Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > May 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS ANSANG

093 Phil 44:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4847. May 15, 1953.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOROS ANSANG, ET AL., Defendants. MORO ANSANG and MORO JUBAIL, Defendants-Appellants.

Abelardo S. Fernandez for Appellants.

Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Ramon L. Avanceña for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CORPUS DELICTI, WHAT IT IS. — J was the son of A, who had a grudge against B. J and H were seen by two witnesses sailing from the shore, J carrying three hand grenades. When asked where they were going, J answered that they were going to fish. B and his companions have never returned from the trip and have never been seen or heard of by anybody. When J and H returned, they no longer had hand grenades nor did they bring any fish. The pieces of the wreckage of B’s vinta were seen on the shore of a nearby island. B and his companions must have met a violent death due to the commission of a crime. Held: This is the corpus delicti (U. S. v. Valdez, 41 Phil., 497, 498; People v. Marquez, 43 Off. Gaz., 1652, 1653), which may corroborate a conspirator’s extrajudicial confession.


D E C I S I O N


JUGO, J.:


Moros Ansang, Jubail and Jaho were accused of multiple murder of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. Moro Jaho was acquitted, but Ansang and Jubail were found guilty, and each was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, to pay the heirs of each victim jointly and severally an indemnity of P2,000, to suffer the accessory penalties of the law, and each to pay one-third of the costs. Ansang and Jubail appealed.

Sometime in October, 1949, Ansang complained to the Chief of Police of Maluso that Moro Berto was taking away the coconuts from his (Ansang’s) plantation. The chief of police told him to complain to the provincial fiscal. Ansang was unable to see said officer. Berto continued picking up the coconut fruits, claiming that he was the owner of the plantation.

On October 7, 1949, Jubail, the foster son of Ansang, went to the seashore of Sangbay, Basilan City, Zamboanga, and there saw Moros Berto, Abdani, Eka, and Kasim, loading seven sacks of copra gathered from the plantation Jubail asked Berto what was he going to do with the copra. The latter answered that he would take it to the town of Isabela that same day. Berto and his three companions sailed for said place.

A few days afterwards, Moro Abdul Samad saw Jubail with Jaho, boarding another vinta, Jubail carrying with him three home made bombs or hand grenades. When Moro Wahina asked what those objects were, Jubail answered that they were home made bombs which they were going to use for fishing. Afterward Jubail and Jaho sailed away. When they returned to Sangbay, Samad and Wahina noticed that they no longer had bombs, and that they did not bring any fish. From that time, Berto, Abdani, Eka, and Kasim have not been seen or heard from by anybody.

Abdul Samad saw pieces of Berto’s vinta on the seashore of the Island of Pilas.

When the authorities were apprised of the disappearance of Berto and his three companions, and the discovery of the wreckage of Berto’s vinta, they began to make an investigation, and arrested Ansang, Jubail, and Jaho.

Ansang made a confession (marked Exhibit "B") in which he said that in view of the fact that Berto and his companions had taken away copra from his plantation, he ordered his foster son Jubail to follow them and kill them.

Jubail also made a written confession, saying that upon order of his foster father, he gathered three home made bombs and invited Jaho to sail with him, telling the latter that they were going to fish. With Jaho as helmsman, they followed the vinta of Berto, which had sailed ahead. Upon reaching a point about seven brazas distant from Berto’s vinta, he, Jubail, ignited the bombs one by one and threw them successively at Berto’s vinta, causing its destruction and the disappearance of the four passengers. Then they sailed back and kept silent as to what they had done.

Jaho also made a written confession, stating that he was invited by Jubail to go fishing with dynamite. He acted as helmsman and upon instruction of Jubail, they followed the vinta of Berto. When they came near it, to his surprise, he saw that Jubail was throwing bombs or hand grenades at said vinta. He told Jubail that had he known that that was the purpose, he would not have accompanied him. Before going with Jubail, he believed that they were going to fish and had no idea at all that Jubail intended to commit a serious crime.

At the trial of the case, Ansang, Jubail, and Jaho did not assail the validity of their respective confessions, confining themselves to a general denial of the crime charged. They did not say that they were forced, tortured or given a promise to induce them to make and sign their confessions.

Appellant’s counsel contend that a conviction cannot be based on an extrajudicial confession without proof of the corpus delicti, independent of the confession. That is true, but, in the present case, the corpus delicti is shown by the following facts established by evidence independent of the confessions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Jubail was the foster son of Ansang, who had a grudge against Berto. Jubail and Jaho were seen by Samad and Wahina sailing from the shore of Sangbay, Jubail carrying three hand grenades. When asked where they were going, Jubail answered that they were going to fish. Berto and his companions have never returned from the trip and have never been seen or heard of by anybody. When Jubail and Jaho returned, they no longer had hand grenades nor did they bring any fish. The pieces of the wreckage of Berto’s vinta were seen on the shore of the Island of Pilas. Berto and his companions must have met a violent death due to the commission of a crime.

In the case of U. S. v. Valdez, (41 Phil., 497, 498) this Court said: "The work of raising the anchor seems to have proceeded too slowly to satisfy the accused, and he accordingly began to abuse the men with offensive epithets. Upon this Venancio Gargantel remonstrated, saying that it would be better, and they would work better, if he would not insult them. The accused took this remonstrance as a display of insubordination; and rising in rage he moved towards Venancio, with a big knife in hand, threatening to stab him. At the instant when the accused had attained to within a few feet of Venancio, the latter, evidently believing himself in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water and disappeared beneath its surface to be seen no more."cralaw virtua1aw library

In that case, the accused did not stab the deceased, but only threatened him with a knife. The deceased jumped into the river and was seen no more. The conclusion was that he died. This is the corpus delicti. The evidence of the corpus delicti in that case is very similar to that in the present.

In the case of People v. Marquez, * (43 Off. Gaz., 1652, 1653) this Court held: "Derecho Penal y Procedimiento Criminal; Robo y Hurto; Prueba; Confesion Extrajudicial; Corroboracion por ’Corpus Delicti’; Significacion del Articulo 96, Regla 123, del Reglamento de los Tribunales. — Invocando el articulo 96, Regla 123, del Reglamento de los Tribunales, se arguye que no se ha producido en el juicio el dinero robado, y que cuando los policias registraron el cuerpo del apelante no le hallaron ning�n dinero. De esto se quiere deducir que no existe prueba del corpus delicti excepto la confesion extrajudicial. En primer lugar, aqui hay una confusion de conceptos. El corpus delicti no es el cuerpo del delito, tal como este concepto se entiende vulgarmente, v. gr., la cosa robada o hurtada en los casos de robo y hurto. Solo secundariamente se emplea a veces la frase o concepto para denotar el sujeto del delito y su efecto visible, como el cadaver de la persona asesinada y las ruinas de una casa incendiada. Basicamente, esencialmente, ’el término corpus delicti, con referencia a un crimen particular, significa que un delito especifico se ha cometido actualmente por alguno y se compone de los elementos: primero, que cierto resultado se ha producido; segundo, que alguien es criminalmente responsable’. En segundo lugar, la regla de prueba citada ’no significa que se debe demonstrar, mediante prueba aparte de la confesion, todos los elementos del delito, sino que meramente debera haber algunas pruebas, aparte de la confesion, que tiendan a demostrar que se ha cometido un delito’."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed with the modification that the indemnity should be raised to P6,000, with costs against the appellants.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Reyes, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



* 77 Phil., 93.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5078 May 4, 1953 - LUIS FRANCISCO v. MAXIMA VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-5195 May 4, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON LIBRE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-3772 May 13, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAUTI LINGCUAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-5217 May 13, 1953 - VICENTE VILORIA v. ISIDORO VILORIA

    093 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-5292 May 13, 1953 - PELAGIA ARANTE v. ARCADIO ROSEL

    093 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-5331 May 13, 1953 - NG YOUNG v. ANA VILLA

    093 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-4258 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4716 May 15, 1953 - FELICISIMA DAPITON v. NICOLAS VELOSO

    093 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS ANSANG

    093 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-5089 May 15, 1953 - JUAN MORTOS v. VICTOR ELLO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-5117 May 15, 1953 - IN RE: FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-5529 May 15, 1953 - FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL. v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO

    093 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. L-5594 May 15, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOC.

    093 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-6165 May 15, 1953 - ISABELO CENTENO, v. DOLORES GALLARDO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-3708 May 18, 1953 - ROYAL L. RUTTER v. PLACIDO J. ESTEBAN

    093 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4880 May 18, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-4565 May 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO RAIZ

    093 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-5963 May 20, 1953 - LEYTE-SAMAR SALES CO., ET AL. v. SULPICIO V. CEA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 - ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD, ET AL.

    093 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-4572 May 22, 1953 - DOLORITO M. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    093 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-5029 May 22, 1953 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-5829 May 22, 1953 - JOSE NONO v. RUPERTO NEQUIA y OTROS

    093 Phil 120

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    093 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4628 May 25, 1953 - VICENTE M. JOVEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-4641 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs.PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-4888 May 25, 1953 - JOSE MERZA v. PEDRO LOPEZ PORRAS

    093 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-5086 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA LANAS

    093 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-5236 May 25, 1953 - JOSE TORRES v. HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE MORALES

    093 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-5677 May 25, 1953 - LA CAMPANA COFFEE FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-6108 May 25, 1953 - FRANCISCO DE BORJA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-6528 May 25, 1953 - MUNICIPALITY OF BOCAUE, ET AL. v. SEVERINO MANOTOK, ET AL.

    093 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-4478 May 27, 1953 - VICENTE DY SUN v. RICARDO BRILLANTES, ET AL.

    093 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-5127 May 27, 1953 - PEDRO BATUNGBAKAL v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-5145 May 27, 1953 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA, ET AL. v. DY BUNCIO & CO. INC.

    093 Phil 195

  • G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364 May 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAIWAN LUCAS

    093 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5554 May 27, 1953 - BENITO CHUA KUY v. EVERRETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

    093 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4177 May 29, 1953 - IN RE: YAP CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4433 May 29, 1953 - SALUD PATENTE v. ROMAN OMEGA

    093 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4629 May 29, 1953 - JUAN D. SALVADOR, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO LOCSIN

    093 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-4645 May 29, 1953 - LORENZO GAUIRAN v. RUFINO SAHAGUN

    093 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-5184 May 29, 1953 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

    093 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-5282 May 29, 1953 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-5296 May 29, 1953 - GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ v. DONATO PEREZ

    093 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-5345 May 29, 1953 - COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FINANCE CORP. v. EUTIQUIANO GARCIA

    093 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5406 May 29, 1953 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. TALISAY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS’ UNION

    093 Phil 251

  • G.R. Nos. L-5426-28 May 29, 1953 - RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO

    093 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5535 May 29, 1953 - U. S. COMMERCIAL CO. v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    093 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-5567 May 29, 1953 - JUAN EVANGELISTA v. GUILLERMO MONTAÑO

    093 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-5601 May 29, 1953 - LEON VELEZ v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-5640 May 29, 1953 - ESTEBAN G. LAPID v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. L-5783 May 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

    093 Phil 288

  • Adm. Case No. 72 May 30, 1953 - PLACIDO MANALO v. PEDRO N. GAN

    093 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4758 May 30, 1953 - CALTEX [PHIL. ] INC. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    093 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-4887 May 30, 1953 - UY MATIAO & CO., INC. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

    093 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-5301 May 30, 1953 - LOURDES T. PAGUIO v. MARIA ROSADO DE RUIZ

    093 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-6121 May 30, 1953 - MANUEL S. GAMALINDA v. JOSE V. YAP

    093 Phil 310