People vs Regala April 27,1982 | Makiasar, J|Section 14
that what he used as basis was the stain in the uniform of Desilos was certain that the cause of death was a sharp pointed instrument o
PETITIONER: People of the Philippiens RESPONDENTS: Rudy Regala and Delfin Flores
Judge Aungustia, municipal judge of Masbate declared that he knew Regala, Regala was brought several times to the judge and he was accused of several crimes involving peace and order
SUMMARY: Regala and Flores were arrested on charges of murder. The prosecution said that Regala stabbed Sergeant Desilos with a sharp object, which was confirmed by autopsy reports. Defense provided alibis, that the accused was nowhere near the scene of the crime. They also contend that the accused were not given a fair trial, because they had taken into account the perversity of the offender (that he had committed the crimes of malicious mischief and slight physical injuries before), and that there was undue prejudice against the accused. The SC ruled that there was an impartial trial by an impartial judge, because there was no evidence of bias or prejudice. Also, an information filed must contain all the charges against the accused. Failure to object cannot cure this deficiency, because it is violative of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and the cause of accusation against him. Final conviction was homicide aggravated by insult to public authorities and recidivism (initially, it was murder).
granted)
After cross examination and the presentation of the evidence Defense moved, by way of demurrer, for the dismissal of the case o alleging: Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused Flores There was variance between the date of the commission of the crime as alleged in the information and that proved by the evidence Prosecuting fiscal said that the alleged variance was not substantial o (information has "that on or about 13th of June") Defense presented evidence and 8 witnesses o Abayon: accused Regala was in the canteen at around 12:20 am Abayon brought a certain Almirol home - as they passed by the gate, Desilos was not there anymore
Right of accused to impartial trial-Trial Judge not biased or prejudiced against accused after his criminal conviction was brought out during the trial, Judge considered extensively accused’s evidence. Right of accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against himCrime of assault, although established by the evidence of the prosecution without objection of the accused, cannot cure defects in information
FACTS: Regala and Flores were charged with the crime of murder with assault upon an agent of a person in authority. Defendants pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution presented five witnesses to establish the case against the defendants o
Tidon and Evangelista said they were at the scene of the crime
o
They claim that they saw the accused Regala stab the victim Sgt. Juan Desilos Jr.
o
o
Tidon claims to know Regala by appearance only before the incident Evangelista said that he saw Desilos, who was in a PC uniform, get stabbed by Regala using a sharp pointed knife. He also said that the incident occurred around 1am Dr. Delos Santos testified that the probable cause of Desilos' death was cardiac hemorrhage - injury caused by a sharp blunt instrument When cross examined, he said that it was only the first time that he saw the alleged weapon used - it was not brought to the lab
He said
He did not see any fatal weapon
Almirol said that when she saw the PC officer killed, Regala was nowhere
near
Mendoza: accused Regala was still at the canteen at 2am
Accused testified They said that they were not at the spot of the crime during the o commission of the murder o
which was done while Desilos was regulating traffic
Defense asked
that this testimony be crossed out for being immaterial (not
DOCTRINE:
He
Regala said that he was arrested with Roger Ampuan
They were brought to the PC compound
Sgt. Gotis pointed to accused as companion of Ampuan in stabbing Desilos
o
They were released the same day
He was arrested again by Gotis
He was maltreated - ordered to admit the crime
Boxed, kicked, made to squat
o
Accused said that when he talked to Evangelista, one of the prosecution witnesses, the latter said that he did not see the former during the commission of the crime
Cross-examination o
RATIO: impartial trial - impartial judge Appellant has not pointed, and the court did not find, any part or o
stage of
He said that his body was battered because of the maltreatment he
prejudice against the appellant after prosecution brought out the fact
suffered from the PC
that the accused has a previous criminal conviction
Another witness, Floresta, corroborated accused-appellant's defense of alibi Delfin, was convicted of murder already before he is released due to parole Rebuttal to the testimonies o
o
In fact, prosecution brought out accused-appellant's conviction of malicious mischief and slight physical injuries only through their last witness
Laguerta o
o
the trial betraying the trial Judge's hostility, bias, and
Gotis
Regala was never maltreated HE said that he was able to confiscate a knife from Regala Trial Judge gave more weight to the testimonies of the prosecution- thus the conviction Here - automatic review of the SC of a death penalty case (Delfin was already convicted as an accessory - he did not interpose o any appeal Counsel de officio contends that the trial court erred in failing to give the two accused a fair trial He said that the Court, in giving overemphasis on the perversity of the o offender (committed against a public officer, during a fiesta), directly caused undue prejudice against the accused because of his previous criminal record as manifested by some portions of the decision of the
Contrary to the claim of the counsel, the judge gave due consideration to the evidence shown and examined extensively the testimonies all the 8 witnesses of the defense
Trial court correctly rejected defense of alibi and denial o
Such defenses cannot prevail over affirmative testimonies
o
Appellant has not shown any evidence of evil motive on the part of the
o
and great o
o
(in the decision, it was mentioned that it was very possible for the two, who happen to be former criminals, to commit the crime )
o
In essence, counsel questions if due process was given to Regala Right
Verdict of killing QUALIFIED by treachery and evident premeditation o
to an impartial trial
Sol. Gen. Opposes the claim of the counsel
He said that the decision was based on proper appreciation of evidence Regala was never maltreated
In this case, both the qualifying circumstances cannot be appreciated
Treachery is never presumed
By prosecution's own evidence, it is said that appellant was
o
o
He said that he was able to confiscate a knife from Regala
ISSUES: Whether or not there was a violation of due process - impartial trial? -NO RULING: The judgment appealed from his hereby affirmed
enraged because his companion Flores was pushed - thus there
was no evident premeditation; it was just mere
retaliation
o Trial
Judge gave more weight to the testimonies of the prosecution - thus the
weight - in terms of demeanor
The witnesses for the prosecution seemed trustworthy There were minor inconsistencies - better left to the appreciation of the trial court which ruled that the inconsistencies were not sufficient to destroy the probity of Tidon According to jurisprudence, it is a common phenomenon to find inconsistencies especially on minor details
judge o
prosecution witnesses to testify in the manner they did
It is a recognized principle that on the matter of credibility of witnesses, the observation of the trial court must be accorded respect
Verdict of adding "with assault upon an agent of a person in authority" o
The information filed did not allege the essential elements of assault.
It was not alleged that the accused knew the victim as an
agent of authority.
o
Lack of objection cannot cure this deficiency. To do so would be convicting the accused of a crime not properly alleged in the body of the information in violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
FINAL VERDICT o
Homicide aggravated by In contempt or with insult to the public authorities OR in disregard of the respect due to the offended party due to his
rank
Recidivism
Due to slight physical injuries