G.R. No. L-34356. May 31, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIO VALERA AND ERNESTO IMPERIAL, DEFENDANTS. JULIO VALERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PER CURIAM:
Automatic review of the death sentence imposed by the Court of
First Instance of Oriental Mindoro in Criminal Cases
Nos. 409 and R-409-P on Julio Valera and Ernesto
Imperial for the crime of Robbery with Double Homicide. For the slaying of the spouses Marcial Jalotjot and Valeriana Hernandez and the robbery committed in their
house on the night of August 6, 1967,
at Barrio Putingtubig, Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro, Julio Valera
and Ernesto Imperial were charged with the crime of Robbery with Double
Homicide, as follows:
“The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses JULIO VALERA alias Juan Madrid and ERNESTO IMPERIAL of the crime
of ‘Robbery With Double Homicide’, committed as follows:
“That on or about the 6th day of August, 1967, at 9:00 o’clock
in the evening, more or less in the sitio of Putingtubig, barrio of Lumangbayan,
municipality of Pinamalayan, province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused Julio Valera
alias Juan Madrid and Ernesto Imperial, conspiring and confederating together,
mutually helping one another with evident premeditation, deceit, malice
aforethought and deliberate intent to kill, taking advantage of the darkness of
the night, superior strength, abuse of confidence and treachery, the accused
armed with a bolo, sharp bladed instrument, and gun, to facilitate the
commission of the robbery wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously struck, stabbed and hacked the spouses Marcial
Jalotjot and Valeriana
Hernandez, inflicting upon the said spouses several mortal wounds which caused
their instantaneous death, and subsequently after the death of the spouses Marcial Jalotjot and Valeriana Hernandez, the accused with intent of gain, by
means of force, threat, intimidation and violence, took and carried away the
following described properties belonging to the deceased spouses, viz.,
money consisting of bills of different denominations amounting to THREE
THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00), Philippine Currency, assorted jewelries, valued at
FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00); one (1) Transistor Radio valued at ONE HUNDRED
FIFTY PESOS (P150.00); one pair of black shoes, valued at TWENTY PESOS
(P20.00); Keyholder with nail clipper, valued at FIVE
PESOS (P5.00); one (1) Revolver Caliber .22 with Serial No. 73899 with seven
live ammunition, valued at FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00), the total value of
which is P4,175.00, all belonging to the spouses Marcial
Jalotjot and Valeriana
Hernandez, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the said total sum of
P4,175.00, Philippine Currency; that as a result thereof, the spouses were
clubbed, stabbed and boloed to death, to the damage
and prejudice of the heirs of the victims in the amount of P20,000.00.
“That the Revolver Caliber .22 with Serial No. 73899 with
seven rounds of live ammunition; the Transistor Radio; pair of black shoes; one
(1) keyholder with nail clipper were recovered from
the control and custody of the accused.
“That in the commission of the crime, the following
aggravating circumstances are present:
(1) nocturnity because they took advantage of
nighttime, to better commit the crime; (2) treachery because they took
advantage of the position of the victim Marcial Jalotjot who was then eating and Valeriana
Hernandez going down their stairs unable to offer any resistance or escape; (3)
superior strength because they were two, both armed; (4) cruelty because they
were not satisfied with inflicting the first mortal wounds but they continued
inflicting cruel and unnecessary punishment with gun, bolo and knife and the
victim lying prostrate on the cemented floor of their house the accused burned
the defenseless body of Valeriana Hernandez; (5)
craft because they pretended to be friends and peace officer; (6) abuse of
confidence; and (7) dwelling.
“That the accused Julio Valera is a
recidivist, and at the time of the commission of the crime is a police officer of
Pola, Oriental Mindoro, as
such he took advantage of his public position.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.
“Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, September 23, 1967.
(Sgd.) RAMON B. AÑONUEVO
Assistant Provincial
Fiscal”
On March 14, 1968,
both the accused pleaded not guilty.
However, on July 16, 1968,
Ernesto Imperial, assisted by his counsel de oficio,
moved that he be allowed to withdraw his plea of not guilty so that he could
plead guilty to the Information. This
was granted, and on November 27, 1968,
Ernesto Imperial was re-arraigned and upon his plea of guilty was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of death. Upon finding that the plea of guilty of Ernesto Imperial to the
Information was improvident, this Court, in G.R. No.
L-30039, on February 8, 1972,
set aside the judgment and remanded the case to the court a quo
for a new arraignment. Pursuant thereto,
the lower court re-arraigned Ernesto Imperial (Criminal Case No. R-409-P) on November 28, 1972. On such arraignment, Imperial pleaded guilty
and thereafter the lower court, on February
22, 1973 rendered judgment, finding him guilty as co-principal of
the crime of robbery with double homicide and sentenced him to death, with
recommendation for the commutation of the sentence to life imprisonment. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of
said spouses in the amount of P4,175.00, representing
the value of the stolen properties, and P24,000.00 as indemnity for the death
of said spouses. In the meantime, the
trial with respect to Julio Valera proceeded (from
July 16, 1968 to August 9, 1971), and on September 15, 1971, the trial court
convicted him of the offense charged and imposed upon him the penalty of death,
and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased spouses in the amount of
P20,000.00. The personal properties,
except the gun which was forfeited in favor of the government, were ordered
returned to the heirs of the victims.
The victims, Marcial Jalotjot and his wife, Valeriana
Hernandez, were residents of Putingtubig, a barrio of
the town of Pinamalayan,
Province of Oriental Mindoro. The barrio is hilly and is accessible by a
road at the edge of which is the house of the afore-mentioned spouses where
they maintained a sari-sari store wherein they sold soft drinks, beer,
cigarettes and other articles of trade.
Orlando Merza, their godson, a twelve-year old
boy, lived with them.
PEOPLE V. JULIO VALERA, G.R. No. L-34356
Testifying for the prosecution at the trial of Julio Valera, Orlando Merza declared
that at about 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of August 6, 1967,
appellants Julio Valera and Ernesto Imperial came to
their house. They informed them that
they wanted to see Marcial Jalotjot,
explaining that their mission was to look for unlicensed firearms. Valera,
who was then a policeman of Pola, Oriental Mindoro, was dressed in civilian attire, with his gun
snugly tucked inside his waist. Merza told them that Marcial Jalotjot was not at home but Valera and Imperial waited outside
the house. Half an hour later, Marcial Jalotjot arrived. Upon being informed of the purpose of the
visit of the two men, Jalotjot told them that he had
been granted by the authorities license to hold and
possess the firearm in his possession.
He nevertheless invited them to enter his house and partake of some beer, and the three –Valera, Imperial and Marcial — then entered the sala
of the house situated in the ground floor, where they were served by Marcial. As they
were drinking beer, Vivencio Manzo,
a nephew of Marcial, arrived bringing some
“tuba” which the three mixed with their beer. After taking some drinks, Manzo
left the house.
At about 6:00 o’clock
in the evening after they finished drinking, Marcial
suggested that Valera
and Imperial might as well have supper with him, which suggestion the two
readily accepted. They proceeded to the
dining room which was also situated in the ground floor of the house. At the dining table, Imperial sat beside Marcial Jalotjot, while Valera stood behind him. Valeriana
Hernandez, wife of Marcial Jalotjot,
was then in the second floor of the house, putting her baby to sleep. According to Orlando Merza,
as Marcial started to eat, Imperial suddenly stabbed
him on the stomach, causing Jalotjot to slump on the
table. When Marcial
attempted to stand up, Valera
poked a gun at Imperial and instructed him to get the bolo (Exhibit
“X”) from the wall and to use it on Marcial
and hack the latter, which Ernesto Imperial did. Valeriana Hernandez,
hearing the outcries of her husband, went down the stairs. Upon seeing her, Imperial, with the same
double-bladed instrument, immediately stabbed her. When Valera
saw that she did not collapse, he struck her on the head with his gun, causing
her to fall. Valera then got hold of Orlando Merza and dragged him upstairs where he tied him up. Valera
and Imperial then ransacked the house and then went downstairs and also
ransacked the store. Afterwards, the two
left, taking with them some money, a few pieces of jewelry, a “Columbia”
radio transistor (Exhibit “Z”) and the gun of Marcial
Jalotjot (Exhibit “U”). After a few minutes, Orlando,
sensing that the first floor of the house was on fire, managed to free himself, jump through the window and run to the house of
their neighbor, Vivencio Manzo. Merza related to
him his harrowing experience. Merza and Vivencio then shouted
for help and as a result, many of their neighbors responded and came to their
assistance.
Alejandro Gutierrez, Chief of Police of Pinamalayan,
testified that upon being informed that same evening of the incident, he and
Pat. Lamboloto Doriaga of Pinamalayan proceeded to the house of the Jalotjots and found the burnt body of Valeriana
Hernandez lying near the door of the sala which was
adjacent to the kitchen. The body of Marcial Jalotjot was sprawled on
the floor of the kitchen in a state of rigor mortis. The police also found a bloodstained bolo
(Exhibit “X”) on the floor of the kitchen and saw food scattered on
the table. In the second storey of the
house, clothes were strewn all over the floor, an aparador
appeared to have been forcibly opened and the drawers pulled out. A search of the sari-sari store showed
that the drawer where the money was kept was already empty of cash. Vivencio Manzo, Orlando Merza and the
people in the vicinity were questioned by the police. The police also prepared a sketch of the
crime scene (Exhibit “CC”).
An autopsy examination of the bodies of the two deceased was
conducted by Dr. Fernando Viloria, Municipal Health
Officer of Pinamalayan. His autopsy findings are as follows:
AS TO MARCIAL JALOTJOT:
“1. Cut wound 5 inches long at the left side of the neck
severing muscles, arteries, veins and cervical vertebra;
2. Stab wound 3/4 inch long
at the lower third of the sternum piercing the chest cavity;
3. Cut wound 1 inch long at the
right cheek;
4. Cut wound 2 inches long
above the right ear;
5. Cut wound 1 inch long at
the right side of the forehead.” (Exhibit “W”, Folder of
Exhibits, p. XXXII)
AS TO VALERIANA HERNANDEZ:
“1. Lacerated wound around two inches long with fractured
skull at the left parietal region severing the brain.
2. Stab wound 3/4 cm. long
lateral the left mammary gland with a direction medially and posteriorly piercing the left lung.
3. Stab wound 3/4 cm. long
below the left mammary gland direction upwards and posteriorly
piercing the left lung.
4. Stab wound 1 cm. long at
the mid sternal region direction posteriorly
to the left severing the left lung.
5. Two stab wounds 3/4 inch
long at the posterior chest between the two scapulas muscles deep.
6. Cut wound behind the
right ear 1-1/2 inches long.
7. Cut wound 1 inch long at
the left occipital region.
8. Burns
of both upper and lower extremeties and anterior
lower abdomen.” (Exhibit “T”, Folder of Exhibits, p.
XXX).
Dr. Viloria
testified that Marcial Jalotjot
died as a consequence of a traumatic shock due to external hemorrhage, while Valeriana Hernandez died of traumatic shock due to damage
in the brain, as well as internal and external hemorrhage.
Meanwhile, the police authorities from Pinamalayan
and Pola, headed by Police Chiefs Alejandro Gutierrez
and Rosauro Francisco, respectively, joined forces in
the manhunt for the culprits. As their
initial findings revealed that Ernesto Imperial and Julio Valera
were the probable killers, the police authorities proceeded first to the house
of Imperial at Barrio Saging, Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro, and there they were able to
apprehend Imperial. In the course of
their investigation of Imperial, they found that his traveling bag and other
personal effects were already packed and deposited under the house of a
neighbor. The wife of Imperial, who at
first refused to talk, finally told the police that her husband and Julio Valera came home at about 3:00
o’clock early in the morning of August 7, 1967, bringing with them a gun and a radio. Imperial was brought to the Pola police headquarters and although at first he
disclaimed his participation in the gruesome crime, he later on admitted his
participation in the crime and that his companion was Julio Valera,
a policeman of Pola.
Imperial was brought back to Saging and at
the place indicated by him, the police were able to recover the caliber .22 gun
of Marcial Jalotjot
(Exhibit “U”), and with the assistance of Elena, Imperial’s wife, the
transistor radio of the Jalotjots was also recovered.
Imperial gave a sworn statement (Exhibit “BB”) on August 7, 1967 before Judge Efren Villanueva and Fiscal Ramon B. Añonuevo,
admitting his participation in the killing and robbery of the Jalotjot spouses, but claiming that he acted only upon
orders of Julio Valera, who was himself personally
present at the scene of the crime. Upon
apprehension of Julio Valera, he was interrogated in
connection with the crime but he, however, refused to give a written statement.
Upon the request of Fiscal Añonuevo,
appellant Imperial re-enacted before the police how he boloed
Marcial Jalotjot and
stabbed Valeriana Hernandez, and also how he took
some money from the store of the spouses, all of which he claimed to have been
done upon orders of Julio Valera. As for Valera, he refused to participate
in the re-enactment.
The foregoing facts were established by the testimonies of Raquel
Doringo, Corporal of the Pola
Police Force; Dominador Sotto, Acting Chief of Police
of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro;
Billy Gonzales, photographer; Alejandro Gutierrez, who was then the Chief of
Police of Pinamalayan; and Fiscal Ramon B. Añonuevo.
The testimony of Celedonio Orilla is limited to the fact that at about 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon of August 6, 1967, when he bought
cigarettes at the store of the victims, he saw Ernesto Imperial drinking beer
inside the store, together with Julio Valera, who had
a gun tucked in his waist.
Bernardo Precilla of the Bureau of
Prisons testified that Julio Valera was formerly
known as George Scott y Pascual and was previously
convicted by final judgment on January
11, 1954 for attempted robbery and illegal possession of firearms
and served sentence in the national penitentiary.
The last witness for the prosecution, Deogracias
Maliwanag, Assistant Provincial Warden, testified
only to the fact that appellant Julio Valera, while
detained at the Provincial Jail for the afore-mentioned crime of Robbery with
Double Homicide, escaped on September
11, 1968.
At the trial of the case of Julio Valera
on August 9, 1971, appellant
Valera
presented Ernesto Imperial and himself as the only witnesses for the
defense. Ernesto Imperial testified that
in the morning of August 6, 1967,
he was in his house at Saging, Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro. In the afternoon of that date, he went to Pola, Oriental Mindoro to ask
policeman Johnny Valera to accompany him to go to Putingtubig for the purpose of collecting some money. Later, he and “Johnny” went to Putingtubig, arriving there at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, but not finding Marcial Jalotjot in his house,
they inquired from his wife, Valeriana Hernandez, of Marcial’s whereabouts, and Valeriana
informed them that Marcial was in the poblacion of Pinamalayan but
assured them that he would return that afternoon. At about 6:00
o’clock in the evening of that date, Marcial
arrived and upon seeing them, invited them to his house where they were served
beer, although Johnny Valera declined to drink. In the course of their drinking spree, a
nephew of Marcial Jalotjot
arrived, bringing with him “tuba” which Marcial
mixed with the beer. After consuming the
mixed drink of “tuba” and beer, Marcial
invited them to dinner, but Johnny Valera
declined. While they were eating,
Imperial asked Marcial Jalotjot
to pay his debt, explaining that he needed the money badly. When he noticed that Marcial
was drawing a caliber .22 revolver from his waist (Exhibit “U”), he
(Imperial) immediately grabbed a bolo lying on top of the table (Exhibit
“X”) and used it to hack Marcial, hitting
the victim on the forehead. When Marcial slumped on the table, he hacked him again on the
neck and afterwards got his “balisong” from
his pocket and stabbed Marcial Jalotjot. He then divested the victim of his revolver
and afterwards poked the gun at Johnny Valera and got
the latter’s caliber .38 pistol. After a
while, when Valeriana Hernandez came down the stairs,
he pulled her and hit her on the forehead with the gun and when she fell, he
stabbed her four or five times with his “balisong“. Afterwards, he approached Valera with the intention of
killing him, but was unable to do so because Valera ran away. He then grabbed Orlando Merza
and dragged him up the stairs, where he hogtied him. In the store, he got the shoes, transistor
radio and other things, and thereafter set fire to the house. He fled from the scene of the incident with
the intent of looking for Valera
and when he could not find him, he went to hide in Malaus,
Saging, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. When shown the contents of his sworn
statement (Exhibit “BB”) during his cross-examination, which appeared
to be inconsistent with portions of his testimony, Imperial asserted that the
contents of Exhibit “BB” were false, reiterating that Johnny Valera had no participation whatsoever in the crime as he
alone perpetrated the heinous act.
Julio Valera, testifying in his own
defense, stated that on August 6, 1967 at about 12:00 noon, he was in the poblacion of Pola where he met
Ernesto Imperial who sought his assistance in collecting a debt in Putingtubig; that he and Imperial went to the house of Marcial Jalotjot at Putingtubig, arriving there at around 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon; that upon finding that Marcial was out,
they talked with his wife, Valeriana Hernandez; that
they waited for Marcial until about 6:00 o’clock in
the afternoon; that when Marcial arrived, he asked
them to go inside the house; that inside the house, Ernesto Imperial asked Marcial to pay his debt, but instead of answering his
request, Marcial invited them to join him in drinking
beer; that a nephew of Marcial arrived with a jar of
“tuba”, which was mixed with beer, which mixture they drank; that
while they were drinking, Imperial reminded Marcial
of his indebtedness, but Marcial evaded the matter,
saying: “Let us talk about that
later”; that the drinking spree lasted until 8:00 o’clock when Marcial invited them to eat; that he refused the invitation
and so he was left in the sala of the house; that he
saw Marcial and Imperial whispering to each other;
that upon hearing the sound of a body falling to the floor, he went into the
kitchen and saw Marcial on the floor, and Imperial
was holding a gun with his left hand, while he held a bolo on the right hand;
that Imperial immediately poked the gun at him and told him not to move; that
he was taken aback when Imperial wrested his gun from his possession and
ordered him to move to the other side of the kitchen; that afterwards when the
wife of Marcial went down the stairs, he saw Imperial
going towards the woman, hitting her on the head with the gun, then stabbing
her several times; that after stabbing Valeriana
Hernandez, Imperial dragged a boy upstairs and it was at this time that he
escaped for Pola, finally reaching the poblacion at about 3:00 o’clock in the morning; that the
following day, he reported what happened in Putingtubig
to his chief, Rosauro Francisco, informing the latter
that Ernesto Imperial was the assailant of the deceased; that he learned of his
involvement in the case in the afternoon of August 7, 1967 when Imperial
implicated him. He insisted that it was
Imperial alone who committed the crime.
The thrust of the brief of appellant Julio Valera
is that the trial court should not have given much weight and credence to the testimony
of Orlando Merza as it was highly improbable for
Imperial and Valera, who were newly acquainted with
each other, to have entered into a conspiracy to commit such a grave offense,
especially since Valera himself was a police
officer. It was also argued that if
there was a conspiracy between the two, Orlando Merza
would have been liquidated immediately instead of being hogtied, since they
would have anticipated that he was a possible eyewitness to the crime. Appellant Valera further contended that the
testimony of Orlando Merza contained various
contradictions which impaired his credibility.
Thus, it is claimed that on direct examination, Merza
testified that Imperial was first ordered at gunpoint by Valera
to kill Jalotjot, but on cross examination he made no
mention of the order allegedly made by Valera, but
stated that the stabbing of the victim was so sudden and unexpected that he
(Orlando Merza) and the appellant Valera
were caught by surprise. It is further
asserted that on direct examination, Merza stated
that while Imperial was hacking Jalothot with the
bolo, Valera
was poking the gun at Imperial, but on cross-examination he said that Valera was poking his gun not at
Imperial but at Merza.
Contrary to the contention of appellant Valera, it appeared that the two
have known each other for sometime prior to the incident. Considering the past criminal record of Valera, it is not improbable for Valera to have participated in the
commission of the afore-stated crime.
The circumstance that Merza was hogtied
but not liquidated could be easily explained by the fact that at the time of
the incident, he was but a fragile boy of twelve years of age, posing no
immediate danger to the successful consummation of appellant’s criminal
enterprise. This is borne by the fact
that Imperial admitted in his testimony that it never occured
to him that Merza would be used as a witness for the
prosecution. On the alleged
contradictions of Merza, it must be noted that the
alleged inconsistencies are more apparent than real. For instance, he was asked: “Q. As a matter of fact, the stabbing was
so sudden, that you as well as the accused Valera were caught by surprise for
what Imperial did, am I correct?” He answered: “Yes, sir.” Obviously, Merza was referring to himself alone and not to Valera, as the one caught by
surprise, for certainly he could not have divined the mind of Valera. Likewise, the circumstance that Valera pointed his gun at Imperial
to prod him to hack Jalotjot does not necessarily
rule out the possibility that Valera
later poked his gun at Merza to prevent him from
shouting for help.
This Court has repeatedly declared that relatively minor
inconsistencies between the testimony of various witnesses or in the testimony
of the same witness do not affect their basic credibility. This Court has also noted that an intelligent
boy is undoubtedly the best observer. He
is little influenced by the suggestion of others and describes objects and
occurrences as he has really seen them.[1]
In the case at bar, the young Merza clearly and
unhesitatingly narrated the events on the night in question, and positively
described the different overt acts of the two appellants in the perpetration of
this heinous offense. There is nothing
in the record from which this Court could infer or deduce any improper motive
on the part of this witness. And this
Court has held in various cases that absence of evidence as to any improper
motive which may influence a principal witness for the prosecution strongly
tends to sustain the conclusion that no such motive existed and his testimony
is worthy of full faith and credit.[2]
Here, there is reasonableness and cogency in the testimony of Orlando Merza, and in the manner he answered the questions. Moreover, his testimony is corroborated by
the other evidence, viz.: the
testimony of Celedonio Orilla,
the findings of the police authorities, and the uncontroverted
physical facts, such as the nature and location of the wounds of the two
victims.
It will be noted that the trial court aptly observed that Valera’s testimony was a mere reproduction of the
testimony of his co-accused Imperial which, according to said court, cannot be
given credence because of the “overwhelming evidence of the prosecution
pointing to him as the real culprit who masterminded the overall plan to
liquidate the victims and to rob them * * *.” Neither is Ernesto
Imperial’s testimony availing to support Valera‘s
defense, nor was it worthy of credence.
It will be recalled that Imperial was taken from the penitentiary to
testify for Valera,
precisely to completely exculpate the latter.
However, previous to this, Imperial had declared under oath, on August 6, 1967, that Valera instigated the commission
of the crime and actively participated therein (Exhibit “BB”). While Imperial at first, on August 9, 1971, attempted to impugn
this statement, he later, on November
28, 1972, affirmed the veracity thereof. Such inconsistent and contradictory
statements made under oath, does not certainly argue in favor of the credibility
of the declarant.
There cannot be any doubt, therefore, that appellant Valera participated in the killing
and robbery. Merza
pointed to Valera
as the person who directed Imperial to hack Marcial Jalotjot with a bolo.
It was also Valera,
who according to Merza, struck the head of the wife of Marcial
Jalotjot with his gun after she was stabbed by
Imperial. This fact is corroborated by
the lacerated wounds found on the left parietal region of the head of Valeriana Hernandez.
It was also appellant Valera who dragged the
young Orlando Merza to the second floor of the house
where he was hogtied and then Valera ransacked the
house and the store, where he got some money, a few pieces of jewelry, a
“Columbia” transistor radio, and the Caliber .22 gun of the victim.
PEOPLE V. ERNESTO IMPERIAL, G.R. No. L-37016
We shall now consider the case of Ernesto Imperial.
As earlier stated, on November 28, 1972, Ernesto Imperial was
re-arraigned under the Information filed by Fiscal Ramon B. Añonuevo
and pleaded guilty.
Describing the proceedings anent the new re-arraignment of
appellant Ernesto Imperial on November 28, 1972, the lower court said:
“When the case was called for the arraignment of the accused,
Atty. Arnulfo Panaligan, de
oficio counsel, manifested that he was ready,
stating further that he has conferred with the accused who
signified his intention to enter a plea of guilty. Thereafter, the court addressing the accused
Ernesto Imperial, asked the latter if he had really conferred with his counsel
and if it was true that he intimated to said counsel that he was entering a
plea of guilty, the accused answered in the affirmative. The Court likewise told the accused that he
was charged of a very serious offense and a plea of guilty may mean his being
sentenced to death, to which the accused answered that he was aware of that,
likewise stating that he knew the consequences of his entering a voluntary
plea of guilt. Moreover, it was made
clear that even before leaving Muntinlupa for Pinamalayan to be re-arraigned,
his mind was already fixed that he would enter a plea of guilty.
“At this juncture, the prosecuting fiscal moved that after the
arraignment the accused be placed on the witness stand for interrogation. Thereafter the court ordered the
re-arraignment of the accused and the Deputy Clerk of Court read the
information in the Tagalog dialect and after having
been heard and understood the same, the accused stated ‘I plead guilty, sir.’,
so that the Court acting on the motion of the prosecuting fiscal, ordered the
accused to be placed on the witness stand.
“Answering questions of the Prosecuting Fiscal, the accused
admitted that on August 7, 1967, in the presence of Judge Villanueva and
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Ramon B. Añonuevo, he
executed an affidavit marked Exhibit ‘BB’ for the prosecution, said accused
having been confronted with the copy of said affidavit and after examining the
same, the accused answered in the affirmative.
Later, the whole affidavit was read to him and he admitted that the
questions stated in the same were really asked of him and that the answers
appearing therein were also the answers that he made during the taking of the
said affidavit and then categorically affirmed the truth and correctness of
the same.
“The Court then proceeded and asked the accused whether he
remembers that on August 9, 1971 he was present in Court by virtue of a
subpoena issued for his appearance to be a witness in the case of People of the
Philippines versus Julio Valera to which he answered
in the affirmative. Reminded that in his
testimony on that date, he assumed the sole responsibility for the death of Marcial Jalotjot and Valeriana Hernandez, he said that he made that narration of
admission because of the promise of Julio Valera that
if he would solely own the crime committed, he would be compensated in the
amount of P300,000.00 and as his mind was then confused, thinking that he had
no more future on the account of the penalty of death against him, he testified
in the manner he did, at the same time admitting that his testimony on August
9, 1971 in favor of Julio Valera, was not altogether
correct, having been only promised a reward.
Asked by the court where he was promised such reward, he said that it
was in the P.C. barracks at Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, but he did not receive the amount.
“Thereafter, he affirmed the truth of the affidavit that was
read to him by Fiscal Enriquez and said that he was retracting the testimony
that he gave before the Court on August 9, 1971 in connection with his
testimony in favor of Julio Valera, and emphasized
that he was indeed retracting and that he was not telling the whole truth,
stating further that his testimony this time, from his re-arraignment up to the
last question propounded by the court, was the truth.
“The defense counsel then manifested that he had no questions
to ask, whereupon, the court ordered the case submitted for decision and the
accused be brought back to the national penitentiary at Muntinlupa,
Rizal.”[3]
In view of appellant’s plea of guilty, the lower court convicted
him as aforesaid of the crime charged and imposed upon him the death penalty
with the same recommendation for commutation of sentence to life
imprisonment. Once again, appellant’s
case is before this Court for automatic review.
Appellant in his brief claims that the trial court erred: (1) in not receiving evidence in order to be
reasonably certain that no injustice was being done to the accused; and (2) in
failing to inform him of the nature of the charge against him, and therefore,
prayed that the decision of the lower court dated February 22, 1973 be set
aside and the case remanded anew to the lower court for further proceedings
conformably with the procedure laid down by this Court incase of a plea of
guilty for a capital offense.[4]
It is true that in capital offenses where a plea of guilty is
entered by the accused, “the court must assure itself that he is fully
aware of the implications of said plea and that, to this end, it may or should
take some evidence to be reasonably certain that no injustice is done to
him.”[5]
In the case at bar, however, it appears from the record that
appellant had full knowledge of the meaning and extent of his plea of guilty,
as shown by the following circumstances:
his testimony before the trial court on August 9, 1971, admitting that
he stabbed and boloed Marcial
Jalotjot and stabbed several times Valeriana Hernandez; and his actuations during his
re-arraignment on November 28, 1972.
Thus, after his plea of guilty, he was placed on the witness stand and
after he was confronted with his extrajudicial admissions contained in his
affidavit (Exhibit “BB”) which he executed on August 7, 1967 before
Judge Efren D. Villanueva and Fiscal Ramon B. Añonuevo at Pinamalayan, Oriental
Mindoro he clearly and categorically affirmed the
truth and correctness of his aforesaid confession. Although he retracted his testimony on August
9, 1971 wherein he owned solely the commission of the crime is not indicative
of the truth because of Julio Valera’s assurance that
he will pay him P300,000.00, such admissions and overt
acts show clearly that appellant fully understood the meaning and implication
of his plea of guilty.
As explained by the Solicitor General:
“True it is that, as pointed out by the appellant under his
second assignment of error in this appeal, this Honorable Court has repeatedly
admonished that trial judges must ‘be extra solicitous in seeing to it that
when an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea and
the import of an inevitable conviction’ (People v. Busa,
51 SCRA 317, 320); and that trial courts should
explain to the accused the meaning of the allegations regarding conspiracy and
the aggravating circumstances of treachery, etc., which are ‘terms so technical
that the layman’ cannot possibly understand them (People v. Silvestre, 51 SCRA 286; People v. Alamada, 52 SCRA 103). And it is
equally true that, as borne out by the 9-page transcript of stenographic notes
of the second trial of the case against appellant Imperial, the court a quo
again did not follow and adhere strictly to the guidelines set forth by this
Honorable Court in the cases herein cited and other similar cases, because the
presiding judge (The Honorable Ildefonso M. Bleza, who succeeded the then presiding judge, the
Honorable Pascual N. Beltran, now retired and the one
who penned the decision that was set aside by this Honorable Court in L-30039,
supra.) did not himself explain to the appellant the precise nature of the
charge against the latter, especially the allegations of conspiracy in the
information herein for robbery with double homicide, and the meaning and legal
significations of the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity,
treachery, superior strength, cruelty, craft, abuse of confidence, and dwelling
also alleged in said information; and neither did the trial court assure itself
that the latter clearly and fully understood the direful consequences of his
plea of guilty. But these flaws in the rearraignment of appellant Imperial do not detract from his
unequivocal admission in his sworn statement Exh.
‘BB’ that he did hack the deceased Marcial Jalotjot while the latter was already in a defenseless
position, so that he could and should be made accountable still for the crime
of murder. And it is precisely because
appellant’s plea of guilty does not appear to be unconditional, qualified as it
is by his affidavit Exh. ‘BB’, that
undersigned counsel have herein expressed the view that by his plea of guilty,
appellant Imperial should only be considered to have admitted such allegations
in the information as were likewise admitted by him in his said sworn statement
Exh. ‘BB’.”
The guilt of appellants Julio Valera
and Ernesto Imperial of the crime of Robbery with Double Homicide has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
The nature and number of aggravating circumstances proven by the
prosecution warrants the imposition of the death penalty.
The trial court found that the commission of the crime was
accompanied by the aggravating circumstances listed in the Information,
namely: nocturnity,
treachery, superior strength, cruelty, craft, abuse of confidence and dwelling,
aside from that of recidivism insofar as Julio Valera
is concerned.
We find, however, that aside from Valera’s
recidivism, only the aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling and abuse
of confidence or obvious ungratefulness may be appreciated against the
accused-appellants. Nocturnity,
abuse of superior strength and craft are absorbed in treachery. Cruelty has not been proven, there being no
showing that the accused, for their pleasure and satisfaction, caused the
victims to suffer slowly and gradually and inflicted on them unnecessary moral
and physical pain.[6]
The Solicitor General recommends, however, that appellant
Imperial’s plea of guilty should be considered, “not as a total confession
of guilt to the crime charged herein, as well as an admission of conspiracy and
all the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information, but only as an
admission of his having hacked the deceased in the neck with a bolo, together
with the aggravating circumstances of alevosia,
since he admittedly hacked the deceased when he was already wounded and unable
to defend himself.” In sum, the Solicitor General’s assessment is that appellant
Ernesto Imperial is guilty, not of the crime of Robbery with Double Homicide,
but of Murder qualified by treachery, with no aggravating circumstance and
with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, and therefore the penalty
of death imposed by the trial court should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
We disagree with the Solicitor General. The rule is that while an unqualified plea of
guilty is mitigating, it, at the same time, constitutes an admission of all the
material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating
circumstances therein recited.[7]
In such a case, the prosecution need not prove said circumstances since the
accused, by his plea of guilty, has already supplied the requisite proof.[8]
Likewise, We are not in accord with the
observation of the Solicitor General that the crime committed by Imperial was
Murder, qualified by treachery, and not Robbery with Double Homicide. The evidence has sufficiently shown that
after Imperial had stabbed the victim and Valera had
stabbed and struck the victim’s wife, Valera and
Imperial ransacked the house and then went downstairs and also ransacked the
store. Moreover, in the course of the
investigation of the crime by the police authorities, they were able to
recover the Caliber .22 gun belonging to the victim at the place indicated by
Imperial. The transistor radio of the
victims was likewise recovered with the help of Imperial’s wife. These circumstances sufficiently indicate
that the crime committed by Imperial was Robbery with Double Homicide, and not
Murder qualified by treachery. And,
considering that Imperial’s plea of guilty is insufficient to offset the
aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling and abuse of confidence or
obvious ungratefulness which attended the commission of the offense,[9]
the penalty of death has been properly imposed.
We note, however, that the trial court, having observed appellant’s
demeanor and remorse recommended to the President that the penalty of death
imposed be commuted to life imprisonment.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the decisions
appealed from are hereby affirmed.
Teehankee, Makasiar,
Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion,
Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Fernando, Acting C.J., did not take part.
Barredo, J., on leave.
Abad Santos, J., concurs but recommends executive clemency for Ernesto
Imperial.
[1] People v. Guzman, L-13340, April 30, 1960, 107 Phil. 1122.
[2] People v. Borbano L-37, May 25, 1946, 76 Phil. 702, People v. Macalindong, CA-No. 349, May 25, 1946, 76 Phil. 719.
[3]
Decision of the lower court dated February
22, 1973, pp. 5-7.
[4] Brief for the appellant, pp. 16-17.
[5] People v. Alincastre, L-29891, Aug. 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 391. See also:
People v. Domingo y Nato,
et. al., L-30464-65, Jan. 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 237; People v. Alamada, L-34594-95, July 13, 1973, 52 SCRA 103; People v.
Silvestre, L-33821, June 22, 1973, 51 SCRA 286.
[6] People v. Luna, L-28812, July 31, 1974, 58 SCRA 198.
[7] People
v. Egido, L-4217, Jan. 31, 1952, 90 Phil. 762; People
v. Santos and Vicente, L-12448, Jan. 22, 1959, 105 Phil. 40; People v. Apduhan, Jr., L-19491, Aug. 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 798.
[8] People v. Acosta, et al., L-7449, Mar. 23, 1956, 98 Phil. 642; People v. Rapirap,
L-11000, Jan.
21, 1958, 102 Phil. 863; People v. Apduhan, Jr., supra.
[9] People v. Nabual, l-27758, July 14, 1969, 28 SCRA 747.