THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFf AND APPELLEE, VS. ALOD MANOBO AND MALOMPON MANOBO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Manobo

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Alod Manobo and Malompon Manobo, a criminal appeal from a conviction for the killing of three persons in a remote coastal barrio of Davao. The two appellants, together with two others, were charged with robbery with triple homicide, but the trial court convicted them only of triple homicide. The case matters for the Bar for three reasons: it is a clean teaching case on the credibility of extrajudicial confessions allegedly extracted by torture, it states the rule that a confession needs the corpus delicti — the body of the crime, meaning independent proof that the crime was actually committed — and it holds that intent to rob, without separate proof that robbery was carried out, cannot convert homicide into robbery with homicide.

Procedural History

The accused were indicted for robbery with triple homicide in the Court of First Instance of Davao. After trial, the court convicted them only of triple homicide and imposed an indeterminate penalty for each death, with the total penalty not to exceed forty years under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. The two other co-accused, Sabonal Manobo and Antonino Manobo, were acquitted on the defense motion for insufficiency of evidence after the prosecution rested. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court found that the imposable penalty for each appellant should be reclusion perpetua for each of the three murders, and so it certified the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and rendered judgment.

Facts

Along the beach in the barrio of Kilain, three hours by motor launch from the town of Malita, Davao, stood the house and store of Uy Kee Kang, also called Chiquito, a Chinese hemp merchant. He lived there with his wife Mandoloon Manoba, their infant child, and another Chinese, Te Chu, also called Tiago. A path of some two to three hundred meters led to the house of the nearest neighbor, the accused Alod Manobo.

After suppertime on the ninth of August, 1954, the accused Malompon Manobo reported to the barrio lieutenant that there was trouble in the house of Uy Kee Kang. The lieutenant sounded his agong, and several persons formed a posse and surrounded the house. Inside they found the blood-soaked bodies of Tiago and Mandoloon side by side on the floor, the baby still suckling its dead mother. An open wooden chest was seen, but Uy Kee Kang was missing. He was later found in the bushes about a hundred meters away, riddled with bullets. Autopsies showed gunshot wounds on him and incised wounds on the two others. A bronze dagger and an empty twenty-two caliber shell were recovered. A sum of four thousand three hundred pesos, delivered to Uy Kee Kang days earlier in payment for abaca, was not found.

On the sixteenth of August, 1954, Alod and Malompon executed separate extrajudicial confessions, sworn before the local justice of the peace after their contents were read and translated to them in the Manobo dialect. In them they admitted planning with two others to rob and kill Chiquito and his family, entering the store by the ruse of buying rope, and carrying out the killings. The appellants later claimed they signed only because they had been maltreated and held incommunicado for four days, and that Malompon was promised he would be made a state witness.

Issues

• Whether or not the extrajudicial confessions of the appellants were voluntary and credible, and may sustain their conviction.
• Whether or not the appellants may be convicted of robbery with homicide on the basis of their confessions alone.
• Whether or not the killings constitute triple murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by dwelling, and what penalty should be imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides:

A confession made by an accused shall be admissible in evidence against him, provided that it is voluntary and that it is supported by evidence of the corpus delicti.

This is the rule on which the entire case turns, because the Court tests both the voluntariness of the confessions and the existence of independent proof of the crime.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the confessions were voluntary and credible. The appellants' claims of torture collapsed under scrutiny. Alod said bullets were pressed between his fingers, yet only the fourth finger showed a lump, and the physician found no external signs of injury. He said a handcuff was shoved against his mouth to knock out a tooth, yet when he demonstrated in court with similar handcuffs, they could not reach his teeth, and his lips showed no laceration. Neither he nor Malompon complained to the justice of the peace when the confessions were sworn. Malompon gave three differing statements, and the Court found it incredible that the investigators would dictate contradictory accounts. The Court also stressed that the maltreatment was allegedly done before many witnesses, when torture to extract a confession is a criminal act usually done in secret. The Court laid down the burden: a confessant carries the burden of convincing the judge that his admissions are involuntary or untrue, and of establishing exculpatory facts.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the trial court that robbery with homicide was not proved. There was no sufficient evidence outside the confessions that anything was stolen. The money received days before the killings might already have been sent elsewhere, and no proof showed anything was taken from the house or the trunks. The Court held that the intent to rob, even if admitted, does not constitute actual robbery. Without separate proof of the corpus delicti, the extrajudicial confessions will not support a conviction for robbery. No robbery being proved, conviction for robbery with homicide becomes impossible.

On the third issue, the Court held that the killings constituted triple murder, qualified by treachery, which absorbed nocturnity, and aggravated by having been perpetrated in the dwelling of the victims. The apposite penalty would be death, but for lack of a sufficient number of votes, the sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

A voluntary extrajudicial confession, when supported by evidence of the corpus delicti, sustains a finding of guilt. The corpus delicti — the body of the crime, the fact that a crime was actually committed — must be proved independently of the confession. The confessant bears the burden of proving that his confession was involuntary or untrue. Intent to commit robbery is not robbery; without independent proof that robbery was actually carried out, the accused cannot be convicted of robbery with homicide, only of the homicide or murder as qualified. Treachery qualifies the killing to murder, and dwelling aggravates it.

Disposition

The Court modified the sentence by increasing the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each appellant, affirmed the judgment in all other respects, and ordered each appellant to pay one-half of the costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a voluntary extrajudicial confession supported by evidence of the corpus delicti sustains a finding of guilt, but without separate proof of the corpus delicti it will not support a conviction for robbery. Examiners use this case to test the corpus delicti requirement for confessions and the rule that intent to rob, standing alone, does not make out robbery with homicide.