G.R. No. 94299 August 21, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO MALLARI, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An information was filed against Josino Ramos and Ricardo Mallari for the murder of Edmundo Tuyak on May 7, 1986, in Bataraza, Palawan. The prosecution’s version, as found by the trial court, states that around 5:00 p.m., the victim and a companion were walking when a Mazda minibus driven by accused-appellant Mallari stopped beside the victim. Accused Ramos, the lone passenger seated at the back, stabbed the victim once with a Batangas knife on his clavicular area. Ramos then said “sibat na tayo,” after which Mallari speedily drove away. The incident was witnessed by Silvino dela Peña and Quirico Bañadera. The victim was brought to the hospital but died. The following day, an autopsy confirmed the fatal wound was caused by a Batangas knife. The accused presented a different version, claiming they were attacked by a group of drunk men, the victim boxed Ramos, and Ramos hit the victim with a tool in self-defense without intent to kill. After the defense failed to appear at a scheduled hearing without justification, the trial court submitted the case for decision. The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused as co-principals of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant Ricardo Mallari appealed the decision.

ISSUE

The primary issues raised by the accused-appellant are: (1) whether there was a mistrial as he was not represented by counsel of his choice during the latter stage of the trial; (2) whether he was denied due process when the trial court submitted the case for decision, allegedly depriving him of presenting further evidence; and (3) whether the trial court erred in finding that the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstances of conspiracy, evident premeditation, and treachery.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto. On the first issue, the Court found that the accused-appellant was duly represented by counsel throughout the trial. The records showed that attorneys Demaala and Rocamora interchangeably appeared for both accused at various hearings, indicating an understanding between counsels consented to by the accused. The accused-appellant did not raise any objection during the trial, leading to the conclusion he was properly represented. On the second issue, the Court held that the accused-appellant was not denied due process. The trial court had repeatedly admonished the defense to be ready to terminate its case, as per the continuous trial method. The accused forfeited his right to present further evidence through his own negligence in failing to appear at the scheduled hearings. On the third issue, the Court agreed with the trial court that conspiracy and treachery attended the killing. The acts of Mallari stopping the bus and speedily driving away after Ramos stabbed the victim and said “sibat na tayo” indicated a common unlawful purpose. Treachery was present because the assault was sudden and unexpected, with the victim given no opportunity to defend himself, and the means were deliberately adopted. However, the Court agreed with the accused-appellant that evident premeditation could not be appreciated due to lack of proof as to how and when the plan was hatched. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of damages were affirmed.