Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1984 > September 1984 Decisions > G.R. No. L-56769 September 21, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMOGENES S. SANCHEZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-56769. September 21, 1984.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARMOGENES SANCHEZ Y YAMSON, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Geronimo A. Gueta for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION; PROOF OF VOLUNTARINESS; CASE AT BAR. — The appellant contends in this appeal that his confession was not voluntary. He repudiated his confession. He said that he was maltreated. The trial court found that appellant’s claim of maltreatment is" farthest from the truth." He did not complain of the maltreatment to his sister, Eliza. He did not file any complaint against his alleged tormentors. His confessions is filled with details, such as his having a common-law wife, which only an unintimidated person could have given. He was duly informed of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel. If he could not afford a lawyer, the police offered to hire one for him free of charge. The case is not covered by Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution. Sanchez voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived in writing his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. Such waiver is allowed (Miranda v. Arizona, 16 L. Ed. 2nd 684, 384 US 436). Immediately after his arrest, he orally admitted the crime (Exh. E). He reenacted its commission of his own volition and without pressure on the part of the police officers because he wanted to reveal the truth.

2. ID.; ID.; DEFENSE OF ALIBI NOT GIVEN WEIGHT. — The trial court found loopholes and contradictions in his alibi. As in other decided cases, it was a brazen fabrication.

3. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; CASE AT BAR. — But the trial court erred in holding that there was no robbery. The accused admitted taking the victim’s wallet and P150 cash. It constituted the motive for the killing together with the alleged affront made by the victim when he chided Sanchez for his clumsiness in handling the stock of paints. In robbery with homicide, an intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life but the fact that the intent of the criminal is tempered with a desire also to revenge grievances against the murdered person does not prevent his punishment for the complex crime (Syllabus, U. S. v. Villorente and Bislig, 30 Phil. 59).

4. ID.; ID.; PENALTY; PROVISIONS ON SUSPENDED SENTENCE NOT APPLICABLE TO CASE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT. — Appellant claims that the trial court erred in not giving him a suspended sentence although he was over 16 but below 18 when he committed the crime. The provisions on suspended sentence do not apply to cases, like the instant case, punishable by death or life imprisonment (Art. 192, Child and Welfare Code as amended by Presidential Decrees No. 1179 and 1210). Moreover, on March 31, 1981, when the sentence was promulgated, he was already over 18 years. He was not entitled to a suspended sentence (People v. Casiguran, L-45387, November 7, 1979, 94 SCRA 244, 250).


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This is a conviction for murder based on an extrajudicial confession which was corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti. Ferdinand Mauri, 62, was killed in the evening of June 30, 1979 in his hardware store located at 1814 Rizal Avenue, corner Malabon Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, opposite the Dr. Jose R. Reyes Memorial Hospital. His body was discovered forty-eight hours later, or on July 2, in a state of decomposition.

The autopsy disclosed that the victim had two stab wounds in the neck, one of which penetrated the chest and which caused his death (Exh. I, J and K). A kitchen knife (Exh. A) was found in the toilet bowl of the store.

Mauri lived in the hardware store with his houseboy, Armogenes Sanchez who was 16 years and five months old at the time of the killing (born on December 10, 1962, Exh. C). Mauri was separated from his wife and children who lived just a block away.

Sanchez was arrested on September 3, 1979. He admitted the crime and reenacted it before two police officers and the members of the victim’s family, as shown in the 16 photographs, Exhibits M to M-16 (23-28 tsn, Feb. 9, 1981).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

He executed an extrajudicial confession on that date. He recounted the details of the killing and his taking of Mauri’s wallet and P150 cash which was on the table (Exh. B). In his confession, he said that he admitted the crime to his parents who advised him to surrender (Exh. E). His admission in his confession, that he stabbed the victim twice, jibed with the medical findings.

Charged with robbery with homicide, he was convicted of murder, sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Mauri in the sum of P12,000. The trial court held that robbery was not proven.

The appellant contends in this appeal that his confession was not voluntary, that the trial court erred in not sustaining his alibi and basing its judgment on matters not supported by the evidence and that he is entitled to a suspended sentence being 18 years of age.

Sanchez finished the elementary grade. He repudiated his confession. He said that he was maltreated. The trial court found that his claim of maltreatment is" farthest from the truth." He did not complain of the maltreatment to his sister, Eliza. He did not file any complaint against his alleged tormentors. His confessions is filled with details, such as his having a common-law wife, which only an unintimidated person could have given.

He was duly informed of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel. If he could not afford a lawyer, the police offered to hire one for him free of charge. The case is not covered by section 20, Article IV of the Constitution. Sanchez voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived in writing his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. Such waiver is allowed (Miranda v. Arizona, 16 L. Ed. 2nd 684, 384 US 436).

Immediately after his arrest, he orally admitted the crime (Exh. E). He reenacted its commission of his own volition and without pressure on the part of the police officers because he wanted to reveal the truth.

The trial court found loopholes and contradictions in his alibi. As in other decided cases, it was a brazen fabrication.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

But the trial court erred in holding that there was no robbery. The accused admitted taking the victim’s wallet and P150 cash. It constituted the motive for the killing together with the alleged affront made by the victim when he chided Sanchez for his clumsiness in handling the stock of paints.

In robbery with homicide, an intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life but the fact that the intent of the criminal is tempered with a desire also to revenge grievances against the murdered person does not prevent his punishment for the complex crime (Syllabus, U.S. v. Villorente and Bislig, 30 Phil. 59).

Appellant claims that the trial court erred in not giving him a suspended sentence although he was over 16 but below 18 when he committed the crime. The provisions on suspended sentence do not apply to cases, like the instant case, punishable by death or life imprisonment (Art. 192, Child and Welfare Code as amended by Presidential Decrees No. 1179 and 1210).

Moreover, on March 31, 1981, when the sentence was promulgated, he was already over 18 years. He was not entitled to a suspended sentence (People v. Casiguran, L-45387, November 7, 1979, 94 SCRA 244, 250).

The trial court erred in convicting Sanchez of murder only. He is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robo con homicidio as charged in the information. As he was over 15 and under 18 when he committed the crime, he is entitled to a one-degree reduction of the penalty. He should be penalized by reclusion temporal, there being no modifying circumstances.

WHEREFORE, the lower court’s judgment is modified. Sanchez is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of seven years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen years of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay an indemnity of P30,150 to Mauri’s heirs. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Abad Santos, Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., concur in the result.

Concepcion, Jr. and Guerrero, JJ., are on leave.




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





September-1984 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-37061 September 5, 1984 - MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-57298 September 7, 1984 - MYC-AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. PURIFICACION CAMERINO VDA. DE CALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32295 September 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO LORENZO

  • G.R. No. L-38787 September 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO BACAY

  • G.R. No. L-43923 September 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN MAGUDDAYAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-47440-42 September 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO LOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64050 September 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66859 September 12, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERMAN G. LEE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31282 September 17, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIANO PLANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29613 September 18, 1984 - APOLINAR S. FOJAS v. SATURNINA R. DE GREY

  • G.R. Nos. L-32866-7 September 21, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO F. SABILANO

  • G.R. No. L-42408 September 21, 1984 - ISIDRA P. CADIRAO, ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56769 September 21, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMOGENES S. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. L-26298 September 28, 1984 - CMS ESTATE, INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28691 September 28, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALA MARUHOM

  • G.R. No. L-30666 September 28, 1984 - ANDRES ABAN, ET AL. v. MANUEL L. ENAGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31712 September 28, 1984 - IN RE: ERNESTO V. ROSALES v. ASUNCION Z. CASTILLO ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32103 September 28, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BUENSUCESO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32162 September 28, 1984 - PASAY CITY GOVERNMENT, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH X, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33225 September 28, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOMEDES RAMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33504 September 28, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LEE BON UI

  • G.R. No. L-33642 September 28, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZALDO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35574 September 28, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTINA L. MANANQUIL

  • G.R. No. L-35744 September 28, 1984 - WENCESLAO JUNIO v. FELICIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36957 September 28, 1984 - ANICETO IBABAO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-36987-88 September 28, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO T. CATACUTAN

  • G.R. No. L-38175 September 28, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO LACHICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40207 September 28, 1984 - ROSA K. KALAW v. BENJAMIN RELOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40308 September 28, 1984 - ISMAEL GULA v. PEDRO DIANALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41603 September 28, 1984 - PRIMITIVA VDA. DE GALINDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42592 September 28, 1984 - FLORENCIA ANG LOPEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43276 September 28, 1984 - BENEDICTA C. DAZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-45407-08 September 28, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO URBISTONDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55138 September 28, 1984 - ERNESTO V. RONQUILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57936 September 28, 1984 - DMRC ENTERPRISES v. ESTE DEL SOL MOUNTAIN RESERVE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-61752 September 28, 1984 - SY KAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62130 September 28, 1984 - SEAVAN CARRIER, INC., ET AL. v. GTI SPORTSWEAR CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62992 September 28, 1984 - ARLENE BABST, ET AL. v. NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63129 September 28, 1984 - WAYNE JAIN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64573 September 28, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE RENOJO

  • G.R. No. L-65102 September 28, 1984 - MAXIMO AQUINO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65585 September 28, 1984 - SAINT LOUIS FACULTY CLUB v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66069 September 28, 1984 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66136 September 28, 1984 - ELPIDIO EMPELIS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66526 September 28, 1984 - RAFAEL B. GAERLAN, SR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67966 September 28, 1984 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO NAVOA, ET AL.

  • UDK-6066 September 30, 1984 - ROGELIO CORDERO v. BETHEL K. MOSCARDON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42918 September 30, 1984 - NESTOR M. PATRIARCA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51574-77 September 30, 1984 - VICTOR CLAPANO, ET AL. v. FILOMENO GAPULTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53914 September 30, 1984 - RODOLFO DE LEON v. CONRADO LINDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66274 September 30, 1984 - BAGUMBAYAN CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.