THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SILVESTRE MATE Y ABAD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On November 16, 1971,
an information was filed with the Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal
against Silvestre Mate y Abad, John
Doe alias “Ben Almine Bohol“,
Peter Doe alias “Oscar” and Henry Doe alias “Doro”
for the crime of Kidnapping For Ransom With Murder and Frustrated Murder, to
wit:

“That on or about the 1st day of November, 1971, in the
Municipality of Makati, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the abovementioned accused, with evident premeditation,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually aiding one another did, then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and for the pur­pose
of kidnapping Susan and Lynn Butler to extort ransom, enter the premises of the
Butler residence at No. 15 Ipil Road, Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal, and while the
accused was in the guesthouse inside the But­ler compound, Martina Caldoza, a maid of the Butlers, surprised the accused in
the guesthouse and with in­tent to kill, treachery and use of superior
strength, the accused did, then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously hit her on the head with the shotgun they were then
provided stab her on the back several times with a screw driver, thereby
inflicting upon said Martina Caldoza mortal injuries
which directly caused her death; thereupon, the accused in pursuance of their
conspiracy and criminal design and upon see­ing Mrs. Caroline Butler
approaching the guesthouse where they were positioned, with the same intent to
kill, treachery and while the victim Mrs. Butler was fleeing for help, did,
then and there wilfully, un­lawfully and feloniously
shoot her with the same firearm hitting and inflicting upon the vital parts of
her body gunshot wounds, thus the accused’ perform­ing all the acts of
execution which would produce the crime of murder as a consequence, but which
neverthe­less, did not produce it by reason of causes inde­pendent of the will
of the accused, that is, due to the timely and
able medical attendance rendered to Caroline Butler which prevented her death;
the said accused, still pursuing their criminal intent, design and conspiracy,
did, then and there wilfully, unlaw­fully and
feloniously hold her and threatened to kill her for the purpose of extorting
ransom of P25,000.00 from her parents to which demand only P15,000.00 was
produced which the accused received and carried away together with the kidnap
victim Suzie Butler to Botolan, Zambales.”^[1]

The case was set for
arraignment on November 20, 1971.  On the said
date, the following proceedings took place:

“ATTY. GALVAN

I am appearing for the
accused as counsel de officio, Your Honor.  Your Honor, I have con­ferred with the
accused, Your Honor, and I informed him of the nature of the charges against
him and inquired from him if he had a counsel and he told me that he has no
coun­sel.  I informed him of his
constitutional rights and also the probable penalty of the charges against
him.  The accused says he is ready for
arraignment.

“FISCAL MELENDRES

I am appearing for the
prosecution, Your Honor.

“COURT

Arraign the
accused.  (The Court’s Deputy Clerk of
Court reads the information to the accused and it was duly interpreted to him.)

“CLERK OF COURT

The accused enters a
plea of GUILTY, Your Honor.

“COURT

Q    Are you aware of the consequence of your act
that whenever an accused will plead guilty, he will be punished in accordance
with the law?

A     Yes, Your Honor.

Q    And that you might be punished with death?

A     Yes, Your Honor.

Q    Did you ask your mind and ask your
conscience and searched your soul with respect to the consequence of your act?

A     Yes, Your Honor.

Q    And you made that soul searching from the
time that you were arrested by the police?

A     Yes, Your Honor.

Q    Notwithstanding that, you are now ready to
receive whatever penalty that may be imposed upon you by the law?

A     Yes, Your Honor.”^[2]

Immediately, thereafter, the trial court promulgated a deci­sion,
convicting the accused of the crime charged in the information, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the spontaneous and volun­tary
confession of guilt of accused Silvestre Mate y Abad,
the Court finds him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Kidnapping
for Ransom with Mur­der and Frustrated Murder under Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code, as charged in the information, and hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of death, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Mar­tina Caldoza
the amount of P12,000.00, to pay the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages and
P10,000.00 as examplary damages, to pay Mrs. Caroline
Butler the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay the
costs.”^[3]

x x x              x x x                 x x x

Subsequently, the trial court conducted hearings for the re­ception
of the prosecution’s evidence.  The
prosecution presented as witnesses T/Sgt. Orlando D. Acierto,
PC Investigator, stationed at Camp Conrado T. Yap, Iba, Zambales, Catalino Manipon, CIS
Agent-Investigator, Manolo Dizon,
police investigator, Makati Police Department, Capt.
Roman P. Madella, Commander of the 162nd PC Com­pany,
at Camp Conrado T. Yap, Iba,
Zambales, Dionisio Bengzon, Chief of Security at Forbes Park, Dr. Orlando V.
Salvador, the physician who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased,
and Remy Macaspac, Patrolman, Makati,
Police Department and a number of documentary evidence.

The evidence disclosed the following facts:

At about 11:00 p.m. of October 31, 1971, accused Silvestre Mate,
together with Albino (Ben) Bohol, gained entrance
into the yard of Mr. Charles Butler at No. 15 Ipil
Road, Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal.  They stayed in the guesthouse within the yard
until the morning of November 1, 1971.  At
about 7:30 a.m., Mate noticed a man and a woman approach the guesthouse, but
they did not enter.  About thirty minutes
later a woman entered the guesthouse. 
Mate and Bohol were hiding and watching her
movements.  Later, both Mate and Bohol approached the woman, who turned out to be the
victim, Martina Caldoza.  Martina, surprised and afraid upon seeing the
two, shouted for assistance.  Mate held
Martina, trying to stop her from shouting. 
At that moment Ben Bohol hit Martina on the
head with the handle of the shotgun. 
When Martina became uncon­scious and fell, Ben Bohol
stabbed her twice at the back with a screwdriver.  Mate and Bohol
brought the woman to the bathroom of the guesthouse where Ben Bohol again repeatedly stabbed her until she died.

Five minutes afterwards, Mrs. Butler approached the guesthouse as
if looking for something.  Mate who was
watching the movement of Mrs. Butler, pointed the shotgun at her and told her
not to shout.  Mrs. Butler, surprised and
afraid, shouted for help and tried to run away. 
Mate shot her at the back with the shotgun.  Mate, then, proceeded hurriedly, through the
kitchen, into the house of the Butlers. 
He ordered a woman he met inside the house to accompany him to the
bedroom.  Inside the bedroom, Mate saw
Suzie Butler who accompanied Mate inside one of the rooms.^[4]

When the police authorities came, they surrounded the place, and
Mate held Suzie Butler as a hostage inside the locked room.  The uncle of Suzie tried to negotiate with
Mate for the release of Suzie.  Mate
stated that he wanted to talk with newspaperman Ruther Batuigas.  Batuigas was
allowed to enter the room bringing with him food.  The uncle of Suzie was also allowed by Mate
to enter the room.  They negotiated for
the amount of ransom money needed to release Suzie.  Mate eventually accepted P15,000.00 provided
he would be brought by helicopter to his desired place for escape.  The police officers agreed.  About 3:00
p.m. of the same day, Mate, Suzie, her uncle, and Batuigas rode the helicop­ter that had been provided and
they were all flown to Botolan, Zambales.  They landed in Pulong
Bato, Botolan, Zambales, at about 5:30 p.m. of November 1, 1971.  The P15,000.00 was given to Mate by the uncle
of Suzie and Suzie was released.  Mate
remained, while the group left in the same helicopter.^[5]

Dr. Orlando V. Salvador conducted the autopsy on the body of the
victim Martina Caldoza y Cagadoc
and prepared the Necropsy Report, as follows:^[6]

“Postmortem
Findings

“Pallor of integuments and nailbeds.

“Ligature marks around ankle, bilateral, 18 x 0.5 cm.

“Abrasions:  lower lip,
region, left, 2.5 x 1.5 cm.; 3 x 2.5 cm.; knee, right, antero-lateral
aspect, 2 x 1.5 cm.

“Contused-abrasions, purplish-red:  infra orbital region, left, near base of
nose, 2 x 0.5 cm., lips, moutaneous portions:  upper lip, right half, 2.6 x 1 cm.; lower
lips, almost entire por­tion, 6 x 1.5 cm.

“Hematoma, scalp, fronto-parietal region, bilateral.

“Lacerated wound, parietal region at vortex, along sagittal line, 6 cm. long.

“Fracture, linear, parietal and occipital bones along sagittal line.

“Stab wounds:  (1)
Chest, anterior aspect, left side, 6.5 cm. from anterior midline, left side,
6.5 cm. from anterior midline, level of the 2nd intercostal
space along midclavicular line, oriented obliquely,
1.1 cm. in size elliptical in shape,
edges clean-cut, both extremities sharp, directed downwards, backwards and
medially, penet­rating the thoracic cavity thru the 2nd ICS, per forating the upper lobe of lung, with an approximate
depth of 12 cm.;

(2) Chest, right, anterior aspect, 2.5
cm. from anterior midline, level of the 3rd ICS along paras­ternal
line, oriented obliquely, elliptical in shape, 1.0 cm. in size, edges clear
cut, both extremities sharp, directed backwards, upwards and from right to
left, penetrating the thoracic cavity thru the 3rd ICS along parasternal line, perforating upper lobe of right lung,
thru the right auricle of heart, with an approximate depth of 11 cm.;

(3) Chest, left,
anterior, 2.3 m. from anterior median line, level of the 4th rib along left paras­ternal line, oriented obliquely, 0.8 cm. in size,
elliptical in shape, edges clear cut, both extremi­ties sharp.  Directed backwards, upwards and medially
involving only skin and soft tissues, non-perforating, with an approximate
depth of 2.5 cm.;

(4) Back, intrascapular region, left, 6.0 cm. from posterior midline,
level of the 5th ICS, oriented almost vertically, 0.8 cm. in size; elliptical,
edges clear-cut, both extremities sharp, directed forwards, upwards and
medially, involving only skin and soft tissues, non-perforating, with an
approximate depth of 3.0 cm.;

(5) Back, right,
vertebral region, 2.0 cm. from posterior median line, level of the ICS, along
right paravertebral line, oriented obliquely, 1.0 cm.
in size, elliptical, edges clear-cut, both extremities sharp, directed forwards
slightly upwards and medially, involving skin and soft tissues,
non-perforating, with an approximate depth of 3.0 cm.;

(6) Back, infrascapular region, right, 10.5 cm. from posterior median
line, level of the 7th ICS along midscapular line,
oriented horizontally, 0.8 cm. stellate in shape,
edges clear-cut, extremities are sharp, directed forwards, upwards and slightly
medial, penetrating the thoracic cavity thru the 7th ICS, perforating the lower
lobe of lung, right, with an approximate depth of 10 cm.;

“Punctured wounds:

(1) Chest, right,
anterior aspect, 3.0 cm. from anterior midline, level of the 2nd rib along parasternal line, 0.3 x 0.2 cm. in size, roughly oval in
shape, directed backwards, downwards and medially involving only skin and soft
tissues, non-perforating, with an approximate depth of 2.0 cm.’

(2) Back, scapular
region, right side, 7 in number, dispersed in an area of 18 x 14 cm.; average
size of which is 0.6 cm. all directed forwards, slightly upwards and medially, non-perforating, with an approximate
depth of 2.0 cm.

“Meningeal hemorrhage – subarachneidal, parietal lobe, bilateral minimal.

“Hemothorax – left, 600 cc.; right,
1000 cc.

“Brain and visceral organs, pale.

“Heart – contains dark fluid blood.

“Stomach – contains mall amount of yellowish fluid materials.

“CAUSE OF DEATH:  Stab
wounds of chest and back.  Skull
fractured with meningeal
hemorrhage, traumatic, contributory.”^[7]

The other victim, Mrs. Caroline Butler, who was shot with a shotgun,
suffered gunshot wounds in vital parts of her body, which injuries would have
been sufficient to cause her death were it not for the timely and able medical
attendance of her doctor.^[8]

Mate went to the house of Mr. Juan Dizon
at Pulong Bato, Botolan, Zambales, where he
stayed the night of November 1, 1971.  At
about 3:00 a.m. of November 2, 1971, Mr. Dizon woke
up Mate and brought him to Sitio Paitan,
because Mate would be arrested by the BSDV. 
In a small hut at Sitio Paitan,
Mate was arrested by the PC.^[9]

Capt. Roman P. Madella of the 162nd PC
stationed at Iba, Zam­bales,
led the group that apprehended Mate. 
They recovered money from Mate to the amount of P13,553.00.  A shotgun was also recovered.^[10]

When investigated, Mate voluntarily made his extra-judicial
statements contained in Exhibit “A”.^[11]
On November 3, 1971, Investigator Catalino Manipon of the CIS investigated Mate.  Mate again voluntarily gave his
extra-judicial statements contained in Exhibit “B”^[12]
In Exhibit “B”, Mate revealed the brown suitcase he brought to the
Butler residence containing things needed to com­mit the crime.  He also revealed his well prepared plan to
kidnap the children of the Butlers for ransom.^[13]
Police Investigator Manolo Dizon
corroborated Mate’s Confession about the brown suit­case containing things to
be used in the crime when Dizon testified that said
brown suitcase, together with its contents, was recovered from the scene of the
crime.^[14]

Before Patrolman Remy Macaspac of the Makati Police Force, Mate again voluntarily executed his
extra-judicial confession Exhibit “J”.^[15]
Exhibit “J” contains a detailed narration of how the crime was
planned and committed, and its contents substantially are in harmony with the
narration of Exhibits “A” and “B”.

Long after the accused Mate had been convicted by the trial court
in this case in 1971, he testified on May 7, 1973 as a wit­ness for the
prosecution against his co-accused in the crime, Albino Bohol.  Mate affirmed the same narrations of events
contained in his extra-judicial confessions Exhibits “A”,
“B” and “J”, and even elaborated on them.^[16]

The defense contends that the trial court committed a serious
error in rendering judgment of conviction immediately after Mate had pleaded
guilty to the crime charged on the basis of his plea of guilty and before
receiving any evidence.  While the trial
court committed an error in rendering judgment immediately after the ac­cused
had pleaded guilty, and, thereafter, conducted hearings for the reception of
the evidence for the prosecution, such an irregu­larity, is insufficient to
justify the setting aside of the judg­ment of conviction, considering that it
is supported by the judi­cial and extra-judicial confessions of the accused and
by other evidence.  Thus, in the case of People vs. Dumdum, ^[17] this Court held:

“The trial court committed an irregularity in pronouncing
judgment on the two accused in open
court immediately after they had pleaded guilty and then later on requiring the
prosecution to present evidence.

“However, the irregularity does not justify the setting aside
of the judgment of conviction which is supported by the judicial and
extrajudicial confessions of the accused and other evidence.”^[18]

The defense questions also the failure of the state prosecutor
Cornelio Melendres to make a formal offer of his
exhibits, although they have been marked and identified.  Such an oversight appears trivial because the
entire evidence for the prosecution is recorded.  Even without the exhibits which have been
incorporated into the records of the case, the prosecution can still establish
the case because the witnesses properly identified those exhibits and their
testimonies are recorded.

Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “J” are all
admissible against Mate because it appears with clarity that he voluntarily and
sponta­neously gave those narrations without compulsion from anybody.  In fact, x x x when he testified against Ben Bohol
he affirmed those narrations again.

This Court cannot give much credence to the possible mental
aberration or abnormality of the accused Mate just because he nar­rated with
elaborate details the execution of the crime. 
On the contrary, We believe that the narration of the accused showed he possessess above average intelligence and a rather keen
recollec­tion.  Mate even described how
he planned to commit the crime, reciting the details in a thorough manner.  His actual execution of the crime and manner
of escape showed cunning and perception. 
The argument that no sane person would voluntarily confess to a crime
realizing that he would surely face death, deserves but scant consideration,
for if We give weight to the same, all voluntary confessions should be presumed
as emanating from insane persons, contrary to the general presumption of sanity
of a per­son.  The conscience of a man
can overwhelm his love of life.

WHEREFORE, the decision of conviction being in accordance with law and the
evidence, is hereby AFFIRMED in its
entirety, with costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Makasiar,
Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., votes with J. Aquino in his concurring opinion.

Fernando, C.J., did not take
part.

^[1] pp. 1-2, Original Records, CCC-VII-955-Rizal.

^[2] t.s.n., November 20, 1971, pp. 3-6.

^[3] t.s.n., November 20, 1971, p. 6.

^[4] pp. 1-2, Exhibit “A”.

^[5] pp. 2-3, Exhibit “A”.

^[6] pp. 33-37, t.s.n., December
21, 1971.

^[7] Exhibit “G”.

^[8] pp. 78-79, Original Record,
CCC-VII-955-Rizal.

^[9] p. 6, Exhibit “J”.

^[10] pp. 2-7, t.s.n., December
21, 1971.

^[11] pp. 2-14, t.s.n., December
9, 1971.

^[12] pp. 15-35, t.s.n., December
9, 1971.

^[13] pp. 8-11, Exhibit “B”.

^[14] pp. 35-48, t.s.n., December
9, 1971.

^[15] pp. 3-5, t.s.n., December
22, 1971.

^[16]
pp. 2-65, June 14, 1973.

^[17] L-35279, July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 198.

^[18] See also People vs. Villacores, et al., L-35969, May 16, 1980.

6 pt
6 pt
0
3