THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PHILIP VALDEMORO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Valdemoro versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Philip Valdemoro, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. Valdemoro was charged with shooting a young student, Josefino Rejuso, at the Masbate Social Center. The case matters for two reasons. First, it teaches how the courts treat a confession by another person offered to exculpate the accused, and second, it teaches the deference owed to the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the credibility of witnesses. It also gives a clean illustration of treachery as a qualifying circumstance and of how the penalty for murder is fixed when no modifying circumstance attends the killing.

Procedural History

The original Information for murder was filed before the Court of First Instance of Masbate. On joint motion of the prosecution and the defense, because the accused was a son of one of the Assistant Provincial Fiscals, the case was transferred to the Circuit Criminal Court of the Tenth Judicial District, presided over by Judge Ricardo Payumo. An identical Information was filed there, and upon arraignment Valdemoro and his co-accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Circuit Criminal Court rendered judgment on April 6, 1973, convicting Valdemoro of murder qualified by treachery and acquitting his co-accused Federico Vargas and Rolando Cos. Valdemoro elevated the judgment to the Court of Appeals. On July 30, 1979, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, without entering judgment. The case then came before the Supreme Court for review, and the Court affirmed the judgment under review.

Facts

On the morning of May 27, 1972, the victim Josefino Rejuso, a nineteen year old student studying in Manila, and his friend Nylon Espenilla arrived in Masbate from San Jacinto in Ticao Island. Both were bound for Manila and were waiting for the boat Agustina. At around two thirty in the afternoon, the victim, Espenilla, and Reynaldo Khiong, the victim's fifteen year old first cousin, were seated under a star apple tree at the Masbate Social Center grounds, fronting the Office of the Provincial Engineer. Five persons approached them. Khiong identified three as Valdemoro, Federico Vargas, and Rolando Cos, and knew the other two only by face.

Valdemoro asked the victim why the latter had boxed him the previous night. The victim did not answer. Two companions of Valdemoro asked the same question. The victim then stood up, stepped backwards, and said he could not have boxed Valdemoro the previous night because he had just arrived in Masbate that morning and was bound for Manila. Suddenly, Valdemoro, at a distance of about ten armslengths, shot the victim with a pistol, hitting him first on the left arm. The bullet penetrated the left side of his body and the victim slumped to the ground. When Espenilla and Khiong stood up to assist him, Valdemoro pointed his pistol at them and said, you also. Valdemoro and his companions then ran away in different directions. The victim was carried to the Provincial Hospital and died a few hours later.

The defense presented a different story. Ricardo Arcueno, sixteen years old, confessed and admitted in open court that he had shot the victim. He claimed the victim asked to light a cigarette, then dealt him a karate blow on the stomach, and then drew a Batangas knife, whereupon Arcueno drew his gun and fired. His testimony was corroborated by Marianito Alba and by Oscar Rejuso, a first cousin of the accused. The trial court found Arcueno's confession unworthy of credence and gave full faith to the prosecution eyewitnesses.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the charge against Ricardo Arcueno despite his admission in open court that he shot the victim, and whether that dismissal deprived Valdemoro of due process.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding Arcueno's admission and in giving credence to the prosecution eyewitnesses over the defense witnesses.
• Whether or not the killing was attended by treachery, and whether or not the penalty was correctly modified to reclusion perpetua.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, on who prosecutes criminal actions, provides:

All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal.

This bears on the first issue, because it confirms that the decision to dismiss the charge against Arcueno belonged to the Fiscal, not to the accused.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, on the penalty for murder, provides:

The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death.

This bears on the third issue, because it fixes the range from which the penalty must be chosen when no modifying circumstance is present.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no error in the dismissal of the charge against Arcueno, and no denial of due process. All criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the Fiscal, against all persons who appear responsible. The Fiscal had no competent evidence, other than Arcueno's false confession, linking him to the crime, and was of the opinion that he could not secure a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Fiscal was well within his prerogative in moving for dismissal, duty bound as he was to ensure a searching and intelligent prosecution. Valdemoro was accorded a fair and impartial trial and had every opportunity to present evidence. Arcueno in fact testified as a defense witness, with full opportunity to give his version.

On the second issue, the Court held that Arcueno's confession fell short of the exacting criteria for a confession offered to serve as a basis for the acquittal of another. It must inspire credibility, must not be improbable, and must be one which the normal experience of mankind can accept as within the realm of probability. Arcueno was never identified by any eyewitness. He emerged claiming to be the culprit only two months and eleven days later, under dubious circumstances. It was unnatural that the victim would deal him a karate blow without reason, that he would hide when his theory was self-defense, that a boy of sixteen would carry a pistol, and that he would return to the scene and disclose his name and address to a stranger. The Court likewise sustained the credence given to Khiong and Espenilla. Their testimony was corroborated, they were unwavering in their identification, and no improper motive was shown. The initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information does not affect credibility, and the physician's concern was saving life, not identifying the assailant.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing. The shooting was sudden and unexpected, from a distance of about ten armslengths, without the least expectation on the part of the victim that he would be assaulted. The appellant deliberately employed a mode of execution which tended directly and specially to insure the consummation of the criminal act without risk to himself arising from the defense the victim could have made. As to the penalty, under Article 248 the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, and in the absence of any modifying circumstance the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

A confession by another person, offered to exculpate the accused, must inspire credibility; it must not be improbable nor excite disbelief, and must be one which the normal experience of mankind can accept as within the realm of probability. A confession that fails these criteria cannot serve as a basis for acquittal.

The prosecution of criminal actions is under the direction and control of the Fiscal, who may move to dismiss a charge against one accused when no competent evidence links that accused to the crime. Such dismissal does not deprive a co-accused of due process where he was given a fair trial and full opportunity to present evidence.

Treachery qualifies a killing when the offender deliberately employs a mode of execution which tends directly and specially to insure the consummation of the criminal act without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim could have made. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, and absent any modifying circumstance, it is imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed in full the judgment under review, sentencing Philip Valdemoro to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of Josefino Rejuso in the amount of 15,000 pesos, and to pay the costs.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that a confession offered to exculpate another must inspire credibility and must not be improbable, and that the Fiscal's dismissal of a co-accused does not violate due process. Examiners use this case on the credibility of a third party confession, on the Fiscal's direction and control of the prosecution, and on treachery and the medium period of the penalty for murder.