Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 147196, June 04, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS.
EDGAR DUMADAG Y CAGADAS, APPELLANT.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before us on appeal is the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of the
City of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Branch 8, finding appellant Edgar Dumadag
y Cagadas, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of
the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.
The Indictment
The appellant was charged with murder in an Information filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay, the accusatory portion of which is
II
ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT
ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE DEATH OF FERNANDO
PRUDENTE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
CONVICTING HIM OF THE CRIME OF MURDER
INSTEAD OF SIMPLE HOMICIDE.[23]
The appellant insists that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt for the
crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. He asserts that although his
defense of alibi is weak, he should be acquitted because the evidence of the
prosecution is also weak.
The appellant, likewise, contends that, assuming that he is guilty of the
crime charged, he can only be convicted of homicide because the
prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the qualifying
circumstance of treachery. He avers that he could not have deliberately and
consciously adopted a plan to kill the victim because they never knew each
other. Citing our ruling in People vs. Aguiluz,[24] the appellant points out that
where the sudden attack is not preconceived and intended as the means, but
is merely triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the accused
because of an act of the victim, or where the meeting is purely accidental,
the killing would not be attended by treachery.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) avers that the prosecution,
through Baylins direct and straightforward testimony, proved that the
appellant stabbed the victim to death. The OSG asserts that the appellants
defense of denial and alibi are weak and cannot be given probative weight in
light of Baylins testimony, and that the admission made by the appellant
during the pre-trial that he was at the scene of the crime belied his alibi.
The OSG, however, agrees that the appellant is guilty only of homicide
because the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstance of
treachery. It posits that the altercation between the appellant and the victim
that preceded the commission thereof forestalled the attendance of
treachery.
We agree with the trial court that the appellant stabbed the victim.
Time and again, we have consistently ruled that the findings of facts of the
trial court, its calibration of the testimonial evidence of the parties, as well as
its conclusions on its findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive
effect.[25] This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court to
observe, at close range, the conduct, demeanor and deportment of the
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Now, how many time[s] did this Dumadag stabbed (sic) Ondo Prudente?
Once.
Q:
A:
A:
A stainless knife.
A:
offer, did you see already Dumadag carrying with him a knife (sic)?
No, he was running.
Q:
A:
Q:
When for (sic) the first time you saw the knife of Dumadag?
When he held the shoulder (sic).
Where did he get the knife?
A:
On the other hand, the appellants alibi is weak. It is settled that for the
defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove with clear and
convincing evidence not only that he was some place else when the crime
was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at
the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity when the crime was
committed.[30] To prove his alibi, the appellant testified as follows:
Q:
A:
Mr. Dumadag, you said that you borrowed money from Richard
Masicampo, [Sr.] from where is this Richard Masicampo?
From our sitio.
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
What place?
Kilabong.
Q:
A:
Q:
Mr. Dumadag, from Kilabong, Vista Villa going to Impalutao, how many
minutes or hours it will (sic) take you when you ride?
I do not know because the distance is far.
A:
However, the appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the scene of the crime, considering his claim that he was only a
few kilometers away when the stabbing occurred.
Moreover, during the pre-trial conference held on November 4, 1999, the
appellant, assisted by his counsel, admitted that he was at the place of the
incident at the time of the commission of the crime. The same was reduced
into writing, signed by the appellant, approved by the trial court and formed
part of the records of the case.[32] Under Section 5 of Republic Act No.
8493, otherwise known as The Speedy Trial Act of 1998, stipulations
entered into during the pre-trial which were approved by the Court shall
[1] Penned
[2] Records,
[3] The
p. 26.
[4] Records,
[5] TSN,
p. 15.
27 April 2000, p. 3.
[6] Id.
at 4.
[7] Id.
at 5.
[8] Id.
at 6.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
at 10.
[11] Id.
at 8.
[12] Id.
at 7.
[13] Exhibit
A, Records, p. 5.
[14] Ibid.
[15]
[17] TSN,
20 June 2000, p. 3.
[18] Id.
at 4.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
at 5-6.
[21] TSN,
[22] Records,
p. 60.
[23] Brief
[24] 207
[25] Peoples
[26] People
[27] Peoples
[28] People
[29] TSN,
[30] People
[31] TSN,
[32] Records,
[33] The
p. 34.
Plea Bargaining
Stipulation of facts
Marking for identification of evidence of parties
Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence and
Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial.
Sec. 5. Pre-Trial Order After the pre-trial conference, the court shall issue
an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated, and evidence
marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not
disposed of and control the course of action during the trial, unless
modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice.
[34] People
[35] People
[36] People
[37] People
[38] People
[39] People
[40] People
[41] People
[42] People
[43] People