THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. HONORATO GENILLA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Genilla

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Honorato Genilla, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. Genilla and a co-accused, Leopoldo Arellano, were found guilty of killing Faustino Amate in the barrio of Butadon, in the town of Kapatagan, in the old province of Lanao, on the night of August 24, 1953. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean lesson on how the Supreme Court treats a motion for new trial grounded on a retraction by a prosecution witness, and why such a retraction is viewed with caution. Second, it is a lesson on penalty: the Court corrects the trial court for applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law where the law does not allow it, and imposes reclusion perpetua.

Procedural History

Genilla and Arellano were tried in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte. The trial court convicted both of murder and sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty ranging from eighteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal to thirty years of reclusion perpetua, to pay the proportional part of the costs, and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Faustino Amate in the sum of six thousand pesos. Only Genilla appealed. While the records were still in the Court of Appeals, Genilla filed a motion for new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence, consisting of two affidavits of the widow of the deceased retracting her testimony. The Court of Appeals resolved to consider the motion when the case is decided on the merits, and then certified the case to the Supreme Court under the Judiciary Act of 1948 and Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court, because the penalty involved is reclusion perpetua. The case thus reached the Supreme Court by certification from the Court of Appeals.

Facts

On the night of August 24, 1953, at about half past nine, Faustino Amate left his house in Butadon to answer a call of nature nearby. His wife Cleofe heard him shouting for help. She opened the door and saw her husband running toward the house, pursued by two men who attacked him with their bolos. She approached with Alfredo Homok, who was staying in the house, and they found Faustino prostrate on the ground with bolo wounds in several parts of his body. He died that same evening. The only issue in the lower court was the identity of the assailants.

Cleofe testified that the two men were Leopoldo Arellano and Genilla, whom she recognized while they were hacking her husband. Alfredo Homok corroborated her: going down the house upon hearing the screams, he saw Arellano and Genilla fleeing from the scene. Faustino himself told Cleofe and Alfredo that his assailants were these two men. There was also a motive. Genilla and one Necitas Agawin had adverse claims over a parcel of land held by Agawin's tenants, among them Faustino Amate. Threats and intimidation followed, and three criminal cases were filed with the justice of the peace court of Kapatagan, which were eventually dismissed. Agawin, fearing Genilla, who was known to have a shotgun, asked the Constabulary to investigate. On the afternoon of August 24, 1953, Corporal Badenas and two soldiers served on Genilla a subpoena and seized his shotgun. Genilla pointed to Faustino and said that fellow was the one who reported him, because that fellow had a land conflict with him.

That same evening Amate was killed. Shortly after midnight Badenas learned of the killing. The next morning, shortly after eight, he arrested Genilla in his own house, and then arrested Arellano, who was carrying a bloodstained bolo in a scabbard on his waist. Genilla denied the crime and claimed alibi, saying he was in his house about four kilometers from the scene, corroborated by Demetrio Villapania. The trial court did not believe the defense witnesses and found no reason to doubt the prosecution witnesses. On June 6, 1963, while the records were in the Court of Appeals, Genilla filed a motion for new trial based on two affidavits of the widow, dated September 6, 1960, and May 15, 1963, retracting her testimony and exempting him from responsibility.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court correctly found that Honorato Genilla was one of the assailants of Faustino Amate, despite his defense of alibi.
• Whether or not the motion for new trial based on the widow's affidavits of retraction should be granted.
• Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law was correctly applied in imposing the penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Act Number 4103, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, provides:

This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death or life imprisonment, nor to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason, misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or conspiracy to commit sedition, espionage, piracy, or who are habitual delinquents, or who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence.

This is the provision the Court applies in correcting the penalty, because murder qualified by treachery carries reclusion perpetua in its medium period, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to that penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the finding of guilt. The widow's testimony was corroborated by Alfredo Homok, by the ante-mortem declaration of Faustino Amate, by Arellano's admission of his participation, and by the circumstance that the authorities were advised immediately after the occurrence and arrested both men early the next morning. The Court held that the records fully justified the conclusions of the trial judge, and that the alibi did not overcome the positive identification.

On the second issue, the Court denied the motion for new trial. The affidavits deserved caution. One bore a signature so poorly written as to show its author was hardly literate, while the other was merely thumbmarked; if she truly signed the first, why not the second. The first affidavit was dated September 6, 1960, yet was not filed until June 6, 1963, and no attempt was made to explain the delay, nor why a second affidavit had to be taken if the first were genuine. More importantly, the conviction did not rest exclusively on the widow's testimony. The corroboration showed that in implicating Genilla she must have acted spontaneously, for otherwise the authorities would not have arrested the accused forthwith.

On the third issue, the Court held that no modifying circumstance was present apart from the qualifying circumstance of treachery, so the penalty for murder must be imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. Because of this, the lower court erred in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, since Section 2 of Act Number 4103 excludes persons convicted of offenses punished with life imprisonment.

Doctrine

First, a retraction by a prosecution witness is viewed with suspicion and is not by itself a ground for new trial, especially where the conviction rests on corroborated evidence and the affidavits are attended by unexplained delay and irregularities. Second, the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, because Section 2 of Act Number 4103 expressly excludes offenses punished with life imprisonment. Third, where the only attending circumstance is the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the penalty for murder is imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Court denied the motion for new trial, affirmed the conviction of Honorato Genilla in all other respects, and modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a retraction is weak evidence, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law never applies to reclusion perpetua. Examiners use this case to test the treatment of recantations and the correct penalty for murder qualified by treachery.