G.R. No. L-36162. July 31, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PAULITO GARCIA AND PABLO CANONIGO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
On or about 4:45 in the afternoon of November
21, 1970, Carlito Alejo was stabbed to death in the National Penitentiary at Muntinglupa, Rizal. The Necropsy Report[1] shows that he sustained the following injuries:
“Stab wounds, with clean-cut edges and sharp extremities:
(1) Chest, anterior aspect, left, at the level
of the 2nd intercostal space, 5.0 cms.
from the anterior median line, 2.5 cms. in size,
oriented vertically, directed backwards, slightly medially and downwards,
involving among other things, the soft tissues, thru the 2nd intercostal space, into the left thoracic cavity,
perforating the upper lobe of the left lung, into the pericardial cavity,
penetrating the right auricle of the heart, with approximate depth, 9.8 cms.;
(2) Chest, anterior aspect, right, at the level
of the 6th intercostal space, 13.5 cms. from the anterior median line, 4.5 cms.
in size, oriented downwards, and medially, directed medially, slightly downwards
and forwards, involving the soft tissues, non-perforating, communicating with
another wound on the chest, anterior aspect, right, at the level of the 6th
rib, 8.0 cms. from the anterior median line, 5.2 cms. in size, oriented downwards and medially;
(3) Chest, anterior aspect, right, at the level
of the 8th intercostal space, 15.0 cms. from the anterior median line, 2.0 cms.
in size, oriented downwards and laterally, directed medially, downwards and
slightly backwards, involving among other things, the soft tissues, thru the
8th intercostal space, grazing the upper border of
the 9th rib, into the abdominal cavity, penetrating the right lobe of the
liver, with approximate depth, 10.0 cms.;
(4) Abdomen, left, iliac region, 5.0 cms. from the anterior median line, 3.0 cms.
in size, oriented downwards and medially, directed backwards, upwards and
medially, involving the soft tissues, non-perforating, with approximate depth,
3.0 cms.;
(5), (6), (7) Chest,
left, lateral aspect, three in number, with sizes ranging from 1.5 cms. to 3.5 cms., oriented
vertically, directed medially and horizontally, involving the soft tissues,
non-perforating; with approximate depth, averaging 2.5 cms.;
(8) Chest, right, lateral aspect, at the level
of the 3rd intercostal space, 19.9 cms., from the anterior median line, along anterior axillary line, 1.0 cm. in size, oriented donwards and anteriorly, directed
forwards medially and downwards, involving the soft tissues, non-perforating,
with approximate depth, 3.0 cms.;
(9) Back, along posterior axillary
fold, left, 15.0 cms. from the posterior median line,
1.7 cms. in size, oriented downwards and medially,
directed forwards, upwards and medially, involving the soft tissues,
non-perforating, with approximate depth, 2.5 cms.;
(10) Back, along posterior median line, over 10th
thoracic vertebra, 1.0 cm. in size, oriented downwards and laterally to the
left, directed forwards, downwards and laterally, to left involving the soft
tissues, non-perforating, with approximate depth, 2.0 cms.;
(11) Hip, right, lateral aspect, 16.0 cms. from the anterior median line, 1.0 cm. in size,
oriented downwards and anteriorly, directed forwards,
upwards and medially, involving the soft tissues, non-perforating, with
approximate depth, 3.5 cms.
Hemothorax, left, 500 cc.
Hemopericardium, 900 cc.
Hemoperitoneum, 820 cc.
Brain and other visceral organs, pale.
Stomach, 1/2 filled with partly digested rice and food
materials.
Immediately thereafter, Pablo Canonigo,
a prisoner serving sentence for robbery with homicide, and Paulito
Garcia, also a prisoner serving sentence for parricide, were investigated in
connection with the stabbing incident.
In his “SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY“[2]
taken by prison guard Ignacio Ferrer, Pablo Canonigo admitted his participation in the stabbing of the
deceased, and declared, among others, as follows:
“3. T – Ano ang dahilan
at ikaw ay pinadala ng Officer of the Day upang siyasatin dito sa tanggapan ng
Investigation Section ngayon?
S – Dahil ako po ay nakamatay
sa loob ng
aming Brigada 7-A-2
“4. T – Kailan ka nakamatay?
S – Ngayong ika 21 ng Nobyembre
1970.
“5. T – Anong oras mo pinatay?
S – Humigit kumulang sa bandang
alas kuatro ng hapon (4:00 p.m.).
“6. T – Sinu-sino ang kasama
mong pumatay?
S – Ang kasama ko po
ay si Titoy (Paulito Garcia) na kapuwa ko bilanggo
lamang.
“7. T – Saan ninyo siya
pinatay?
S – Sa loob po ng aming
Brigada sa may malapit sa pinto.
“8. T – Ibig mong sabihin
ikaw, si Titoy at ang inyong
pinatay ay nakahimpil sa iisang Brigada?
S – Opo sir.
“9. T – Sino
ang inyong pinatay ni Titoy?
S – Hindi ko po alam ang
pangalan ngunit kilala ko sa
mukha lamang.
“10. T – Ano ang dahilan at bakit ninyo siya
pinatay?
S
– Sapagkat kahapon po ay nagkaroon
kami noong aking pinatay ng
alitan at pinagbantaan akong patayin kaya
inunahan ko na siya.
“11.T
– Ano naman ang dahilan
at tumulong sa pagpatay si Titoy?
S
– Dahil po sa noong kami
nang aming pinatay ay nag-aaway kahapon ay inawat kami ni Titoy
ngunit sumama ang loob niya
kaya binantaan din si Titoy na
patayin.
“12.T
– Ano ang ginamit ninyo
ni Titoy sa pagpatay?
S
– Matalas na gawang Bilibid
po sir.
“13.
T – Gaano kahaba at kakitid ang matalas na
ginamit mo?
S
– Ang haba noon ay humigit kumulang sa isang pie (One foot) at ang kitid ay halos isang pulgada po.
“14.T
– May matalas na dalawa rito
sa aking lamesa, alin dito
ang ginamit mong pinanaksak?
S
– Ito po
sir. (Declarant
pointing at the improvised deadly weapon used by him in stabbing the victim,
CARLITO ALEJO, No. 67561-P).
“15.T
– Binalak ba ninyo ni
Titoy ang ginawa ninyong pagpatay doon sa
taong hindi ninyo nakikilala?
S
– Opo sir.
“16.
T – Ilan beses mo siya sinaksak
at saan parte ng kanyang katawan?
S
– Hindi ko na alam po kong
ilang beses sapagkat noong naumpisahan ko sunodsunod na ang
pagsaksak ko sa kanya sa
tadyang at mayroon pa sa likod.
“17.T
– Ano ang ginawa noong
pinatay mo nang siya’y iyong saksakin?
S
– Siya po ay nakadungaw sa may bintana at nakatingin sa Brigada
VI at siya’y nakatalikod sa akin.
“18.T
– Sinong unang sumaksak sa inyo ni
bilanggong Titoy doon sa pinatay
ninyo?
S
– Ako po ang unang
sumaksak.
“19.T
– Sinu-sino ang nakakita nang
kayo ni Titoy ay nanaksak?
S
– Nakita po ako ng
aming tanod (Keeper) nang siya ay dumating
galing sa ibaba at marami rin ang nakakitang
mga kasama ko sa loob
ng aming Brigada.
“20.T
– Ano ang ginawa ng
inyong tanod (Keeper) nang makita ka at ang iyong pinatay?
S
– Pinasurrender
sa akin ang aking matalas at pinadala niya ang
aming pinatay sa HBP Hospital.
“21.T
– Nang matapos ninyong saksakin ni Titoy
ang inyong pinatay saan ka naroroon?
S
– Sa loob po ng pasilio.
“22.T
– Ibig mong sabihin nakasarado
ang inyong Brigada?
S
– Opo sir.
“23.T
– Tapos na ako ng
pagtatanong, mayroon ka pa
bang nais idagdag o bawasin sa salaysay
mong ito?
S
– Wala na po sir.
“24.T
– Naintindihan
mo ng mabuti ang mga tinanong
ko sa iyo
sa wikang Tagalog?
S
– Opo sir.
“25.T
– Marunong ka
bang sumulat at bumasa ng wikang Tagalog?
S
– Opo sir.
“26.
T – Kung gayon handa mo
bang lagdaan at panumpaan ang salaysay mong
ito, na hindi
ka pinilit, tinakot, sinaktan o pinangakuan ng anumang uri
ng pabuya upang ibigay mo ang salaysay mong
ito?
S
– Opo
sir.”
Paulito Garcia, in his “SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY“[3] taken by Prison Guard Pedro R. Palparan also admitted his participation in the stabbing of
the deceased. He declared, among others,
as follows:
“3.
T – Alam mo ba ang dahilan
kung bakit ka dinala dito sa tanggapan
ng Investigation Section? Bakit?
S
– Opo, dahil sa pagkakasaksak
ko sa isang
kasama namin sa brigada.
“4.T
– Sino ang sinaksak mo at sino ang kasama mo?
S
– Hindi ko po kilala pero
kilala ko po sa mukha
ang sinaksak ko. Si Pablo Canonigo po ang kasama
kong sumaksak.
“5.T
– Saan at kailan naganap ang inyong pananaksak?
S
– Doon
po sa pasilyo
malapit sa pintuan ng Dormitoryo
7-A-2, kaninang mga alas 4:00 ng hapon.
“6. T – Bakit ninyo siya sinaksak?
S
– Dahil po ako ay pinagbantaan niya kahapon nang
mag-away si Canonigo at ang aming pinatay. Sinabi niyang ‘Ikaw aawat-awat,
papatayin kita‘, kaya inunahan na
namin siya.
“7.
T – Sino ang unang sumaksak sa inyong pinatay?
S
– Siya po, si Canonigo.
“8.
T – Ano ang uri ng
matalas ang ginamit mo?
S
– Matalas pong
yari sa loob,
ibinigay po ni Luna sa akin noong buhay pa siya.
“9.T
– Kilala mo ba ang matalas
na ginamit mo, ituro mo? (Ipinakita ang matalas).
S
– Opo, iyon pong maikli. (Itinuro ang matalas, mga
10 pulgada.)
“10.T
– Saan mo sinaksak, anong parte ng katawan
mo sinaksak? Ilang beses?
S
– Sa kanang bahagi ng likod, mga
tatlong beses po.
“11
T – Noong matapos ang nasabing
papanaksak, saan kayo nagpunta?
S
– Pumasok po kami sa loob
ng brigada.
“12.T – Inutosan ka bang umamin sa pagkakasalang ito?
S – Hindi po.
“13.T – Kilala mo ba kung sino ang guardia
(keeper) sa inyong brigada noong maganap
ang inyong pananaksak?
S –
Hindi ko po kilala sapagkat bagong relieve ang mga guardia.
“14.T – Anong ginawa
ng mga implyado
ng malaman na nagulo sa
loob ng inyong
brigada?
S – Umakyat po
sila sa itaas
ng aming brigada at pinasuko kami kasama ang
matalas.
“15.T – Sino ang unang sumaksak
sa inyo ni
prisoner Canonigo?
S – Si prisoner Canonigo po.
“16.T – Anong pangkat o gang kinaaaniban mo?
S – BSL (Batang Samar Leyte).
“17.T – Binalak ba ninyo ang
ginawa ninyong pagpatay kay prisoner Carlito Alejo?
S – Opo.
“18.T – Wala na akong
maitatanong sa iyo, mayroon ka pa bang ibig na sabihin,
idagdag o alisin sa iyong salaysay?
S – Wala
na po.
“20.T – Kung gayon handa mo bang lagdaan o pirmahan ang iyong
salaysay na di pinilit, tinakot,
sinaktan o pinangakuan ng ano mang
pabuya?
S – Opo.
“21. T – Marunong ka bang sumulat o bumasa ng wikang
tagalog?
S – Hindi po.
“22.T – Naintindihan mo ba ang mga
tanong sa iyo sa wikang
tagalog?
S – Opo.
“22. T – Handa mo bang pirmahan na sa
katunayan ay salaysay mo ito?
S – Opo.”
On the basis of their extra-judicial confessions and other
evidence, Pablo Canonigo and Paulito
Garcia were charged in the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig,
Rizal, with the crime of murder, allegedly committed
as follows:
“That or on about November 21, 1970, in the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinglupa, Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused while then confined at the said institution,
conspiring, confederating and acting together and each armed with improvised
weapon, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault and
wound therewith one CARLITO ALEJO, No. 67651-P, a sentenced prisoner in the
same institution, inflicting upon him multiple stab wounds, while then unarmed
and unable to defend himself from the attack launched by the accused, as a
result of which the said Alejo died instantly.
“That the offense when committed by the above accused was
attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and the generic
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and recidivism, the accused Pablo
Canonigo serving final sentence for Robbery with
Homicide, sentenced by the Criminal Circuit Court of Manila on September 24,
1969; and the accused Paulito Garcia serving final
sentence for the crime of Parricide, sentenced by the Court of First Instance
of Samar on January 10, 1968.”[4]
When arraigned, both accused, assisted by counsel de oficio entered a plea of not guilty,[5]
and thereafter, the case was set for trial
on the merits.
At the trial of the case on July 29, 1972, the counsel de oficio for the two accused, manifested that
they voluntarily relayed to him their intention to confess their guilt in open
court and that they be allowed to withdraw their former plea of not guilty and
substitute it with a plea of guilty. The
court inquired from the two accused if they were affirming the motion of their
counsel and both replied in the affirmative.
The court then apprised the two accused of the consequences of their
plea of guilt and that there is no sentence which it could impose upon them
except the death penalty because of the provision of Art. 160 of the Revised
Penal Code. Despite that information,
the two accused manifested that they were adhering to their plea of guilty and
that they were resigned to their fate.[6]
Thereafter, the court a quo promulgated a decision,[7]
the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
“WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-1012-Rizal, in view
of the voluntary and spontaneous confession of guilt by the accused Paulito Garcia (63628-P) and Pablo Canonigo
(69634-P), the Court finds them Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder in violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as charged in the
Information, and hereby sentences each one of them to suffer the DEATH penalty;
to indemnify the heirs of the victim Carlito Alejo in the amount of P12,000.00; to pay P12,000.00 as
exemplary damages and another P12,000.00 as moral damages; and to pay their
proportionate share of the costs.”
On the same date, the court issued an order,[8]
directing the Special Prosecutor to present the evidence for the prosecution
pursuant to the doctrine laid down in People
vs. Flores.[9]
The trial court held hearings for the reception of the evidence
for the prosecution. The investigators who
took the extra-judicial confessions of the two accused and the medico-legal
officer of the NBI who performed the autopsy on the body of the deceased
testified and were cross-examined by the counsel de oficio. The prosecution also
presented in evidence, the extra-judicial confessions of the accused, the
Necropsy Report, the improvised bladed weapons used in the stabbing and the
photographs of the wounds of the deceased.
After the prosecution rested its case, the judgment of the court a quo of July 29, 1972
was re-promulgated on January 13, 1973.[10]
In view of the death penalty imposed upon the accused, the case
is now before this Court for automatic review.
The appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding them
guilty of murder and in imposing the death penalty, arguing that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation, although alleged in the information, were not proven during the
trial. The appellants’ contention is
untenable. Having entered a plea of
guilty, the appellants are deemed to have admitted all the material facts
alleged in the information.[11]
By their plea, they admitted not only the commission of the crime, but also the
attendant circumstances alleged therein, qualifying and/or aggravating the
crime.[12]
A plea of guilty when formally entered on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain
a conviction even for a capital offense without the introduction of further
evidence, the requisite proofs having been supplied by the accused themselves.[13]
The appellants also claim that the trial court should not have
taken into consideration their extra-judicial confessions, since there was no
showing that the same were voluntarily given.
Again, the contention of appellants is devoid of any merit. In this jurisdiction, the presumption of the
law is in favor of the spontaneity and voluntariness
of the statement given by an accused, and it is incumbent upon him to destroy
that presumption.[14]
The appellants herein have not adduced any evidence to overcome this
presumption. On the contrary, they have
in effect affirmed their extra-judicial confessions when they pleaded guilty to
the charge.
Finally, the appellants claim that the trial court should have
considered in their favor the mitigating circumstances of (1) no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed; (2) passion or obfuscation; and (3)
voluntary confession of guilt in open court. In view, however, of the existence of the
special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism,[15] which cannot be offset by any
mitigating circumstance,[16]
it is unnecessary to discuss the presence or absence of the mitigating
circumstances claimed by the appellants.
Considering, therefore, that the crime in the instant case was
committed by the appellants while serving sentence for a felony for which they
were convicted by final judgment, the trial court correctly imposed the death
penalty.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court,
being in accordance with the law and the evidence, is AFFIRMED. However, for
lack of the necessary number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty,
the appellants are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. With
costs against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad
Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
[1]
Exh. “A”, Original Record, p. 98.
[2]
Exh. “F”, Ibid., p. 102.
[3]
Exh. “I”, Record, p. 105.
[4]
Record, p. 1.
[5]
Record, p. 9.
[6]
Record, pp. 51-52.
[7]
Record, p. 48.
[8]
Record, p. 43.
[9]
L-32692, July 30, 1971, 40
SCRA 230.
[10]
t.s.n., January 6, 1973, p. 19.
[11]
People vs. Roldan, 23 SCRA 907; People vs.
Arpa, 29 SCRA 1037.
[12]
People vs. Yu, 1 SCRA 199 and cases therein cited; People vs.
Alicia, 95 SCRA 227.
[13]
People vs. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570.
[14]
People vs. Pereto, 1 SCRA 1469.
[15]
Art. 160, Revised Penal Code, provides:
“Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who
shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished
by the maximum period for the penalty prescribed by law for the new
felony.”
[16]
People vs. Villacores, et al., L-35969, May 16, 1980, citing People vs.
Santos, 105 Phil. 40.