G.R. No. 13976. April 29, 1961
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BERNARDO Z. OBALDO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
PAREDES, J.:
by the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed with cruelty, at
night time, in an uninhabited place, and after taking advantage of superior
strength, and sentenced to suffer death penalty, to indemnify the heirs of the
offended party in the sum of P3,000.00 and to pay the costs.
From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the following facts are
gleaned:
At about 6:30 a.m., on October 30, 1957, Fernando Garcia, Jr. and his 12 year
old sister, Marcela Garcia alias Mercy, went to gather slab at Fort
McKinley, Rizal. At 9:00 o’clock a.m. Fernando returned home and told his mother
that Marcela stayed behind to gather some more slab. When Marcela did not return
home that day, her mother went to the Provost Marshal of Fort Wm, McKinley to
inquire about her daughter whose picture (Exh. C) was brought along with her.
Where Marcela was until the first week of November, 1957, the record does not
disclose. About the first week of November, 1957, however, Marcela became a
niaid of Sgt. Silvestre Alcasar and his wife at Riverside street, same fort, at
P5.00 monthly pay. On December 22, 1957, at about 12:00 o’clock p.m. Marcela
played with some children at the back yard of Sgt. Alcasar. It was the last time
Sgt. Alcasar saw her alive and she was then, wearing a dress (Exh. F) and
panties (Exh. F—1) made by Mrs. Alcasar herself.
At about 7:00 a.m. on December 24,1957, while working, at the construction
job of the Del Pan Bridge, Tondo, Jaime Padilla, a carpenter, saw an army duffel
bag (Exhibit E), with its open end tied with a belt, floating near the bridge.
They opened the bag and a human foot protruded and in the presence of a
policeman, they further opened the bag and found the body of a girl clad in her
dress and panties Exhibits F and F-1, respectively. The following words, were
found printed in white on the duffel bag: “B. Obaldo F Co 2nd BCT Peftoc, U. S.
TAT. No. 1140203” (Exhibit E-1).
On December 25, 1957, three members of the 202 MP Company were given a
“mission order” to apprehend the accused Obaldo who left his post for Balaoan,
La Union, at 8:00 p.m. on December 24, 1957. The accused and his wife were taken
to Camp Murphy. Captain Felicisimo Lazaro of the M.P.D. conducted an
investigation on December 26, 1957, at which the accused professed ignorance of
the killing. But after Capt. Lazaro had reminded him of his gallantry in Korea,
the accused gave his statement Exhibit I. As a subsequent checking shows that
some of the statements given in Exhibit I were false, Capt. Lazaro conducted
another investigation of the accused on December 27, 1957. At this
investigation, Obaldo gave and subscribed another statement Exhibit I-1,
confessing authorship of the crime. Portions thereof are reproduced
hereunder:
“T— Nalalaman mo ba kung saan naanduon ang duffel bag na
iyon ngayon?S— Iyan ho (itinuturo niya ang duffel bag na may letra na puti—B.
Obaldo—F. Co. 2 BCT—Peftok—TAT No. 11-40203T— Nalalaman mo ba kung bakit nasasa aming Oficina ang duffel bag na
iyan?S— Napagalaman ko na nakuha iyan sa ilog na may lamang batang
babae.T— Paano mo nalaman ang bagay na iyan? S— Sa pamamagitan ng Diario. T— Nalalaman mo ba kung bakit ang duffel bag na iyan ay nagkaroon sa
loob ng isang patay na batang babae?S— Opo. Ako po ang naglagay. T— Ano ang dahilan at naglagay ka sa loob ng duffel bag ng batang
babae?S— Mga 23 ng Diciembre mga alas siete ng gabi nakita ko ang isang
batang babae sa tabi ng ilog sa gilid nang Port Mckinley. Nalibugan ako kung
kaya ang batang babae ay aking ginamit duon sa lupa. Pagkatapos kung magamit ang
bata ay nawalan ng malay tao at ako ay natakot. Ang ginawa ko ay inilagay ko sa
loob ng aking dalang duffel bag at iniwan ko sa tabi ng ilog.T— Bakit ka may dalang duffel bag nuon? S— Galing ako sa Campo at dala ko ang duffel bag upang umuwi sa amin
para paglagyan ko ng damit.T— Samakatuwid ay walang laman ang iyong duffel bag ng makita mo
iyong batang babae?S— Opo. T— Iyan ba ang duffel bag na iyong dala (ipinakikita sa kanya ang
duffel bag na kinatuklasan ng patay na batang babae)?S— Opo. T— Matapos na iyong mailagay ang batang babae sa loob ng duffel bag,
hindi ba katunayan ay itinapon mo sa ilog at hindi totoo na iyong iniwan lamang
sa tabi ng ilog?S— Iniwanan ko lamang sa tabi ng ilog. T— Mayruon gaano ang layo duon sa pangpang ng ilog? S— One foot. T— Nakikilala mo ba ang batang babae? S— Hindi ho. T— Ilang beses mong kaunaunahan na nakita ang batang babae na
iyon?S— Nuon lamang gabi na iyon. T— Ano ang suot ng batang babae? S— Hindi ko natatandaan. T— Ang batang babae ay natagpuan na nakasuot ang salawal, sino ang
nagsuot ng salawal ng bata matapos na iyon ay iyong magamit?S— Hindi ko ho inalisan ng salawal ng aking gamitin, pinadaan ko na
lamang sa pagitan.T— Ilang beses mong ginamit ang bata? S— Isa. T— Ang lugar ba ng pinaggamitan mo sa bata ay sa loob o labas ng
Port McKinley?S— Sa labas. T— Mayruon gaano ang layo duon sa main gate ng Port
Mckinley?S— Mga hundred yards. T— Pinilit mo ba ang bata o kusang pumayag ang bata? S— Kusang ibinigay. T— Paano ang sinabe mo sa bata at kanyang ibinigay? S— Sinabe ko sa bata na pagbigyan ako, at ang sagot ng bata ay “ng
ano”, ang sagot ko naman ay “alam mo na”. Ng hindi kumibo ang bata ay hinawakan
ko na at pinahiga ko sa lupa at siya ay aking ginamit.T— Hindi ba sumigaw ang bata? S— Nagsalita. T— Ano ang sinabe ng bata? S— Hindi ko na maintindihan ang kanyang sinabe. T— Malakas ba ang pagkakasalita? S— Hindi naman. T— Bakit mo naisipan na ilagay pa ang bata sa duffel bag matapos
mong magamit?S— Nataranta ako kung kaya aking nailagay sa duffel bag.” * * * *
* * *T— “Nakinig ka ba ng radio broadcast ng gabing iyong, Diciembre 24,
1957?S— Opo. T— Ano ang nadinig mo? S— Nadinig ko na natuklasan na ang batang babae sa loob ng bag at
tuloy na nabanggit ang aking pangalan na nakasulat sa bag.T— Matapos mong madinig ang balita ano ang ginawa mo? S— Nagbihis ako at nagpunta ako sa Balawan, La
Union.”
Dr. Mariano de Lara, Medico-Legal Examiner M.P.D., on December 27, 1957,
performed an autopsy on the body of Mareela Garcia and rendered a report Exhibit
H, with the finding that the hymen of Mareela was lacerated, the effect of
possible sexual intercourse; that basing on the state of her legs, Marcela might
have died only a day and a half before the autopsy; and that the cause of the
death was asphyxiation, evidently from the combination of her body being placed
in the bag, drowning and/or strangling.
The defense gave the following story:
That on December 23, 1957, the accused was on duty with the 1st Eng. Combat
BCT, 1st Div. Ft. W. Mckinley from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., after which he went
to the 3rd Eng. Const. Co. area, about a kilometer away to attend a Christmas
party; that he stayed in the mess hall where he helped in serving the table;
that at 8:00 p.m., he and Sgt. Gado took supper together, after which they saw
the dance and the stage show; that at 10:00 o’clock p.m. he, Sgt. Lucas and Sgt.
Ordinario went home together; that as he wanted to spend Christmas with his wife
in Balaoan, La Union, he (accused) prepared a pass (Exhibit J) the next day and
presented it to Sgt. Domingo Marquez, for the latter’s signature; that after
getting Sgt. Marquez signature, he (accused) placed the pass on the table of Lt.
Oreta; and in the belief that Lt. Oreta had approved the pass, the accused left
Manila at 10:00 p.m. of December 24, 1957 and arrived at 5:00 a.m. of December
25, 1957 in Balaoan; that the MPs fetched him from his house in Balaoan, and
once in Manila, he was brought to Secretary Vargas before whom he denied killing
the child.
The defense further claims that the accused was taken to the MPD H.Q. at noon
of December 26, 1957 and there interrogated continuously, without giving him
lunch; he signed statement Exh. I, admitting ownership of the duffel bag at
about 3:00 p.m. of Dec. 27, 1957; that the police continued the investigation
until night time and was told that he would not be given any food, unless he
admitted the killing; he developed fever and was given 2 cortal tablets; the
interrogators held his ears and neck and pushed his head up and down; he was
threatened with electrocution, if he would not admit the crime, as in fact,
Capt. Lazaro had already ordered one of his men to get a piece of wire.
Explaining the matter of the duffel bag, the defense testified that when the
accused went to Korea with the 2nd B.C.T., he had been issued a duffel bag Exh.
Q, and while in Korea, he was again issued another duffel bag; on both of which
he placed markings and printed his name; that after his return, he was assigned
to the Heavy Mortar Company; but as he was reassigned to another company on
February 1, 1956, accused returned one of the bags to Sgt. Gavino of said
Company (Exhibit 10); that for the duffel bag (Exh. Q, the same as Exh. 5),
which he retained, he. executed a memorandum receipt; that when he past
reassigned to the company, the accused was required to turn in the second duffel
bag (Exh. Q), but as he wanted to keep it as a souvenir, he bought a duffel bag
in Manila and gave the latter to Sgt. Abad.
In his brief appellant assigned 15 errors which converge on four dominant
propositions.
(1) The validity and efficacy of the appellant’s confession;
(2) The
sufficiency of the evidence of record to warrant a conviction;(3) The
classification of the offense committed and the jurisdiction of the trial court
over the subject matter;(4) The correctness of the
penalty.
The appellant’s extra-judicial confession Exhibit I-1, dated December 27,
1957 (supra), vividly reveals the whole story. The defense, however, insists
that Exhibit I-1 was not given and signed voluntarily, alleging that the
appellant was kept in hunger at the MPD for’two days, without food or water, he
was slapped, threatened with electrocution and was promised hospitalization, if
he would only admit authorship of the crime, by the investigating officers. Both
Major Santiago, P.C. who did not take part in the investigation and Capt.
Lazaro, the one who took Exhibit I-1, denied the imputation. Exhibit I-1 was
voluntarily given by the appellant and signed by him after having conferred with
his wife and after having read the same in the presence of Major Santiago. Major
Santiago and Sgt. Sanchez of the army were precisely sent by the Secretary of
National Defense Vargas, to protect the rights of the appellant and to see to it
that they were respected by the MPD. Exhibit I-1, was sworn before Major
Santiago. The appellant could not have been so easily duped into signing Exhibit
I-1 if the contents thereof were not true. The very wife of the appellant even
remarked “Bakit mo ginawa iyan?” The lack of food was not also true. His wife
and his uncle Sgt. Salvador Obaldo, were at hand to give him victuals, if
needed. The appellant and Capt. Lazaro ate the same meal at a nearby canteen,
during the investigation. It is incredible, says the trial judge, “that the
accused who well impressed the court with his military bearing, and a veteran of
the Korean war, trained as he was, to die under all odds, to suffer all kinds of
adversities and inconveniences, to undergo privation and hardships like hunger
and physical exhaustion, would sign a document that would incriminate himself in
the commission of a very serious crime which he said he did not commit, simply
because, as he alleged, he was not given food for 1 day and was threatened with
death by electrocution by his investigator”. Appellant or his wife did not
denounce to anyone, much less to any public authority, the presence of any
irregularity in the taking of Exhibit I-1.
The confession Exhibit I-1, was substantially corroborated by facts other
than the contents thereof. In his confession, appellant states (1) That after
raping the girl, the latter became unconscious and not knowing what to do, he
placed her inside his duffel bag, which he left on the bank of the river; (2)
that the duffel bag contained identification marks, written in white; (3) that
when he heard of the recovery of the duffel bag containing the dead body, as
broadcasted in the radio, he prepared a pass and left hurriedly for the
province. The act of raping is corroborated by the findings of the medico-legal
officer that Marcela was sexually attacked. The fact that a duffel bag and its
contents were found by carpenter Jaime Padilla, corroborated the fact as stated
by appellant, that from the place he had left the duffel bag, the same waa
carried by the water. The duffel bag (Exhibit E), containing the body, was
marked in white paint, with the words: “B. Ubaldo F Co 2nd BCT Peftoc U.S. Tat.
No. 1140203” (Exhibit E-1). The fact that he had this duffel bag, Exhibit E, was
also admitted by him in court. Of course, appellant, tried to explain that he
had two duffel bags issued to him when he went to Korea, which bore his name and
other identifying marks; one of which waa Exhibit Q; that he returned to Sgt.
Gavino one of the bags when he was reassigned on February 1, 1956, to
another company; that upon his reassignment, he yas required to return in
Exhibit Q, but as he wanted to retain it, as a souvenir, he bought a duffel bag
in Manila and gave it to Sgt. Abad on July 19, 1957, in the presence of Sgt.
Labastida, thereby giving us the impression that Exhibit E (the floating coffin
of Marcela), was the one returned on February 1, 1956, iiid he could not have
used it in the perpetration of the crime. Sgt. Abad affirmed that duffel bag
Exh. E, was not returned to him by the appellant, but a different duffel bag.
Sgt. Labastida declared that it was not Exh. E that was returned, but a
different one; that about the middle part of July 1957, he accompanied the
appellant in Manila to buy a duffel bag, as he (appellant) would return the same
to the army, in lieu of the duffel bag (Exhibit E).
We search the record to find out if there was any motive at all why the
witnesses for the prosecution who are all officers of the law enforcing
agencies, should testify in any way they did against appellant. Our efforts were
in vain, and none was given by the defense. The alleged .inconsistencies in the
testimony of two prosecution witnesses, cited by the defense in its brief, are
so insignificant to destroy their credibility.
The defense of alibi is both weak and unconvincing in the face of
appellant’s confession and of facts proven in the case. Assuming that appellant
really had been in the Christmas party, still he could have committed the crime
prior to or after the party. The distance between the place where the party was
held, and the bank of the Pasig River where the crime was committed, was so
short that it could be negotiated within a matter of minutes by walking. It is
specially to be noted that the witnesses presented by the accused to bolster his
defense of alibi could even remember the exact places the appellant had been
every hour of that evening and what he had been doing during the occasion, as if
they had been alerted to watch his movements. And considering the fact that
those witnesses were all soldiers and under the influence of Sgt. Salvador
Obaldo, an uncle of the appellant, their testimony could not but be biased and
unbelievable. Furthermore, there is a strong possibility that the crime was not
committed on December 23, 1957, but on December 22, because the victim
disappeared from the house of Sgt. Alcasar on December 23. Even the appellant
himself, in his confession, was not very definite that he perpetrated the crime
on December 23. And the prosecution has not presented any evidence fixing the
exact hour of the commision of the crime. For someone now to establish hia
whereabouts at a certain period, when there is no showing that the crime was
committed during said period, engenders that impression that he knows the crime
was committed within the said period. The masa of evidence presented by
appellant was concentrated in trying to establish this defense. The circumstance
that the appellant wanted his relatives to fix the ease amicably with the
parents of the deceased, evinced a guilty conscience. In an effort to cast away
suspicion, the appellant insinuated that other persons could have had as much
opportunity to commit the crime as himself, mentioning Sgt. Alcaras with whom
the victim lived as a housegirl and Sgt. Gavino to whom he allegedly turned over
the duffel bag, Exhibit E. With his confession Exhibit I-1, however, the
insinuations did not pass beyond a mere speculation, for he had pointed to
himself as the perpetrator of the offense.
Moreover, the testimony of the appellant should not be believed at all. He
alleged that he left his post at Ft. McKinley with leave on December 24; 1957,
as in fact, according to him, he was given a pass Exhibit J. Sgt. MarQuez,
incharge of recommending passes, was, however, surprised why the dates in the
pass, found in appellant’s possession (Exh. J), were altered by superimposing
handwritten dates over the typewritten dates. Lt. Oreta, officer in charge on
December 24, 1957, was positive that he could not possibly have approved said
pass when appellant was on line of duty from 9:00 a.m. of December 24, 1957, to
9:00 a.m. of December 25, 1957 (Exhibit P). In fact, Lt. Oreta’s signature does
not appear in the pass Exh. J. and he reported the appellant as an AWOL for not
having reported ‘for duty. Admitting the alterations, on Exhibit J,, appellant
explained that he prepared it on December 24, 1957. This cannot be true, because
Exhibit J bears the date of December 26, 1957. If the altered dates were the
true effective dates of appellant’s leave, there was no reason for him to leave
Manila hastily at 10:00 o’clock p.m. on December 24, 1957. If, in an effort to
justify his flight, he had to tamper or falsify documents, then appellant’s
testimony, nay, his alibi cannot be given credence.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in holding that he is guilty of
the alleged complex crime of rape and murder and that it has jurisdiction to try
the case of rape with murder. The prosecution was able to establish the
commission of both offenses. There is evidence that after the carnal assault,
the victim lost consciousness and was in this condition when she was placed
inside the duffel bag. Appellant admitted:—
“* * * Nalibugan ako kung kaya ang batang babae ay aking ginamit duon sa
lupa. Pagkatapos kung magamit ang bata ay nawalan ng malay tao at ako
ay natakot. Ang ginawa ko ay inilagay ko sa loob ng aking dalang ‘duffel bag’ at
iniwan ko sa tabi ng ilog”.
So it was not a complex crime, but two separate crimes were committed for
which the appellant could be convicted. Being separate crimes, and the complaint
for rape not having been signed by the parents, grandparents or guardian of the
deceased, the trial court could not have acquired jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the rape case (Art. 344 Rev. Penal Code; U. S. vs. de La
Sonta, 9 Phil., 22; People vs. Palubao, G. R. No. L-8077, Aug. 31,
1954). Appellant, therefore, cannot be convicted of the crime of rape, but only
for the crime of murder, with the aggravating circumstances of en
despoblado and abuse of superior strength. The penalty for murder should be
imposed in its maximum period which is death and the amount of indemnity should
be increased from P3,000.00 to P6,000.00. As there is no sufficient number of
votes to support the imposition of the death penalty, the same is reduced to
reclusión perpetua. The case of rape is dismissed.
Modified as indicated above, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in
all other respects. With costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, and Dizon, JJ., concur.