PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEODEGARIO BASCUGIN Y AGQUIZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Bascugin

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Leodegario Bascugin, a criminal appeal from a conviction for the complex crime of rape with homicide. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of a young woman by force and intimidation and, on the occasion of that rape, killing her. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of how a judicial confession — an admission of guilt made in open court — operates as evidence of the highest order, and how it survives even after the accused withdraws a plea of guilty. Second, it shows how circumstantial evidence is tested under the Rules of Court, and how the penalties and damages for rape with homicide are fixed after the abolition of the death penalty.

Procedural History

Bascugin was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, in Balayan, Batangas. At his first arraignment he pleaded guilty, and after trial the court found him guilty and sentenced him to death. On automatic review, the Supreme Court annulled that judgment because the arraignment was invalid — his counsel de oficio had consulted him only hastily, and he had not been sufficiently apprised of the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea. The case was remanded for appropriate proceedings.

On remand he was arraigned anew and pleaded not guilty. Midway through the prosecution's evidence he manifested that he wished to change his plea to guilty, was re-arraigned, and pleaded guilty. He then moved to withdraw that plea, which the trial court granted, and he was arraigned once more and pleaded not guilty. After trial the Regional Trial Court again convicted him, imposed death, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and costs. Because the penalty was death, the case went to the Court of Appeals for review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but, in light of the law prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and adjusted the damages. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal.

Facts

On the evening of June 4, 1999, the victim was last seen boarding the tricycle driven by Bascugin. A tricycle driver saw her on board earlier that evening, and saw Bascugin again later going toward the town proper. That same night, an employee on his way home passed Bascugin's tricycle parked near a waiting shed and heard a girl shout, which he ignored because the area was said to be haunted. Around midnight the victim was reported missing.

Police investigators learned that a patient was being treated at a district hospital for a tongue injury and found Bascugin there. He claimed that a man and a woman had boarded his tricycle, that he was struck on the nape, and that when he woke his tongue was injured and his passengers were gone. Acting on information from the employee, the police and the victim's relatives went to the waiting shed, where they found a muddled portion of the sugarcane plantation with tricycle marks and the victim's hairclip. Returning the next morning, they discovered her body in a canal, naked from the waist down and bearing thirteen stab wounds. Her pants and two panties were recovered nearby.

At trial the prosecution wove these threads together: the victim was last seen with Bascugin; his tricycle was parked at the scene; his clothing bore human blood of the same group as the victim's fresh blood; her panty bore seminal stains; the medical officer found multiple stab wounds and fresh hymenal lacerations; and the buccal swab from Bascugin matched the vaginal smear from the victim. On the witness stand, examined by his own lawyer and warned by the court that he could refuse to answer, Bascugin admitted that he had both raped and killed the victim.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of rape with homicide despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the accused's judicial admission of guilt, made in open court, may be given in evidence against him notwithstanding the withdrawal of his plea of guilty.
• Whether or not the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a conviction.
• Whether or not the awards of civil indemnity, moral, temperate, and exemplary damages were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

This is the core provision: the accused's admission in open court required no further proof, and it could be contradicted only by palpable mistake or by showing no admission was made.

Section 26 of Rule 130 provides:

Section 26. Admissions of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

This confirms that the accused's own declarations may be used against him.

Section 33 of Rule 130 provides:

Section 33. Confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.

This is the confession rule the Court applied to the accused's open-court admission.

Section 4 of Rule 133 provides:

Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

This is the three-part test the Court used to validate the conviction on circumstantial evidence.

Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

This is the basis for the additional award of exemplary damages.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal lacked merit. The decisive factor was the accused's admission to the crime when he was examined by his own lawyer in court. The Court found that the confession was freely, intelligently, and deliberately given, and that a judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order, because the presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience.

On the second issue, the Court held that the admission of guilt constituted evidence against the accused under the Rules of Court, quoting the provisions above. The withdrawal of the plea of guilty did not erase the admission; the confession stood on its own as a judicial admission.

On the third issue, the Court held that the confession was consistent with the evidence, and that the chain of events constituted sufficient circumstantial evidence. Applying the three-part test, the Court found more than one circumstance, inferences based on proven facts, and a combination producing conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

On the fourth issue, the Court agreed with the awards of 100,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 75,000 pesos as moral damages, and 25,000 pesos as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages, all consistent with prevailing jurisprudence for rape with homicide. It additionally awarded 50,000 pesos as exemplary damages under Article 2229, to deter the commission of similar acts and to mould behaviour that can have grave and deleterious consequences to society.

Doctrine

A judicial confession — an admission of guilt made in open court, with the accused fully informed of his rights and the consequences of his statement — is evidence of a high order and may be given in evidence against him under Section 33 of Rule 130. It is not erased by the subsequent withdrawal of a plea of guilty, because the admission is a judicial admission under Section 4 of Rule 129, which requires no proof and may be contradicted only by palpable mistake or by showing no admission was made. Circumstantial evidence suffices for conviction when there is more than one circumstance, the inferences rest on proven facts, and the combination produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In rape with homicide, the civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages follow prevailing jurisprudence, and exemplary damages may be added under Article 2229 of the Civil Code for the public good.

Disposition

The Court of Appeals decision was affirmed with modification, ordering the accused to pay an additional 50,000 pesos in exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a judicial confession is evidence of a high order, and it survives the withdrawal of a plea of guilty. Examiners use this case to test the rules on judicial admissions and confessions, the three-part test for circumstantial evidence, and the correct damages in rape with homicide.