People vs Regala that what he used as basis was the stain in the uniform of Desilos He

April 27,1982 | Makiasar, J|Section 14

PETITIONER: People of the Philippiens
RESPONDENTS: Rudy Regala and Delfin Flores
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).
DOCTRINE:
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 accuseds evidence.
Right of accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him-
Crime 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. which was done while Desilos was regulating traffic
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
o 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
was certain that the cause of death was a sharp pointed instrument
o 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 Defense asked
that this testimony be crossed out for being immaterial (not
granted)
After cross examination and the presentation of the evidence
o Defense moved, by way of demurrer, for the dismissal of the case
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
o Prosecuting fiscal said that the alleged variance was not substantial
(information has "that on or about 13th of June")
o Defense presented evidence and 8 witnesses
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
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
o They said that they were not at the spot of the crime during the
commission of the murder
o 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
They were released the same day
o 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 He said that his body was battered because of the maltreatment he
suffered from the PC
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 Laguerta
o 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
o (Delfin was already convicted as an accessory - he did not interpose
any appeal
Counsel de officio contends that the trial court erred in failing to give the two
accused a fair trial
o He said that the Court, in giving overemphasis on the perversity of the
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
judge
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
to an impartial trial
Sol. Gen. Opposes the claim of the counsel
o He said that the decision was based on proper appreciation of
evidence
Regala was never maltreated
o He said that he was able to confiscate a knife from Regala o Trial
Judge gave more weight to the testimonies of the prosecution - thus
the
ISSUES: Whether or not there was a violation of due process - impartial trial? -NO
RULING: The judgment appealed from his hereby affirmed
RATIO:
impartial trial - impartial judge
o Appellant has not pointed, and the court did not find, any part or
stage of the trial betraying the trial Judge's hostility, bias, and
prejudice against the appellant after prosecution brought out the fact
that the accused has a previous criminal conviction
o In fact, prosecution brought out accused-appellant's conviction of
malicious mischief and slight physical injuries only through their last
witness
o 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 prosecution witnesses to testify in the manner they did
o It is a recognized principle that on the matter of credibility of
witnesses, the observation of the trial court must be accorded respect
and great weight - in terms of demeanor
The witnesses for the prosecution seemed trustworthy
o 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
o According to jurisprudence, it is a common phenomenon to find
inconsistencies especially on minor details
Verdict of killing QUALIFIED by treachery and evident premeditation
o 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
enraged because his companion Flores was pushed - thus
there was no evident premeditation; it was just mere
retaliation
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