A. Jozoil Robert D.

Rosario 21-15-110

BS- Crim22 Human Rights Education

B. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLEO DRAMAYO, PATERNO ECUBIN

G.R. No. L-21325

October 29, 1971

C. FERNANDO, J.:

D. On January 9, 1964, two accused, Pableo Dramayo and Paterno Ecubin, were present in Barrio
Magsaysay, of the Municipality of Sapao, Surigaodel Norte. They were invited to a drinking session at the
back of the school house. Dramayo had the idea of killing Estelito Nogaliza so that he could not testify in
the robbery case. Ecubin then hit him with a piece of wood on the side of the head near the right ear. The
incident was highly negative as the two individuals were accused of being implicated in a robbery.
Dramayo and Paterno Ecubin were found guilty of murder for the murder of Ecubin. The other accused
were not convicted, with Crescencio Savandal and Severo Savandal being used as state witnesses and
Priolo Billona, Francisco Billona and Modesto Ronquilla acquitted. Dramayo had warned the group to
keep their mouths sealed as to what had just happened, and the next morning he informed Corazon that
he had just seen the dead body of Estelito. The blood stains on his trousers revealed that a skin ailment
of his daughter was the cause thereof. The lower court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the accused.

E. 1. On January 9, 1964, two accused, Pableo Dramayo and PaternoEcubin, were present in Barrio
Magsaysay, of the Municipality of Sapao, Surigaodel Norte. They were invited to a drinking session at the
back of the school house. Dramayo had the idea of killing EstelitoNogaliza so that he could not testify in
the robbery case. The others were to station themselves nearby. The investigation was led by Francisco
Billons, Modesto Ronquilla, Crescencio and SeveroSavandal.

2. Dramayo and Ecubin were two detectives who were confronted by Nogaliza after being hit with a piece
of wood. Dramayo participated in the fight and warned the group to keep their mouths sealed as to what
had happened. The next morning, Corazon informed the Estrelito'swidow Corazon that a skin ailment of
his daughter was the cause of its death. The barrio lieutenant and chief of police were notified of this.

3. The lower court found Pableo Dramayo and Paterno Ecubin guilty of the crime of murder, qualified by
evidence of evident premeditation and weighing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The other three
accused were not convicted, with Crescencio Savandal and Severo Savandal being used as state
witnesses and PrioloBillona, Francisco Billona and Modesto Ronquilla acquitted. They appealed the case.

F. 1 . Whether or not the petitioner was deprived of his constitutional right to due process and the right
to "speedy disposition" of the cases against him as guaranteed by the Constitution

2. Whether Dramayo and Ecubin should be acquitted inasmuch as the other co-accused have been
acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

G. 1. YES. The Court find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation by the
Tanod bayan in the instant case to be violative of the constitutional right of the accused to due
process.

2. WHEREFORE, the judgment of September 8, 1965 affirmed with the modification that the
indemnification to the heirs of Estelito Nogaliza should be in the sum P12,000.00. With costs.

H. It is to be admitted that the starting point is the Presumption of innocence. So it must be, according to
the Constitution. That is a right safeguarded both appellants. Accusation is not, according to the
fundamental law, synonymous with guilt.
 The judgment of conviction should not have occasioned any surprise on the part of the two
appellants, as from the evidence deserving of the fullest credence, their guilt had been more than amply
demonstrated. The presumption of innocence could not come to their rescue as it was more than
sufficiently overcome by the proof that was offered by the prosecution. What would have been a blot on
the law is that if, on the facts as established, no reasonable doubt being entertained, the two appellants
would have been acquitted likewise just because the other five defendants, for the reasons above stated,
were not similarly sentenced. The principal contention raised is thus clearly untenable. It must be stated
likewise that while squarely advanced for the first time, there had been cases where this Court,
notwithstanding a majority of the defendants being acquitted, the element of conspiracy likewise being
allegedly present, did hold the party or parties, responsible for the offense guilty of the crime charged, a
moral certainty having arisen as to their capability.