THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS. VICTOR VILLAR, JR., ALIAS JUN FRUTO AND REYNALDO REPULLOSO Y MONES, ACCUSED.  REYNALDO REPULLOSO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Repulloso

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Reynaldo Repulloso, tried together with his co-accused Victor Villar, Jr., for the crime of robbery with homicide. Repulloso appeals his conviction for the stabbing death of a fourteen-year-old trimobile driver whose earnings and sweater were taken on a July night in Naga City. The case matters for two reasons: it shows how the Supreme Court treats an extrajudicial admission made to a close friend, and it is a clean lesson on the strict proof required before aggravating circumstances may raise a penalty to death.

Procedural History

An information for robbery with homicide was filed against Villar and Repulloso in the City Court of Naga City, and Repulloso waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation. The City Fiscal then filed a second information for robbery with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. After trial, that court rendered a judgment of conviction, sentencing Repulloso to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Domingo Estay in the amount of 2,000 pesos. Repulloso appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the trial court's refusal to believe his testimony and its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

In July 1969, Reynaldo Repulloso and Victor Villar, Jr. worked as baggage boys at the railroad station in Naga City, and Elmer Barcelon, a laborer there, was Repulloso's intimate friend. On the evening of July 20, 1969, Repulloso, Villar, Barcelon, William Agravante, and a companion named Kare had a drinking spree in a store in another part of the city. Repulloso introduced Kare as a new member of his gang and displayed a one-foot-long kitchen knife.

After drinking, the group boarded a trimobile. Barcelon and Agravante jumped off after hearing Villar say that he was going to extort money from the driver. The vehicle proceeded to Lalaguna Street, and near the Anglo-Chinese School the driver was stabbed and robbed of his earnings of five pesos and his Banlon sweater. The victim was Domingo Estay, the fourteen-year-old son of the trimobile's owners, who was driving the vehicle for the first time that night to earn money for his school needs.

In the early morning of July 21st, policemen found Domingo still alive inside the trimobile; he said he had been stabbed by two unidentified persons and divested of his earnings and sweater. He died a few hours later from hemorrhage caused by stab wounds in the chest and abdomen. That same morning, Repulloso told Barcelon that he and Villar had stabbed someone the night before, and that Villar had fled from his house. Villar was never apprehended. Repulloso was arrested on July 22nd. At trial he claimed that Villar alone stabbed Domingo and that he ran home out of fear, admitting that he was telling this version for the first time in court.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding Repulloso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength were sufficiently proven to justify the death penalty.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the constitutional presumption of innocence and the rule that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which governs the review of the evidence against Repulloso:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

This guarantee is why the Court insists that every element of the crime and every aggravating circumstance be established by the prosecution's own evidence, not by conjecture.

The decision also applies the rule on admissions of a party charged with a crime, which the Court states as follows:

The admissions of a party charged with a crime, deliberately made, are always admissible to show his guilt.

This rule is the basis for admitting Repulloso's confession to his friend Barcelon that he and Villar had stabbed the driver.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. Repulloso's own admission that he was with Villar when the latter stabbed the driver, coupled with his confession to Barcelon that he and Villar stabbed the driver, established his guilt to a moral certainty. The Court found Barcelon's testimony credible precisely because the two were close friends: Barcelon's desire to tell the truth was stronger than the ties of friendship. The Court rejected the argument that a discrepancy about the knife mattered, since no knife was presented in evidence and whatever weapon was used was immaterial; what was decisive was the stabbing and Repulloso's admitted involvement as a co-conspirator or co-principal by direct participation. It also rejected the claim that fear of Villar excused his silence, noting that Villar was in hiding and could not retaliate, so Repulloso's failure to tell the police immediately gave his version a fabricated character.

On the second issue, the Court refused to impose the death penalty. On nocturnity, the scene of the crime was well-lighted, so it could not be assumed that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime. On abuse of superior strength, no eyewitness testified as to how the killing was perpetrated, and the Court held that numerical superiority does not always mean abuse of superiority. An aggravating circumstance must be clearly proven, and due to insufficiency of evidence, abuse of superiority could not be appreciated. The Court acknowledged the horror of the crime but held that it was bound by the technical rules of evidence and the rigoristic rules of the penal law.

Doctrine

First, the deliberate admission of a person charged with a crime is admissible to show his guilt, and a confession made to a close friend may be credited where the friend's testimony bears the marks of truth and is not shown to be motivated by ill will. Second, the exact manner of the killing need not be proven where the evidence establishes the killing, the presence of the accused at the scene, and his admitted participation as a co-principal by direct participation. Third, aggravating circumstances must be clearly proven; nighttime is not appreciated where the place was well-lighted, and abuse of superior strength is not appreciated where no eyewitness testified to how the victim was subdued, because numerical superiority does not always mean abuse of superiority. Fourth, the death penalty cannot rest on a deficient showing of aggravating circumstances, however atrocious the crime.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, modifying only the indemnity by increasing it to twelve thousand pesos, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

Memorize the line that numerical superiority does not always mean abuse of superiority, and that an aggravating circumstance must be clearly proven. Examiners use this case to test the strict proof required for aggravating circumstances and the admissibility of a deliberate admission of guilt made to a trusted friend.