You are on page 1of 7

25. People vs.

Malimit

DOCTRINE: The non-disclosure by the witness to the police officers of appellant's identity
immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not entirely against human experience. In fact
the natural reticence of most people to get involved in criminal prosecutions against immediate
neighbors, as in this case, is of judicial notice.

FACTS:

 At 8 pm, Onofre Malaki(victim) was attending to his store. Malaki's houseboy Edilberto Batin,
was busy cooking supper at the kitchen located at the back of the store

 Florencio Rondon, a farmer, arrived at the store of Malaki. to purchase chemical for his rice
farm

 Batin had just finished cooking, he proceeded directly to the store to ask Malaki if supper is
to be prepared. As Batin stepped inside the store, he saw accused Ercarnacion “Manolo”
Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo while his boss, bathed in his own blood, was
sprawled on the floor struggling for his life

 Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away from the store, also saw accused
Malimit rushing out through the front door of Malaki's store with a blood-stained bolo

o Aided by the illumination coming from a pressure lamp inside the store, Rondon
clearly recognized Malimit

 Both Batin and Rondon rushed to the nearby house of Malaki's brother-in-law Eutiquio Beloy
and informed Beloy of the tragic incident which befell Malaki.

 Batin, along with Beloy, went back to the store. Inside, they saw the lifeless body of Malaki in
a pool of blood lying prostrate at the floor. Beloy readily noticed that the store's drawer was
opened and ransacked and the wallet of Malaki was missing from his pocket

TC: Convicted accused for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide

One of the contentions of accused Malimit in this appeal is that the trial court erred in giving
credence to the testimonies of Rondon and Batin. He questions the credibility of the 2 witnesses
because they only revealed that they have knowledge of the crime and identified the accused as
the perpetrator, 5 months after the incident.

Date of the crime: April 15, 1991

Beloy and Batin reported the crime with the CAFGU detachment in their barangay where Batin declared that it was appellant who robbed Malaki on that fateful night. Even assuming arguendo that Rondon and Batin identified the appellant only on September 15. 2. suffice it to state that extant from the records are ample testimonial evidence negating his assertion. After having discovered the commission of the crime. or after the lapse of five months from commission of the crime. Batin again made a similar statement later at the Silago Police Station. was merely the date when Rondon and Batin executed their respective affidavits. Rondon and Batin immediately looked for Eutiquio Beloy. As to his claim of delay. narrating that they saw the appellant on the night of April 15. The aforementioned date however. 1991. and informed him that appellant was the only person they saw running away from the crime scene. and 3. to wit: 1. 1991.Witnesses pointed at accused: September 17. In fact the natural . this fact alone does not render their testimony less credible. 1991 ISSUE: WON the testimonies of the witnesses may be appreciated by the court? YES HELD: Accused haphazardly concluded that Rondon and Batin implicated the appellant to this gruesome crime only on September 17. The non-disclosure by the witness to the police officers of appellant's identity immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not entirely against human experience. 1991 carrying a bolo stained with blood and rushing out of Malaki's store. Malaki's brother-in-law.

appellant cannot now pass the blame on the prosecution for something which appellant himself should have done.reticence of most people to get involved in criminal prosecutions against immediate neighbors. tall weeds and second growth trees. Entries in the police blotter are merely corroborative evidence of the uncontroverted testimony of Batin that he identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime before the Silago police. As such. . the consistent teaching of our jurisprudence is that the findings of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses are given weight and the highest degree of respect by the appellate court. And although the rule admits of certain exceptions. we found none in this case. This is the established rule of evidence. Besides. as the matter of assigning values to the testimony of witnesses is a function best performed by the trial court which can weigh said testimony in the light of the witness" demeanor. Estoista is assailing his conviction saying that the 5-10 years penalty for the illegal possession of firearms is cruel and excessive. conduct and attitude at the trial. is of judicial notice. Bruno Estoista. a little distance from a 27hectare estate belonging to the family which was partly covered with cogon grass. People vs. At any rate. namely: (1) when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court. The firearm with which the appellant was charged with having in his possession was a rifle and belonged to his father. a la borer of the family who was setting a trap for wild chickens and whose presence was not perceived by the accused. if appellant believed that he was not identified therein. Father and son live & in the same house. 26. who held a legal permit for it. or (2) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence. Having failed to do so. as in this case. From a spot in the plantation 100 to 120 meters from the house. Additional info: The non-presentation by the prosecution of the police blotter which could prove if accused was indeed implicated right away by Batin to the crime was not necessary for the prosecution to present as evidence. the defendant took a shot at a wild rooster and hit Diragon Dima. then he should have secured a copy thereof from the Silago Police Station and utilized the same as controverting evidence to impeach Batin's credibility as witness. its presentation as evidence is not indispensable. Estoista Facts: Estoista was for acquitted for homicide through reckless imprudence and convicted for illegal possession of firearm under one information by the CFI of Lanao.

Mauro Bulatao was shot in the mouth and died instantly as his son and daughter looked on in horror. It further provides that neither shall death penalty be imposed. Munoz FACTS: On June 30. The constitutionality of an act of the legislature is not to be judged in the light of exceptional cases. Tomas Tayaba. having due regard to the prevalent conditions which the law proposes to suppress or curb. went out in a jeep at the behest of one of them who had complained of having been victimized by cattle rustlers. The language.Issue: WoN the 5-10 years penalty for the illegal possession of firearms is excessive. degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Jose Mislang. was kicked in the head until he bled before he too had his brains blown out. Section 19(l) of the 1987 Constitution which provides that excessive fines shall not be imposed. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. but this was modified by Article III. San Carlos City. Feliciano Muñoz. Pangasinan. 1972 in Balite Sur. like the records of the constitutional convention. it is neither necessary nor permissible to resort to extrinsic aids. also in the head. Held: It is of the court’s opinion that confinement from 5 to 10 years for possessing or carrying firearm is not cruel or unusual. People vs. HELD: A reading of Section 19(l) of Article III will readily show that there is really nothing therein which expressly declares the abolition of the death penalty. justify imprisonment which in normal circumstances might appear excessive. nor cruel. abolish the death penalty. The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Marvin Millora. the law is not to be declared unconstitutional for this reason. If imprisonment from 5 to 10 years is out of proportion to the present case in view of certain circumstances. while rather awkward. The provision merely says that the death penalty shall not be imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes the Congress hereafter provides for it and. and it is to meet such a situation as this that courts are advised to make a recommendation to the Chief Executive for clemency or reduction of the penalty. and the other seven unidentified men. Section 19(l) does not change the periods of the penalty prescribed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code except only insofar as it prohibits the . Aquilino Bulatao. ISSUE: WON Section 19(1). like small fishes. shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. before his terrified wife and son. And it is a settled rule of legal hermeneutics that if the language under consideration is plain. Alejandro Bulatao was forced to lie down on the ground and then shot twice. for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. Small transgressors for which the heavy net was not spread are. Article III. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. Having found their supposed quarry. is still plain enough. if already imposed. they proceeded to execute each one of them in cold blood without further ado and without mercy. for its interpretation. Thus. person. who was only sixteen years old. The rampant lawlessness against property. and even the very security of the Government. bound to be caught. 27. the Congress hereafter provides for it. directly traceable in large measure to promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons. The four identified accused were convicted for the crime of murder qualified by treachery. unless.

they must be permanently prevented from doing so. . or standards. but the arbitrariness pervading the procedures by which the death penalty was imposed by the jury. commonly known as the Death Penalty Law. Georgia. ISSUE: Whether or not Death Penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. People vs. The range of the medium and minimum penalties remains unchanged. He invokes the ruling in Furman vs. Death penalty should only be imposed where the crime was murder.imposition of the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua. He also argues that death is an excessive and cruel punishment for a crime of rape because there is no taking of life in rape. and because they have so caused irreparable and substantial injury to both their victim and the society and a repetition of their acts would pose actual threat to the safety of individuals and the survival of government. Georgia wherein the US Supreme Court categorically ruled that death penalty is cruel and degrading. never was a defining essence of the death penalty in the context of our legal history and cultural experience. 3) perversity of the accused. it raised the constitutionality of the Death Penalty Law as being severe and excessive. The issue in Furman vs. guidelines. Excessiveness is measured by 1) seriousness of the crime. but must be disproportionate to the crime committed. barbarous. 28. 2) policy of the legislative. cruel and unusual in violation of the constitution. the forfeiture of life simply because life was taken. It implies there something inhuman. But. Georgia is not so much the death penalty itself. life is not over for the victim. rather. He invokes the ruling in Coker vs. With regard to the case of Coker vs. It was nullified because the discretion in which the statute vested in trial judges and sentencing juries was uncontrolled and without any parameters. it was held that punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death. HELD: NO. unjust nor excessive. 7659. In the US case of Kemmler. 1994. during which time Republic Act No. it should not involve the taking of human life. a tooth for a tooth". The penalty is neither cruel. accused-appellant was inevitably meted out the supreme penalty of death. something more than the extinguishment of life. Such a premise is in fact an ennobling of the biblical notion of retributive justice of "an eye for an eye. Georgia which said that while rape deserves serious punishment. It is degrading if it involves public humiliation. the death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes because the perpetrators thereof have committed unforgivably execrable acts that have so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal acts with severely destructive effects. was already in effect. The crime having been committed sometime in April. The severity is not sufficient. the SC held that this case has no bearing on Philippine experience and culture. In rape. In appealing the conviction. Echegaray FACTS: Right against cruel and unusual punishment Accused-apellant Leo Echegaray was charged and convicted for the crime of raping his ten- year old daughter.

11. provides - Sec. atrocity and perversity. of the Rules of Court." the accused who is the father of complainant Rowena Purazo. A complaint for rape was filed against SOLOMON PURAZO alleging that "sometime in March 1997. but the act may be alleged to have been committed at anytime as near . civilized and ordered society. The accused now seeking his exoneration laments his conviction and draws our attention to the criminal complaint filed arguing that "(it) charged no specific instance when the offense was committed. 29. odious. Purazo FACTS: This is another sickening case of incestuous rape. ISSUE: Whether or not the stating in the information the precise time the offense was committed prevented the defendant to prepare an intelligent defense warranting his acquittal. RULING: No. and for sometime subsequent thereto. . The accused avers. was sentenced to death and ordered to indemnify his victim for moral damages." The allegation that the rape was committed in ‘March 1997’ is so vague that it did not give him the chance to make an intelligent defense. that "the complaint miserably failed to describe with particularity the specific time when the alleged rape was committed. They also include crimes which are despicable because life is callously taken. Section 11. SOLOMON PURAZO was found guilty by the trial court of rape perpetrated against his own twelve (12)-year old daughter ROWENA. the time and date is not an essential element of the crime of rape. those that are repugnant and outrageous to common standards of norms and decency and morality in a just.RA 7659 already sufficiently defined what are heinous crimes – crimes punished with death are those that are grievous. People vs. in his first assigned error. a minor of twelve (12) years of age. did then and there willfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with her.It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense.Time of Commission of the Offense. or the victim is treated as an animal or dehumanized. and hateful by reason of inherent viciousness." He likewise claims that the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Rule 110.

to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit. In explaining the provision. 30. Alejano vs. ISSUE: What is the objective of the writ of habeas corpus? HELD: The duty to hear the petition for habeas corpus necessarily includes the determination of the propriety of the remedy. Neither can it substitute for an appeal. CA dismissed the petition because the detainees are already charged of coup d’etat. the detention is proven lawful. for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. and. As such. that the date is not an essential element of the crime of rape. If. The purpose of the writ is to determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of his liberty. unless the precise time of commission of the offense is an essential element thereof. The remedy of habeas corpus has one objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a person. however. Cabuay FACTS: A directive was issued to all Major Service Commanders to take into custody the military personnel under their command who took part in the Oakwood incident. to meet two (2) criteria: (a) it is as near to the actual date of commission of the offense as the complaint or information of the prosecuting officer will permit. . It is not a writ of error. (b) the time ultimately proved should be as so alleged in the complaint or information. Habeas corpus is unavailing in this case as the detainees’ confinement is under a valid indictment. the time or place of commission in rape cases need not be accurately stated. the court orders the release of the person. Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus with SC. time and again. then the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. The SC have ruled. the SC said that the time averred in the complaint or information would only need. The SC issued a resolution. which required respondents to make a return of the writ and to appear and produce the persons of the detainees before the CA. If the inquiry reveals that the detention is illegal. The use of habeas corpus is thus very limited.