Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > July 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. L-34247 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO P. MARIÑO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-34247. July 25, 1984.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO MARIÑO Y PARENTO, Defendant-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jose R. Cabatuando for appellant E. Mariño.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION, ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE CONSPIRACY. — The lower court erred in admitting the confession of Antonio Madlangbayan as evidence against herein appellant. While it is true that the extra-judicial confession of an accused is not admissible against herein appellant, it nevertheless serves as strong indication that said appellant was participant in the crime because the contents thereof interlocked with. those contained in his statement, Exhibit "G." There being no proof of collusion and being identical with each other in their essential details, and corroborated by Dr. Abelardo Lucero, a Medical Examiner of the Manila Police Department, and the post-mortem report, it is admissible to prove conspiracy.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO OBJECT AGAINST THE ADMISSION THEREOF CONSTITUTES WAIVER. — Records show that when the extra-judicial confession of Antonio Madlangbayan was presented in court, thru Patrolman Carag, appellant did not object. It has been repeatedly held as a rule of evidence that objection against the admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time and that if not so made it will be understood to have been waived. The proper time to make a protest or objection is when, from the question addressed to the witness, or from the answer thereto, or from the presentation of the proof the inadmissibility of evidence is, or may be, inferred (Abrenica v. Gonda, 37 Phil. 379).

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT WHERE CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE OF CORPUS DELICTI. — The extra-judicial confession of Edgardo Mariño is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Rules of Court provides that "an extra-judicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti." (Section 3, Rule 133) In the case at bar, from the People’s evidence the corpus delicti of the offense charged has been proved by the uncontradicted testimonies of Llywelyn Fallarme and the police officer assigned to the case, as well as the testimony of Dr. Abelardo Lucero, the police Medical Examiner, as to the death of Enrique Fallarme, together with the documentary evidence of the necropsy report stating the post-mortem findings, including the cause of death.

4. ID.; ID.; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY; EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION IN CASE AT BAR EXECUTED VOLUNTARILY. — The claim that the extra-judicial confession (Exhibit "G") was obtained thru force and intimidation is belied by the abundance of evidence showing that his confession was voluntarily given. In the first place, the statement is replete with details which only the accused could have known and which could not have been concocted by the police; his movements prior to the commission of the crime are well narrated in said document. Second, Fiscal Ramon Mabutas, who administered the oath of appellant in his confession, propounded questions to him and he admitted that the contents thereof are his and that the signatures appearing thereon were made voluntarily. In fact, he signed his name again before the said administering officer. Third, the questioned statement was made before the effectivity of the New Constitution. It was given on February 9, 1971. We have already held that the provisions of Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution cannot be given retroactive effect to the confessions obtained before January 17, 1973, when the Constitution took effect (People v. Viduya. 97 SCRA 666).

5. CRIMINAL LAW; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH: APPRECIATED IN CASE AT BAR. — Appellant with his co-accused Madlangbayan and two others who unfortunately have not yet been apprehended, took advantage of their superior strength when the four of them, two of whom were armed with deadly weapons, surrounded and stabbed the unarmed, helpless and unsuspecting victim. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was correctly appreciated by the trial court.


D E C I S I O N


RELOVA, J.:


This case is before Us on mandatory review of the judgment of the then Circuit Criminal Court of Manila, in Criminal Case No. CCC-VI-484 (71), entitled: "People v. Edgardo Mariño y Parento", finding said accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide, with the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and recidivism, and sentencing him to death; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Enrique Fallarme, in the sum of P12,000.00; the sum of P10,000.00 by way of moral damages; another sum of P10,000.00 by way of exemplary damages; to return to the heirs of the victim the articles and cash taken from the latter or to indemnify them the sum of P600.00 representing the total value thereof if he fails to do so; and to pay the costs.

The deceased, Enrique Fallarme, was a civil engineer working at the City Engineer’s Office in Manila. His son, Llywelyn Fallarme, was a utility inspector in the same office. About 3:00 in the afternoon of December 27, 1970, the two left their residence at 54 Gregorio Roxas Street, Quezon City, for their store at the Central Market, Manila. Upon arrival at the Central Market, Llywelyn Fallarme alighted from the car to collect their store sales in the amount of P300.00. He turned over the same to his father, Enrique who remained in the car.

From the Central Market they proceeded to Paco, Manila to inspect the road project in Canonigo where the elder Fallarme was the Supervising Engineer. Llywelyn and a younger sister left their father in the road project and they proceeded to a piano recital.

About 7:30 in the same evening, the Fallarmes were told that Enrique Fallarme had an accident. Llywelyn rushed to Canonigo, Paco where he saw his father lying on the street, lifeless with stab wounds. He identified the body of his father and told the police that the deceased was wearing a Seiko wrist watch and had a wallet in his pants. They were no longer there.

The medical report (Exhibit "C") shows that the victim died from "shock and hemorrhage" due to multiple (5) stab wounds, one lacerating thru the right ventricle of the heart.

On December 28, 1970, the police arrested one Antonio Madlangbayan, who, in a written statement (Exhibit "E"), admitted that he, together with Boy Mariño, Imping and Rody were the ones who stabbed the deceased at Canonigo street and robbed him of money and wallet. He described the physical features of his companions and confessed that all of them were members of the "Bahala Na Gang."cralaw virtua1aw library

The case of Antonio Madlangbayan has already been decided by the same trial court. Said accused has been found guilty and sentenced to death. The judgment was affirmed by this Court on December 14, 1979 (People v. Madlangbayan, 94 SCRA 679).

On the basis of Madlangbayan’s statement, the police, after several days of surveillance of his hiding place, was able to arrest herein appellant, Edgardo Mariño. He was brought to the police precinct for investigation. A police line-up composed of appellant and five other detainees was formed and then Madlangbayan was brought to identify the person of "Boy Mariño" whom he mentioned in his statement, Exhibit "E." Madlangbayan immediately pointed to the appellant as the same person.

Thereafter, appellant was investigated by Patrolman Carag who took down his statement (Exhibit "G") following which he was brought before Fiscal Ramon Mabutas at the latter’s residence in San Andres, Manila. Fiscal Mabutas talked to Mariño who admitted that he had read and confirmed the truth of the contents thereof, and that the signatures appearing therein are his. Likewise, he acknowledged to the Fiscal that the sketch of a knife (Exhibit "G" -1") was drawn by him. He then signed Exhibits "G" and "G-1" again before Fiscal Mabutas after the latter had taken his oath. This was followed by the Fiscal signing his name in said documents. What happened is narrated by the appellant in Exhibit "G", as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Tanong (15)

Saan galing ang trenta sentimos na ibinili mo ng cigarillo?

Sagot:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Binigyan ako ng bente sentimos in TONY at dinagdagan ko ng diez sentimos. Matapos ako bumili ng cigarillo sa isang babae na waitress doon sa Golden Restaurant ay tumuloy na kani sa Canonigo sa may Boxas High School. Doon sa tapat ng Roxas High School ay nakatayo lang ho yong MAMA na sinaksak namin. Linapitan namin siya. Tinutukan in TONY ng kutsilyo ang MAMA sa kaliwang tagiliran at ako naman ay tinutukan ko ang MAMA sa liig sa parteng kanang liig ng aking doble blade. Ang sabi ng MAMA ay ganito ‘ANO ANG KASALANAN KO?’ Ang sabi ko ay "HOLD-UP ITO" at dinala namin siya doon sa kanto ng Canonigo, San Gregorio at Figueroa Street, doon sa madilim ng kunti dahil sa maliwanag doon sa tapat ng Roxas High School na kinatatayuan ng MAMA.

Tanong (16)

Ano pa ang nangyari kong meron?

Sagot:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Ang sabi ng MAMA na nakataas pa ang kamay ay ganito ‘KUNIN NYO ANG KAILANGAN NYO’. Ang ginawa ko naman ay kinapkapan ko ang bulsa ng MAMA sa likurang pantalon at kinuha ko ang pitaka niya na itim na balat na may lamang kuarta. Kinuha ko sa bandang kaliwa na bulsa. Pagkatapos ay iniyabot ko kay ‘Rody’ na siya noon at si ‘Imping’ ay nasa likuran na MAMA noon. Si IMPING ang unang nagpababa ng kaliwang kamay noong MAMA at kinuha niya ang relos ng MAMA at pinataas din ang kaliwang kamay. Noong biglang binaba ng MAMA ang kamay niya ay sinaksak ni ‘Tony’ at ng masaksak ang MAMA ay humawak sa aking kwelyo ng damit ko sa kanan. Ang ginawa ko ay sinaksak ko ang MAMA sa dibdib at nabitiwan ako ng MAMA at tumakbo na ako kasabay ko si RODY. Ako ay tumakbo papunta sa Kahilom 3 at si RODY ay tumakbo sa HIWAY doon sa banda ng mga Apartment ni ROBLES. Pagdating ko sa Kahilom 3 ay umuwi ako sa amin nagdaan ako sa Dapo Street na papunta sa amin sa Obisis sa amin." (p. 29, Record).

Accused-appellant denied the voluntary execution of his statement claiming that he was maltreated into giving the same and alleged that the trial court erred (1) in admitting the extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "E") of Antonio Madlangbayan as evidence against him; and (2) in admitting his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "G") and in finding him guilty of the offense charged on the basis thereof.

We find no merit in the claim that the lower court erred in admitting the confession (Exhibit "E") of Antonio Madlangbayan as evidence against herein appellant. While it is true that the extrajudicial confession of an accused is not admissible against herein appellant, it nevertheless serves as strong indication that said appellant was participant in the crime because the contents thereof interlocked with those contained in his statement, Exhibit "G." There being no proof of collusion and being identical with each other in their essential details, and corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Abelardo Lucero, a Medical Examiner of the Manila Police Department, and the post-mortem report (Exhibit "C"), it is admissible to prove conspiracy.

Besides, records show that when the extrajudicial confession of Antonio Madlangbayan was presented in court, thru Patrolman Carag, appellant did not object. It has been repeatedly held as a rule of evidence that objection against the admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time and that if not so made it will be understood to have been waived. The proper time to make a protest or objection is when, from the question addressed to the witness, or from the answer thereto, or from the presentation of the proof the inadmissibility of evidence is, or may be, inferred (Abrenica v. Gonda, 34 Phil. 739).

On the more important question as to whether the extrajudicial confession of Edgardo Mariño is sufficient to sustain his conviction, the Rules of Court provides that "an extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti." (Section 3, Rule 133). In the case at bar, from the People’s evidence the corpus delicti of the offense charged has been proved by the uncontradicted testimonies of Llywelyn FalIarme and the police officer assigned to the case, as well as the testimony of Dr. Abelardo Lucero, the police Medical Examiner, as to the death of Enrique Fallarme, together with the documentary evidence of the necropsy report stating the postmortem findings, including the cause of death.

With respect to the claim that the extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "G") was obtained thru force and intimidation, the same is belied by the abundance of evidence showing that his confession was voluntarily given. In the first place, the statement is replete with details which only the accused could have known and which could not have been concocted by the police; his movements prior to the commission of the crime are well narrated in said document. Second, Fiscal Ramon Mabutas, who administered the oath of appellant in his confession, propounded questions to him and he admitted that the contents thereof are his and that the signatures appearing thereon were made voluntarily. In fact, he signed his name again before the said administering officer. Third, the questioned statement was made before the effectivity of the New Constitution. It was given on February 9, 1971. We have already held that the provisions of Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution cannot be given retroactive effect to confessions obtained before January 17, 1973, when the Constitution took effect. (People v. Viduya, 97 SCRA 666).

Indeed, appellant with his co-accused Madlangbayan and two others who unfortunately have not yet been apprehended, took advantage of their superior strength when the four of them, two of whom were armed with deadly weapons, surrounded and stabbed the unarmed, helpless and unsuspecting victim. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was correctly appreciated by the trial court. However, for lack of the necessary votes, We have to impose the next lower penalty which is reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that herein appellant Edgardo Mariño y Parento is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and the indemnity is increased to P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., concurs in the result.

Teehankee, J., took no part.

Aquino, J., I vote for the death penalty as in the case of Antonio Madlangbayan, the co-accused of Edgardo Mariño, 94 SCRA 679.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





July-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-39914 July 2, 1984 - AMADO S. CENIZA v. ALEJANDRO E. SEBASTIAN

  • G.R. No. L-29181 July 9, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES CANUMAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54414 July 9, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO M. LORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30256 July 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO ONAROSA

  • G.R. No. L-35529 July 16, 1984 - NORA CANSING SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36585 July 16, 1984 - MARIANO DIOLOSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39338 July 16, 1984 - DOUGLAS B. ALVIR v. RIZALINA B. VERA

  • G.R. No. L-40351 July 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME B. ACILAR

  • G.R. No. L-43003 July 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO V. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. L-43890 July 16, 1984 - OCEANIC BIC DIVISION (FFW), ET AL. v. FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-47986 & L-49018 July 16, 1984 - AQUILINA P. MARIN v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. Nos. L-48376-85 & L-63387 July 16, 1984 - BALAGTAS REALTY CORPORATION v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49644-45 July 16, 1984 - MARIANO GARCIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58958 July 16, 1984 - GRAND MOTOR PARTS CORPORATION v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-62281-82 July 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELO R. FELIX, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62449 July 16, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL H. SESBRENO

  • G.R. No. L-65786 July 16, 1984 - SINGAPORE AIRLINES LOCAL EMP. ASSO., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62626 July 18, 1984 - CAYETANO TIONGSON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52804 July 20, 1984 - ELENA O. ESCUTIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54449 July 20, 1984 - EUGENIO CABRAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64296 July 20, 1984 - NATIONAL SERVICE CORP. v. DEPUTY MINISTER VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-22960 July 25, 1984 - IPO LIMESTONE CO., INC., ET AL. v. MACHINERY & ENGINEERING SUPPLIES CO., INC.

  • G.R. Nos. L-32202-04 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONTING BIRUAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-32957-8 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANTALEON PACIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33294 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL V. SERNA

  • G.R. No. L-33544 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX MOZAR

  • G.R. Nos. L-34106-08 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO C. MAALIHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34247 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO P. MARIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-35103 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATROCINIO DOFILEZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-35123-24 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY TIONGSON

  • G.R. No. L-37482 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS R. MATERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38818 July 25, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MONTALBO

  • G.R. No. L-52208 July 25, 1984 - JULIA DAYRIT HIDALGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59431 July 25, 1984 - ANTERO M. SISON, JR. v. RUBEN B. ANCHETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61969 July 25, 1984 - AGUSTINA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. LUCIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30483 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31753 July 31, 1984 - JOSE V. BONAFE v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32849 July 31, 1984 - QUIRICO A. ABELA v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37420 July 31, 1984 - MACARIA A. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38891 July 31, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CARMINIA SIOCHI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40462 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL MUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-45480 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPO CAMPESINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52051 July 31, 1984 - NAPOLEON A. TADURAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53590 July 31, 1984 - ROSARIO BROTHERS INC. v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54881 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO QUIBATE

  • G.R. No. L-55087 July 31, 1984 - FELIX TERO, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO TERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55533 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58100 July 31, 1984 - PRISCILO SY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58303 July 31, 1984 - ESTRELLA A. VDA. DE SILENCIO, ET AL. v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59830 July 31, 1984 - JUAN BAUTISTA v. CITY FISCAL OF DAGUPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61462 July 31, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61554-55 July 31, 1984 - TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB v. RICARDO C. PUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63316 July 31, 1984 - ILUMINADA VER BUISER, ET AL. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-63326 July 31, 1984 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63930 July 31, 1984 - ROMULO C. FELIZMEÑA v. RICARDO D. GALANO

  • G.R. No. L-64167 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN LOREDO

  • G.R. No. L-65952 July 31, 1984 - LAURO G. SORIANO, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67966 July 31, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO NAVOA, ET AL.