People v. Obngayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 10, 1967, at approximately 3:00 PM, in the ricefields of Barrio Mañosa, Villaviciosa, Abra, Pedro Bagay was shot while goading his carabao. His wife, Alingan Bagay, who was less than a meter away, heard the gun report, turned, and saw the appellant, Apolonio Obngayan, holding a gun resembling a cal. 30 carbine. The appellant was with two unarmed companions, Nestor Taberdo and Delfin Padaoil. After Pedro Bagay collapsed, the appellant and his companions fled. Pedro Bagay was brought to a clinic, where he was attended to by Dr. Eleuterio Acosta. He was in a semi-conscious condition but improved after an operation. A cal. 30 slug was recovered from his body. Investigator Emiliano Agustin took Pedro Bagay's ante mortem statement, wherein the victim identified the appellant as his assailant. Pedro Bagay died the following morning, March 11, 1967. An autopsy conducted by Dr. Gerardo Pizarro, Jr. confirmed the cause of death as a gunshot wound to the abdomen, with secondary hemorrhage and traumatic shock, and indicated the victim was shot from behind. Procedural History: A criminal complaint for murder was filed against Apolonio Obngayan, Nestor Taberdo, and Delfin Padaoil. A preliminary examination was conducted, and warrants of arrest were issued. The accused were released on bail. A second stage of preliminary investigation was held, where the accused pleaded not guilty and waived their right to present evidence. An information for murder was filed by the Provincial Fiscal. At the arraignment, the appellant and his co-accused pleaded not guilty. The appellant interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was constructing a fence near his house and did not go to the victim's house due to fear. No evidence corroborated his alibi. On May 28, 1968, the trial court convicted the appellant of murder and acquitted his co-accused. The Petition: The appellant appealed the judgment, assigning errors concerning the irregularity of the preliminary investigation, the trial judge's alleged partiality in cross-examining him, and the trial court's reliance on the ante mortem statement and Alingan Bagay's testimony over his alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the preliminary investigation was conducted with irregularities that prejudiced the appellant. Whether the trial judge exhibited manifest partiality in his cross-examination of the appellant. Whether the ante mortem statement of the deceased and the testimony of Alingan Bagay are credible and admissible evidence. Whether the appellant's defense of alibi is sufficient to overcome the prosecution's evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, convicting Apolonio Obngayan of murder and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the deceased, increasing it from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00. The dispositive portion states: "WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the modification that appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased the amount of P12,000.00 as civil indemnity."
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged irregularity of the preliminary investigation: The Court held that the appellant waived his right to question any irregularity in the preliminary investigation by entering a plea of not guilty to the information. Furthermore, by posting bail and waiving the preliminary investigation proper, the appellant forfeited his right to question any defect in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest. The Court reiterated that such issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. On the alleged partiality of the trial judge: The Court found no basis for the appellant's contention that the trial judge exhibited partiality. The questions propounded by the judge were deemed to be within his inherent right to ascertain the truth and satisfy his mind on material points during the trial. The Court emphasized that while this power should be exercised sparingly, it does not amount to a denial of the right to a fair and impartial trial if exercised within reasonable bounds. On the credibility and admissibility of the ante mortem statement and Alingan Bagay's testimony: The Court found Alingan Bagay's testimony credible, noting that she was present at the incident, close to the victim, and had no improper motive to implicate the appellant. Her alleged inconsistencies were deemed trivial and did not impair her credibility on material points. Regarding the ante mortem statement (Exhibit B), the Court held that it was admissible as a dying declaration. Despite the victim being in a semi-conscious and delirious state, medical testimony confirmed the possibility that he could still make truthful statements. The Court cited medical authorities and case law to support the proposition that a person can still make coherent statements even after sustaining severe injuries, and the victim's condition and subsequent death supported the realization of his dying condition. On the defense of alibi: The Court characterized the appellant's alibi as one of the weakest defenses. It could not prevail over the positive identification by Alingan Bagay and the corroborating ante mortem statement of the deceased. The Court found that the appellant's guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence presented.
Main Doctrine
The alibi of the appellant is one of the weakest defenses and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the appellant by a credible witness, corroborated by the ante mortem statement of the deceased. The admissibility of dying declarations is not dependent on their being made in any particular form, and the victim's statement, even if made in a semi-conscious state, can be admitted if it reflects the truth.