The Cebu City Regional Trial Court yesterday convicted a family driver for killing a British expatriate in Minglanilla town five years ago.
Jude Dayota was found guilty of murder and was meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua or imprisonment from 20 to 40 years.
Dayota, 33, was also ordered to pay the heirs of Luke Isaacs P50,000 in civil indemnity, P50,000 in moral damages, P25,000 in exemplary damages, P25,000 in temperate damages, and the P3.5 million that the victim would have earned if he wasn’t killed.
When the verdict was read in open court, Dayota was surprised with the ruling. He was silent for some time while his father and sister cried.
Dayota was escorted by jail officers of the Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center. He declined to give a statement to the media after the promulgation inside a tent at the parking area of the Palace of Justice.
His lawyer, Gines Abellana, said they will contest the ruling before the Court of Appeals.
Witnesses pointed to Dayota as the one who shot Isaacs to death while the latter was walking on the road with his wife in barangay Lipata, Minglanilla on June 24, 2008.
Isaac’s wife, Riza Claire, admitted in court that she had an affair with Dayota for two years. During that time, Dayota was the driver of Isaacs’ family.
When Riza Claire and her husband reconciled in April 2008, she said Isaacs got the motorcycle registered under the name of Dayota. Riza Claire admitted that she was Dayota’s co-maker when he took out a loan to buy a motorcycle. When he testified in court, Dayota denied killing Isaacs, saying he was playing darts at a store in barangay Inayawan, Cebu City when the incident happened. The defense presented two other individuals who corroborated Dayota’s claims. They said they were playing darts with Dayota when Isaacs was killed.
But Regional Trial Court Judge Alexander Acosta was not convinced of Dayota’s defense. “As held by our Supreme Court in several cases, the defense of alibi is so weak that in order to be believed at, there should be a demonstration of physical impossibility for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission,” the judge said.