PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO GONZALES Y MENDOZA ALIAS “BOBBIT”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Gonzales

The Case

This is the automatic review of a conviction for the killing of three children in one night. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Roberto Gonzales y Mendoza, known in his barangay as Bobbit, for slashing the necks of the Hortezano children while they slept. The case matters for three reasons a reviewee should hold onto: it tells us when a child may testify, it tells us how treachery qualifies a killing of minors, and it tells us that three distinct slashes are three murders, not one complex crime.

Procedural History

The accused was charged with Multiple Murder before the Regional Trial Court of Danao City, Branch 25. Upon arraignment, assisted by counsel de oficio, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court rendered judgment on April 8, 1997, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and imposing the supreme penalty of death, and ordering him to pay moral damages and attorney's fees. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The accused assigned four errors: the credibility of the eyewitness and of the arresting officer, the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence, the admission of his extrajudicial confession, and the award of damages.

Facts

On the evening of November 20, 1994, in Sitio Mahawak, Barangay Damolog, Sogod, Cebu, the Hortezano children were asleep in their house. Their parents were away at a fiesta in Lapulapu City. The children were Yolen, sixteen years old; Jocelle, nine; Aileen, five; Junjun; and Mary Iris, then seven years old. The house was lighted by a lamp.

Mary Iris was awakened by the entry of their neighbor, Noy Bobbit, who came in through the window. He placed his body over Yolen, and when Yolen kept resisting and pleaded that it was already very painful, he slashed her neck with a knife. Jocelle, awakened beside Yolen, fainted, and the accused slashed his neck as well. He then slashed the neck of Aileen, who was sleeping beside Mary Iris because she had a fever. Mary Iris survived; she testified that she was spared because her body was already stained with blood and the accused probably thought she was dead. The accused then stood up, placed his hands akimbo, and left through the main door.

The Municipal Health Officer examined the three bodies that same night and found deep incised wounds across the necks, severing the trachea and the major vessels, causing instantaneous death. Police Officer Elvis Arche went to the house at midnight, saw the three dead children, and followed bloodied footprints along the cemented pathway from the gate to the entrance of the accused's house, about one hundred fifty meters away. The accused came out when called, saying "Don't shoot me, I will go out." A knife, clean but still wet, was found under three layers of hollow blocks inside his house, and there were scratches on his body. The defense was denial and alibi: the accused swore he was sleeping alone at home, that the footprints were traces of floorwax, and that he was forced to sign a confession.

Issues

• Whether or not the eight-year-old eyewitness Mary Iris Hortezano was competent to testify, and whether the leading questions put to her destroyed her credibility.
• Whether or not the circumstantial evidence from the arresting officer, and the eyewitness account, sufficed to convict beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial confession was admissible despite the claim that it was executed involuntarily.
• Whether or not the accused was guilty of one complex crime of multiple murder, or of three separate counts of murder, and whether the damages awarded were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of Rule 132 on leading and misleading questions provides:

Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except when there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf mute.

This is the provision that saves the direct examination of the child witness from the objection that it was replete with leading questions.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, fixes the penalty for murder, and the Court applies it in these words:

Pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua, there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance.

This is the provision that lowers the sentence from death to reclusion perpetua once the Court finds no aggravating circumstance attending the killings.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the age of the witness did not disqualify her. Any child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, can make his perception known to others, and is capable of relating facts truthfully. The requirements are capacity of observation, capacity of recollection, and capacity of communication. There is no minimum age for witnesses, and the testimony of children of sound mind is likely to be more correct and truthful than that of older persons. On the leading questions, the Court held that a child of tender years falls squarely within the exception in Section 10 of Rule 132, quoted above. Minor inconsistencies, such as whether the light was a lamp or a kerosene lamp, do not discredit but rather strengthen the testimony, and illumination from a kerosene lamp is sufficient for identification.

On the second issue, the Court held that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction even for murder. The officer's testimony was merely corroborative. Denial and alibi are weak defenses against positive identification, and alibi cannot prevail where the accused's house was only about one hundred fifty meters from the scene, so that it was not physically impossible for him to be there.

On the third issue, the Court held that a lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never objected during the investigation and thereafter subscribed to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. More importantly, the confession was not the basis of the conviction, because there was independent evidence of guilt in the eyewitness account.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the three killings resulted not from a single act but from several individual and distinct acts of slashing. The accused was therefore guilty not of a complex crime of multiple murder but of three counts of murder. Treachery attended the killings, because the slashing of the necks of children aged sixteen, nine and five while they were asleep constitutes treachery, the killing of minor children who by reason of their tender years could not be expected to put up a defense being considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack was not shown. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty for each count is reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

First, a child of any age is a competent witness if he can perceive, recollect, and communicate, and leading questions to a child of tender years are expressly allowed under Section 10 of Rule 132. Second, the credible and positive testimony of a single eyewitness suffices for conviction, even for murder, and prevails over denial and alibi. Third, killing minor children while asleep is attended with treachery even if the manner of attack is not shown, because children of tender years cannot be expected to defend themselves. Fourth, where the killings result from several distinct acts and not from a single act, the accused is guilty of as many counts of murder as there are victims, not of a complex crime, and Article 248 fixes reclusion perpetua for each count absent any modifying circumstance.

Disposition

The Court modified the judgment, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of murder and sentencing him to three sentences of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs one hundred fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity, one hundred fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, and fifty thousand pesos as attorney's fees.

Remember This

Memorize the line that three distinct slashes are three murders, not one complex crime, and that killing sleeping children is treachery even if the manner of attack is not shown. Examiners use this case on the competence of child witnesses, on leading questions to children of tender years, and on the difference between a complex crime and separate counts.