G.R. No. L-25989. September 30, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARMINGOL HANASAN Y NUÑEZ ALIAS JOSE N. LITERAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PER CURIAM:
This is an automatic review of criminal case 80837 of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII.
It was sometime in the middle part of 1964 that Armingol Hanasan y Nuñez met Guillermo Literal. The relations between the two thereafter
became so close that Literal went to live with Hanasan
in January 1965 in the latter’s house at Manga
Avenue, Sta. Mesa, Manila, where he worked as a helper in the latter’s business
of buying and selling appliances. In
time Hanasan succeeded in prevailing upon Literal to
insure himself for P10,000 with the Philippine American Life Insurance Company,
making Hanasan – who then assumed the name Jose N.
Literal and represented himself as the younger brother of Guillermo Literal –
the principal beneficiary thereof. On March 5, 1965 the corresponding
application was accomplished and thumbmarked by
Guillermo Literal who was illiterate.[1]
The life insurance policy was approved and issued that same day, March 5. Hanasan thereafter
waited for the opportune time to poison Guillermo Literal with arsenic. The opportunity presented itself on March 25, 1965. His own narration of the events that
transpired on March 25 and thereafter, contained in his sworn extrajudicial
confession given to the National Bureau of Investigation on December 8, 1965, is as follows:
“Q: How did you give the arsenic poison?
“A: Early that day sir, GUILLERMO went to Santa
Mesa market and bought around ten (10) ‘Galungong‘
fish and fruits. He made the galungong into ‘paksiw.’ This
time my mind was made up that I will poison him (GUILLERMO) already. Because I did not want REBECCA to take the
poison accidentally, I asked her to go to our neighbors and play there. When our dinner was ready, the table was set
already, i.e., the rice and ‘paksiw na galungong‘ were already on the
table I poured the arsenic solution on his plate of rice and also on the paksiw. I told
GUILLERMO that I did not like or feel like eating galungong
that day and I only took fried eggs.
“Q: How were you able to pour the arsenic solution
on the plate of GUILLERMO and on the paksiw without
his seeing you?
“A: When I asked him to get water to drink, he
stood and when his back was turned I poured the solution on his plate and on
the galungong.
“Q: Did you see if GUILLERMO consumed his rice and
the ‘paksiw na galungong’?
“A: About three-fourths (3/4) of his plate of
rice and around six (6) of the galungong sir.
“Q: How about the sauce of the paksiw?
“A: He drank part of it sir.
“Q: How long did it take before the effects of
arsenic poison showed on GUILLERMO?
“A: After we finished eating sir, it must be more
than an hour when he started vomitting, he complained
of dizziness and after a little later sir he started having loose bowels sir.
“Q: What did you do with the remainder of the ‘paksiw na galungong‘?
“A: I threw it away sir, including the rice left
in GUILLERMO’s plate.
“Q: What did you do when GUILLERMO started showing
signs of the effect of arsenic poisoning?
“A: Nothing sir, I just watched him and when he
asked for hot water in a bottle to be placed over his stomach I gave it to him.
“Q. Did you not bring him immediately to a doctor
or to a hospital?
“A: I am not sure of the date and time sir. But I think I brought him (GUILLERMO) to a
doctor the same afternoon March 25,
1965.
“Q: Are you sure it was on the 25th of March that
you brought GUILLERMO to see a doctor?
“A: I am not sure of the dates anymore sir, but I
remember bringing him to a doctor sir.
“Q: From the time you gave the poison, i.e.,
lunchtime March 25, 1965,
up to the time you brought GUILLERMO to a doctor, what have you done to alleviate
his sickness or sufferings?
“A: Nothing sir.
When GUILLERMO asked me to heat water for him to take a bath and I
did. He asked me for medicine but I told
him there was none. He asked me to get
him a doctor and I went to Dra. LIGAYA C. SANTOS but
she was not home at that time as I was informed she was in school.
“Q. Did you ever bring GUILLERMO to a doctor?
“A: I brought him later that afternoon to the
house of Dra. LIGAYA SANTOS.
“Q: Now, tell us, when for the first time did you
bring GUILLERMO to Dra. SANTOS?
“A: Late in the afternoon of March 25, 1965 sir.
“Q: What did you tell Dra.
SANTOS when you accompanied
GUILLERMO there?
“A: I
told her that he has been having loose bowel movements after taking those ‘galungong‘ fish sir.
“Q. Did you not inform Dra.
SANTOS about the arsenic solution
you poured in the food of GUILLERMO?
“A: No sir.
“Q: What medicine was given by Dra.
SANTOS?
“A: She prescribed some tablets sir which I
bought at the drugstore and gave to GUILLERMO to take.
“Q. Did you give GUILLERMO a second dose of the
arsenic solution?
“A: No more sir, I just gave him that one dose on
his rice and viand that lunchtime of March
25, 1965.
“Q: After giving GUILLERMO those tablets
prescribed by Dra. SANTOS,
did his condition improve, i.e., did his vomitting
and loose bowel movements stop?
“A. No sir, it continued.
“Q:
Did you bring him again to the doctor when GUILLERMO’s
vomitting and loose bowel movements persisted?
“A: No more sir.
“Q: Did you not bring GUILLERMO to the hospital when
his condition was getting worse?
“A: No sir, because GUILLERMO said the medicine
is just enough and he will just finish it and see the outcome.
“Q: Was GUILLERMO able to consume all the medicine
prescribed by Dra. SANTOS?
“A: No sir because he died at about 4:00 or 5:00
in the morning of March 27, 1965.”
On December 10, 1965
Hanasan was charged with murder before the Court of
First Instance of Manila, committed, in the language of the information, as
follows:
“That on or about the 25th day of March, 1965, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to kill, treachery and evident
premeditation, in consideration of a prize and with cruelty, by deliberately
and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, with grave abuse of confidence,
employing craft or fraud and by means of poison, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously administer and/or
give arsenic solution mixed with rice and ‘paksiw na galunggong‘ to one Guillermo
Literal, thereby inflicting upon the said Guillermo Literal internal physical
injuries which were the direct and immediate cause of his death immediately
thereafter.”
Upon arraignment, the accused, duly assisted by counsel de
parte, voluntarily pleaded guilty to
the abovequoted indictment. Despite this voluntary plea of guilty, the
trial court nevertheless received evidence relative to the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances attendant in the commission of the crime. The trial court, thereafter rendered judgment
finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder by means of
poison, with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse
of confidence, and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, and
consequently sentenced him to the extreme penalty of death, with the
accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in
the amount of P10,000 and to pay the costs.
The automatic elevation of this case to us for review is pursuant
to section 9 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
The appellant poses two issues, formulated by him as follows:
“The lower court erred in finding that
Guillermo Literal died from arsenic poisoning; and
“The lower court erred in discounting
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and appreciating only the
plea of guilty, thereby failing to offset the two aggravating circumstances of
evident premeditation and abuse’ of confidence.”
1. Upon the first issue, the proof of record is indubitable that
the effective cause of the victim’s death was arsenic poisoning. In his statement, exhibit A, given under oath
to the NBI, the appellant admitted that he poured arsenic solution on the rice
and paksiw na
galunggong that the deceased ate for lunch on
March 25, 1965; that the deceased consumed about three-fourths of the poisoned
food; and that after an hour, the deceased complained of nausea and then vomitted and suffered from loose bowels. This is part of his narration:
“Q: Will you explain to us now why arsenic was
found in the remains of GUILLERMO?
“A: Because sir, two days before GUILLERMO died I
mixed arsenic in the food of GUILLERMO.
“Q: What food?
“A: His rice sir and the ‘paksiw
na galungong.’
“Q: When did you give arsenic to GUILLERMO?
“A: Lunchtime sir of March 25, 1965.
“Q: Where?
“A: In the dining room of our house there at 682
Manga Avenue, Sta. Mesa,
Manila.”
During the trial, the appellant, through counsel, affirmed his
extrajudicial confession, exh. A, thus:
“A
TTY. RAZON:
“Your Honor. Whatever it is in
the confession, we already admitted that.”
The appellant now claims that what he poured on the rice and fish
of Guillermo Literal on March 25, 1965 was mere water, quoting that part of
his extrajudicial confession which states that “It was the water from this
bottle that I poured on the plate of rice of Guillermo and on the ‘paksiw na galungong‘
that lunchtime of March 25, 1965.” But the appellant conveniently omitted
to mention his admission that he added lye to make the arsenic more soluble
and the resulting solution more potent.
Thus he stated:
“Q: We are showing you this bottle, a 200 cc bottle
with the cover marked ‘Lady’s Choice,’ half filled with water and about 1/5 of
white precipitation. Have you seen this
bottle before?
“A: That is the bottle of arsenic sir. The white substance on the buttom [sic] sir is the arsenic and the liquid is
water. It was the water from this bottle
that I poured on the plate of rice of GUILLERMO and on the ‘paksiw
na galungong‘ that
lunchtime of March 25, 1965.
“Q: Do you mean to tell us that the liquid in
this bottle is water only?
“A: No sir, I
added a little quantity to [sic] LYE there sir to make the
arsenic more soluble and the solution more potent.” (emphasis supplied)
Dr. Lorenzo A. Sunico of the NBI, whose
competence as a toxicologist was admitted by the appellant,[2]
testified that arsenic oxide is soluble in lye,[3] a
strongly alkaline substance used in cleaning and in making soap.[4]
That the cause of death of the victim was arsenic poisoning was
confirmed by the toxicology report[5]
of said Dr. Sunico which recites that the right
pelvic bone taken as a specimen from the exhumed remains of the deceased was
found positive for traces of arsenic, In his extrajudicial confession, the
appellant gave his express conformity to the foregoing findings:
“Q: Are you aware that the NBI exhumed the remains
of GUILLERMO?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Do you know the reason why?
“A. For laboratory examination sir to determine
the presence of poison sir.
“Q: We are showing you this document – Toxicology
Report No. T-65-826, with the following FINDINGS: ‘spectrographic examination of the right
pelvic bone after ashing gave POSITIVE RESULT for
traces of ARSENIC.’ This is the result of the general toxicological examination
of the remains of GUILLERMO LITERAL. Do
you believe this toxicological report which you just read?
“A: Yes, sir, I do.
“Q: And you are also aware that the specimens
mentioned in this report were taken from the remains of the late GUILLERMO whom
you claimed and insured as your brother?
“A: Yes, sir.”
The mention of “gastro-enteritis” in the death
certificate[6]
as the cause of death cannot avail the accused any as the certificate itself
recites that the informant on the matters stated therein was no other than the
appellant himself. He was not expected
to, as in fact he did not, disclose that the victim died of arsenic poisoning
administered by him. Instead he reported
that the deceased died from natural causes.
Indeed, the appellant misled the physician who treated the victim as to
the real cause of the latter’s ailment by informing her that the deceased was
suffering merely from loose bowel movement,[7]
and did not inform her that he had administered arsenic solution to the said
deceased.[8]
2. Upon the second issue, we agree with the court a quo
that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot legally be
credited in favor of the appellant.
So that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may properly
be appreciated in favor of an accused, the following requisites must concur:
(a) the offender had not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered
himself to a person in authority or to an agent of a person in authority; and
(c) the surrender was voluntary.[9]
In his extrajudicial confession, exhibit A, the contents of which he
unequivocally affirmed at the trial, the appellant stated:
“Q: These information you gave us now is contrary
to your denials in your statement of November 18 and 21, 1965 where you denied
poisoning GUILLERMO for the P10,000.00 insurance. What made you give this confession to us
now?
“A: Last night when I was laying [sic]
wide awake at the NBI cell, I came to realize that it would be futile for me to
hide these things from the NBI. Earlier,
I attempted to escape but I was not able to go far and I was recaptured. Sir, thinking about all these things I
realize that the only way I can clear my conscience is to tell you everything
and all the wrong deeds I have done in the past. As a matter of fact sir, I will tell you now
everything about the death of my niece VIVENCIA HANASAN and that girl ZOSIMA
BALLENTOS.
“Q: What is this that you want to tell us about
VIVENCIA HANASAN and ZOSIMA BALLENTOS?
“A: About their deaths sir, which is almost
similar to the death of REBECCA HERNANDO and GUILLERMO (LITERAL) of which I am
also responsible.” (underscoring supplied)
At the hearing for the reception of evidence to prove aggravating
and mitigating circumstances, the appellant testified:
“Q: Is it not a fact on December 6 you escaped
the NBI custody that is why you gave the statement on December 8, 1965?
“A: I do not exactly remember the date but
that is true.” (underscoring supplied)
It is crystal clear then that the appellant did not surrender
voluntarily to a person in authority or to an agent of a person in
authority. While he was being
investigated under NBI custody regarding the death of one Rebecca Hanasan, he denied in statements he issued on November 13
and 21, 1965 that he poisoned Guillermo Literal. He escaped from NBI custody sometime during
the first week of December but was immediately recaptured. It was then while under NBI custody again
that, on December 8, 1965,
he confessed to sole responsibility for the death of Guillermo Literal. Voluntary surrender was no longer possible as
he was already in custody. There is thus
no voluntary surrender to speak of since the appellant was in point of fact
arrested.[10]
3. The court a quo appreciated the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of confidence against the
appellant. Indeed, a searching study of
the record compels our concurrence in the court’s view.
It was sometime in January 1965 that the thought of insuring the
life of Guillermo Literal, with himself as the primary beneficiary thereof,
first entered his mind. This thought was
translated into a reality on March 5,
1965 when the deceased (Guillermo) was insured by the Philippine
American Life Insurance Company for P10,000, through the appellant’s initiative
and efforts. Then he waited for the
opportunity to poison the insured so that he could collect the amount of the
insurance policy. This opportunity came
on March 25, 1965.
“Q: When did you transfer to Manga Avenue?
“A: Around January 1965 sir. I am not sure of the exact date sir.
“Q: When you transferred to 682
Manga Ave., did
GUILLERMO join you immediately?
“A: No sir, after about two (2) weeks later. When for the first time did you think of
insuring GUILLERMO?
“A: After he has stayed with me for about two (2)
weeks.
“Q: Whose idea was it to have GUILLERMO insured?
“A: He was present when one (1) underwriter came
to the house and talked about insurance and he (GUILLERMO) told me what was
this (insurance) all about and I explained to him the benefits of insurance
until he was convinced to get one for himself.
* * *
“Q: Before this insurance underwriter came to your
house, did you have any other agreement with GUILLERMO concerning your
identities?
“A: Yes sir.
We agreed that his name will be GUILLERMO LITERAL who is my elder brother
and that I am JOSE N. LITERAL.
“Q: Why did you change your identities?
“A: Because sir, when I was still in Sta. Ana, I
was arrested by MPD men because of my murder case in Masbate where I used the name MANUEL HANASAN
and also I have a case in Davao
City in which I am charged under my
true name ARMINGOL HANASAN. We agreed to
use the name LITERAL so that we will not be detected. Because sir I have already posted my bail
bond in my case in Masbate
that is why I was released but I did not appear in court during the hearing of
the case and I know that there will be a warrant for my arrest.
“Q:
Now, going back to this insurance, what happened after your talk with BENJAMIN
VERINA, the underwriter?
“A: We agreed that GUILLERMO will insure himself
with the PhilAmLife for P10,000.00 for a Five year
Convertible Non-Participating insurance.”
* * *
“Q: Tell us, why did you poison GUILLERMO?
“A: For the money sir. I needed money badly and this was the reason
I convinced him to insure himself for P10,000.00 making myself his
beneficiary. When the policy was
approved I waited for the right opportunity to poison him and March 25, 1965 was it sir.”
Obviously the appellant had nurtured, deliberated on, and persisted
in, his evil plan to kill the deceased – “for the money,” to quote
his own words – from the time he broached the subject of life insurance to the
latter sometime in January 1965, until he finally poisoned him on March 25,
1965. Undeniably present here is that
period of time sufficient in a judicial sense to afford full opportunity for
meditation and reflection and long enough to allow the appellant’s conscience
to overcome the determination of his will if he had desired to harken to its warnings.[11]
Inescapable are the fact that the crime was spawned by cold-blooded scheming,
and the tenacious persistence of the appellant in moving forward to its
conclusion the accomplishment of the felony.[12]
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence must likewise
be appreciated in this case. The
appellant befriended Guillermo Literal, and later enticed him to live in his
(appellant’s) house and help in his buy and sell business as well as in the
household chores. By this apparently
charitable act of taking a jobless illiterate man into his household and
providing him with the necessities of life, the appellant must assuredly have
gained the confidence and trust of the deceased who clearly regarded him as
benefactor and protector. It was this
confidence which enabled the shrewd appellant to deceive the deceased into
signing his own death warrant – i.e., taking a life insurance policy for
P10,000 and making the appellant the primary beneficiary. It was also this confidence which led the
unsuspecting victim to stand up and turn his back in order to comply with the
appellant’s command to get drinking water, thus affording the appellant the
chance to pour the arsenic solution on the deceased’s meal of rice and ‘paksiw na galunggong.’”
The victim’s confidence and trust in the appellant facilitated the commission
of the crime, the latter taking advantage of the victim’s belief that he would
not abuse the confidence reposed in him.[13]
Viewing the record in its entirety, we see no reason to disturb
the lower court’s finding that the appellant committed the crime of murder by
means of poison on the person of Guillermo Literal, attended by the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of confidence, only one of
which is offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty.
The civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the deceased must be
increased to P12,000.[14]
ACCORDINGLY, with the modification that the indemnity to
be paid by the appellant to the heirs of Guillermo Literal is increased to
P12,000.00, the judgment a quo is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.
Concepcion, Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, and
Teehankee, JJ., concur.
Reyes, JBL, J., on official
leave.
Barredo, J., did not take part.
[1] Exhibit
A, pp. 1, 2, 4 and 8, Record, pp. 17-24.
[2]
p. 8, tsn., January
11, 1966.
[3]
p. 9, tsn., Id.
[4]
Webster’s New World Dictionary, College Edition, p. 876.
[5] Exh. B, Record, p. 28.
[6]
Exhibit E, Record, p. 30.
[7]
Testimony of Dra. Ligaya T.
Santos, p. 11, tsn., Id.
[8]
Testimony of the appellant, p. 15, tsn., Id.
[9]
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 1965 ed., vol. 1, pp. 271-272.
[10]
People vs. Conwi, 71 Phil. 595.
[11]
People vs. Sarmiento, L-19146, May 31, 1963; People vs. Yturriaga, 86 Phil. 534; U.S.
vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 531.
[12]
People vs. Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473; People vs. Carillo,
77 Phil. 572.
[13]
People vs. Luchico,. 49 Phil. 689; Mariano vs.
People, 68 Phil. 724.
[14]
People vs. Pantoja, L-18793, October 11, 1968, 25 SCRA 469, 473.