July 1962 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > July 1962 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-12687 July 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMITERIO VILLANUEVA, ET AL. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-12687. July 31, 1962.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMITERIO VILLANUEVA, PEDRO PERCAL and FELIX JASMILONA, Defendants-Appellants.
Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Restituto Luna for defendants-appellants Emiterio Villanueva and Pedro Percal.
Manuel Concordia for defendant-appellant Felix Jasmilona.
SYLLABUS
1. EVIDENCE; EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION; EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS. — Courts need not believe the confession in its entirety.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN ADMISSIBLE AGAINST CO-DEFENDANTS. — Where the recitals in the extra-judicial confession of one of the conspirators are corroborated in its important details by other proofs in the record, it may be considered as part of the evidence against the parties concerned.
3. ID.; CONSPIRACY, PROOF OF. — There is conspiracy where the acts of the accused show that the killing was planned among them and carried out accordingly.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN ADMISSIBLE AGAINST CO-DEFENDANTS. — Where the recitals in the extra-judicial confession of one of the conspirators are corroborated in its important details by other proofs in the record, it may be considered as part of the evidence against the parties concerned.
3. ID.; CONSPIRACY, PROOF OF. — There is conspiracy where the acts of the accused show that the killing was planned among them and carried out accordingly.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, C.J. :
This case began with the filing of an information charging the above defendants with the murder of Loreto Estacio, committed in the municipality of Calamba, province of Laguna.
After trial, the court of first instance held that their guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt; and there being no circumstances modifying the commission of the crime, each of the said accused was sentenced to "cadena perpetua", to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the victim in the sum of P6,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay a proportionate part of the costs.
From such conviction the three defendants appealed to this Supreme Court, raising the usually basic question whether or not the evidence for the prosecution shows beyond reasonable doubt that all of them are guilty as charged.
Appellants were convicted partly on the strength of the extra- judicial confession of the accused Felix Jasmilona which appears to be corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
Such extra-judicial confession written down by Corporal Villegas on February 6, 1956 in the presence of Lt. Carungcong, was signed and sworn to the next day before Justice of the Peace Felix Angeles, and contains statements to the effect that Loreto Estacio was killed in the "taklab" (camarin) of Emiterio Villanueva, who had resented the filing of a criminal charge against him by Loreto Estacio; that Loreto was mauled and badly beaten on different parts of the body and when he was already unconscious, he was stabbed in the abdomen; that the body of Loreto was then carried and later thrown into a marshy place in barrio Linga commonly called "tikiwan" ; that the persons who took part in the killing were Emiterio Villanueva, one of his sons, Pedro Percal, Elpidio Habacon and Felix Jasmilona; that it was the son of Emiterio who beat and mauled Loreto while Pedro Percal was the one who stabbed him; that Elpidio Habacon and Pedro Percal were paid by Emiterio Villanueva the sum of P400 for their cooperation. . . . According to the lower court, the chain of circumstances which in connection with Jasmilona’s confession, tended to establish the guilt of the prisoners were the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. In the afternoon of December 21, 1955, Emiterio Villanueva assaulted Loreto Estacio with fist blows on the face;
"2. Loreto Estacio immediately filed a criminal complaint for slight physical injuries against Emiterio Villanueva;
"3. On December 22, 1955, Emiterio Villanueva asked Benito Mendoza to persuade Loreto Estacio to drop his complaint. Benito Mendoza, who was married to a niece of Loreto Estacio, declined to intervene in the case, and so Emiterio Villanueva left disgusted and stated that he would not stop until something untoward would happen to Loreto Estacio;
"4. On December 23, 1955, the Justice of the Peace Court set the preliminary investigation of the Criminal Case against Emiterio Villanueva for January 3, 1956;
"5. Patrolman Balderrama notified the accused the next day;
"6. Late in the evening of December 26, 1955, Pedro Percal asked Loreto to withdraw his complaint against Emiterio Villanueva. When Loreto refused, Pedro Percal threatened him, saying ‘something bad would happen’;
"7. at about 5 a.m. on December 27, 1955, Loreto Estacio left his house to check the water irrigating his rice filed. About this time, Benito Mendoza saw him between Emiterio Villanueva and Pedro Percal, the three walking single-file, passing in front of his store, coming from the direction of Loreto Estacio’s house.
"8. Between 5:30 and 6 p.m., Enrique Fatiga saw Pedro Percal and Felix Jasmilona passing his rice field, the two proceeding in the direction of the ‘taklab’ of Emiterio Villanueva about 200 meters away;
"9. At about half past 7 in the evening of the same day, while Enrique Fatiga was proceeding home he heard sounds coming from inside which seemed to be the groans of a person. He slowed down to find out what it was, but then he heard the voice of a person inside the ‘taklab’ prodding another and saying — ‘sulong Felix,’ ‘sulong Pedro,’ followed by laughter. Enrique Fatiga then thought that those persons inside the ‘taklab’ were having some fun and so he did not give much thought to what he heard and hurried on his way home;
"10. Loreto Estacio did not return home on December 27, 1955 and so on the following morning, his wife, Cresencia Pacana, began to look for him. Four days later on December 31, 1955 his cadaver was found floating on a marshy place called ‘tikiwan’ in barrio Linga, Calamba, Laguna;
"11. The dark stains on different parts of the ‘taklab’ of Emiterio Villanueva proved to be a human blood;
"12. When Dr. Sunico and his party left the ‘taklab’ of Emiterio Villanueva to board the vehicle wherein they had traveled from Manila, the wife of Emiterio Villanueva, who was with the group, suddenly grabbed a wooden pestle from her son, then threw it into an irrigation canal and thereafter she tried to wash off the dark stain (blood) at one end thereof with the use of her hands. Upon being asked by Sergeant Vejosano for her suspicious behaviour, Villanueva’s wife refused to answer and merely kept silent;
"13. Eight hematoma wounds (contusions) were found on the corpse, in addition to the stab wound on the abdomen." (See pp. 16-19 of the decision of the lower court)
Appellant Jasmilona assails the admissibility and credibility of his extra-judicial confession on the ground that it was not made voluntarily. He claims that he was punched in the belly, and on the neck by one Sgt. Vejosano; that he was taken to a swimming pool in Los Baños, Laguna where he was given the "water treatment" ; that he was again struck on the stomach by his investigators and then when he still refused to sign the extra-judicial confession, he was threatened with bodily harm.
Amado Canillas, a witness for the defense, stated in court that when he saw Jasmilona alight from the jeep that carried him to the municipal jail, the latter was limping a little; that upon inquiry he was told by Jasmilona that he was maltreated by his investigators. Dr. Florentino Elasique, also a witness for the defense, issued a medical certificate (Exh. "3") showing that there were contusions on both shoulders just below the neck of said accused.
However, a prosecution witness, Dr. Juan M. Cardenas, who conducted an examination on the body of appellant Jasmilona on February 6, 1956 (i.e. one day after the defense doctor performed his examination) said that he did not see any sign of external injuries or contusions on any part of Jasmilona’s body; that he could not determine the cause of pain complained of by said accused in the lower auxiliary region, right side of his body. (t.s.n. pp. 4-5 Mar. 12, 1957)
A significant fact pointed out by the Government is that if appellant Jasmilona had really been maltreated by the said investigators, he would have complained to Judge Angeles before whom the extra-judicial confession was signed and sworn to. But he did not.
Judge Angeles stated in court that he himself read to Jasmilona the contents of the affidavit (extra-judicial confession) and had asked the latter whether or not, he was willing to sign the same and to swear to the truth of its contents. Jasmilona said yes, and willingly. Moreover, he also stated that when such extra-judicial confession was about to be read to the accused, for signature and oath, he (Judge Angels) ordered the soldiers accompanying the prisoner to leave the room.
Considering therefore the circumstances under which this extra- judicial confession was executed, we are not inclined to disagree with the lower court on its finding that it was voluntarily made.
The next question is whether or not said extra-judicial confession may serve as the basis for the conviction of appellants Jasmilona, Villanueva and Percal.
It is urged that granting the confession was admissible, appellant Jasmilona must be absolved because said affidavit contains exculpatory statements exonerating him from guilt. On this point, we say that courts need not believe the confession in its entirety.
As to the order accused, it was allegedly error for the lower court to use the extra-judicial confession of Jasmilona against them.
On this issue, the rule is that where the recitals in the extra- judicial confession of one of the conspirators are corroborated in its important details by other proofs in the record, it may be considered as part of the evidence against the parties concerned.
In the case of U.S. v. Reyes, et. al., 1 we opined:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The truth of the incriminating statements of Miguela Sibug, Damaso Valencia’s widow, in connection with each of the said three defendant, is proved by those made by the other witnesses for the prosecution, Lorenzo Reyes, and by the confession, although extra- judicial, made by Faustino Mañago himself in the municipality of Hagonoy to the lieutenant of the Constabulary, Cristobal Cerquella, and to the municipal president and a policeman of the said pueblo; and this confession is worthy of credence and is admissible against him, as it is likewise credible and admissible against his co-defendants, Abdon de Leon and Severino Perez, his accusation of their participation in the crime, inasmuch as the confession is corroborated both by the testimony of Miguela Sibug herself and by that of Lorenzo Reyes and confirmed by other evidence related thereto and found in the record."cralaw virtua1aw library
This brings us to the query: Are the recitals in the extra- judicial confession and the other proofs sufficient to support conviction?
We are satisfied that the trial judge made painstaking efforts to evaluate the evidence of record. The circumstances it found to have indicated the guilt of the accused, are indeed substantiated. We do not need to recount them now.
At this juncture, it may be added that we think the trial judge exercised sound judgment when it considered Jasmilona’s confession against the other two defendants as an exception to the general rule against its admission, for the following reasons:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"While a confession against him but not against his co-defendants to whom said confession is hearsay evidence, the rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. One of them is when a defendant, who made the confession, is called to testify as a witness for his co-defendants, his confession then becomes competent evidence for the purpose of contradicting his testimony in behalf of his co-defendants (People v. Manalo, 46 Phil. 573). This was what happened in this case because Emiterio Villanueva and Pedro Percal adopted as part of their defense not only the testimony of Felix Jasmilona but also the statement given by him before the Justice of the Peace of Calamba on March 10, 1956."
It is urged that some of the prosecution witnesses were biased, because Enrique Fatiga was a dismissed tenant of Emiterio Villanueva, and Benito Mendoza was related by marriage to the deceased, (Mendoza’s wife being his niece). However, upon examining the testimony of such witnesses, this Court finds no compelling reason for disbelief. There is not tinge at all of exaggeration or improbability in their testimonies. Besides, the defense itself has shown that the differences between Fatiga and Villanueva had been settled amicably sometime in October, 1950, many years before this fatal incident.
On the other hand, the defendant’s alibi carries no weight. Aside from the fact that it is not corroborated by others, it is definitely without sufficient strength in the face of the assertion of witnesses who saw them at or near the scene of the crime on Dec. 27, 1955.
Appellants ascribe error to the lower court in concluding that there was conspiracy among them. In support of their assertion, they claim that accused Percal and Jasmilona had no motive in killing the deceased, Loreto Estacio; that it was only Emiterio Villanueva, who had been charged by the deceased in the Justice of the Peace Court of Calamba in the criminal complaint, who could have reason to kill.
Although it is true that there is no direct proof of conspiracy among the accused, their acts, in the light of the recitals in the extra-judicial confession show that the killing of Loreto was planned among them and carried out accordingly. this confession, as stated, is supported and corroborated by competent evidence. The claim of circumstances, fitting tightly well into the statements in the extra-judicial confession, is more than sufficient to establish conspiracy, as found by the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction must be upheld, and the sentence affirmed. The imprisonment however, should be reclusion perpetua, instead of cadena perpetua. Costs against appellants, who shall be credited with one-half of the period of their preventive imprisonment, in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code. So ordered.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
After trial, the court of first instance held that their guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt; and there being no circumstances modifying the commission of the crime, each of the said accused was sentenced to "cadena perpetua", to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the victim in the sum of P6,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay a proportionate part of the costs.
From such conviction the three defendants appealed to this Supreme Court, raising the usually basic question whether or not the evidence for the prosecution shows beyond reasonable doubt that all of them are guilty as charged.
Appellants were convicted partly on the strength of the extra- judicial confession of the accused Felix Jasmilona which appears to be corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
Such extra-judicial confession written down by Corporal Villegas on February 6, 1956 in the presence of Lt. Carungcong, was signed and sworn to the next day before Justice of the Peace Felix Angeles, and contains statements to the effect that Loreto Estacio was killed in the "taklab" (camarin) of Emiterio Villanueva, who had resented the filing of a criminal charge against him by Loreto Estacio; that Loreto was mauled and badly beaten on different parts of the body and when he was already unconscious, he was stabbed in the abdomen; that the body of Loreto was then carried and later thrown into a marshy place in barrio Linga commonly called "tikiwan" ; that the persons who took part in the killing were Emiterio Villanueva, one of his sons, Pedro Percal, Elpidio Habacon and Felix Jasmilona; that it was the son of Emiterio who beat and mauled Loreto while Pedro Percal was the one who stabbed him; that Elpidio Habacon and Pedro Percal were paid by Emiterio Villanueva the sum of P400 for their cooperation. . . . According to the lower court, the chain of circumstances which in connection with Jasmilona’s confession, tended to establish the guilt of the prisoners were the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. In the afternoon of December 21, 1955, Emiterio Villanueva assaulted Loreto Estacio with fist blows on the face;
"2. Loreto Estacio immediately filed a criminal complaint for slight physical injuries against Emiterio Villanueva;
"3. On December 22, 1955, Emiterio Villanueva asked Benito Mendoza to persuade Loreto Estacio to drop his complaint. Benito Mendoza, who was married to a niece of Loreto Estacio, declined to intervene in the case, and so Emiterio Villanueva left disgusted and stated that he would not stop until something untoward would happen to Loreto Estacio;
"4. On December 23, 1955, the Justice of the Peace Court set the preliminary investigation of the Criminal Case against Emiterio Villanueva for January 3, 1956;
"5. Patrolman Balderrama notified the accused the next day;
"6. Late in the evening of December 26, 1955, Pedro Percal asked Loreto to withdraw his complaint against Emiterio Villanueva. When Loreto refused, Pedro Percal threatened him, saying ‘something bad would happen’;
"7. at about 5 a.m. on December 27, 1955, Loreto Estacio left his house to check the water irrigating his rice filed. About this time, Benito Mendoza saw him between Emiterio Villanueva and Pedro Percal, the three walking single-file, passing in front of his store, coming from the direction of Loreto Estacio’s house.
"8. Between 5:30 and 6 p.m., Enrique Fatiga saw Pedro Percal and Felix Jasmilona passing his rice field, the two proceeding in the direction of the ‘taklab’ of Emiterio Villanueva about 200 meters away;
"9. At about half past 7 in the evening of the same day, while Enrique Fatiga was proceeding home he heard sounds coming from inside which seemed to be the groans of a person. He slowed down to find out what it was, but then he heard the voice of a person inside the ‘taklab’ prodding another and saying — ‘sulong Felix,’ ‘sulong Pedro,’ followed by laughter. Enrique Fatiga then thought that those persons inside the ‘taklab’ were having some fun and so he did not give much thought to what he heard and hurried on his way home;
"10. Loreto Estacio did not return home on December 27, 1955 and so on the following morning, his wife, Cresencia Pacana, began to look for him. Four days later on December 31, 1955 his cadaver was found floating on a marshy place called ‘tikiwan’ in barrio Linga, Calamba, Laguna;
"11. The dark stains on different parts of the ‘taklab’ of Emiterio Villanueva proved to be a human blood;
"12. When Dr. Sunico and his party left the ‘taklab’ of Emiterio Villanueva to board the vehicle wherein they had traveled from Manila, the wife of Emiterio Villanueva, who was with the group, suddenly grabbed a wooden pestle from her son, then threw it into an irrigation canal and thereafter she tried to wash off the dark stain (blood) at one end thereof with the use of her hands. Upon being asked by Sergeant Vejosano for her suspicious behaviour, Villanueva’s wife refused to answer and merely kept silent;
"13. Eight hematoma wounds (contusions) were found on the corpse, in addition to the stab wound on the abdomen." (See pp. 16-19 of the decision of the lower court)
Appellant Jasmilona assails the admissibility and credibility of his extra-judicial confession on the ground that it was not made voluntarily. He claims that he was punched in the belly, and on the neck by one Sgt. Vejosano; that he was taken to a swimming pool in Los Baños, Laguna where he was given the "water treatment" ; that he was again struck on the stomach by his investigators and then when he still refused to sign the extra-judicial confession, he was threatened with bodily harm.
Amado Canillas, a witness for the defense, stated in court that when he saw Jasmilona alight from the jeep that carried him to the municipal jail, the latter was limping a little; that upon inquiry he was told by Jasmilona that he was maltreated by his investigators. Dr. Florentino Elasique, also a witness for the defense, issued a medical certificate (Exh. "3") showing that there were contusions on both shoulders just below the neck of said accused.
However, a prosecution witness, Dr. Juan M. Cardenas, who conducted an examination on the body of appellant Jasmilona on February 6, 1956 (i.e. one day after the defense doctor performed his examination) said that he did not see any sign of external injuries or contusions on any part of Jasmilona’s body; that he could not determine the cause of pain complained of by said accused in the lower auxiliary region, right side of his body. (t.s.n. pp. 4-5 Mar. 12, 1957)
A significant fact pointed out by the Government is that if appellant Jasmilona had really been maltreated by the said investigators, he would have complained to Judge Angeles before whom the extra-judicial confession was signed and sworn to. But he did not.
Judge Angeles stated in court that he himself read to Jasmilona the contents of the affidavit (extra-judicial confession) and had asked the latter whether or not, he was willing to sign the same and to swear to the truth of its contents. Jasmilona said yes, and willingly. Moreover, he also stated that when such extra-judicial confession was about to be read to the accused, for signature and oath, he (Judge Angels) ordered the soldiers accompanying the prisoner to leave the room.
Considering therefore the circumstances under which this extra- judicial confession was executed, we are not inclined to disagree with the lower court on its finding that it was voluntarily made.
The next question is whether or not said extra-judicial confession may serve as the basis for the conviction of appellants Jasmilona, Villanueva and Percal.
It is urged that granting the confession was admissible, appellant Jasmilona must be absolved because said affidavit contains exculpatory statements exonerating him from guilt. On this point, we say that courts need not believe the confession in its entirety.
As to the order accused, it was allegedly error for the lower court to use the extra-judicial confession of Jasmilona against them.
On this issue, the rule is that where the recitals in the extra- judicial confession of one of the conspirators are corroborated in its important details by other proofs in the record, it may be considered as part of the evidence against the parties concerned.
In the case of U.S. v. Reyes, et. al., 1 we opined:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The truth of the incriminating statements of Miguela Sibug, Damaso Valencia’s widow, in connection with each of the said three defendant, is proved by those made by the other witnesses for the prosecution, Lorenzo Reyes, and by the confession, although extra- judicial, made by Faustino Mañago himself in the municipality of Hagonoy to the lieutenant of the Constabulary, Cristobal Cerquella, and to the municipal president and a policeman of the said pueblo; and this confession is worthy of credence and is admissible against him, as it is likewise credible and admissible against his co-defendants, Abdon de Leon and Severino Perez, his accusation of their participation in the crime, inasmuch as the confession is corroborated both by the testimony of Miguela Sibug herself and by that of Lorenzo Reyes and confirmed by other evidence related thereto and found in the record."cralaw virtua1aw library
This brings us to the query: Are the recitals in the extra- judicial confession and the other proofs sufficient to support conviction?
We are satisfied that the trial judge made painstaking efforts to evaluate the evidence of record. The circumstances it found to have indicated the guilt of the accused, are indeed substantiated. We do not need to recount them now.
At this juncture, it may be added that we think the trial judge exercised sound judgment when it considered Jasmilona’s confession against the other two defendants as an exception to the general rule against its admission, for the following reasons:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"While a confession against him but not against his co-defendants to whom said confession is hearsay evidence, the rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. One of them is when a defendant, who made the confession, is called to testify as a witness for his co-defendants, his confession then becomes competent evidence for the purpose of contradicting his testimony in behalf of his co-defendants (People v. Manalo, 46 Phil. 573). This was what happened in this case because Emiterio Villanueva and Pedro Percal adopted as part of their defense not only the testimony of Felix Jasmilona but also the statement given by him before the Justice of the Peace of Calamba on March 10, 1956."
It is urged that some of the prosecution witnesses were biased, because Enrique Fatiga was a dismissed tenant of Emiterio Villanueva, and Benito Mendoza was related by marriage to the deceased, (Mendoza’s wife being his niece). However, upon examining the testimony of such witnesses, this Court finds no compelling reason for disbelief. There is not tinge at all of exaggeration or improbability in their testimonies. Besides, the defense itself has shown that the differences between Fatiga and Villanueva had been settled amicably sometime in October, 1950, many years before this fatal incident.
On the other hand, the defendant’s alibi carries no weight. Aside from the fact that it is not corroborated by others, it is definitely without sufficient strength in the face of the assertion of witnesses who saw them at or near the scene of the crime on Dec. 27, 1955.
Appellants ascribe error to the lower court in concluding that there was conspiracy among them. In support of their assertion, they claim that accused Percal and Jasmilona had no motive in killing the deceased, Loreto Estacio; that it was only Emiterio Villanueva, who had been charged by the deceased in the Justice of the Peace Court of Calamba in the criminal complaint, who could have reason to kill.
Although it is true that there is no direct proof of conspiracy among the accused, their acts, in the light of the recitals in the extra-judicial confession show that the killing of Loreto was planned among them and carried out accordingly. this confession, as stated, is supported and corroborated by competent evidence. The claim of circumstances, fitting tightly well into the statements in the extra-judicial confession, is more than sufficient to establish conspiracy, as found by the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction must be upheld, and the sentence affirmed. The imprisonment however, should be reclusion perpetua, instead of cadena perpetua. Costs against appellants, who shall be credited with one-half of the period of their preventive imprisonment, in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code. So ordered.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. 32 Phil. 163, 173.
