THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PAQUITO DUMAYAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. EDDIE DUMAYAN, ALLAN REAL AND ROMY LOYOLA BERGARDO, ACCUSED.

People versus Dumayan

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Paquito Dumayan, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The appellant was one of four men charged with the killing of Carlito Tamayo in Malolos, Bulacan, on the first day of February 1992. His three co-accused evaded arrest and remained at large, so he alone stood trial and he alone appealed. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one decision the working rules on the credibility of related witnesses, on alibi against positive identification, and above all on how conspiracy and treachery are established from the overt acts of the malefactors, while evident premeditation must still be proved and was here found wanting.

Procedural History

The appellant was arraigned in the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, and, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision on the tenth of December 1993, finding him guilty as principal of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of fifty thousand pesos, and to pay the costs. As to the three co-accused who were at large, the court ordered the records archived until they should be arrested, and directed that alias warrants of arrest be issued. The appellant then interposed an appeal to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's conviction of him despite the claim that it was Eddie Dumayan who delivered the initial attack, the absence of evidence of conspiracy, and the rejection of his alibi.

Facts

At around two o'clock in the afternoon of the first of February 1992, Carlito Tamayo was reading comics at the ground floor of his house in Daang Bakal, Barangay Cofradia, Malolos, Bulacan. His common-law wife, Anastacia Tamayo, was upstairs with their four children. Paquito Dumayan, Eddie Dumayan, Allan Real and Romy Loyola Bergardo arrived, and when Carlito asked where they were going, they answered that they were merely hanging around.

Carlito begged to be excused to take a rest. As he was about to climb the stairs, Anastacia heard him say, "Aray! Bakit Pareng Eddie, wala naman akong kasalanan?" She then saw her husband, his shirt soaked with blood, being chased by the four men along the railway. He was overtaken and attacked simultaneously; Anastacia saw the appellant stab him at the back with an eighteen-inch bolo, and Romy and Allan also stabbed him before the group fled. Emilia Santos, a junk shop operator whose house stood across the victim's, witnessed the whole incident: Eddie struck Carlito at the back and on the ear as he was about to climb the stairs; the wounded Carlito ran for help but was caught, Allan stabbed him from the front, the appellant stabbed him from behind, and Romy stabbed him on the left side. The attackers then boarded a Baliwag Transit bus bound for Manila.

Carlito did not reach the hospital alive. The post-mortem examination showed six serious stab and hack wounds on his body. The appellant's defense was alibi: that he worked the whole day at a construction site in Atlag, Malolos, Bulacan, and learned only upon reaching home at five o'clock that Carlito had been stabbed. He was arrested on the eighth of February 1992. The defense presented a photocopy of a payroll sheet and the testimony of his supervisor and of his niece, Norma Dumayan.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the prosecution eyewitnesses despite their relationship to the victim and the alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies.
• Whether or not the appellant's alibi can prevail over his positive identification by the eyewitnesses.
• Whether or not conspiracy was sufficiently established among the appellant and his co-accused.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation attended the killing.

Applicable Provisions

The Information charged murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

Treachery is the qualifying circumstance that raised the killing to murder and fixed the penalty at reclusion perpetua, there being no mitigating circumstance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court's appreciation of the witnesses' credibility will not generally be disturbed, since it heard them and observed their deportment. The testimonies of Anastacia and Emilia were clear and straightforward, and the appellant offered only a bare allegation of partiality, ascribing no motive for them to fabricate. The Court ruled that the mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair credibility where no improper motive is shown, and that a relative of the victim has a natural knack for remembering the face of an assailant. The slight variance on the victim's position when stabbed was a minor detail, for witnesses to the same sudden event need not be consistent in every detail so long as they concur on the material points.

On the second issue, the Court held that positive identification, where categorical and consistent, prevails over denial and alibi, which are negative and self-serving. The payroll sheet, which did not even bear the appellant's signature, was a mere photocopy and inadmissible, and the testimony of Norma Dumayan deserved no credence because she admitted she did not actually see the stabbing.

On the third issue, the Court found conspiracy from the overt acts themselves. The malefactors arrived together, chased the fleeing victim, and simultaneously stabbed him on different parts of his body, then left together on the bus. The Court held that there is no need to prove a previous agreement if the overt acts clearly show that the malefactors acted in concert in pursuit of their unlawful design, and that each conspirator, no matter how minimal his participation, is guilty as principal.

On the fourth issue, the Court affirmed treachery, whose two conditions are the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and the deliberate or conscious adoption of those means. The unsuspecting victim was about to climb the stairs when suddenly stabbed from behind, then hacked on the ear, and his attempt to escape proved futile against his pursuers. The Court, however, found insufficient evidence of evident premeditation, whose requisites are the time the accused decided to commit the crime, an overt act showing he clung to that determination, and a lapse of time sufficient to reflect on the consequences, none of which obtained.

Doctrine

First, the relationship of a witness to the victim, whether by consanguinity or affinity, is no indicator of impaired credibility where no improper motive is shown. Second, positive identification, categorical and consistent, prevails over denial and alibi, which are negative and self-serving and must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Third, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, but no previous agreement need be proved where the overt acts show a concerted effort; each conspirator is then liable as principal regardless of the extent of his participation. Fourth, treachery requires that the means of execution leave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and that the culprit deliberately adopt those means. Fifth, evident premeditation requires proof of the time of the decision to commit the crime, an overt act of persistence, and sufficient lapse of time to reflect, and it is not presumed from the mere fact of conspiracy.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting Paquito Dumayan of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos to the heirs of Carlito Tamayo and costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: conspiracy may be inferred from the overt acts of the malefactors acting in concert, and each conspirator is guilty as principal no matter how minimal his participation. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy of evidence, where positive identification defeats alibi, and to test why treachery qualifies the killing to murder while evident premeditation must still be proved on its own.