G.R. No. L-24484. May 28, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMON NARCISO Y CONTRERAS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. RUFINO PEÑA Y GUEVARRA, DEFENDANT ON REVIEW.
ANGELES, J.:
This is an automatic review of Criminal Case No. 5871 of the
Court of First Instance of Manila entitled “People of the Philippines
versus Ramon Narciso y Contreras, Elias Gloria y
Bernardino, Francisco Celso y Garcia and Rufino Peña y Guevarra“,
pursuant to section 9, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court (sec. 9, Rule 118 of the
old Rules), one of the accused therein, Rufino Peña y Guevarra, having been
sentenced by the trial court to the supreme penalty of “Death”.
The above-named accused were prosecuted
in the court a quo for the crime of murder, the pertinent
information for which, filed on July 12, 1961, alleged as follows:
“That on or about the 10th day of July, 1961, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being all detained prisoners, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, with
evident premeditation and treachery, and with the use of superior strength,
attack, assault and hit with pieces of wood Roberto Monreal
y Calbario, another detained prisoner, several times
on different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon said Roberto Monreal y Calbario mortal
physical injuries which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.
“Contrary to law.”
All the said accused pleaded “not guilty” to the charge
when they were arraigned on July 17,
1961. Thereafter, the
prosecution presented its evidence consisting of the testimonies of: (a) Dr. Mariano B. Lima, Chief of the
Medico-Legal Section, MPD, (b) Bernardo Villalon, a
prisoner serving sentence for robbery in the City Jail of Manila; (c) Pat. Crispin
Umaging, MPD; (d) Servillano
N. David, Chemical Analyst, MPD; (e) Det. Cpl. Carlos
Martin, Jr., MPD; (f) Det. Sgt. Herminio
Clemente, MPD; and (g) Pat. Avelino
Leaño, MPD.
Various exhibits, identified and marked during the trial, were also
offered in evidence, among them: Exh. B, the necropsy report; Exh. H-1, a piece of wood stained with blood; Exh. I, a blanket with human blood
stains; Exh. J, the extrajudicial
statement of accused Elias Gloria; Exh. K, the extra-judicial statement of accused Rufino
Peña; Exh. L, the extra-judicial statement of accused Ramon Narciso; Exh. M, the extra-judicial statement of accused Francisco Celso; and Exh. N, the extra-judicial statement of prisoner Bernardo Villalon, the eyewitness to the killing of the victim
inside Cell 2-A of the city jail who testified for the People. All the aforesaid extra-judicial statements
were objected to by the defense as “hearsay evidence”, but were,
nevertheless, admitted by the trial court.
Soon after the prosecution rested its case, accused Ramon Narciso filed a Motion to Dismiss dated June 1, 1964,
followed by accused Francisco Celso who also
submitted his own Motion To Dismiss dated June 4,
1964. In an order dated August 7, 1964,
the trial court granted the motion of Francisco Celso
as against whom the case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, but the
motion to dismiss filed by Ramon Narciso was denied
in the same order. The accused Elias
Gloria subsequently escaped from the New Bilibid
Prisons in Muntinlupa and has since then remained at
large; so, the case as against him had to be suspended. Trial continued and evidence was presented
for the defense of Rufino Peña
and Ramon Narciso; but the latter, on February 10,
1965, died of “asphyxial cardio-respiratory
failure” (bangungot), and the case was likewise
dismissed as against him. The case was,
therefore, submitted for decision on February
16, 1965, as against the only remaining accused, Rufino Peña, who, as earlier
stated, now stands convicted of the crime of murder.
Our own examination of the record of the case revealed the
circumstances surrounding the killing of Roberto Monreal
inside Cell 2-A, City Jail of Manila an July 10, 1961, as testified to by the
lone eyewitness, Bernardo Villalon, who was serving
sentence in the same cell of the said jail at the time. The gist of his testimony follows, to wit:
About an hour or so before midnight
in the evening of July 10, 1961,
Roberto Monreal was lying on his belly on a mat on the
cement float of Cell 2-A, City Jail of Manila.
The count of prisoners inside had just been taken. In that cell, measuring about 7 by 15 meters,
were some 80 inmates. The cots were not
enough for them and some had to sleep on mats on the floor. The place was illuminated, for the big bulbs
were on. Some six (6) meters, from the
place where Monreal was abed on the cement floor and
about five (5) meters from Bernardo Villalon ten (the
witness) who was seated on top of a double-deck bed were the accused Elias
Gloria and Rufino Peña;
they (Gloria and Peña) talked in whispers for about
two (2) minutes and Rufino Peña
pointed to Monreal with his left thumb. Monreal who was
lying on the floor (nakadapa) was awake, but he did
not see Elias Gloria and Rufiuo Peña
as they talked because there were beds between them, although the latter could
see Monreal.
Thereafter, Gloria and Peña left walking
towards the end of the cell. Soon, there
was a relief of guards. Bernardo Villalon left the double-deck bed where he was after about
five minutes and laid himself on the cement floor beside Roberto Monreal. He slept,
about one (1) meter distant from the latter.
At about 11:15,
shortly after he fell asleep, Bernardo Villalon was
awakened by some noise. He got up in a sitting
position and saw that Roberto Monreal
who was beside him, was being beaten with a piece of wood by Elias Gloria who
was standing near. Villalon
moved aside, still in his sitting position, farther away from Monreal. Elias
Gloria hit Monreal with the piece of wood a number of
times, about three (3) times; and each time he delivered a blow, Elias Gloria cursed
at the victim: “Ikaw,
Bahala Ka”.
Blood was seen as Roberto Monreal lay
prostrate on the cement floor, motionless, his body half-covered with a blanket
with the head and right arm exposed.
Elias Gloria had companions with him at the time he was beating Monreal but Villalon who was near failed to recognize them nor was he able to
ascertain their number for there was already a commotion inside. However, nobody was near the place where
Elias Gloria was beating Roberto Monreal; the other
inmates were all far. After the beating,
Elias Gloria dropped the piece of wood and left the place. Bernardo Villalon
then stood and ran away.
Bernardo Villalon testified further
that he was confined in the city jail only on May 16, 1961, but he has come to know of the existence of
gangs or organizations of inmates there – the “OXO”, the “Sigue-Sigue” and the “Bahala
Na”. He knows the victim, Roberto Monreal, who was with him for three (3) days inside Cell
2. They were later transferred together
to Cell 2-A. They have stayed together
since then, during the three days that they were confined in Cell 2-A immediately preceding the night of the incident. The accused are also known to Bernardo Villalon because they use to eat together. He knows them to be members of the Sigue-Sigue Gang, while the victim was affiliated with the Bahala Na Gang during his lifetime. Bernardo Villalon
was not aware of the existing feud between these organizations or
“gangs”, but he learned about it on that very night of the incident
because at about 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock that very same evening there was trouble
inside Cell 2, just beside Cell 2-A, where Arturo Forcuna
@ Boy Golden (a “Bahala Na” gang member)
and some of his companions in Cell 2, were beaten by members of the Sigue-Sigue Gang.
Boy Golden was transferred to the cell bodega after the incident. He admitted though that he does not know the
cause of the gang rivalry. He also
confessed that he has tattoo marks on the parts of his body symbolizing
membership in the Bahala Na Gang, but he explained
that he was forced to join the organization after the killing of Roberto Monreal because subsequent thereto “there was no place
where I could be put in the City Jail.”
Other witnesses for the prosecution testified to the following
effect: Soon after the beating, the
prison guards came. Four detained
prisoners were ordered to carry the victim to a jeep which took Roberto Monreal to the North
General Hospital
where he was pronounced “dead on arrival”. The policemen searched the cell for the
objects used in the killing while the desk sergeant notified the Homicide
Section of the MPD. Detectives from the
Homicide Section arrived later; they conducted an ocular inspection of the
scene of the crime, and then took custody of the seven suspects delivered to
them by Capt. Natividad along with several pieces of
wood found inside the cell and a blood stained blanket. From the City Jail, the seven detention
prisoners picked were taken to the Headquarters of the MPD. A verbal investigation ensued wherein inmates
Bernardo Villalon and Alfredo de la Rosa pointed to
their co-prisoners Elias Gloria, Ramon Narciso,
Francisco Celso and Rufino Peña as the persons responsible for the killing of Roberto Monreal, and these persons, when questioned about the
incident, admitted their participation in the killing. Thereupon, their individual statements were
reduced to writing. Det.
Cpl. Carlos Martin, Jr. took the statements of accused Elias Gloria and Rufino Peña (Exh.
J & R); Det. Sgt. Herminio
Clemente reduced to writing the statements of accused
Ramon Narciso and witness Bernardo Villalon (Exh. L
& N); while the statement of accused Francisco Celso
(Exh. M) was taken by
Pat. Avelino Leano. The investigations were taken simultaneously,
although separately and independently.
They were conducted in one room at the headquarters of the Manila Police
Department in the presence of all the investigators and the answers given to
them could be heard by the others.
Except the accused Francisco Celso who does
not know how to read, and whose statement was first read to him by Det. Cpl. Martin, Jr., all the rest personally read their
respective statements after the investigation.
The statements were all signed before office hours started the day
following the night of the incident.
After evaluating the statements, they were forwarded to the Fiscal’s Office by the Homicide Section of the MPD.
The medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on the body of
the victim found two (2) lacerated wounds at the back of the head, any of which
could have caused the death of Roberto Monreal. They were fatal because of the fracture of
the cranium which caused hemorrhage all over the brain. Other superficial skin lacerations were found
above the left eye. He was of the
opinion that the wounds could have been caused by a blunt instrument, like a
piece of wood. He also ventured to say
that the victim could be in a lying position when he was hit by the blunt
instrument. The chemist who examined the
pieces of wood and the blanket recovered by the police from the scene of the
crime testified, on the other hand, that the piece of wood measuring
1-1/2″ x 1-1/4″ x 23″ (Exh. H-1) and
the colored blanket (Exh. I) contained human blood,
although be was not able to ascertain whether the blood found in said exhibits
were those of the victim.
Accused Rufino Peña
testified in his own defense. He denied
whatever participation in the incident.
He repudiated his confession and claimed that he signed his confession
after he had been maltreated by the policemen inside the jail. He declared that as soon as he, Elias Gloria,
Ramon Narciso and Francisco Celso
reached the Homicide Section at the MPD Headquarters, Det.
Clemente and his Companions repeatedly asked him if
he had anything to do with the killing of Roberto Monreal
inside Cell 2-A, to which he consistently answered “that he had nothing to
do with it”. Dissatisfied with his
answer, Det. Clemente and
his companions brought him inside the toilet, and once there, Det. Clemente and his companions
started giving him blows on different parts of his body – his face, belly, neck
and stomach. He remembered that Det. Clemente repeatedly boxed
him; one of his companions gave him three (3) blows, while another boxed him four(4) times. They
continued boxing him inside the toilet for about ten minutes, during which the
lost consciousness for shout three (3) times, and for which reason he could not
exactly remember how many blows they gave him at different parts of his
body. But even with such punishment, he
told them that he had nothing to do with the clubbing of Monreal. They made him lie down on a long bench inside
the toilet after that. One of the
companions of Det. Clemente
sat on his stomach. They held his
hands. A towel was placed over his mouth
and nose and then they started pouring 7-Up.
The treatment lasted for about five (5) minutes, after which he lost
consciousness. He regained his senses
after that, but because he could no longer bear the punishment, he asked them
to prepare a statement which he would sign.
He was given several sheets of paper after that which he signed without
knowing their contents. It was about early
the next morning following the incident in Cell 2-A when they asked him to sign
the statement. He owned the signature
appearing on the statement he signed (Exh. K, p. 185,
Record), but maintained that the answers to the question appearing thereon were
not his. The only questions they
repeatedly asked him was “if I know anything about the clubbing of Monreal“, and to which question he answered “that
I did not have anything to do with it”.
He could not remember if he was ever asked if he had been maltreated; he
could not remember anything because he lost consciouness
several times. He did not remember also
whether they asked him where he lived at the time, but admitted that the
residence, civil status and age appearing in Exh. K were correct. His co-accused
and he were neighbors outside jail, and they all belonged to the “Sigue-Sigue Gang” inside the jail.
After the maltreatment in the hands of the police officers at the
headquarters of the MPD, he had hearing in Branch 16 of the Court of First Instance
of Manila in connection with another case.
He could not remember whether it was on July 11, 1961, or not, but during that hearing, he told
his parents about the maltreatment they have given him. His parents informed an attorney about it and
the latter had him examined the Medico-Legal Section
of the Manila Police Department. He
could not remember, however, the name of the Doctor who examined him. At that time, his face and body were swollen.
Like his co-accused Ramon Narciso, Rufino Peña also signed his name
on a blank sheet of paper in open court which was makred
as Exh. 1-Peña (p. 270, Record) in
his attempt to show that the signature on Exh.
K was made by him under her duress.
From the foregoing evidence, the lower court found Rufino Peña guilty of murder for
the killing of Roberto Monreal in the night of July 10, 1961, holding that the proof
of corpus delicti plus the testimony of
the Ione eyewitness and the confession of the accused
afford more than sufficient bases of conviction. Thus, in its decision dated March 25, 1965, said accused was
sentenced to death; to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P6,000.00; and to pay one-fourth (1/4) of the costs.
The judgment of conviction is here assailed by counsel de oficio appointed to represent the accused Rufino Peña in this review. Said counsel submitted an enlightening brief
espousing the cause of the convicted man.
The Solicitor General, on the other hand, failed to submit any brief notwithstanding
seventeen (17) extensions of time within which to submit one that were
requested by him and granted by this Court.
Hence, the case of the People was deemed submitted for decision without
any brief.
The first important question posed in this review is
procedural: whether or not the trial court
was right in admitting in evidence, against Rufino Peña his own extra-judicial confession (Exh.
K), and the respective extra-judicial confessions (Exhs. J, L and M of his co-accused
Elias Gloria, Francisco Celso and Ramon Francisco. It appears that accused Elias Gloria never
testified in court in this case because he escaped from confinement in Muntinlupa during the trial and was never arrested
thereafter; so with accused Francisco Celso as
against whom the case was dismissed by order of the court on August 7,
1964. He neither testified for the
prosecution nor for the defense of any of the other accused. It was shown by the prosecution that all the
accused were investigated in the same room at the headquarters of the MPD, but
there is no showing, since they were investigated simultaneously and separately
by different investigators, that Rufino Paña knew that Elias Gloria and Francisco Celso had implicated him in the killing of Roberto Monreal in their statements, or that Rufino
Peña was thereafter informed about the contents of
their statements. We have no doubt,
therefore, that the extra-judicial statements of Elias Gloria (Exh. J) and Francisco Celso (Exh. M) may not be directly introduce in evidence as proof
of specific facts against accused Rufino Peña, in accordance with the well-settled rule that
extra-judicial statements of an accused implicating his co-accused may not be
utilized against the latter unless repeated in open court.[1]
The said extra-judicial confessions of Elias Gloria and Francisco Celso are admissible only against them but not against Rufino Peña as to whom they are hearsay evidence, for the latter never had any
opportunity to cross-examine them.[2] Of course, these rules admit of
exceptions. Thus, it has been held that
where confessions had been made by several accused and there could have been no
collusion with reference to them, the fact that the statements are in all
material respects identical is confirmatory of the testimony of an accomplice.[3]
It will be noted, however, that there is a marked difference between the case
of People vs. Badilla and the one at bar. In the Badilla
case, several accused were charged under an information alleging conspiracy,
unlike in this case where there was no such allegation in the information and
the defense had seasonably objected to the admission of any evidence, including
Exhibits J and M, tending to prove conspiracy.
But even if conspiracy were properly alleged and proven in this case,
the admissibility of Exhibits J and M as against accused Rufino
Peña should be qualified. So explained this Court in that case of
People vs. Badilla:
“In other words, while an extra-judicial declaration of a
co-conspirator may not be directly introduced in evidence against another
co-conspirator as proof of specific facts, it may nevertheless under certain
conditions be taken into consideration as a circumstance in the credibility
of the testimony of an accomplice.” [Underscoring Ours]
We find no plausible reason why the
principle should not be made to apply to this case where several accused had
been charged together of a crime without any allegation of conspiracy; but with
the above-quoted authority, there could be no doubt that for purposes of
proving the fact that Rufino Peña
participated in the killing of Roberto Monreal as
declared by his co-accused Elias Gloria and Francisco Celso
in their extra-judicial confessions Exhibits J and M, the said statements are
objectionable, although the court may consider the fact that the confessions of
Rufino Peña and those of
his co-accused Elias Gloria and Francisco Celso are,
in all material respects, identical as a circumstance in judging the
credibility of Rufino Peña’s
testimony in court for which purpose Exhibits J and M are admissible against
the latter. The same rule of qualified
admissibility is applicable to the extra-judicial confession of accused Ramon Narciso as against Rufino Peña. Accused Ramon Narciso testified in court for his own defense and was
questioned at length about his extra-judicial confession (Exh.
L) which he repudiated. He died sometime thereafter; that is why the
case as against him had been dismissed, but his said confession was legally
before the court with the extra-judicial confessions of all the other accused and
We do not think that the trial court erred in taking cognizance of the fact
that they were substantially in accord for purposes of passing upon Rufino Peña’s credibility. Rufino Peña’s own statement (Exh. K), on
the other hand, is competent evidence as against him for all purposes under the
Rules,[4]
provided that its authenticity and voluntariness are
beyond question.
This brings Us to the defense of Rufino Peña that his statement Exh. K is involuntary.
But first, let us examine the contents of that extra-judicial confession.
It appears that the confession was taken by Det.
Cpl. Carlos Martin, Jr. in the presence of Det. Sgt. Herminio Clemente at the
headquarters of the MPD in the early morning of July 11, 1961, about seven (7)
hours after the commission of the crime or at about 6:20 a.m., to be
precise. In that statement, Rufino Peña appears to have
declared in Tagalog dialect, substantially as
follows: that he was 21 years of age,
single, a boy at Cine Esa at Herbosa,
Tondo, Manila, and was presently residing in the same
place at 440 Herbosa; that he knew why he was at the
headquarters of the MPD at the time, i.e., there was a man they killed the
night before inside Cell 2-A; that he knew the person they killed only by face;
that they agreed to attack (tirahin) that person
because he was a member of the “Bahala Na
Gang”; that there was nothing wrong at all being a member of that gang,
only there was already feud between the two gangs; that those who agreed to
kill the man were Boy AA, Ely, Celso and he (Rufino Peña appears to have been
asked to point to the persons he mentioned and pointed to Ramons
Narciso as Boy AA, to Elias Gloria as Ely, and to
Francisco Celso as Celso,
who were then all present in the same room where the investigation was
conducted); that they agreed to kill the man at about 9:00 that evening (to a
similar question that followed, the answer given was: that they agreed to kill the man that same
evening after the roll call at about 11:00 o’clock.); that when they first came
near the man to strike him, the man was lying on the cement floor on his back (tihaya), one of his arms raised near his head; that the
first to come near the man was Boy AA who immediately covered the face of the
man with a blanket; that the blanket shown to him (he appears to have been
shown the bloodstained blanket recovered by the police at the scene or the
crime) was the one used by Boy AA in covering the face of the man they hit;
that the piece of wood (measuring 1-1/2″ x 1-1/4″ x 23″) shown
to him was the one used by them in hitting the man; that they alternately used
(aming pinagpasahan) that
piece of wood, until all of them were able to hit the man; that he was the
first one to strike, followed by Celso; the next was
Ely, and the last one was Boy AA; that the place where they killed the man was
the cement floor where he was lying inside Cell 2-A; that they made the killing
at about 11:00 o’clock after the roll call; that they decided to kill the man
because the “Bahala Na Gang” were all
enemies; that he studied in school and finished Grade III; that he knew how to
read and understood Tagalog; and that having read and
understood the contents of the statement, he is willing to sign the same to
attest to the truth of what he had therein stated.
Accused Rufino Peña
claimed during the trial of the case that his confession (Exh.
K was signed by him only after the members of the MPD had given him a countless
number of blows all over his body, and after they mercilessly gave him repeated
doses of 7-Up treatment into his nose.
He testified that as a result of the torture he received in the hands of
policemen who investigated him, his body and face were swollen, and when
sometime thereafter, he appeared before a branch of the Court of First Instance
of Manila in connection with another case, he then informed his parents about
the maltreatment; that his parents contacted a certain attorney who had him
examined in the Medico-Legal Section of the Police Department of Manila by one
of the doctors there. And yet, no
medical certificate of the doctor who examined him then we ever presented in
the court below; nor was the alleged medico-legal officer who conducted the
examination, asked to testify in the said proceeding even as the prosecution
had reminded the defense counsel that he had not presented the doctor ho
allegedly conducted the examination, to testify. The record shows that the said counsel asked
permission from the court to confer with accused Rufino
Peña, after which conference, he announced that he
was not calling the doctor who conducted the alleged examination anymore. That circumstance, to our mind, is the best
evidence refuting his statement in court that he had been subject of barbaric
practices by the police. We really see
no reason why such evidence had been suppressed, if the accused was sincere in
his allegations. We are inclined,
therefore, to discard the torture theory of the defense. Upon the face of the confession, We see no
sign of suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity; the
answers given to the questions were responsive and informative, and we are
satisfied that the said confession was voluntary.
But counsel for herein reviewee argues
that the extra-judicial confession (Exh. K) of Rufino Peña does not show
“suspicious circumstances”, is “replete with details”,
“reflects spontaneity and coherence”, and the “response therein
to every interrogatory is fully informative”, because the said statement was
prepared by the police investigator who propounded the questions and answered
them himself; and that the accused had nothing to do whatever with said
statement except to sign it, after the use of force and violence against
him. Counsel draws this conclusion from
the explanation given by the police investigator who conducted the
investigation of the accused in this case that they first conducted a verbal examination of all the suspects of the inquiry and only
after they were sure that the persons investigated had something to do with the
crime, were their statements reduced to written form. The pertinent portions of the testimony of Det. Cpt. Carlos Martin, Jr. of
the MPD on this point, follows”
CROSS
EXAMINATION BY ATTY. MAGNO:
“Q.- You were the officer
who took the statements of accused and Peña in this
case?
A.- Yes, I was.
Q.- Before you took
down the statements of accused Gloria and Peña, did
you already know that they were going to admit the offense?
x x x x x
A.- We asked them if
they were going to tell the truth. They
said “Yes”; then we asked them to relate the incident.
Q.- Do you mean to say
that before you asked the specific questions now appearing in the statements of
the accused, you did not know the answers they would give to those questions?
A.- Naturally.
Q.- You can qualify
your answer by saying that you know some of the answers that they would give?
A.- Some of the
answers, yes.
Q.- To what effect
were those answers which you knew they were going to give?
A.- Their
participation in the crime. We asked
them if they participated, they said yes.
Q.- In other words,
before taking the statements of the accused, you already knew that they were
going to admit the offense, is that correct?
A.- We investigated
them first, and after that we reduced into writing their statements.
Q.- Just answer the
question?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And that is
because you conducted a verbal investigation on these accused before you took
their written statements, is that correct?
A.- Yes.
Q. I am now showing you Exhibits “J”
and “K”, which are the statements, respectively, of Gloria and Peña. When you asked
the questions now appearing on Exhibit “J”, particularly the
questions now appearing or referring to the alleged participation, for
instance, the question in Exhibit “J” which has been marked Exhibit
“J-1” (Counsel reading Exhibit “J-1”), you already know the
answer to this question, is that not right?
A.- Yes.
Q.- So that actually, it was but mere formality on
your part to ask that question and to have that answer recorded, is that not
also correct?
A.- Yes, it is.
Q.- As a matter of
fact, if we go over all the questions in Exhibits “J” and
“K”, there was none of these answers, whatsoever, that you did not
already know before you asked the questions, is that not correct?
A. No.
You mean to say the answers were these ………..
COURT:
Q.- No, you knew the
answers already, you anticipated the answers.
Did you know the answers to the respective questions in Exhibits
“J” and “K” before the answers were given?
A.- No, your Honor.
COURT:
No. Naturally, how can he know. They admitted
generally that they were the ones, but the way, the manner……
ATTY.
MAGNO:
Q.- Do you want us and
the Honorable Court to understand that even the manner the offense was
committed was not known to you before the answers to the questions in Exhibits
“J” and “K” were given to you?
A.- In the verbal
investigation we asked them how they did it, and they showed us how they did
it. They described it to us.
Q.- So that actually,
you already knew the manner the offense was committed before you asked the
questions?
A.- Yes.” (Tsn, July 25, 1963, pp. 13-15.)
We have studied carefully the import of
the foregoing testimony and searched the record with painstaking solicitude,
but we failed to find it was the investigator himself who propounded the
questions and at the same time gave the answers appearing in Exh. K, much less, the claim that said accused had no part
in the preparation of the confession except to sign it. Our own examination of the extra-judicial statements
shows that all the accused in this case had revealed therein their individual
participations in the killing of the victim and the participation of the
others. Accused Elias
Gloria states in his confession Exhibit J, that Ramon Narciso,
Alfredo de la Rosa, Rufino Peña
and Francisco Celso were his companions in killing
Roberto Monreal. Accused Ramon Manciso points in his confession Exh.
L, to Elias Gloria and Rufino Peña as his companions. Accused Francisco Celso,
on the other hand, points to Elias Gloria; Rufino Peña and Ramon Narciso as the
persons he saw who struck at the victim, with himself taking no part therein;
while the accused Rufino Peña
in his confession points to Ramon Narciso, Elias
Gloria, Francisco Celso and himself as the ones who killed
the victim. Other inconsistencies in the
manner these accused took turns in hitting the victim are significant: Thus, Elias Gloria declared that Ramon Narciso was the first to hit with the piece of wood,
followed by Alfredo de la Rosa; then by Rufino Peña; Celso was next, with
himself delivering the last blow. Rufino Peña’s declaration was to
the effect that he was the first to hit the victim with the piece of wood,
followed by Celso, then Gloria and finally Narciso. Ramon Narciso, on the other hand, declared in his statement that
it was Rufino Peña who
first delivered the blow with the piece of wood, followed by Elias Gloria;
while Francisco Celso stated that it was Elias
Gloria, Rufino Peña and
Ramon Narciso who struck at the victim with the piece
of wood in that order. These
circumstances may be considered in support of the claim of the police officers
who conducted the investigations of the accused that they conducted the
examinations separately and simultaneously without collusion either on the part
of the investigators or on the part of the accused. The sane circumstances may be considered in
disputing the veracity of Rufino Peña’s
claim that he did not give any of the answers appearing in his confession. To this effect was the holding of this Court
in a similar case:[5]
“x x x This inconsistency, the way we look at it, is additional
proof that the confession was indeed voluntary.
Ordinarily, if the confession was prepared by the Constabulary agents
themselves and imposed upon the appellants, it would be as perfectly tight as
the agents could have done it leaving the appellants no possibility of escape
from his guilt. x x x.”
Of course, We are not unaware that some
officers of the law resort to the illegal and reprehensible tactics of extorting
confessions through violence and intimidation.[6]
But the trial court did not give credence to the claim of the accused that he
had no part in the preparation of his confession and that he signed it only
after he was tortured. Having seen the
manner and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial, the matter of assigning
values to their statements in court is within the better competence of trial
courts,[7]
and We find no compelling reason to disturb the
findings of the lower court on this point in this case. Moreover, We find the testimonies of the
police officers who testified in this case to be credible, and We cannot but be
slow to believe that these officers would be so totally devoid of conscience
and so recreant to official duty as to confabulate together in pinning a
capital offense on an innocent man without apparently
any reason therefor; and no such reason has here been
shown.[8]
Suffice it to say that the crime committed in this case took place inside the
city jail; the police had conducted an investigation of the inmates there
immediately after the incident and We believe the
possibility of error in picking the persons really responsible was quite
remote.
It is also argued that the trial court erred in finding Rufino Peña guilty of the crime
charged. Reliance is placed on the fact
that the lone witness for the prosecution who saw the killing of Roberto Monreal categorically declared that he saw only Elias
Gloria hit the victim with a piece of wood.
It is, therefore, contended that the testimony of said witness tends to
exculpate accused Rufino Peña
rather than incriminate him in the killing and could not be the basis of
conviction. The conclusion is not entirely
correct. It is true that the lone
Government witness to the killing had stated that he did not actually see the
other accused hit Roberto Monreal with the piece of
wood. But that alone does not
conclusively show that Rufino Peña
did not hit the victim. The pertinent
portions of the testimony of that witness follows:
“Q.- Do you know why said
Monreal died in that commotion?
A.- Yes, sir.
Q – Where were you at that time?
A.- I was beside the
victim.
Q.- What did you see?
A.- The deceased was
being beaten.
Q.- Who was beating
the deceased?
A.- Elias Gloria.
x x x x
Q.- What was the position
of Monreal at the time he was beaten by Gloria?
A. – He was lying down, face downwards on the
floor.
Q.- COURT:
Q.- What was the
position of Gloria when he was beating him?
A.- He was in a
standing position.
Q. – What was holding Monreal
in that position?
A. – He was already wounded when I saw him being
beaten by Gloria.
Q. – How many times did you see Gloria beat the
victim?
A.- About three (3)
times.
Q.- In what part of
his body did you see Gloria beat the victim?
A.- On the head.
Q. Aside from Gloria, were there other persons
around or near the victim?
A. Yes, but I did not recognize them.
Q.- More or less, how
many?
A.- I did not count,
and I do not remember, but there were some.
Q.- What were those
others, whom you said you cannot remember, doing at the time Gloria was hitting
the victim?
A.- They were just
standing.
Q.- You said that Monreal was already wounded in that prostrate position at
the time he was beaten by Gloria. Where
were you previous to that?
A.- I was lying
beside Roberto Monreal. I was sleeping.
Q.- Will you tell the
court how you were awakened when you said you were sleeping at that time?
A.- Because of the
noise of the beating.
From the foregoing, there is no doubt that witness Bernardo Villalon was awakened by the noise of the beating. When he woke up, the victim was already
mounded. He saw only Gloria beating the
victim with a piece of wood at the time.
He had companions then who were near or around the victim, although he
did not recognize them. In his extra-judicial
confession, an the other hand, accused Rufino Peña narrated that the first to approach the victim who was
lying on the cement floor was Ramon Narciso (Boy AA)
who immediately covered the face of the victim with a blanket; that he (Rufino Peña) was the first one to
strike at the victim; he was followed by Francisco Celso,
then by Elias Gloria, and lastly by Ramon Narciso;
and that they killed the victim hitting him with the same piece of wood
alternately in that order. We do not
find the testimony of the eyewitness and the confession of Rufino
Peña utterly irreconcilable. The testimony of the eyewitness simply means
he did not see Rufino Peña
beat the victim because when he woke up, the said accused and Francisco Celso were already through with their beating of the
accused. This is deducible from the
confession of Rufino Peña
that he and Francisco Celso struck at the victim with
the same piece of wood before Elias Gloria had his turn to strike with that
single piece of wood used by all of them.
This is also a logical conclusion from the statement of the eyewitness
that he was awakened by the beating and that when he first awoke, the victim
was already wounded and prostrate on the floor.
At any rate, even if the testimony of the eyewitness on this point is
left wholly out of consideration, still there is sufficient basis of
conviction, for a confession corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti will suffice.[9]
It is really not indispensable that an eyewitness should have seen the
commission of the crime before an accused may be held liable under his awn
confession. The usefulness of the
confession as a species of proof, would vanish if it
were necessary, in addition to the confession, to adduce other evidence
sufficient to justify conviction independently of such confession.[10]
Finally, the alleged denial of due process cannot be favorably
considered. The record shows that the
case suffered protracted delays due to repeated postponement of the hearings,
but said postponements were either caused by the prosecution or the
defense. To be sure, the prosecution
appears to have requested a number of postponements caused by absence of
witnesses but We presume that said witnesses were
thereafter able to satisfactorily explain to the trial court their absences,
otherwise, they should have been cited for contempt by the trial court. The witnesses referred to are members of the
Manila Police Department, of the Homicide Section thereof. The crime wave that has besieged the city
these years is only too well known, and their official duties must have
contributed to their repeated inability to appear during the trial. Likewise, the circumstance that there were
eight different counsels de oficio who
took turns in handling the defense of accused Rufino Peña in this case, does not appear to have materially
prejudiced his cause. It appears that
there were repeated charges of counsel during the trial, whenever appointed
counsel de oficio for herein accused
was absent, one of the other counsels de officio for the other
accused was designated or substituted in his place. This should not be cause for lament; for on
the contrary, it speaks well of the desire of the court to allow accused Rufino Peña to avail himself of
counsel all throughout the course of the protracted proceeding.
All the foregoing considered, there is no room for doubt that
accused Rufino Peña
participated in the clubbing of Roberto Monreal
inside Cell 2-A of the City Jail of Manila on the night of July 10, 1961. The writer is of the opinion, however, that
said accused should not be convicted of consummated murder, as charged in the
information. Except for Rufino Pena’s own confession, the evidence for the
prosecution, so far as admissible against the said accused, consists of proof
of corpus delicti. The only evidence of his direct participation
in the commission of the crime was his own extra-judicial confession, a
scrutiny of which, on the other hand, would readily cast doubt as to whether
the blow with the piece of wood he delivered upon the victim as revealed in the
said confession could have been fatal. The said confession, Exh. K, narrates that when they came near the victim, the latter
was lying on his back (tihaya) on the cement
floor. First to approach the victim was
accused Ramon Narciso (Boy AA) who immediately
covered the face of the victim with a blanket; and thereupon, Rufino Peña struck at him with
the piece of wood. There is no
suggestion that Rufino Peña
hit the victim more than once; he merely confessed that after striking at the victim,
he passed on the piece of wood to Francisco Celso. The eyewitness, on the other hand, testified
that when he woke up, he saw the victim beside him already wounded, lying
prostrate on the cement floor on his belly (nakadapa),
upon whom Elias Gloria delivered three successive blows with the same piece of
wood used by Rufino Peña. At that precise time, according to him, the
body of the victim then was still covered with the blanket although the head
was already exposed. The medico?legal
officer who conducted the autopsy on the body of the victim found three (3)
wounds which he described in his necropsy report (Exh.
B) and in his testimony before the court. Two big lacerated wounds at the back of the
bead were described as fatal. The doctor
was of the opinion that any one of them could have caused the death of the
victim for both wounds caused fractures in the cranium and hemorrhage all over
the brain. The third wound (on the face)
was described as follows:
“Contusion and superficial skin laceration with swollen tissue
hematoms of soft tissues around left eye.”
This last wound was never described as fatal by the medico-legal
officer, both in his necropsy report and in his testimony during the
trial. And this, wound, the way We look
at it, could have been the one caused by the accused Rufino
Peña when he delivered the first blow upon the
victim, considering the evidence that at the time the victim was lying on his
back (tihaya) and the face was then cover with the
blanket. The fatal wounds at the back of
the head may reasonably be attributed to the succeeding blows delivered by any
of the other accused who, as seen by the eyewitness, struck at the victim while
the man was laying on his belly (nakadapa)
with the head already exposed. It would
not be far fetched to surmise that after the first blow, the victim made an
attempt to rise, causing the blanket to slip down the bead thus exposing it, at
which precise time, the succeeding blows were delivered, causing the fall of
the victim back on the cement floor on his belly. If this were so, then it would be safe to
conclude that the superficial wound was the one that may alone be attributed to
accused Rufino Peña,
considering the circumstances that there was no allegation of conspiracy in the
information, and the defense bad seasonably made objections to the introduction
of evidence tending to prove conspiracy, and which objections were all
sustained by the trial court. Neither
did the court below make any finding of conspiracy in the decision under review;
for on the contrary it declared:
“x x x It
should be noted that in default of an
allegation of conspiracy, the herein accused is not found responsible for the
acts of his co-accused as his conspirators, but for his individual
participation for the death of the victim.”
Rufino Peña should, therefore, be held liable only for the
consequences of his own act – that of inflicting upon the person of the victim
the superficial wound above-mentioned.
Intent to kill is apparent on the face of Rufino
Peña’s own confession, but he failed to his the victim mortally, either because of his poor aim or
because he failed to apply the degree of force necessary. Whatever the real cause is, there is no doubt
that the injury he inflicted upon the victim could not have produced the
intended killing as a consequence; hence, the stage of execution insofar as
accused Peña in concerned, was merely attempted.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly considered
by the court; but evident premeditation may not be appreciated as the evidence
tends to show that the attack upon the victim was thought of only some fifteen
(15) minutes before the incident. Use of
superior strength also should not be considered against the accused, for even
if We were to believe the claim of Rufino
Peña in his confession that all the accused in this
case, each delivered blows upon the victim, he declared in the same confession
that they attacked the deceased Roberto Monreal
alternately, one after the other. So
with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, which does
not appear to have been especially sought since the notion to commit the crime
was thought of only shortly before its commission.[11]
In the absence of any aggravating circumstance other than treachery which had
been considered as a qualifying circumstance, and in the absence of any
mitigating circumstance either which attended the commission of the crime, the
penalty imposable under the law,[12]
should be applied in its medium period.
The penalty for attempted murder is prision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. Applying the benefits of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the accused Rufino Peña
should be sentenced to a penalty the minimum of which should be within the
range of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional
in its medium period, with a maximum within the range of prision
mayor in its minimum period.
WHEREFORE, the decision under review is modified
accordingly, and the accused Rufino Peña is hereby sentenced to two(2)
years, four(4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional to eight(8) years of prision mayor, and to pay the heirs of the
offended party in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00). The judgment of the lower court is affirmed
in all other respects. Counsel de
oficio in this proceeding is ordered
compensated by the Government in the amount of TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P200.00) in
accordance with section 32, Rule 138 of the Rule of Court.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and
Castro, JJ., concur.
[1]
People vs. Fraga, L-12005, Aug. 31, 1960, and cases therein
cited.
[2]
See People vs. Durante, 47 Phil. 654, and
cases therein cited.
[3]
People vs. Badilla, 48 Phil. 718; See also,
People vs. Raiz, L-4565, May 20, 1953.
[4]
Sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
(Confession – The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his
guilt of the offense changed, may be given in evidence against him.
[5] People vs. Cruz, 1 O.G. No. 12, p. 867 (August 24, 1942).
[6]
See People vs. Carillo, et al., 85 Phil. 630.
[7]
See People vs. Catalino, L-
25403, Mar. 15, 1968.
[8]
See People vs. Cruz, supra.
[9] People vs. de la Cruz, L-1745 May 23, 1950.
[10] People vs. Bantagan, 54 Phil. 834.
[11]
See People vs. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568.
[12]
Art. 64, Revised Penal Code.