People v. Suplito
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 26, 1986, in Barangay Luy-a, Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate, Felino B. Castillo, a truck driver, was shot while unloading cargoes. Salve C. Chavez, an eyewitness, testified that she saw accused-appellant Samson Suplito approach the victim from behind, poke a .45 caliber pistol at the back of his head, and then shoot him as the victim turned his head. Edwin Raquim, another eyewitness, corroborated Chavez's testimony. The victim sustained a gunshot wound at the posterior base of the skull, which caused his instantaneous death. The prosecution presented Dr. Emilio C. Quemi, who conducted the post-mortem examination and recovered a .45 slug from the victim's brain, concluding the shot was from close range and not self-inflicted. Isabelo Castillo, the victim's father, testified about the expenses incurred and suggested a possible motive related to a prior near-collision incident involving the victim and a truck owned by the Discaya family, for which the accused-appellant was the brother-in-law of Jesus Amaro, owner of a passenger jeepney involved in the incident. Procedural History: An information for murder was filed against Samson Suplito and Ely Amaro y Balbuena. Both pleaded not guilty. The trial court dismissed the case against Ely Amaro due to reasonable doubt. However, the trial court found Samson Suplito guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity to the heirs of the victim. The accused-appellant appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed his conviction, raising issues regarding the alleged denial of his right to cross-examine a witness, the denial of his right to testify and present evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence to convict him of murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the direct examination of an alleged eyewitness in the absence of the defense counsel. Whether the trial court erred in denying the accused his right to testify and to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court with modifications regarding the award of damages. The conviction of Samson Suplito for murder was upheld, and the sentence of reclusion perpetua was maintained. The award of civil indemnity was increased to P50,000.00, and the accused-appellant was ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and P15,000.00 as temperate damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged denial of the right to cross-examination: The Court held that the accused-appellant's right to cross-examine the witness Salve C. Chavez was not denied. Although the defense counsel was absent during the direct examination, he was present during the cross-examination and conducted an extensive cross-examination and re-cross-examination in the afternoon of the same day. The Court emphasized that what is proscribed is the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine, not the absence during the direct examination. The records showed that the defense counsel was accorded the opportunity to examine the witness, thus satisfying the constitutional and procedural requirements. On the alleged denial of the right to testify and present evidence: The Court found no merit in the claim that the accused-appellant was denied his right to testify and present evidence. The records indicated that the defense was given multiple opportunities to present its evidence, with the hearings being postponed at the instance of the defense no less than nine times. Ultimately, on June 25, 1990, the counsel for the accused-appellant manifested in open court that the accused-appellant was submitting his case for decision without presenting his evidence, thereby constituting a waiver of his right to present evidence. The Court also noted the accused-appellant's consistent lack of interest in pursuing his case, even during the appeal process. On the sufficiency of evidence for murder: The Court found that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitness testimony of Salve C. Chavez, who recognized the accused-appellant due to a long-standing friendship with her brother, was given full faith and credence. Her narration was corroborated by the post-mortem report confirming the use of a .45 caliber gun. The Court also correctly appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance, noting that the attack was sudden, without provocation, and the victim was unarmed and defenseless, thus having no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The elements of treachery were clearly established.
Main Doctrine
The right to cross-examination is a fundamental right, but it is deemed satisfied if the accused is given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, even if the defense counsel was absent during the direct examination, provided the cross-examination is conducted extensively. Furthermore, the failure to appear for trial despite repeated postponements constitutes a waiver of the right to present evidence.