THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LAURENCIO LASPARDAS, ACCUSED WHOSE DEATH SENTENCE IS UNDER REVIEW.

This is a review en consulta
of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Lanao
del Sur, convicting Laurencio
Laspardas of rape with homicide, sentencing him to
death and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victims, the sisters Elizabeth
Arriesgado and Josephine Arriesgado, the sum of twenty-four thousand pesos as
indemnity (Criminal Case No. 451).

According to the record, a Constabulary sergeant filed on December 17, 1976 against Laurencio Laspardas in the
municipal court of Wao, Lanao
del Sur a complaint for
double murder.  It was alleged therein that
on December 1, 1976 in Sitio San Roque, Barrio Pagalongan, Wao, Laspardas, with treachery and premeditation, inflicted
twelve wounds upon Elizabeth Arriesgado and Josephine
Arriesgado, thereby causing their death.  The certificates of death show that the two
victims were twelve and eight years old.

Listed as witnesses in the complaint were Bibiana Arriesgado, Vicente Magdaloyo, Armando Ortanillas and
Solomon Manzano.

Attached to the record are (1) photographs of the bodies of the
victims, (2) a sketch of the place where their bodies were found and (3) two
death certificates.

Benjamin Catalan, the barrio captain, in his verified report
dated December 3, 1976, stated that, according to his investigation, Laspardas, alias Laurel, was the last person who saw the
two victims, that the crimes were committed in the evening of December 1, that
one of the victims was raped, that the skirt of Elizabeth was raised above her
waist, the zipper of her short pants was open and torn and her legs were spread
apart, that there was blood on her genitals and that Laspardas
fled from the barrio.

Bibiana Tarroza
Arriesgado in her sworn statement of December 2, 1976 declared that Laspardas was a guest at her house and that on the day of
the killing and rape she entrusted to him her children when she left her house.

Vicente Magdaloyo, a
twenty-six-year-old farmer residing at Sitio San Roque, where the crimes were committed, declared in his
sworn statement of December 3, 1976 that the killing and rape were perpetrated
in the victims’ house and that at two o’clock in the morning of December 2,
1976 (or less than twenty-four hours after the unusual incident) Laspardas appeared in his house and asked for payment of
the amount which Magdaloyo owed him.

Armando Ortanillas, a twenty-two-year-old
farmer and a neighbor of the victims, declared in his sworn statement of December 3, 1976 that Laspardas killed the Arriesgado
sisters.  He saw Laspardas
with the victims in the afternoon of December
1, 1976.

The municipal court issued a warrant for the arrest of Laspardas.  He was
arrested at Cabadbaran, Agusan
on Decem­ber 10, 1976.

A Constabulary sergeant took the extrajudicial confession of Laspardas which was sworn to before the municipal judge of Wao. Laspardas was interrogated
in the Cebuano dialect.  The questions and answers as translated into
English, read as follows:

“Preliminary:  Mr. Laurencio Laspardas, you are being informed that you are under
investigation for your involvement in the commission of an offense.  You are reminded that under our New
Constitution, you have the right to remain silent and be entitled to the
assistance of a counsel of your own choice. 
Is this clearly understood by you? – Answer:  Yes.

Q:   Having
been informed of your right under the New Constitution to remain silent, do you
wish to proceed with this investigation? – A: 
Yes.

Q:   Do
you also wish to be assisted by a counsel of your own choice? – A:  I do not need the assistance of a counsel.

Q:   You
are also reminded that whatever statement you will give might be used against
you.  Is this clearly understood by you?
– A:  Yes.

Q:   Are
you ready to give a free and voluntary state­ment? – A:  Yes.

Q:   Please
state your name and other personal circum­stances? – A:  Mr. Laurencio Laspardas y Masbad, 41 years old,
single, farmer by occupation, native of Tubigon, Bohol and presently residing at Sitio
San Roque, Pagalongan, Wao, Lanao del Sur.

Q:   Please
state the name of the grade school other school you have attended? – A:  None sir.

Q:   Why
are you here now at the office of the investigation section 447th PC Company? –
A:  Because I was arrested by the Cabadbaran Police Force last December 10, 1976 at Cabadbaran,
Agusan Norte, and brought to this Camp.

Q:   Why
is it that you were arrested? – A:  Because
I killed the two daughters of Mr. Arriesgado and
raped the elder daughter.

Q:  
Will you relate to the investigator the circumstances surrounding the
circumstances? – A:  I did it sir
because, I was already mad and because the parents of the victims are not
paying their accounts to me and at that time if the mother of the victim was
around I might kill her also but because her children were only around I
killed them.  Another thing sir, was on that said day, December 1, 1976 at about four
o’clock in the after­noon I planned already to rape the elder
daughter (Elizabeth) and to kill (Josephine) the younger.

Q:   What
weapons did you use in killing the victims? – A:  I used a (Tabas)
locally known as (sundang) knife.

Q:   Did
(were) you able to penetrate your penis to the vagina of the victim
(Elizabeth)? – A:  I (was) able to enter
my penis just to the lips of the vagina and I had felt also satis­faction.

Q:   Did
(was) Elizabeth able to resist
while you were entering your penis to her vagina? – A:  She did not able, sir, because she was
already dying due to her wounds in the breast. 
She was able to move her hips while (I was) inserting my penis.

Q:   When
and where did you do it? – A:  At the
house of Mr. Arriesgado in Sitio
San Roque, Pagalongan, Wao, Lanao del Sur at about 2:00 o’clock in the evening or dawn of
December 2, 1976 or 12:00 o’clock in the evening of December 1, 1976.

Q:   Showing
to you the (Tabas) Bolo and (sundang) knife, are these the weapons you used in
killing those children? – A.  Yes.

Q:   The
investigator has nothing more to ask x x x.  Do you have
anything to ask do you have anything more to say? – A:  No more.

Are you willing to sign
this statement of yours without being coerced on and promise of any rewards in
the future and affirm under oath to the truthfulness of same? – A:  Yes, sir.

Affiant further sayeth none.

(Thumbmark)

LAURENCIO LASPARDAS y
MASBAD

– Affiant – “

In view of Laspardas‘ admission in his
confession that he raped Elizabeth,
the complaint was amended so as to add rape to the charge of double
murder.  Upon arraignment in the municipal
court, Laspardas pleaded guilty.  The case was elevated to the Court of First
Instance where a fiscal filed an information for those
offenses aggravated by treachery, evident premeditation and dwelling.

Upon arraignment in the Court of First Instance, Laspardas, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, again pleaded guilty after the information
was translated to him in the Cebuano dialect which he
speaks.  He answered in the affirmative
when the trial judge asked him if he understood the charge.  His counsel manifested that he explained to
the accused the law involved.  The
accused admitted to his counsel that he had executed an extra­judicial
confession.

After the arraignment, Laspardas was
placed on the witness stand.  He
testified that the contents of his confession were explained to him in the Cebuano dialect; that he affixed his thumbmark
thereto and that it was true, as stated in his confession, that he killed the
two girls because he was mad at their parents; that his organ touched the lips
(labia) of the vagina of Elizabeth Arriesgado who was
still alive, when he tried to have sexual intercourse with her, and that he
used his bolo in wounding the two victims.

The testimony of Laspardas, a judicial
confession elicited without cajolery or duress, is conclusive evidence as to
his guilt.  The thirty-eight-year-old
accused declared that he worked for two years as a farmhand of the Arriesgado spouses, plowing their farm and harvesting their
corn.  Because he had not been paid his
accumulated wages amounting to more than four hundred sixty pesos, he was very
angry with the said spouses.

When on December 1, 1976
the said spouses left the house and he found himself alone with their two daughters,
he conceived the idea of killing them. 
He perpetrated the killing in the evening of that day.  He could not state the exact time because he
had no watch.

As the elder daughter, Elizabeth, was dying, he was sexually aroused and he had carnal
intercourse with her.  About half an inch
of his penis penetrated her vagina.

Counsel de oficio,
assigned to defend the accused in this Court, contends that the accused made an
improvident plea of guilty.  He invokes
the ruling that in a capital offense, specially where the accused has little or
no education, the proper and prudent course to follow is to take such evidence
as is available and necessary in support of the material allegations of the information,
including the aggravating circumstances therein enu­merated, not only for the
satisfaction of the trial judge himself but also to aid this Court in
determining whether the accused really and truly understood the consequences of
his plea (People vs. Bulalake, 106 Phil. 767).

Counsel de oficio adverts
to the trial court’s failure to require the prosecution to present
evidence.  The record itself shows why
the trial court did not do so.  It
discloses that there is not a scintilla of doubt as to the guilt of the
accused.  In such a situation, the trial
court does not abuse its discretion in not re­quiring the prosecution to
present its evidence (People vs. Duaban, L-31912,
August 24, 1979).

“Cuando un acusado
admite libre y voluntariamente su delito con plena conocimiento de la indole exacta
del mismo, su admision, o mejor dicho, su confesion,
hecha en dichas circunstancias, es suficiente para justificar la imposicion de la pena que para
dicho delito hay prescrita por la ley.

“Es discrecional
en los juzgados permitir la presentacion de pruebas adicionales despues que el acusado haya confesado
formalmente su delito.

“Tan solo es prudente
y necesario tal vez, requerir la presentacion de otras pruebas ademas de las que el mismo
acusado suministra rnediante su confesion
libre y voluntaria, cuando hay un asomo de duda de que al hacerla, no la hace estando bien impuesto
de los verdaderos hechos, y de las consequencias de su acto” (People vs. Palupe, 69
Phil. 703, 705).

Another contention of counsel de oficio
is that the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape with homicide
although in the information three distinct offenses, namely, rape and two murders, were charged. 
The fiscal characterized them as “double murder with
rape”.  He alleged in the indict­ment
that the rape was committed on the occasion of the murders.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, imposes the
death penalty “when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide
is committed”.  The instant case
presents a novel, reverse situation (analogous to rape accompanying a robbery) where
the rape was committed on the occasion of the murder, that is to say, when the
female victim of a murderous assault was at death’s door, she was raped.

Rape with homicide was committed (1) where the rapist, who was
suffering from gonorrhea, infected the victim and, as a result of the
infection, she died of peritonitis (People vs. Acosta, 60 Phil. 158); (2) where
the accused dragged a woman to a cane-field, struck her, rendered her
unconscious, had sexual intercourse with her and then killed her thereafter
(People vs. Lopez, 107 Phil. 1039; People vs. Ramos, L-34355, July 30, 1979)
and (3) where the accused had sexual intercourse with a girl below twelve years
of age and then strangled her (People vs. Yu, 110 Phil. 793; People vs.
Francisco, L-37418, September 28, 1979; People vs. Garcia, L-44364, April 27,
1979).

Those decided cases are different from the instant case.  Since the victim herein was already at the threshhold of death when she was ravished, that bestiality
may be regarded either as a form of ignominy causing disgrace or as a
form of cruelty which aggravated the murder because it was unnecessary
to the commission thereof and was a manifest outrage on the victim’s person
(Arts. 14[17 and 21] and 248 [6], Revised Penal Code.  See People vs. Ganal,
85 Phil. 743, People vs. Bacsa, 104 Phil. 136 and
People vs. Cayeta, 101 Phil. 1258, where the rape was
treated as an aggra­vating circumstance in robbery with homicide).

We agree with counsel de oficio
that the special complex crime of rape with homicide was not committed in this
case and that two separate murders were perpetrated.  The murders were qualified by treachery and
aggravated by evident premeditation and abuse of confidence, two circumstances
which are deducible from the testimony of the accused.

Premeditation was evident because there was a sufficient interval
of time between the planning of the murders and the execution thereof to allow
the conscience of the accused to overcome the resolution of his will had he
desired to hearken to its warnings.

There was abuse of confidence because, according to the accused,
he had stayed for two years with the family of his two young and trusting
victims who in their immaturity and innocence never had an
inkling that he had homicidal intentions towards them.  Presumably, they looked upon him as their
protector and guardian in their parents’ absence and not as their aggressor and
assassin.

Dwelling is not aggravating because the house of the victims was
also the residence of the accused (U. S.
vs. Rodriguez, 9 Phil. 136, 139-140; U. S.
vs. Destrito and De Ocampo,
23 Phil. 28, 33).

The contention of counsel de oficio
that passion and obfuscation and lack of instruction should be taken into
account cannot be sustained.  The accused
acted in a spirit of lawlessness.  His
supposed passion and obfuscation were not generated by lawful sentiments.

Lack of instruction is not mitigating because the illiterate
accused, as a Christian, cannot possibly be ignorant of the fifth commandment
(you shall not kill) or that it is contrary to natural law to commit murder
(People vs. Mutya, 106 Phil. 1161, per Paras, C. J.; U. S. vs. Balaba,
37 Phil. 260, 270).

It results that the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty,
the only extenuating circumstance that can be appreciated in his favor, can
offset only one of the two aggravating circumstances.  As to the killing of Elizabeth,
there is the additional aggravating circumstance of ignominy or cruelty.  Hence, two death penalties should be imposed
on the accused (Arts. 64[1 and 4] and 248, Revised Penal Code).

The two murders were specifically alleged in the information.  The accused cannot complain that he was not
duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Although his extrajudicial confession was used as a basis by the
trial court in interrogating him, nevertheless, it was not formally presented
in evidence.  Hence, there is no issue as
to its admissibility or as to its sufficiency under section 20, Article IV of
the Constitution or in the light of the procedural safeguards spelled out in
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 478, 16 L. ed. 2nd 694.

Even without his extrajudicial confession, his plea of guilty and
testimony establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 5, Rule 118, and
sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court).  The corpus
delicti, or the fact of the commission of the
two murders, is indubitably shown in the record.  By his plea of guilty, he himself supplied
the necessary proof as to his culpability.

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed with the
modification that the accused is found guilty of two separate murders and is
sentenced to two death penalties.  Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Barredo,
Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion,
Jr., Santos, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, Fernandez, and Abad Santos, JJ., in the result.

Fernando, C.J., took no part.