In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Adones Abatayo, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of waiving one’s right to cross-examine witnesses and clarified the requirements for proving treachery and evident premeditation in criminal cases. The Court affirmed Abatayo’s conviction for homicide, while modifying the penalties and damages awarded, illustrating the necessity of actively asserting one’s rights during trial and providing clear evidence to support claims of aggravating circumstances. This decision serves as a reminder that fundamental rights must be timely invoked to avoid being deemed waived, impacting the outcome of legal proceedings.

Silent Acquiescence or Lost Opportunity? Unpacking Rights and Responsibilities in Witness Examination

Adones Abatayo was convicted of double murder by the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City for the deaths of Dominador and Teofredo Basalan. The prosecution presented Juanito Gutang, an eyewitness, who testified that he saw Abatayo striking the Basalan brothers with a lead pipe. During the trial, Abatayo’s counsel began cross-examining Gutang but requested a resetting to continue the cross-examination. However, Gutang failed to appear in subsequent hearings due to illness, and the defense did not insist on his reappearance. The trial court eventually admitted Gutang’s affidavit as evidence, and Abatayo was found guilty, primarily based on Gutang’s testimony. Abatayo appealed, arguing that his right to fully cross-examine Gutang was violated, and the trial court erred in giving probative value to Gutang’s unfinished testimony.

The Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether Abatayo had indeed been deprived of his right to confront and cross-examine Gutang. The Court referred to Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees the right to meet witnesses face-to-face, and Rule 115, Section 1(f) of the Rules of Court, ensuring the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses during trial. However, the Court emphasized that these rights are personal and can be waived. Citing Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, the Court reiterated that the right to confront witnesses could be waived expressly or impliedly through conduct amounting to a renunciation of cross-examination.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court found that Abatayo had waived his right to further cross-examine Juanito Gutang. The records indicated that after Gutang’s direct examination and initial cross-examination, the defense did not object to the deferment of Gutang’s cross-examination due to his illness. Furthermore, the defense did not object when the prosecution presented other witnesses, nor did they insist on recalling Gutang or moving to strike out his testimony. Even when Gutang’s affidavit was offered as evidence, the defense failed to raise an objection based on the incomplete cross-examination. All these instances suggested that Abatayo’s counsel considered the initial cross-examination adequate, implying a waiver of the right to further question Gutang.

Addressing the credibility of the witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court found the testimony of Juanito Gutang clear, straightforward, and consistent, thus credible. Since there was no evidence of improper motives on Gutang’s part, his testimony was entitled to full faith and credit. It is a well-established principle that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is generally respected, unless substantial facts were overlooked that could alter the case’s outcome. In this case, the Supreme Court found no reason to deviate from that rule.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding of murder, noting the absence of treachery and evident premeditation. Treachery requires the employment of means ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the offender. Since Gutang did not witness the beginning of the assault, there was no clear evidence to suggest that the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victims of any chance to defend themselves. Similarly, evident premeditation was not proven, as the prosecution failed to demonstrate the time when Abatayo decided to commit the crime, any overt act indicating his determination, or a sufficient lapse of time for reflection. Given these circumstances, the Court found Abatayo guilty only of homicide.

Considering that only one Information (for double murder) was filed and the defense did not object to the duplicity of the information, Abatayo was deemed to have waived such defect. Consequently, the Court applied Section 3 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, allowing conviction for as many offenses as charged and proven. Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. As there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing a penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal for each count of homicide.

Regarding damages, the Supreme Court modified the trial court’s award. It deleted the award for actual damages due to lack of documentary evidence but awarded temperate damages of ₱50,000 for each victim. Civil indemnity of ₱100,000 was also awarded to the heirs of each victim. Further, moral damages of ₱50,000 for each offense were deemed justified given the pain and anguish suffered by the victims’ family.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Adones Abatayo was deprived of his right to cross-examine a witness and whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of murder, specifically treachery and evident premeditation. The court also addressed the duplicity of the information filed and the appropriate penalties and damages to be awarded.
What does it mean to waive the right to cross-examine a witness?	Waiving the right to cross-examine means voluntarily giving up the opportunity to question a witness presented by the opposing party. This can happen through express declaration or impliedly through actions or inactions, such as not objecting to the witness’s absence or failing to recall the witness for further questioning.
What is the difference between murder and homicide in this case?	Murder requires proving qualifying circumstances such as treachery or evident premeditation, which elevate the crime from homicide to murder. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove these circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the downgrading of the conviction from murder to homicide.
What is treachery, and why was it not proven in this case?	Treachery is the employment of means to ensure the commission of a crime without risk to the offender, giving the victim no chance to defend themselves. It was not proven because the primary witness did not see the start of the attack, making it impossible to determine if the attack was sudden and unexpected.
What is evident premeditation, and why was it not established?	Evident premeditation requires proof that the accused planned the crime in advance, with sufficient time to reflect on the consequences. In this case, the prosecution did not establish when Abatayo decided to commit the crime or any acts demonstrating his resolve, making it impossible to prove evident premeditation.
What is the significance of the duplicitous information?	The duplicitous information charged two counts of murder in a single information. Since the defense did not object before the trial, they waived their right to object. As a result, the court could convict Abatayo of as many offenses as were proven by the prosecution.
What damages were awarded in this case?	The Supreme Court awarded temperate damages of ₱50,000 for each victim, civil indemnity of ₱100,000 to the heirs of each victim, and moral damages of ₱50,000 for each offense. Actual damages were not awarded due to lack of supporting documentation.
What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and how did it apply in this case?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law requires courts to impose a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment, with the maximum term based on the applicable penal code and the minimum within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the code. It was applied to determine Abatayo’s sentence for homicide, resulting in a range of eight years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People of the Philippines vs. Adones Abatayo highlights the importance of actively asserting one’s rights during trial and the necessity of providing clear and convincing evidence to support claims of aggravating circumstances. While Abatayo was found guilty of homicide, the modification of the penalties and damages serves as a reminder that legal outcomes are highly dependent on the facts presented and the legal arguments made. The court’s application of legal principles relating to waiver, the elements of crimes, and the calculation of damages underscores the intricacies of the Philippine legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines, vs. Adones Abatayo, G.R. No. 139456, July 07, 2004