan because the latter challenged him, and he testified he made sure Bulan would die and not leave the place alive, explaining that he sustained no injury because Bulan’s thrusts missed due to blood oozing from him.

Finally, Wilfredo Balile supported the alibi of Osias by testifying about work schedules at the health center construction site and that on April 16, 1981 (Holy Thursday) they worked only up to two o’clock in the afternoon, after which they had no immediate transportation, with travel and return dates thereafter.

Issues on Appeal and the Governing Appellate Standard

On appeal, appellants assailed the RTC decision on factual and credibility grounds. They contended that Fortunato Tamayo’s testimony was not corroborated and thus was not credible because Ramon Tamayo was allegedly the true companion; that Ramon Atendido acted in self-defense; that the alibis of the other accused and the testimony of Cpl. Batiancela should have been considered; and that conspiracy was not proven by sufficient evidence.

The Court emphasized the appellate rule that factual findings of the trial court deserve the highest respect and will not be disturbed absent showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance. It relied on People v. Florida, G.R. No. 90254, September 24, 1992, and other cases cited therein.

Evaluation of Witness Credibility: Fortunato Tamayo and Dr. Tamayo

The Court found Fortunato Tamayo’s testimony candid, frank, and straightforward. It held that nothing in the testimony appeared unnatural or illogical. Most importantly, his positive identification of the accused and their respective participation was, according to the Court, corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Ernesto Tamayo.

The Court rejected the defense attempt to discredit Fortunato on the ground that Fortunato was an uncle of the victim. The Court held that relationship between a witness and the victim does not necessarily undermine credibility. It reiterated the rule that being a relative is not a sufficient ground to disregard testimony absent evidence of ill motive, citing People v. De Guzman, 194 SCRA 628 (1991), and People v. Manzanares, 179 SCRA 427 (1989). The Court found no evidence of ill motive.

The Court also addressed the defense criticism for allegedly not presenting Ramon Tamayo. It held that if Ramon Tamayo could

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms