Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23106 September 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO EMANENCE

202 Phil. 179:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23106. September 21, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GAUDENCIO EMANENCE alias GAUDENCIO AMANENSI alias GAUDENCIO RUBEN alias GAUDENCIO RIVERA alias ERNESTO ANTICRISTO alias GAUDIN and CRISANTO ABELLA alias SANTOS ODIONG alias ANTONG, Defendants-Appellants.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Fernando R. Reyes, for Defendants-Appellants.

SYNOPSIS


An information for robbery with double homicide and frustrated murder was filed against Accused-Appellants. Upon arraignment, appellant Abella pleaded guilty to the charge of homicide but denied the commission of robbery, prompting the trial court to enter for him a plea of not guilty. On the other hand, appellant Emanence pleaded guilty to the whole charge. Nonetheless, the court a quo conducted trial to determine the degree of culpability of each of the accused. On the basis of the extrajudicial confessions of accused-appellants and testimonies of witnesses, it was shown that appellants had premeditatedly planned to rob and kill the spouses Florentino Alonso, 65 years old, and Anicia Rivera, 63; that appellants took advantage of the confidence reposed upon them by said couple in welcoming them into their house on the night of January 14, 1963; that the deceased couple and Brigida Alonso were suddenly attacked by appellants with bladed weapons; and that they took money from one of their victims. The trial court discredited appellants’ theory of self-defense and their claim of maltreatment in securing their confessions, and found them guilty as charged with the attendant aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, dwelling and disregard of the respect due the offended parties on account of their ages, with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty in favor of Emanence and without any mitigating circumstance as regards Abella, sentencing both of them to death and fixing the civil indemnity at P6,000.00 each.

On review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction but ruled that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime should be considered absorbed in treachery, and raised the civil indemnity for death to P12,000.00

Death sentence affirmed with modification as to civil liability.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACT OF ROBBERY SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED THRU EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS OF THE ACCUSED AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR. — The fact that no one actually saw the appellants take money or anything of value from the victims is of no consequence. The fact that appellants, in their extrajudicial confessions admitted that they had premeditatedly planned to rob their victims and they did carry out their plan; and the circumstances that the place where the offense was committed was found in a topsy-turvy condition and the money tied around the waist of one of the victims was no longer there, sufficiently establish the charge of robbery against appellants. This Court has already sustained a conviction for robbery with homicide upon the extrajudicial confessions of several accused to the effect that robbery was the purpose of the crime and that a certain amount of money was taken by them from the trunk of the offended party. (See People v. Mones, 58 Phil. 46.)

2. ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURT AS TO CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES RESPECTED ON APPEAL. — This Court agrees with the trial judge in not giving credence to appellant’s testimonies purporting to prove self-defense. Having seen the manner and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial, the matter of assigning values to their statements in court is within the better competence of the trial court. (People v. Catalino, G.R. No. L-25403, March 15, 1968; People v. Narciso, G.R. No. L-24484, May 28. 1968). There is no compelling reason in the record to disturb the findings of the trial court.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; SELF-DEFENSE; BELIED BY THE NUMBER AND GRAVITY OF WOUNDS INFLICTED ON THE VICTIMS. — The deceased Florentino Alonso sustained ten (10) wounds and his wife. the deceased Anicia Rivera sustained five (5) wounds in various parts of their bodies. The number and gravity of the wounds inflicted upon them which caused their instantaneous death belie appellants’ theory of self- defense. Neither one of the appellants showed the court any mark of injury on their bodies.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; IMPROBABLE IN CASE AT BAR ON ACCOUNT OF THE VICTIMS’ ADVANCED AGES. — The victims Florentino Alonso and Anicia Rivera were 65 and 63 years old, respectively, while appellants Emanence and Abella were 23 and 22 years old, respectively. It is obviously improbable that the old couple could have been bold enough to attack the two appellants, who are in the prime of their ages and visibly armed with hunting knives.

5. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS; CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING VOLUNTARY EXECUTION THEREOF IN CASE AT BAR. — Appellant Abella’s assertion that he had executed his statements because he was maltreated could not be true. His father was present during the investigation. He did not have himself examined by a doctor to determine the extent of the maltreatment inflicted allegedly on him. On the other hand, the relatives of the victims stoutly denied under oath that they laid their hands upon him. The Chief of Police declared that there was never any instance that the relatives of the victims were allowed to go near appellants. The Mayor of Matanao also declared that he had nothing to do with the execution of the confession of appellant Abella. The Municipal Judge of Matanao testified in court that he read and translated the contents of the confession before appellant Abella affixed his signature thereon. Even Eleno Jusay, a detention prisoner, refused to testify for appellant, and instead, testified for the prosecution and asserted that he did not see any maltreatment done to Abella, nor had he noticed that said appellant was at any time during the period they were together in jail, in a weak condition. All these refute Abella’s statement that he had been subjected to maltreatment or threat. The Court is inclined, therefore, to discard the maltreatment theory of appellant Abella.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; RICHNESS IN DETAILS, AN INDICATION OF VOLUNTARINESS; CASE AT BAR. — The confessions of both appellants are replete with details which only the declarants themselves could have known, which details have been corroborated in some respects by the evidence for the prosecution and by their own testimony in court. It is an old and familiar rule that a confession which is rich in details as to which the police could not be interested and which could have been known only to the persons making it, bears the earmarks of voluntariness. (See People v. Pulido, 47 O.G. 4581)

7. CRIMINAL LAW; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY, DISREGARD OF RESPECT ON ACCOUNT OF VICTIMS’ AGE, EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND DWELLING. — There is in the present case the aggravating circumstances of (a) treachery because the victims, the deceased spouses and Brigida Alonso, were suddenly attacked by the appellant with deadly weapons, without provocation and without opportunity on the victims’ part to defend themselves; (b) disregard of the respect due the victims on account of age, the deceased Florentino Alonso being 65 years of age at the time he was killed and his wife, Anicia Rivera, 63; (c) evident premeditation because the extrajudicial confessions of the accused show clearly that the stabbing was previously planned; (d) dwelling, because the crime was committed right inside the house of the deceased after abusing the confidence reposed upon them by said couple in welcoming them.

8. ID.; ID.; NIGHTTIME, CONSIDERED ABSORBED IN TREACHERY. — The aggravating circumstance of nighttime should be considered absorbed in treachery in the instant case.

9. CRIMINAL LAW; PENALTY; CIVIL INDEMNITY FOR DEATH; P12,000.00 AS FIXED IN PEOPLE v. PANTOJA, G.R. NO. L-18790. — With regard to the indemnity for death fixed by the lower court at P6,000.00 the same should be raised to P12,000.00 (People v. Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18790, October 11, 1968).


D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:



Automatic review, pursuant to Section 9 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, in its Criminal Case No. 8013, imposing the supreme penalty of "DEATH" on appellants Gaudencio Emanence (alias Gaudencio Amanensi, Gaudencio Ruben, Gaudencio Rivera, Ernesto Anticristo and Gaudin) and Crisanto Abella (alias Santos Odiong and Antong). The dispositive portion of said decision reads —

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Gaudencio Emanence and Crisanto Abella guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with double homicide and frustrated murder defined and penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, dwelling and disregard of the respect due the offended parties on account of age, with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty in favor of Gaudencio Emanence and without any mitigating circumstance as regard Crisanto Abella and hereby sentences BOTH TO DEATH, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Florentino Alonso in the amount of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00), the heirs of Anicia Rivera likewise in the amount of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) and the heirs of both in the amount of One Thousand Fifty Pesos (P1,050.00), representing the amount robbed and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

The record discloses that at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of January 14, 1963, the appellants Gaudencio Emanence and Crisanto Abella arrived in Sebusa, Municipality of Matanao, Province of Davao. They went straight to a Chinese store and drank beer. At about 5:00 o’clock after drinking four bottles of beer each, they left the place and proceeded to the another house of the spouses Florentino Alonso and Anicia Rivera, the parents of their neighbor, Dionisio Alonso, in Blocon, Bansalan, also of Davao. At that time, the only persons in the house were the old woman, Anicia Rivera, and her 13-year old granddaughter, Brigida Alonso, daughter of Dionisio Alonso, who had been staying with the old couple. Knowing the appellants very well. Anicia Rivera welcomed them into the house. Appellant Emanence asked for food from Anicia and told her that they are very hungry as they just came from Malatibas. Anicia Rivera then directed Brigida to prepare food for them. At about 6.00 o’clock, after appellants had finished eating, Florentino Alonso arrived. After the usual greetings, appellants and the Alonso spouses engaged in a conversation. While thus conversing, Florentino Alonso was seated in a hammock which was in the sala, while Anicia Rivera was on the floor by the door of the room. Brigida Alonso sat on a bench near her grandmother. Appellant Abella seated himself beside Brigida on the bench. Appellant Emanence on the other hand, sat close to Florentino Alonso. Suddenly, Emanence stabbed Florentino Alonso, while Abella held the left wrist of Brigida and stabbed her on the upper chest. Seeing the attack on her granddaughter, Anicia Rivera went to her rescue, thus enabling Brigida to free herself from appellant Abella. Brigida immediately ran downstairs and shouted for help. Someone followed her, reached for her by the back of her dress and stabbed her. Although wounded, Brigida still managed to run outside towards the direction of their neighbor Teteng, who was not there. She continued running and shouting "to the effect that there are robbers." At that moment, another neighbor, Remegio Ayunan, who was returning home after gathering tuba, heard the shouts. He directed his flashlight towards the place from where the shouts came from and saw Brigida disappearing in the coconut grooves. With the help of other neighbors, Remegio Ayunan searched for Brigida and found her later lying down near the stairs of the house of one Vicente Llado, bleeding. Brigida told them "that they were robbed by Antong and Gaudin (appellants herein)." Ayunan told his companions to bring Brigida to the hospital as he went to report the matter to the police authorities.

When the Chief of Police, Cornelio de la Rey, arrived at the place of the incident, he found the lifeless body of Florentino Alonso lying on the ground about 10 feet away from the house. Inside one of the rooms, he also found the dead body of Anicia Rivera with her dress pulled up. He noticed that the boxes were topsy-turvy and the trunks, opened. The children of the deceased spouses, Dionisio Alonso and Timotea Alonso, noticed that the money their mother usually carried around her waist was missing therefrom. The municipal judge of Matanao, Mariano Tupas, who also arrived, instructed them to look around for the money, but they did not find it.

A post mortem examination of the bodies of the deceased spouses was conducted by Fausto Nacario, sanitary inspector and assistant to the municipal health officer who was then on vacation leave. The necropsy reports submitted by Nacario showed that Florentino Alonso sustained the following wounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Stab wound — 1 inch over right temple

Incised wound — 1 1/2 inch left jaw, near corner of lips

Stab wound — 2 inches. over left nipple, penetrating

Stab wound — 2 inches, below last rib, penetrating

Stab wound — 1/2 inch, lower third, arm right

Stab wound — 1/2 inch upper third, forearm right

Stab wound — 1 inch, above umbilicus, penetrating

Stab wound — 1 inch, middle third, left arm

Stab wound — 1 inch, upper third, left forearms

Stab wound — 1 inch, over scapula.

CAUSE OF DEATH: Hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds."cralaw virtua1aw library

(Exh. A, p. 1, Folder of Exhibits)

while Anicia Rivera sustained the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Stab wound — 3 inches, anterior, neck, cutting all structures inside

Stab wound — below nipple left, penetrating

Stab wound — 1 inch, lower third left forearm

Stab wound — 1 inch, lower third right forearm.

CAUSE OF DEATH: Hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds."cralaw virtua1aw library

(Exh. B, p. 2, Folder of Exhibits)

Brigida Alonso, on the other hand, suffered stab wounds at the chest and back and a laceration on her left arm which, barring complications, would require a healing period of about 4 weeks. (Exh. G, p. 10, Folder of Exhibits).

On January 18, 1963, while still in the hospital, Brigida Alonso executed an affidavit narrating the incident of that fatal evening. In that affidavit, she identified the appellants herein as the assailants. (Exh 1, p. 13, Folder of Exhibits).

On March 24, 1963, after a search of more than two months, appellants were arrested in Zamboanga. They were immediately brought to Matanao, Davao, where they were forthwith investigated in the office of the Chief of Police. Here appellant Emanence executed an affidavit (Exhibit C) admitting having killed the old man, Florentino Alonso.

Stripped of unnecessary details, the narration of appellant Emanence may be paraphrased thus: Long before the fatal day of January 14, 1963, Abella had been intimating to him a plan to rob somebody in Matanao. He told him that he would join him after the harvesting of corn in Malatibas. On January 13, 1963, a day before the fatal killing, while in the attic of the house of the father of one Adriano Otong in Malatibas, he, appellant Abella, and Otong finalized their plan to rob Florentino Alonso. The following day, however, Adriano Otong desisted because he was afraid their plan might miscarry, as they were only armed with Batangas knives. So only appellants proceeded to Matanao. Arriving therein at about 3:00 o’clock, they first went to drink beer at a store, then bought two hats in another store. Thereafter, they proceeded to the house of Florentino Alonso. When they arrived there, only the old woman Anicia Rivera and her granddaughter, Brigida Alonso, were there. They asked for Florentino Alonso, but Anicia told them that he was still in the fields. Anicia told them to wait for him. While there, Abella told Emanence that he (Emanence), being of bigger physical built, should be the one to take care of Florentino Alonso, while he would take charge of the old woman and the child.

When Florentino arrived, appellants talked with him and the old woman in the sala. Emanence sat near Florentino, who was sitting in a hammock, while Abella sat beside the girl, Brigida, on the bench. Then Abella gave him a signal with the wink of an eye. So, he immediately stood up, took out his hunting knife and stabbed the old man three times. Abella also stabbed Brigida on her breast. When he noticed that Brigida ran to the door, he followed her, and overtaking her, stabbed her from behind. Afraid that the screams of Brigida might attract the neighbors, he stopped assaulting and pursuing her. He called for his companion Abella and together they scampered towards the river. From Matanao, Davao, they proceeded to Kidapawan, Cotabato, passing through Tuwak, Malawanit, Kialeg, and Bala, Davao. In Kidapawan, they stayed for two days at the house of one Onsot-Dalena. From there they went to Kabasalan, Zamboanga, passing through Pagadian, where the parents of Abella were then residing. (See pp. 3-4, Folder of Exhibits).

Abella also executed a sworn statement, Exhibit D, admitting that he killed Anicia Rivera; that he took from her, particularly from her waist, the sum of P1,100.00; that this sum was divided equally between him and the appellant Emanence, i.e., P550.00 to each; that he lost his share in gambling in the different town fiestas he attended; that he also stabbed the girl, Brigida Alonso; and that he also participated in the commission of another robbery in the Good Year Rubber Plantation. His statements dovetailed in all other respects with that of appellant Emanence. (See pp. 5-8, Folder of Exhibits).

On May 14, 1963, an information for robbery with double homicide and frustrated murder was filed against appellants. Upon arraignment, appellant Abella pleaded guilty to the charge of homicide but denied robbery and so the lower court entered for him a plea of not guilty. On the other hand, appellant Emanence unconditionally pleaded guilty to the whole charge. The lower court accepted the plea of appellant Emanence but decided to postpone rendering judgment on him in order that he, the judge, could still hear witnesses for the prosecution for the purpose of determining the degree of culpability of each of the accused. Trial was thereafter conducted.

After due trial, the trial court rendered the decision now the subject of this review.

Counsel de oficio for appellants has assigned three errors, allegedly committed by the trial court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH DOUBLE HOMICIDE AND FRUSTRATED MURDER DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 294 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

II


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING APPELLANTS ON SELF-DEFENSE.

III


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF TREACHERY, EVIDENT PREMEDITATION, NIGHTTIME, DWELLING AND DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF AGE; AND IN NOT CONSIDERING THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE FOR BOTH APPELLANTS, ASIDE FROM THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY IN FAVOR OF GAUDENCIO EMANENCE.

Upon a careful review of the record, We have become fully persuaded that the lower court did not commit the errors imputed to it.

The record is pregnant with substantial evidence which prove that appellants committed robbery. The extrajudicial confessions of both appellants, Exhibits C and D, show that they had premeditatedly planned to rob the house of Florentino Alonso. In his affidavit, Exh. C, Emanence expressly stated that "they planned of robbing Florentino Alonso" and Abella, in his confession, Exh. D, also stated expressly that "I took the money on the waist of the old woman while Gaudencio Emanence was looking on and then later ran away." The Chief of Police of Matanao declared when he investigated the place of the incident, he noticed the room where he found the dead body of Anicia Rivera was in a topsy-turvy condition, i.e., the boxes turned topsy-turvy and the trunks were opened. (Tsn, p. 107, Restauro) From these, he said that he immediately concluded that the motive of the killing of the deceased spouses was robbery. Added thereto, Dionisio Alonso, one of the children of the deceased spouses, declared that the day before the fatal incident, i.e., January 13, which was Sunday, he went to the house of his parents to pay them back the sum of P50.00 which he owned them; that his mother to whom he gave the amount immediately placed the same in a thin box where she usually kept her money and which she tied to a belt around her waist; that he knew that in addition to such P50.00, his mother had also at that time more than P1,000.00 which represented the proceeds of the sale of their corn and pigs; that he and his mother counted the money that very Sunday; and that when he searched the body of his mother after she was killed, he saw nothing around her waist. (Tsn, pp. 51-56, Restauro). Timotea Dionisio, another child of the deceased couple, also declared that the preceding day, January 13, she also visited her parents; that she knew her mother usually kept her money around her waist; that immediately prior to their killing, she had with her quite a sum of money, the proceeds from the sale of their corn and pigs; and that when she saw the dead body of her mother, she saw that the money tied around her waist was no longer there. (Tsn, pp. 133-137, Restauro) These, We believe sufficiently establish the charge of robbery against the appellants. The fact that no one actually saw the appellants take money or anything of value from the victims is of no consequence. This Court has already sustained a conviction for robbery with homicide upon the extrajudicial confessions of several accused to the effect that robbery was the purpose of the crime and that a certain amount of money was taken by them from the trunk of the offended party. (See People v. Mones, 58 Phil. 46)

Appellants’ common claim of self-defense in their testimonies in court is unbelievable. Emanence testified that he had previously worked for the Alonso spouses in their corn fields; that said spouses failed to pay him in full; that he went to their house, together with Abella, on January 14, 1963 to collect from them; that when he demanded from Florentino Alonso his back wages, the latter got angry and told him not to hurry him up or else he would be thrown out of the window; that when he demanded what he meant by his remark, Florentino immediately drew his bolo from one of the posts of the house and struck him; that when he was attacked by the old man, he was forced to draw his own knife and stabbed the old man several times; that fearing that the old man might die from his wounds, he got scared and ran away. (TSN, pp. 194-195, Restauro)

On his part, Abella testified that he merely accompanied Emanence in going to the house of the Alonso spouses also to collect a certain sum of money; that when he saw Florentino Alonso attack Emanence, he noticed that the deceased Anicia Rivera also got a bolo under her bed and attacked him, inflicting wounds on his breast and arm; that in the struggle that ensued, he succeeded in wrestling the bolo from Anicia Rivera and used the same weapon upon her; that during the struggle, the young girl, Brigida Alonso, embraced him evidently in an attempt to prevent him from further assaulting her grandmother; that Brigida’s act angered him more and impelled him to turn towards her, thus stabbing her. (TSN, pp. 154-161, Restauro)

The trial judge did not give credence to their testimonies purporting to prove self-defense. We agree with His Honor. Having seen the manner and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial, the matter of assigning values to their statements in court is within the better competence of the trial court. (People v. Catalino, G. R. No. L-25403, March 15, 1968; People v. Narciso, G. R. No. L-24484, May 28,1968). We have not found in the record any compelling reason to disturb the above findings of the trial court. On the contrary, the more We went over the evidence, the more We could not avoid the conviction that the self-defense theory of appellants cannot be sustained.

Florentino Alonso was 65 years old, while the deceased Anicia Rivera, 63; Emanence was 23 years old, and Abella, 22. It is obviously improbable that the old couple could have been bold enough to attack the two appellant, who are in the prime of their ages and visibly armed with hunting knives. Moreover, deceased Florentino Alonso sustained ten (10) wounds and his wife, the deceased Anicia Rivera sustained five (5) wounds in various parts of their bodies. (See Exhibits A and A-1) The number and gravity of the wounds inflicted upon them which caused their instantaneous death belie appellants’ theory of self-defense. Neither one of the appellants showed the court any mark of injury on their bodies.

Consistently with their assertion of self-defense, appellant Abella charged that the extrajudicial confession given by him was secured through threat and maltreatment, He declared that after they were arrested in Zamboanga, they were immediately brought to Matanao, Davao, to the office of the Chief of Police, where in the presence of said Chief of Police, the relatives of the deceased couple took turns in boxing him; that as a result of the maltreatment he received from them he become very weak; that because he still refused to sign the confession, he was brought one night to the house of the mayor of Matanao, Mayor Cesar de la Victoria, where the latter threatened to throw him out of the window and let the persons who had earlier assaulted him to drag him if he will not sign the confession; that one detention prisoner by the name of Eleno Jusay, saw that he had been maltreated inside the jail. (See TSN, pp. 166-171) Such assertion could not be true. His father was present during the investigation. He did not have himself examined by a doctor to determine the extent of the maltreatment inflicted allegedly on him. On the other hand, the relatives of the victims stoutly denied under oath that they laid their hands upon him. The Chief of Police of Matanao, Cornelio de la Rey, declared that there was never any instance that the relatives of the victims were allowed to go near appellants. The Mayor of Matanao also declared that he had nothing to do with the execution of the confession of appellant Abella. The Municipal Judge of Matanao testified in court that he read and translated the contents of the confession before appellant Abella affixed his signature thereon. Even Eleno Jusay refused to testify for appellant, and instead, testified for the prosecution and asserted that he did not see any maltreatment done to Abella, nor had he noticed that said appellant was at any time during the period they were together in jail, in a weak condition. All these refute Abella’s statement that he had been subjected to maltreatment or threat. We are inclined, therefore, to discard the maltreatment theory of appellant Abella.

Scrutinizing the confession, there is no sign therein of any suspicious circumstance tending to cast doubt upon its integrity; the answers given to the questions were responsive and informative. We are indeed satisfied that said confession was voluntary. Moreover, the confessions of both appellants are replete with details which only the declarants themselves could have known, which details have been corroborated in some respects by the evidence for the prosecution and by their own testimony in court. It is an old and familiar rule that a confession which is rich in details as to which the police could not be interested and which could have been known only to the persons making it, bears the earmarks of voluntariness. (See People v. Pulido, 47 O.G. 4581).

As to the aggravating circumstances attending the crime committed by the appellants, We believe that there is in the present case treachery because the victims, the deceased spouses and Brigida Alonso, were suddenly attacked by the appellants with deadly weapons, without provocation and without opportunity on the victims’ part to defend themselves; disregard of the respect due the victims on account of age, the deceased Florentino Alonso being 65 years of age at the time he was killed and his wife, Anicia Rivera, 63; evident premeditation because the extrajudicial confessions of the accused show clearly that the stabbing was previously planned; dwelling, because the crime was committed right inside the house of the deceased after abusing the confidence reposed upon them by said couple in welcoming them. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime should be considered absorbed in treachery.

With regard to the indemnity for death fixed by the lower court at P6,000.00, the same should be raised to P12,000.00. (People v. Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18790, October 11, 1968).

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered affirming the decision under review with the modifications as to the civil liability just indicated.

Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., voted for reclusion perpetua.

Concepcion, Jr., J., for reclusion perpetua.

Abad Santos, J., I vote for reclusion perpetua considering that the appellants have been under detention for almost 20 years.




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






September-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-31276 September 9, 1982 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-31854 September 9, 1982 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. ROSA GANAYO

    202 Phil. 16

  • G.R. No. L-32260 September 9, 1982 - RAYMUNDA VDA. DE SAN JUAN, ET AL. v. SIXTO TAN

    202 Phil. 31

  • G.R. No. L-38579 September 9, 1982 - JULIET T. DIOQUINO v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 35

  • G.R. No. L-39154 September 9, 1982 - LITEX EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40641 September 9, 1982 - FILOMENO ABROT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 53

  • G.R. No. L-42335 September 9, 1982 - PEDRO AMIGABLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-52410 September 9, 1982 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 66

  • G.R. No. L-40791 September 11, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MALATE

    202 Phil. 74

  • G.R. No. L-41115 September 11, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48756 September 11, 1982 - K.O. GLASS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. MANUEL VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-49524 September 11, 1982 - LEONARDO GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 151

  • G.R. No. L-59825 September 11, 1982 - ERNESTO MEDINA, ET AL. v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

    202 Phil. 163

  • G.R. No. L-60368 September 11, 1982 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 172

  • A.C. No. 2784-M September 21, 1982 - CECILIO P. IYOG v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO

    202 Phil. 175

  • G.R. No. L-23106 September 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO EMANENCE

    202 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-28774 September 21, 1982 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 200

  • G.R. No. L-27886 September 21, 1982 - CELSO VALERA v. DOMINGO BAÑEZ

    202 Phil. 193

  • G.R. No. L-29255 September 21, 1982 - LEONARDO MIÑANO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO MIÑANO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 213

  • G.R. No. L-48547 September 21, 1982 - ALFONSO ANGLIONGTO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 215

  • G.R. No. L-55315 September 21, 1982 - WILLIAM COLE, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA CASUGA VDA. DE GREGORIO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 226

  • G.R. No. L-56014 September 21, 1982 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. JOSE TECSON

    202 Phil. 240

  • G.R. No. L-56902 September 21, 1982 - CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 249

  • G.R. No. L-57892 September 21, 1982 - ANASTACIO AREVALO v. VALENTIN QUILATAN

    202 Phil. 256

  • G.R. No. L-59962 September 21, 1982 - RICARTE B. VILLEGAS v. RAMON MONTAÑO

    202 Phil. 265

  • G.R. No. L-22414 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 270

  • G.R. No. L-36850 September 23, 1982 - ROSARIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. PILAR ONG CHUA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. L-50905 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO JUMAWAN

    202 Phil. 294

  • G.R. No. L-52178 September 28, 1982 - DEMETRIO ERNESTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 310

  • A.C. No. 439 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: QUINCIANO D. VAILOCES

    202 Phil. 322

  • A.C. No. 681 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO GUEVARA v. MAXIMO CALALANG

    202 Phil. 328

  • A.M. No. 1879-MJ September 30, 1982 - ROSALITO FAJARDO v. GUALBERTO B. BACARRO, SR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 332

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI September 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    202 Phil. 336

  • A.M. No. 2415-CFI September 30, 1982 - TOMAS SHAN, JR. v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

    202 Phil. 354

  • A.M. No. P-2710 September 30, 1982 - BARBARA PIOQUINTO v. LUCRECIA A. HERNANDEZ

    202 Phil. 360

  • G.R. No. L-25778 September 30, 1982 - JOESTEEL CONTAINER CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCING CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 364

  • G.R. No. L-26243 September 30, 1982 - CLARA REGALARIO v. NORTHWEST FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-26289 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: JUAN N. PECKSON v. GABRIEL F. ANADASE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 374

  • G.R. No. L-27695 September 30, 1982 - ANTONIO CALLANTA v. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 377

  • G.R. No. L-27819 September 30, 1982 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 381

  • G.R. No. L-28501 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ARCE v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

    202 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-28996 September 30, 1982 - MAXIMO SANTOS, ET AL. v. GENERAL WOODCRAFT AND DESIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-29086 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO GOMEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 395

  • G.R. No. L-29590 September 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-29636 September 30, 1982 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. MARINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL.

    202 Phil. 410

  • G.R. No. L-30353 September 30, 1982 - PATRICIO BELLO v. EUGENIA UBO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-30452 September 30, 1982 - MERCURY DRUG CO., INC. v. NARDO DAYAO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 424

  • G.R. No. L-30455 September 30, 1982 - MARIA LANDAYAN, ET AL. v. ANGEL BACANI, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-30675 September 30, 1982 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 445

  • G.R. No. L-30994 September 30, 1982 - OLIMPIA BASA, ET AL. v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 452

  • G.R. No. L-31226 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BELLO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-32383 September 30, 1982 - BAZA MARKETING CORPORATION v. BOLINAO SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION SERVICE, INC.

    202 Phil. 478

  • G.R. No. L-32860 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-33995 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO C. DE GUZMAN v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-34200 September 30, 1982 - REGINA L. EDILLON, ET AL. v. MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-34947 September 30, 1982 - ESTEBAN MEDINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 515

  • G.R. No. L-37431 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ENTERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-37733 September 30, 1982 - ALMARIO T. SALTA v. JESUS DE VEYRA

    202 Phil. 527

  • G.R. No. L-38603 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIANO CHAVEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-38728 September 30, 1982 - CONRADO V. MACATANGAY v. CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON AUDIT

    202 Phil. 545

  • G.R. No. L-39026 September 30, 1982 - SOTERO RECTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 553

  • G.R. No. L-39401 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO SIMBRA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-39644 September 30, 1982 - EDUARDO BIEN, ET AL. v. DELFIN VIR. SUNGA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-39716 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO D. GABIANA

    202 Phil. 577

  • G.R. No. L-40842 September 30, 1982 - BENJAMIN A. G. VEGA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 587

  • G.R. No. L-41052 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY GASENDO

    202 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-43783 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM BOKINGKITO TERANO

    202 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. 44033 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO B. BESO, JR.

    202 Phil. 618

  • G.R. No. L-44408 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SAMBILI

    202 Phil. 629

  • G.R. No. L-45430 September 30, 1982 - DESA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-45436 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PON-AN

    202 Phil. 653

  • G.R. No. L-45679 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MENDOZA

    202 Phil. 660

  • G.R. Nos. L-46068-69 September 30, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46125 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON ALVIS, JR.

    202 Phil. 682

  • G.R. No. L-48478 September 30, 1982 - AGUSMIN PROMOTIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48727 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH D. LEONES

    202 Phil. 703

  • G.R. No. L-48747 September 30, 1982 - ANGEL JEREOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 715

  • G.R. No. L-49307 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MALATE

    202 Phil. 721

  • G.R. No. L-49990 September 30, 1982 - UNITED STATES LINES, INC. v. AMADO INCIONG, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 729

  • G.R. No. L-50378 September 30, 1982 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN RELOVA

    202 Phil. 741

  • G.R. No. L-51042 September 30, 1982 - DIONISIO MALACORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 756

  • G.R. No. L-52059 September 30, 1982 - BONIFACIA CALVERO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 774

  • G.R. No. L-52061 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALUSTIANO LOOD

    202 Phil. 792

  • G.R. No. L-53627 September 30, 1982 - CAPITAL GARMENT CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 797

  • G.R. No. L-53983 September 30, 1982 - LUCIANA DALIDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54204 September 30, 1982 - NORSE MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-54272-73 September 30, 1982 - JUAN C. CALUBAQUIB v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 817

  • G.R. No. L-54280 September 30, 1982 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 850

  • G.R. No. L-55225 September 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF CATALINO JARDIN, ET AL v. HEIRS OF SIXTO HALLASGO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 858

  • G.R. No. L-56624 September 30, 1982 - DARNOC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AYALA CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 865

  • G.R. Nos. L-56950-51 September 30, 1982 - M. F. VIOLAGO OILER TANK TRUCKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 872

  • G.R. No. L-57387 September 30, 1982 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 881

  • G.R. No. L-58187 September 30, 1982 - REMEDIOS VELASCO VDA. DE CALDITO v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO, ETC., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 900

  • G.R. No. L-58452 September 30, 1982 - RAZA APPLIANCE CENTER v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

    202 Phil. 903

  • G.R. No. L-58610 September 30, 1982 - BABELO BERIÑA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE MARITIME INSTITUTE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 908

  • G.R. No. L-58623 September 30, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES

    202 Phil. 912

  • G.R. No. L-58820 September 30, 1982 - BENITO E. DOMINGUEZ, JR. v. FILIPINAS INTEGRATED SERVICES CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 916

  • G.R. No. L-59234 September 30, 1982 - TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA, INC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 925

  • G.R. No. L-59935 September 30, 1982 - FLORA DE GRACIA REGNER VDA. DE DAYRIT v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

    202 Phil. 937

  • G.R. No. L-60367 September 30, 1982 - VENUSTIANO T. TAVORA v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO

    202 Phil. 943

  • G.R. No. L-60602 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: MA. DEL SOCORRO SOBREMONTE, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 949

  • G.R. No. L-60637 September 30, 1982 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 959

  • G.R. No. L-60842 September 30, 1982 - ROLANDO DIMACUHA v. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION

    202 Phil. 961