G.R. No. L-32690. October 23, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONALD TANCHICO Y PABLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PER CURIAM:
Automatic review of the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal, Branch IV, Quezon
City, in Criminal Case No. Q-6821, finding the accused, Ronald Tanchico y Pablo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder, and sentencing him to suffer the extreme penalty of death,[1]
and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Mrs. Andrea de la Cerna de Tuazon, in the amount of
P6,000.00.
It is not disputed that in the morning of January 7, 1966, the remains of Mrs. Andrea de la Cerna de Tuazon were found in an
isolated and uninhabited place within the Doña Juana
Subdivision in Quezon City.
Dr. Jane Payumo Misa,
the NBI Medico-Legal Officer who performed the autopsy on the cadaver of the
victim, testified that the body of the deceased was “carbonized” with
first degree burns in the skull, face, neck, anterior and posterior chest wall,
and the whole of the abdominal region and the back; while the upper extremities
as well as the lower extremities sustained second degree burns. The body sustained ten (10) stab wounds. The first stab wound with an aperture of 0.5
x 0.2 cm., oblong in shape, with contused edges, was located in the left chest,
anterior aspect at the level of the 1st intercostal
space, and 2.5 cms. from the anterior median line,
its long axis oriented obliquely upwards and downwards, penetrating the first cavity
and perforating the antero-medial portion, upper lobe
of the left lung to an approximate depth of 13 cms.. The second stab wound with an orifice of 0.5
x 0.2 cm., oblong in shape, with contused edges, was located at the left chest,
anterior aspect, 2 cms. below the first stab wound,
4.3 cms. from the anterior median line, running
horizontally and slightly downwards, directed posteriorly,
horizontally and medially, penetrating the thoracic cavity through the upper
lobe of the left lung, with an approximate depth of 8 cms.. The third stab wound, with a vent of 0.5 x
0.2 cm., oblong in shape, with contused edges, was located on the left chest,
anterior aspect, at the level of the 3rd rib and 2.8 cms.
from the anterior median line, its long axis oriented backwards and downwards
directed medially slightly upwards and backwards, penetrating the first cavity
at the 3rd intercostal space, grazing the lower border
of the 3rd rib and penetrating the upper lobe of the left lung at an
approximate depth of 8 cms. The other seven (7) stab wounds had similar
points of entry and direction. According
to her, the afore-cited ten (10) stab wounds were all fatal and could have been
caused by an icepick (Exhibit “L”). She also declared that the victim died before
her body was burned.
Bienvenido Aquino, a security
guard of the Bureau of Public Works in Manila, also testified that after he
left his house at the Doña Juana Rodriguez
Subdivision, Balara, Quezon
City, at about 10:30 a.m. on January 7, 1966, and while aboard a jeep with his
brother-in-law cruising towards Commonwealth Avenue of said city, he noticed a
car with a blue body and white top parked along a secluded spot near a road in
the Doña Juana Subdivision. Standing beside the open luggage compartment
of the car was a man of regular build, about 5 feet and 4 inches in height,
with brown complexion, long hair, and wearing a white polo shirt. As their jeep came nearer the car, the man
closed the luggage compartment and hurriedly drove away, taking Road 2 (shown
in the sketch, Exhibit “AA”).
He later identified this man to be appellant Ronald Tanchico. When he
returned to his house thirty minutes later, he was met by his son who informed
him that something was burning near their house. Proceeding immediately to the place
indicated, he saw, at about two (2) meters beyond the road’s gutter, the thick
cogon grass burning. After fetching
several cans of water, he succeeded, with the assistance of his wife and
children, in putting out the blaze.
In the middle of the
burnt cogon, he saw the remains of a woman lying on the ground, face upwards
with her hands raised. The feet were
badly charred. After reporting the
matter to the Detective Bureau of the Quezon City
Police Department, a police team composed of Patrolmen Rodolfo Garcia, Sta.
Maria, Pascual Mangahas and
Godofredo Ruiz proceeded to the place to investigate
the incident, arriving there at about 11:30
that same morning. The investigators
found, a short distance from the cadaver of the victim, a pair of step-ins, a
coin purse, a rosary with metallic beads, a pair of surgical gloves, a pair of
sunglasses, a handkerchief, and a cash voucher bearing the names of Mrs. Andrea
Tuazon and Amando Calleja. Among the
persons whom the investigators questioned at the place where the remains were
found was Demetrio Cuales,
a rural policeman in the Doña Juana Subdivision. Demetrio Cuales informed the investigators that between 11:00 and
11:30 that morning, he saw a car with a light blue body and white top cruising
on a bumpy road near Commonwealth Avenue, driven by a man whom he identified to
be appellant Ronald Tanchico, and sitting beside the
driver in the front seat of the car was a slightly stout woman. After he returned to his place of work, he
was informed by the son of Bienvenido Aquino that a woman answering the description of the said
woman was being burned in the cogon fields.
He further revealed to the police investigators that he could recognize
the man if he were to see him again. At
the police headquarters, this witness identified appellant as the man whom he
saw driving the light blue car with a woman passenger along Commonwealth
Avenue that morning. Both Bienvenido Aquino and Demetrio Cuales executed written statements at the police
headquarters that same day.
To ascertain the identity of the victim, Pat. Garcia and the
other investigators tried to contact the persons whose names appeared in the
cash voucher. Upon discovering that
Architect Amando Calleja
was one of those mentioned in the voucher, they immediately proceeded to his
place. From there, they were directed to
the house of Mrs. Andrea Tuazon. The investigators found out from the children
of Mrs. Andrea Tuazon that some of the articles
recovered at the scene of the fire belonged to their mother and the last time
they saw their mother was when she left their house at 8:30 in the morning of that same day.
Perpetua Dejarno,
a maid of the Tuazons, told the police that it was
appellant Ronald Tanchico who fetched Mrs. Tuazon early that morning and drove her away in his
car. She also identified the step-ins,
the coin purse, the rosary, the handkerchief and the pair of sunglasses found
near the cadaver as those which Mrs. Tuazon was
wearing when she left with the appellant.
Nilo Tuazon,
a son of the deceased, who identified the remains of his mother at the Quiogue mortuary, recalled that appellant Tanchico was very close to their family as Estrella Esquivel, wife of appellant, was brought up as a
member of their family, and when Estrella married
the appellant, his mother acted as the wedding sponsor. He also testified that his mother used to
extend loans to appellant, who was engaged in building construction, to assist
the latter in the funding of his business.
While the police were still in the residence of the deceased,
appellant Ronald Tanchico appeared, purportedly
looking for Mrs. Tuazon. When questioned by the police, he admitted
that he was with the deceased earlier that morning, but claimed that afterwards
they separated and he did not know where she went.
Appellant Tanchico was then taken to
the police headquarters at about 5:30 p.m.. Upon noticing some injuries on his right
knuckles and scratches on his arms and cheeks, Pat. Garcia inquired from Tanchico how he sustained them. Appellant explained that the injuries on his
knuckles were sustained in an accidental fall in their bathroom but he could
not, however, account for the scratches found on his arms and cheeks. At about 6:15
p.m., Pat. Garcia took Ronald Tanchico to
the scene of the crime. Upon being
questioned at the scene of the fire, Tanchico
admitted that he stabbed Mrs. Tuazon and then burned
her to death. He further admitted taking
her bag and that finding P40.00 inside it, he took the money and spent P20.00
of it. The balance he turned over to the
investigator. He was brought back to the
police headquarters at about 6:30 p.m.,
and after he was given some refreshments, he gave his statement. When he was informed that he had a right to
the assistance of counsel and he could call for a lawyer to assist him, Tanchico refused, saying that he does not need the
assistance of a lawyer.
In his aforesaid statements (Exhibits “A”,
“A-1” to “A-5”), Tanchico
narrated that the deceased was one of his marriage sponsors; that being a building
contractor, he had borrowed from her two loans of P5,000.00 each to finance the
construction of two houses for his customers; that although he had already paid
to the deceased the amount of P9,700.00, she insisted that he still owes her the
sum of P6,500.00; that on January 5, 1966, the deceased called him up by phone
warning him that if he could not pay her his debt, she would file a case
against him in Court; that on the following day, or on January 6, 1966, he
called her by phone pleading for a thirty-day extension within which to settle
his obligation but she refused; and that he, therefore, promised to pay her on
January 7, 1966 at the house of one of his customers from whom he could get the
money. It was, however, his intention to
take her to the dumping grounds at Commonwealth Avenue,
kill her and then bury her there.
In connection with his aforesaid plan, he bought an icepick from a store in Quiapo,
Manila, and in the early morning of January 7, 1966, he brought with him on his
way to the house of the victim a pair of rubber gloves used by his
mother-in-law in dyeing her hair. He
also purchased two cans of paint thinner and a pick axe and placed them in the
trunk of his car.
He arrived at the house
of the deceased at about 8:00 a.m.. The deceased asked him to take her first to
the house of one Mrs. Medina at 15th Avenue,
Quezon City. From there, they proceeded to the house of
Commander Javier at Cambridge Street
to see the cabinet which she delivered, and from that place proceeded to Commonwealth
Avenue. At
an uninhabited place, he parked the car near a tree. When they got out of the car, he asked her
not to insist in collecting his debt and when she refused, he boxed her, hitting
her at the bridge of the nose. This
accounted for the injuries on his knuckles.
She began to shout as she fought back, scratching him on the neck and
face. Infuriated at her actions, he
stabbed her with the icepick several times on her
chest. He then dragged the body and hid
it inside the thicket and then returned to his car to get the pick axe. It was at this juncture that he saw a jeep
approaching the place where he was, so he hurriedly closed the trunk and drove
his car away. After cruising around the
place for a while, he returned to the spot where he had left the deceased. He poured the paint thinner on the body of
the victim and lighted it with a match.
He then took the bag of the victim to get the promissory notes which he had asked her to bring with her that
morning and then proceeded to his house at San Marcelino Street, Manila,
after throwing away the empty cans of paint thinner and the icepick
at the garbage dumping ground at Scout Torillo Street. Upon opening the bag, he found two P20.00
bills inside but the promissory notes were not there. After getting the money, he threw the bag
into the “estero” near the Adamson
University bridge at San
Marcelino St. where it
was carried away by the current. He then
brought the car to be washed at the gasoline station at San
Marcelino Street.
After his extrajudicial statement was typewritten, it was
presented to appellant Tanchico for signature who,
after reading it, made some corrections on items 13 and 43 and then he affixed
his signature thereon. Pat. Garcia then called up City Fiscal Cortez to
inform him that the suspect in the killing perpetrated in the Doña Juana Subdivision had been identified and had executed
a statement on the matter.
When Fiscal Cortez arrived in the Office of the Chief of Police
in the early morning of January 8, 1966,
he questioned appellant Tanchico on the crime in
question. The appellant admitted to him
the commission of the crime, as
well as the veracity of the statements he made in his extrajudicial confession
(Exhibits “A”, “A-1” to “A-5”). In the presence of Capt. Diego, Lt. San Jose
and some press photographers, Ronald Tanchico
subscribed under oath the veracity of his statements before Fiscal Cortez. When he was asked by the Fiscal if he would
be willing to re-enact the crime, Tanchico readily
acceded. According to Fiscal Cortez, when they arrived at the scene of
the incident, Tanchico voluntarily reenacted the
crime. Appellant even demonstrated how
he opened the can of paint thinner with the pick axe, soaked the body of the
victim with the inflammable liquid and the manner in which he ignited the body
of the victim with a lighted match.
According to Fiscal Cortez, some objects found at the scene of the
crime, such as the rubber gloves and the dark glasses, were identified by the
accused. He even described to the Fiscal
the shoes, pants and shirts, which he wore at the time of the commission of the
crime.
Appellant also showed to the police investigators the route
which he took after he had committed the crime – from the scene of the crime to
his house at San Marcelino
Street, Manila. Thus, in company with the police
investigators, from Commonwealth Avenue
they proceeded to the elliptical road, turning right to Quezon
Boulevard Extension, thence to West Avenue,
turning left to South Avenue,
then to Scout Torillo Street
where the investigators recovered the icepick. They failed, however, to recover the two
empty cans of paint thinner which appellant claimed to have dumped in the said
place. After the re-enactment of the
crime, appellant was then brought to the Office of Fiscal Halili
where he executed a supplemental statement.
At the trial, appellant Ronald Tanchico
denied involvement in the crime.
Testifying on his own behalf, appellant declared that at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning of January 7, 1966, he went to the
residence of Andrea Tuazon at Lantana
Street, Cubao, Quezon City, in response to her
telephone call. Upon arriving at her
house, he was told by Andrea Tuazon that they are
going to the house of Mrs. Medina at 15th Avenue,
Quezon City. They arrived at the place of Mrs. Medina at
about 8:30 o’clock that morning. Upon being informed that Mrs. Medina was not
there and after staying there for about five to ten minutes, they proceeded to
the place of one Antonio Javier at Cambridge Street,
Cubao, Quezon
City to inspect some cabinets. From there, they drove to the corner of Cambridge
and Aurora Blvd. where Mrs.
Tuazon alighted, after telling him that they should
meet again at about 3:00 o’clock of
that date. He then proceeded to the GSIS
building in Manila to work on the
application for loan of his wife, and after transacting his business he went
home.
At about 3:00 o’clock
in the afternoon, he went to the residence of Mrs. Tuazon
but upon entering the house he was met by two men who brought him immediately
to the headquarters of the Quezon City Police
Department. Upon arriving at the police
headquarters, he was immediately subjected to karate and fist blows for about
ten minutes by about six detectives, after which he was forced to sign a prepared typewritten statement. Although at first he refused to sign
it, he subsequently agreed after receiving “another wave of
maltreatment”. Upon further
questioning, appellant admitted that he participated in the re-enactment of
the crime at about 10:00 o’clock in
the evening of January 8, 1966,
and that during the re-enactment several pictures were taken of him.
Two detention prisoners,
Domingo delos Santos and Isaac Nala,
testified for the defense and declared that while they were confined in their
detention cell in the afternoon of January 7, 1966, they saw appellant Ronald Tanchico inside the Investigation Room being maltreated by
the police. It appeared, however, during
the ocular inspection that it was impossible for any person inside the detention
cell to see anyone in the investigation room of the Detective Bureau of the
Police Department, where according to appellant Ronald Tanchico
he was investigated by the police on that date and time in question. Thus, during the ocular inspection, the
Presiding Judge stood between the door of the detention cell and the hallway
and found that it was impossible to see even the door of the investigation
room, much less the inside premises of the investigation room, because there
was a partition blocking the line of sight.
The next witness for the defense was Paz Zate,
a co-employee of the wife of appellant.
She testified that between 10:00
and 11:00 o’clock in the morning of January 7,
1966, she saw appellant at the premises of the GSIS building. She declared that appellant’s purpose in
going to the GSIS was to follow up the mortgage loan application of his wife, Estrella Esquivel.
According to this witness, appellant approached her for the signature of
Mr. Diaz, head of the Loans and Investment Department, as Mrs. Zate had the loan papers, but Mr. Diaz was out so Tanchico left at about 11:00
o’clock in the morning.
In rebuttal, Benjamin Enrile of the
GSIS declared that according to the records of the Real Estate Department, the
loan folder of Estrella Esquivel was not released
prior to January 7, 1966 as it was only acted upon by the Manager of the Real
Estate Department and released for transmittal to the Office of the General Manager of the Loans
and Investment Department only on January 27, 1966. This indicated that the folder could not have
been released to the witness, Paz Zate, prior to January 27, 1966.
Pat. Rodolfo Garcia, another rebuttal witness, denied the use of
violence to secure the confession of the appellant. He stated that all the written statements
were given voluntarily by the appellant and the re-enactment of the crime was
made by appellant in the presence of newspapermen and photographers who took
pictures of the different stages of the
re-enactment.
There are facts and circumstances which render untenable the
claim of appellant that his extrajudicial confession was extracted through
compulsion and duress. Appellant’s
confession is replete with details of the actual preparation and commission of
the crime which only he could have known.
For instance, the investigators could not have been aware that
appellant had two long overdue accounts with the deceased; that the deceased
insisted that she be paid said amounts immediately in full or else she would
file court action against him; that in pursuance of his plan to kill the
deceased, he purchased an icepick and paint thinner
which he brought along with him, together with a pick axe and a pair of
surgical gloves; that during their drive to Doña
Juana Subdivision, he tried to persuade the deceased for another extension
within which to pay the loan and when she refused he struct
her with his fist, hitting her on the bridge of her nose causing injuries to
his knuckles; that he sustained scratches on his face, arms and chest as a
result of the struggle offered by the deceased. He then stabbed her with the icepick and then brought the body of the deceased to the
isolated dump site where he burned the cadaver.
He even related that when he tried to get the pick axe from the compartment
box of his car he saw a jeep coming, which happened to be the jeep of
prosecution witness Bienvenido Aquino,
and because of this he hurriedly drove his car away. He only returned to the dump site to burn the
body of the deceased when nobody was around.
It is equally important to note that appellant, before signing
his extrajudicial confession, made some corrections thereon on his own
handwriting. The contention of appellant
that his extrajudicial confession is involuntary is not credible, considering
that appellant affirmed under oath, without making any complaint, the veracity
of his extrajudicial confession and even re-enacted his commission of the crime
in the presence of photographers and newspaper reporters.
Appellant’s claim that he was subjected to fist and karate blows
by the police is further belied by other circumstances. First, the finding of the Medico-Legal
Officer of Quezon City,
who examined physically appellant during his detention, revealed that the
appellant had no body contusions as he had only fingernail scratches on his
face, arms and chest and a slight injury on the right hand. Second, the fact that according to the ocular
inspection conducted by the trial judge, it was physically impossible for the
two corroborative witnesses of appellant to see what was actually going on
inside the investigation room where appellant was allegedly maltreated.
As argued by the Solicitor General, prescinding
from the facts narrated in the extrajudicial confession (Exhibits
“A”, “A-1” to “A-5”), there are facts and
circumstances which point to appellant as the perpetrator of the offense. The appellant was the only one known who had
the motive to kill the victim. He
admitted he had financial obligations to the deceased which the latter
demanded to be settled in full in the morning of January 7, 1966, otherwise she will file charges against
him. Appellant bought two gallons of
paint thinner early in the morning of January
7, 1966, after which at about 8:00
a.m. he picked up the deceased from her residence in his car. Later that same morning Demetrio
Cuales, a farmer and rural policeman, saw appellant
driving a light blue car with white top along a bumpy isolated street in Doña Juana Rodriguez Subdivision near Commonwealth
Avenue.
Appellant was with a stout woman who was sitting beside him in the
front seat of the car. It was shown that
the deceased was a stout woman. About
thirty minutes later, Bienvenido Aquino,
a security guard of the Bureau of Public Works
living at the subdivision, while driving a jeep towards Commonwealth
Avenue, saw appellant standing behind the open
baggage compartment of a parked car near the site of the crime. Appellant, upon seeing this witness, hastily
closed the luggage compartment, boarded the car, and drove away. At about 10:00
a.m. that day, his son informed him about a person being burned
under a tree. Upon going to the place, Aquino, his wife and his son saw the remains of the
deceased burning. It was thru their
efforts that they were able to quench the fire.
The remains of the deceased were found severely burned apparently by a
highly combustible material. Near the
remains of the victim was found a pair
of sunglasses. During the investigation,
appellant admitted the sunglasses to be his although at the trial he retracted
this admission and denied ownership thereof. Appellant when brought to the scene of the
crime by the investigators wept and admitted that he killed the victim. This admission was followed by his re-enactment
of the crime. According to City Fiscal Justiniano P. Cortez, appellant re-enacted how he first
boxed the victim on the nose, after which he drew an icepick
and stabbed the victim several times. He
also demonstrated how he poured the paint thinner over the prostrate body of
Mrs. Tuazon and how he lighted a match stick and
threw the lighted match on the body of the deceased. These are shown by the pictures taken of the
demonstration (Exhibits “B-1″, ‘B-2” and “B-13”).
In the light of the
foregoing evidence, the defense of alibi of appellant is unavailing. The defense of alibi can be availed of only
where there is no clear evidence of the presence and participation of the
defendants in the crime charged against them, and it is impossible for them to
be physically present at the scene of
the crime at the time it was
committed.[2]
But in the case at bar
where there is clear evidence of
the presence and participation of the appellant in the crime charged, and the
place where he claimed to have been is less than an hour’s drive by car from Quezon City where the crime was committed, and it was not,
therefore, physically impossible for appellant to have been at the scene of the
crime, such defense will not be tenable.
The killing is qualified by evident premeditation considering that
appellant planned to kill the deceased at least sometime before the incident in
question. That the killing was planned
by appellant is shown by the fact that he bought the icepick
from a store in Quiapo, Manila and also two gallons of paint thinner. Appellant is, therefore, guilty of the crime
of murder, defined and penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime is aggravated by the circumstance
of craft as the appellant induced the victim to go with him to Quezon City on the pretext that he would get the money
to pay his debt to her. Feigning
friendship and taking advantage of her confidence, appellant was able to lure
the victim to the uninhabited place where the crime was thereafter committed.
The attendance of the
afore-mentioned aggravating circumstance, without any mitigating circumstance
to offset it, requires the imposition of the supreme penalty of death.[3]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the judgment of
the court a quo, being in accordance with law, is hereby
AFFIRMED, with the modification that the indemnity for the victim’s death is
increased from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Makasiar,
Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion,
Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., concurs in the finding of guilt but consistently with my opinion in
People vs. Borja, G.R. No. L-22947. Voted for life imprisonment.
Abad Santos, J., concurs in the finding of guilt but due to his long
detention under sub-human conditions, voted for life imprisonment.
[1]
Article 248, Revised Penal Code.
[2]
People vs. Bulan, et al., L-14934 July 25, 1960, 108 Phil. 932.
[3]
Article 248, in relation to Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code.