THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGARDO MARIÑO Y PARENTO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

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 vs. 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.”

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
vs. 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:

“Tanong (15) Saan galing ang trenta sentimos na ibinili mo ng cigarillo?

Sagot: Binigyan ako ng bente sentimos ni TONY at
dinagdagan ko ng diez sentimos. Matapos ako bumili ng cigarillo sa
isang babae na waitress doon sa Golden Restaurant ay tumuloy na kami sa
Canonigo sa may Roxas High School. Doon sa tapat ng Roxas High School
ay nakatayo lang ho yong MAMA na sinaksak namin. Linapitan namin siya.
Tinutukan ni 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: 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 nabitawan 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 ROELES. Pagdating ko 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 extra-judicial confession
(Exhibit “E”) of Antonio Madlangbayan as evidence against him; and (2)
in admitting his extra-judicial 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 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 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 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 vs. Gonda, 34 Phil. 739).

On the more important question as to whether the extra-judicial
confession of Edgardo Mariño is sufficient to sustain his 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 post­mortem findings,
including the cause of death.

With respect to the claim that the extra-judicial 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 vs. 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., in the result.

Teehankee, J., no part.

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