G.R. No. 28255. November 25, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARTIN MAGTIRA Y DELA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PER CURIAM:
For the crime of rape and
homicide committed against ten-year old Clarita S. Constantino,
accused-appellant Martin Magtira y dela Cruz, then 33 years old, was charged
and convicted to suffer the supreme penalty of death. Said accused was likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of the
victim in the sum of P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs.
No one saw the actual
commission of the crime but the lower court found that the guilt of Martin
Magtira had been established beyond reasonable doubt on the strength not only
of his statement before the Municipal Court of Masinloc, Zambales (Exhibits
“C” and “C-1”) admitting the authorship of the macabre
crime but also on the evidence of the corpus delicti
and the presence of a web of
circumstantial evidence virtually trapping said accused to a point that he
could no longer successfully deny the same.
Automatic review of the
death sentence being required by law, the accused-appellant thru counsel de
oficio herein made a creditable attempt to reverse
the aforesaid decision but to no avail as will be clearly set forth below.
The appeal raised the
following assignment of errors:
I
“The lower court erred in admitting Exhibits “C”,
“C-1”, the alleged statement of the accused and Exhibit
“E”.
II
“The lower court erred in not holding that the circumstantial
evidence of the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
III
“The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused.”[1]
The Solicitor General
synthesized the evidence of the prosecution as follows:
“In June 1967, complainant Juanita Sarmiento, a 30-year old
widow was residing in barrio Baluganon, Masinloc, Zambales with 3 of her 4
children, namely, Clarita, almost 11 years old, Valeriano, 8, and Carmelita,
6, all surnamed Constantino (p. 24, 25, 44, 45, t.s.n.). Some 30 meters from her house lived Martin
Magtira, herein appellant, known in the neighborhood as ‘Pocol’ because of a
blinded right eye and an amputated left arm two inches below the elbow (pp. 24,
25, 27, t.s.n.).
At about 2 o’clock p.m. of June 9, 1967, Clarita, Valeriano and
Carmelita were playing on the road in front of the house of appellant (pp. 53,
74, 76, 44, t.s.n.). Appellant who was
in the second floor of his house beckoned Clarita to come up (pp. 74, 76-77,
t.s.n.). Obediently, Clarita went up
the house (p. 74, t.s.n.). Appellant
gestured with his right hand to Valeriano and Carmelita to go away, and the two
left the place (pp. 74, 76-77, t.s.n.).
At about 4 p.m., complainant noticed that Clarita had not yet come
home (pp. 26, 44, t.s.n.). She asked
her two children where their sister was; neither Valeriano nor Carmelita knew
(pp. 26, 45, 75, 76, t.s.n.). Complainant scoured the neighborhood looking for her missing daughter
(p. 26, t.s.n.). Clarita could not be
found (p. 26, t.s.n.). Complainant
returned home and inquired again from her son Valeriano where he left his
sister that afternoon (pp. 26, 46, t.s.n.). Valeriano suddenly recalled and told
her that earlier in the afternoon, Martin Magtira called Clarita to his house
(pp. 26, 46, 75, t.s.n.).
Complainant and her aunt and neighbor Susan Olivo, went to search
for appellant Magtira (pp. 26, 27, t.s.n.). They saw him walking along the railroad tracks in the barrio (pp. 27,
46, 51, t.s.n.). Complainant asked
appellant if he had seen her daughter Clarita; appellant gave a negative answer
(p. 27, t.s.n.). The two women then
proceeded to Magtira’s house, without appellant (p. 28, t.s.n.). In the second floor of the house, in the
back room, complainant discovered her daughter Clarita lying on the bamboo
floor covered by a mat (pp. 28, 41-42, t.s.n., Exhibit H). Removing the cover, she found her dead, her
arms and legs spread apart, her red dress, Exhibit F, stained with blood in
front and the back (pp. 28, 29, t.s.n.). Raising her dress, she found the child was without a panty, although she
always wore one, exposing her vagina where there was inserted a portion of a
man’s sweatshirt (Exhibit G) (pp. 28, 29, 31, t.s.n.). Complainant, knowing what happened, cried in
deep anguish as she embraced the cold and lifeless body of her daughter (pp.
29, 31, t.s.n.).
At about 11:30 o’clock in the evening of the same day, the chief of
police of Masinloc, Raymundo Buenaventura, receiving a report that the dead
body of a young girl was found in appellant’s house, fetched Municipal Judge
Gerardo Elicaño and Municipal Health Officer Dr. Diosdado Asuncion (pp. 19, 63, 3, 11, t.s.n.). The three officials repaired to the house of
Magtira in Baluganon, and there saw the dead body of the child Clarita
Constantino lying prostrate on the bamboo floor (pp. 19, 63-64, 4, 49, t.s.n.). Dr. Asuncion conducted a postmortem examination
and the following were his findings:
1. Lacerated hymen
2. Vaginal
hemorrhage
3. Lacerations,
anterior and posterior commissures of the vagina;
4. Echymosis,
medial aspect of the upper third of both thighs;
5. Echymosis,
lateral aspect of the upper third of left thigh; and
6. Contusion-abrasion,
anterior aspect of neck (Exh. A, p. 10, rec.) (pp. 4-5, t.s.n.)
According to Dr. Asuncion, the girl must
have been dead for more than 6 hours at the time of examination as the body was
already in complete rigor mortis (p. 5, t.s.n.). The doctor said that the lacerated hymen and lacerations on both
sides of vagina were caused by the insertion of a blunt object, like a penis,
into the vagina; that in the vaginal cavity there was a combination of fresh
and clotted blood; that outside the vaginal cavity and on the skin of the thigh
of the victim were hemorrhages called echymosis; that on the floor underneath
the vagina were fresh and clotted blood; that the lacerations on the folds of
the skin at both ends of the vagina could have been caused by introduction of a
forceful blunt object like a penis into the vagina; that the echymosis on the
thighs could have been caused also by a forceful application of a blunt object,
like fist blows or kicks; and that the contusion and abrasion on the neck must
have been caused by blunt instrument in rubbing motion (pp. 5-8, t.s.n.). Dr. Asuncion attributed the death of Clarita
Constantino to strangulation because of the slightly protruding tongue of the
victim, aggravated by hemorrhage (pp.
8, 11, t.s.n.).
While Dr. Asuncion was conducting the post-mortem examination on
the body of Clarita, police chief Buenaventura spotted appellant Magtira among
the people who flocked the second floor of the house (pp. 64, 65, t.s.n.). He arrested appellant and took him to the
D’Chrome, a restaurant in the barrio, where he investigated him (p. 65,
t.s.n,). Appellant denied having to do
with the death of Clarita and invoked alibi (pp. 65-66, t.s.n.). Appellant was thereafter brought to the
police headquarters in Masinloc (p.
66, t.s.n.). The officer
summoned complainant Juanita Sarmiento and Valeriano Constantino (p. 67,
t.s.n.). Confronted by the two and
told by the Chief of Police that if he would tell the truth he would help him,
appellant Magtira confessed to the police chief that he raped and killed
Clarita Constantino (pp. 67, 68-69, t.s.n.). Pat. Abraham Vengua interrogated appellant and his declaration was
reduced in writing, Exhibit B (pp. 68, 69, 71, t.s.n.).
Municipal Judge
Elicaño was in the morning of June 10, 1967 in his sala when appellant Magtira
was brought to him by policemen
of Masinloc (p. 14, t.s.n.). The judge sent out of the courtroom the policemen (p. 20, t.s.n.).
Judge Elicaño read in Tagalog appellant’s statement in Tagalog
(Exhibit B); thereafter, appellant swore and signed his statement before the judge (pp. 10, 14-15, 18, t.s.n.;
Exhibit B, p. 6, rec.; Exhibit B-1, translation, p. 27, rec.). Then Judge Elicaño conducted a preliminary
examination of appellant which was reduced in writing and which appellant
signed (Exhibits C, C-1, pp. 7-8, rec.; pp. 15-16, 17 t.s.n.). Appellant therein reiterated and affirmed
the veracity of his extra-judicial confession that he raped and killed Clarita
Constantino (Exhibits C, C-1). Pertinent
portion of Exhibits C and C-1 read as follows:
‘4. C- Sinabi mo kanina na ang ina ni Clarita
Constantino, ang bata na ginahasa mo, ay kaibigan mo; ano ang kanyang pangalan?
S- Nita po; hindi ko alam ang apelyido.
5. C- Ilan taon mo ng kakilala
itong si Nita?
S- Magdadalawang taon na po.
6.
C- Sinabi mo na ito si Clarita Constantino at kanyang mga kapatid ay parating
naglalaro sa iyong bahay. Nuong
Biernes, sino itong dalawang kapatid ni Clarita ang pumunta sa iyong bahay?
S- Isang babae at isang lalaki.
7. C- Nasabi mo naman na nuong nagawa mo ang
panggagahasa doon sa itaas ng iyong bahay kay Clarita Constantino nandodoon pa
ba sa ibaba ng bahay mo ang kanyang mga kapatid?
S- Opo.
8. C- Sa anong paraan mo nagawa ang
panggagahasa?
S- Hindi ko matiyak kung papano, sapagkat
lasing ako.
9. C- Sumigaw ba si Clarita?
S- Hindi po.
10. C- Bakit?
S- Aywan ko po kung bakit hindi sumigaw.
11.
C- Sinabi mo naman sa unang declaracion mo na kinuha ng mga pulis at
pinagsumpaan dito, na noong matapos ginahasa si Clarita ay inipit mo ang kanyang
leeg ng dalawa mong tuhod hanggang sa malagot ang kanyang hininga upang siya ay
hindi makapagsumbong sa kanyang ina sa may kapangyarihan; tutoo ba ito?
S- Opo.”[2]
Lucena Mesias was a laundress living in barrio Baluganon (pp.
35-38, t.s.n.). At about 3:00 p.m. of
June 9, 1969, appellant arrived at her house and asked her to wash his
trousers, Exhibit J, which was rolled (pp, 35-38, 58, t.s.n.). Mesias excused herself saying that she could
not wash his pants inasmuch as her daughter was sick (pp. 35, 38, t.s.n.). Appellant insisted and left his pair of
pants in one of the corners of Lucena’s house (p. 35, t.s.n.). The following morning, June 10, 1967, Mesias
went to see appellant’s aunt, Barbara de la Cruz, who was her neighbor, and
told her that the pants of appellant was left with her (p. 36, t.s.n.). She asked her to take appellant’s trousers
from her house (p. 36, t.s.n.). Mesias
already knew then that appellant was involved in a ‘case’ (p. 36, t.s.n.). Barbara’s son, Pedro Garcia, picked up the
pants, Exhibit J, from Mesias’ house (pp. 27, 58, t.s.n.). When Barbara dela Cruz saw the pants it was
with blood stains around the area of the opening (pp. 58-60, 61, t.s.n.). The pants (Exhibit J) had an acrid (malansa)
odor (p. 59, t.s.n.). She recognized it
as the one usually worn by appellant (p. 62, t.s.n.). She turned over the pants to Pat. Juan Morales (p. 60, t.s.n.).
The red dress (Exhibit F) worn by Clarita at the time of her death,
the sweatshirt (Exhibit G) a portion of which was found inserted in the vagina
of the child, and the pair of pants (Exhibit J) of appellant, were submitted
for laboratory examination to the Zambales Provincial Hospital (pp. 60-61, 80,
t.s.n.). Dr. Felixberto Valdez who
conducted a chemical examination of the exhibits found that the stains on the
dress (Exhibit F), on the right sleeve of the sweatshirt (Exhibit G), and on
the area around the opening of the pants (Exhibit J), were all blood (pp. 80,
81-82). He, however, could not
determine whether or not the blood stains were human because the blood cells
had already deteriorated (p. 82, t.s.n., Exhibit K, p. 61, rec.).”[3]
As indicated in the
People’s brief, accused-appellant executed an extrajudicial statement given to
the police marked Exhibit “B” which is reproduced below:
“SINUMPAAN
SALAYSAY NI MARTIN MAGTIRA Y DELA CRUZ,
KUHA NI PAT. ABRAHAM
D. VENGUA, NG MASINLOC POLICE
DEPARTMENT, DITO SA
PUNONG HIMPILAN NG HEPE NG
PULISYA NG MASINLOC,
ZAMBALES, NGAYON IKA-10
NG HUNYO 1967.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
1.
TANONG – Matapos mong mabatid ang iyong karapatan batay sa Saligang Batas,
handa ka bang magsabi ng katutuhanan walang iba kundi pawang katutuhanan
lamang?
SAGOT – Opo senior.
2. T- Sabihin
mo nga ang iyong pangalan, taon gulang, hanapbuhay at iba pang mga bagay na may
kaugnayan sa iyong pagkatao?
S- Ako, Martin dela Cruz Magtira, 33 taon
bulang, walang asawa, walang trabaho at kasalukuyan naninirahan sa Baloganon,
Masinloc, Zambales.
3. T- Noong
araw ng Viernes pecha 9 ng Hunio 1967, saan ka naroroon?
S- Naroon po ako sa
bahay ko sa Baloganon, Masinloc, Zambales.
4. T- Mayroon
ka bang natatandaan ginawa mo na hindi kanais-nais?
S- Mayroon po.
5. T- Isalaysay
mo nga ang buong katutuhanan pangyayaring nagawa mo?
S- Noong araw ng Viernes pecha 9 ng Hunion
1967, oras humigit-kumulang sa ika isa ng hapon, ito si Clarita Constantino at
ang dalawang niyang kapatid ay nasa aking bahay sa Baloganon, Masinloc,
Zambales. Ang mga batang ito ay malimit
sa bahay, sapagkat ang kanilang ina ay matalik kong kaibigan. Habang silay naglalaro sa silong ng bahay
ito si Clarita Constantino ay umakyat sa itaas at naiwan ang kanyang dalawang
kapatid sa silong.
6. T- Nang
nasa itaas na ng bahay si Clarita Constantino, ano ang ginawa mo?
S- Sinundan ko po siya sa itaas at ginawa ko ang
isang bagay na hindi kanais-nais sa kanya.
7. T- Nang
matapos mong makuha ang isang bagay (sexual intercourse) sa batang ito, ano pa
ang ginawa mo?
S- Inipit ko ang kanyang leeg ng dalawa kong
tuhod hanggang sa malagot ang kanyang hininga.
8. T- Bakit naman nagawa no pang kitlin ang kanyang buhay samantalang nakuha
na ang isang bagay (sexual intercourse) sa kanya?
S- Sa kalituhan ko at upang hindi siya makapagsumbong
sa kanyang ina at sa maykapangyarihan.
9. T- Matapos
mong kitlin ang kanyang buhay, ano pa ang ginawa mo?
S- Umalis na po ako ng bahay at naglibang
dahil sa nagawa kong pagkakasala, hanggang sa hulihin ako ng mga alagad ng
batas.
10.T-
Sa mga pagkakasalang nagawa mo na
nabanggit sa itaas, ay inaamin mong kasalanan?
S- Opo senior.
11.T-
Samakatuwid Ginoong Martin Magtira,
handa mo bang lagdaan ang salaysay mong ito na walang sino man namilit o
nagturo sa iyo?
S-
Opo handa ko pong lagdaan ng kusang
loob ko.
(SGD.) MARTIN MAGTIRA Y DELA CRUZ
(Lagda)
SUBSCRIBED
AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of June 1967, at Masinloc, Zambales.
(SGD.)
G. ELICAÑO
Municipal
Judge
Masinloc,
Zambales”
Accused-appellant Martin Magtira,
on the other hand, presented in his Brief a different statement of facts evincing
the defense of alibi, the inadmissibility of his sworn statement and the
improbability of the commission of the crime by accused-appellant. Hereunder quoted is the aforesaid statement
of facts:
“Accused Martin Magtira y dela Cruz is a Bulakeño who came to
reside in Barrio Baluganon, Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales in 1963. He suffers from two physical infirmities – a
blind right eye and a left arm cut two inches below the elbow (t.s.n., July 17,
1967; Decision, p. 3).
In October of 1966, he started to live with Juanita Sarmiento,
mother of the deceased-victim Clarita Constantino in Baluganon, Masinloc,
Zambales. The common-law relationship,
however, lasted only for about two months as the accused left Sarmiento and took up Remedios Doctolero as his new
common-law wife in the same barrio of Baluganon (t.s.n., Aug. 2, 1967, pp.
88-89).
At about 1:00 o’clock dawn of June 9, 1969, the accused, upon
suggestion and invitation of Josie, a hostess, Manuel Alberto and Erning
started to have a drinking spree in the first floor of his rented house in the
barrio. Shortly thereafter, Juanita
Sarmiento dropped in and participated in the drinking spree. Together, they all drank and conversed until
12:00 o’clock noon of the same day.
At the same time Josie invited the group to have lunch at the
D’Chrome Restaurant. Together, the
group repaired to the said restaurant and there they ate their lunch except
Josie who is a hostess there. After
lunch they went back to Magtira’s rented house and again conversed in the first
floor. At that time, due to the presence of their mother Juanita
Sarmiento, the children Valeriano, Carmelita and the victim Clarita Constantino
were playing in front of the house. Thereafter, the accused Magtira together with Josie left the
first floor of his rented house to go to the house of a certain
“Tomoy”. Meanwhile, Sarmiento
and Manuel Alberto were left behind
in Magtira’s house. At the house of Tomoy, Josie took her lunch
and from there at about 2:30 in the afternoon she boarded a Victory Liner Bus
for Iba, Zambales (t.s.n., IBID., pp. 90-91; p. 104).
The accused thereafter went to the house of his mother Elena dela Cruz and stayed there until about 6:00
o’clock of the same afternoon when he went out intending to go back to his
rented house. On the way, however, he
met Juanita Sarmiento who asked her on the whereabout of his daughter Clarita. The accused answered, “I do not know” (t.s.n., IBID, pp.
92-93). After that, the accused again
saw Manuel Alberto drinking at one of the stores and the
latter invited the accused to join him. The accused stayed for about one hour with Manuel Alberto and at about
7:00 o’clock in the evening of June 9, 1967, the accused and Manuel Alberto
together with the latter’s two companions went to the Russian Bar of the
same barrio (t.s.n., IBID, p. 94). They
were not however able to drink at the
Russian Bar because they were not able to get money for the drinks.
The accused therefore, separated himself from the group and went to a gambling house at the residence of Mrs. Montero. There, he gambled until
about 10:00 o’clock in the evening when he was called by a son of Susan Olivo who invited him to some drinks and pulutan, to be
held also in his rented house. Upon
reaching his rented house, the accused however, was informed that somebody was
found dead on the second floor thereof. He went up to the second floor of the house and there came upon
the Chief of Police, Dr. Asuncion and
Judge Elicaño. He was not able to get
near the cadaver because the Chief of Police restrained him from getting
nearer. Shortly thereafter, he was
arrested and brought to the D-Chrome Restaurant and there investigated by the Chief of Police. The accused however, denied any knowledge of
the killing. The Chief of Police then brought him to the
municipal building at Masinloc (t.s.n., IBID, pp. 95-97).
There, he was maltreated by Luis de los Reyes, a member of the
police force of Masinloc, who boxed him at the breast. Another member of the police force ordered
the accused to lie on a prone position on the cement floor where he was kicked
several times for his refusal to admit the killing of the deceased – Clarita
Constantino. Later on, he was again
maltreated and asked to confess to the crime. Still later at the prodding of the Chief of Police who admitted in Court
that he promised to render assistance to the accused, the latter signed a
statement, the contents of which he did not know, and which turned out to be
Exhibit “B” of the prosecution (t.s.n., IBID, pp. 97-98).
On June 13, 1967, the accused Magtira was brought before Municipal
Judge Gerardo Elicaño and there made to sign another statement, Exhibits
“C” and “C-1″ (t.s.n., IBID, p. 99).”[4]
Significant from the aforesaid narration of facts of
accused-appellant is the fact that while he alleged that he was maltreated by
the police force of Masinloc, Zambales and
asked to confess to the crime, it was not until later that he did so and only
when the Chief of Police prodded him to admit the crime through promises of
assistance. The alleged maltreatment
is, therefore, not the immediate and proximate cause for the execution of
Exhibit “B” but rather it was the assurance of aid by the Chief of
Police that made him confess.
In fact, the lower court did not consider Exhibit “B”
in the evaluation of evidence on the ground of maltreatment but on the fact
that the Chief of Police admitted that he promised to help the accused if he
tells the truth.
Accordingly, the argument of accused-appellant that Exhibits
“C” and “C-1”, entitled the Preliminary Examination of
Martin Magtira y dela Cruz, and Exhibits “E” and “E-1”, the
plea of guilty of the said accused during preliminary investigation of the
case, should not likewise be admitted for having been made under immediate fear
and intimidation of violence from members of the municipal police force, is
based on a wrong premise. Although
accused-appellant was under police custody at the time he executed Exhibits
“C”, “C-1”, “E” and “E-1”, it cannot be said
that he still labored under fear of violence when the alleged maltreatment he
suffered in the first place did not even prompt him to confess.
It cannot likewise be said that he was still under the same undue
influence of the Chief of Police when he executed Exhibits “C” and “C-1” as the latter was taken at a
later date, i.e., June 13, 1967; it was executed not at the police station but before the Municipal Court
of Masinloc, Zambales in the presence of witnesses and the questions were
propounded, not by the police, but the judge himself, whose duty was not to gather evidence against the
accused but to conduct a preliminary examination of the accused for the purpose
of determining whether there is reasonable ground to believe that an offense
has been committed.
Any other kind of involuntariness in executing Exhibit
“C” and “C-1” is foreclosed by the fact that the judge made
a clear declaration before the start of the preliminary examination that the
accused had a choice to answer the questions or not. As further proof of its voluntariness, accused entered a plea of
guilty, Exhibits “E” and “E-1”, thereby confirming all that
he had said during preliminary examination. Exhibits “C”, “C-1”, “E” and “E-1”
are evidence of high quality against the accused, all arguments against their
infirmity being unfounded. With the
existence of the elements of corpus delicti, which
accused-appellant did not question, his conviction
on the basis of said exhibits must be sustained.
Owing to the nature of the crime of rape with homicide, where the
victim is silenced forever, never again capable of narrating the horrendousness
of the crime committed against her honor and her person, this Court has always attached importance to the extrajudicial
confession of the accused as in the recent cases of People vs. Umali, 116 SCRA 23, where the victim was a
thirteen-year old girl who was strangled to death after the commission of rape;
People vs. Vizcarra, 115 SCRA 743, where the fourteen-year old rape victim was
likewise strangled; People vs. Gabierrez, Jr., 113 SCRA 155, a case of a
twelve-year old victim of rape who was struck in the head causing her to fall; People vs. Francisco, 93 SCRA 351, where the nine-year old
victim also suffered death through strangulation; and People vs. Ramos, 94 SCRA
842, where the eighteen-year old victim of rape was stabbed to death.
Nevertheless, even without the confession and the plea of guilty
in the preliminary investigation of the accused, the presence of circumstantial
evidence pointing to the accused as the author of the crime is sufficient for
conviction, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court
which provides, thus:
“Sec. 5. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. – Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inference are derived
are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.”
The court a quo found
the following circumstantial evidence to have been duly proven:
“First, the familiarity of Martin Magtira and the children,
Clarita, Valeriano and Carmelita. This
circumstance is born of the fact that Magtira and the children live in the same
neighborhood in Baluganon. The house of
the accused is just 30 meters away from that of the children. In fact, the accused claimed that he lived with those children for two months and treated them as his own when their mother was still his
paramour. This familiarity gives the inference that Magtira can easily
beguile Clarita, Valeriano and Carmelita.
Second, the presence of Clarita, Valeriano and Carmelita in front
of the house of the accused in the afternoon in question. As testified to by Valeriano, these
children were playing in all their innocence near that house which will soon be
the scene of the most horrible crime in the annals of criminality in
Zambales. The silence of that sultry
afternoon must have been time and again punctuated by their laughters not
knowing that in a short while the bud of youth will be plucked never to blossom anymore into the fragrance of
womanhood.
Third, the presence of Martin Magtira in the untenanted second
floor of the house. With a malevolent
eye perhaps, and a sexual urge slowly building itself inside him because it
cannot be emptied into his paramour who was then in Olongapo City, the accused
watched these children in their frolics like a jungle beast stalking its prey. If
only these children noticed that sinister look, they would have scampered. But all what Clarita and Valeriano saw
in that second floor was Martin
Magtira, a man familiar to them and no more. His being in the house at that time and occasion was admitted by
him in his testimony in open court. However, he gave the explanation that it was not in the second but in
the first floor; that Juanita Sarmiento was
also there with Manuel Alberto; that he and Josie left them there, including
the three children. The presence of the
children in front of his house while he was in the second floor gives the inference that the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime.
Fourth, Clarita Constantino
went up that second floor upon the beckon of Martin Magtira. This fact was testified to by Valeriano
Constantino, who despite his tender
years, impressed the court that he is an honest and sincere witness. The observation of the court on his demeanor while testifying is
reflected in the record. This
observation was concurred by the distinguished counsel for the defense. Valeriano Constantino even demonstrated,
unconsciously and as if it was a natural for him, how the accused waved his one
hand in calling Clarita up the second floor of the house and
gesturing to him and Carmelita to go away when their sister was already
inside. During the cross-examination,
it was suggested to Valeriano by the defense that his testimony was taught to
him by his mother, Juanita Sarmiento. But the boy, without hesitation and in all candidness and simplicity
just answered it was not so because he saw the accused do it. That Clarita did go up the house was
confirmed by the finding of her dead body there sometime later that
evening.
Fifth, Clarita was raped and killed by strangulation in the
unoccupied second floor of the
house where the accused resides in the first floor. The testimony of Dr. Asuncion and his postmortem examination on
the body of Clarita Constantino is conclusive on this fact. Considering that Clarita
was last seen alive by Valeriano when she went up that second floor upon the beckon of Martin
Magtira, the inference lies that it was the accused who raped and killed the
girl. Clarita went up that floor
without hesitation and with no foreboding of evil because she never expected
that a man and a neighbor familiar to her would harm her. Imagine her horror when she suddenly found
herself thrown on her back on the bamboo floor, the experienced one hand of the
accused grabbing her panty away, his knees nailing her down to immobility, his
labored breath smelling of liquor; imagine her fright as she felt his weight
and hard pounding against her thighs and the pain of every thrust. With desperate strength of an impending
death, Clarita Constantino must have fought the accused. It was no
use. The echymosis on her thighs and
around her vagina mutely trumpets the viciousness of the criminal assault on
the girl. Virgin blood from the vagina
splashed the pants of the accused which he had no time to remove in his hurry
to be satisfied without being discovered. Virgin blood also stained Clarita’s dress in front and at the back. After Magtira emptied himself he saw that
Clarita’s vagina bled profusely, so he tried to pack it with a dirty
sweater. At first he must have felt
secured in the thought that no eye has seen him commit the crime, no ear has
heard the scream of pain of the girl. But what if Clarita will report what he did to her? The only solution to prevent Clarita from
pointing to him as the criminal was to silence her forever. Magtira cannot do it with his one hand. So in scissors hold with his legs and knees
he strangulated Clarita Constantino to death. The contusion and abrasion on the neck of the girl and her protruding
tongue confirmed this nauseating fact.
Sixth, the bloody trousers, Exhibit J, is owned by the
accused. The inference lies that it
became bloody because of the vaginal blood of Clarita Constantino. When the accused saw that his trousers were
bloody, he immediately descended to the first floor where he lives and changed
the pants. But he could not wash the
thing. He has only one hand. So that very afternoon, at three o’clock, he
went to the house of Lucena Mesias. He gave
her the pants to be washed. Mesias
could not launder it because her child was then sick. The accused insisted in leaving the pants to her. So Mesias asked the aunt of the accused,
Barbara dela Cruz, to get the trousers. Barbara sent her son, Pedro Garcia to retrieve it. That was in the early morning of June 10,
1967. Before that time, or at ten
o’clock in the evening of June 9, 1967 the dead body of Clarita Constantino was
already discovered and Martin Magtira likewise arrested by the police. These facts must have come to the attention
of Barbara because she did not wash the trousers. The moment she saw that it was bloodstained in the area around
the zipper and it had an acrid (malansa) odor, she gave it to the police. She knew that the pants belonged to Martin
Magtira because she has seen it worn by him very often. So Magtira’s claim that his trousers was
owned by Manuel Alberto was belied by his very aunt. His ownership of the pants was conclusively proven when, on the
request of his counsel, the court ordered him to try it on. Despite his efforts to expand his waistline,
the pants, Exhibit J, fitted him perfectly. The observation of the court oh
this point is in the record. The
trousers worn by the accused during the trial was measured together with
Exhibit J. The measurements were
identical. This fact was also entered
in the record.
Seventh, the stains on the trousers, Exhibit J; on the dress of
Clarita Constantino, Exhibit F; and on the sweater, Exhibit G, are all
blood. This fact was testified to by
Dr. Felixberto Valdez. Although Dr. Valdez could not say what kind
of blood the stains were because of lack of laboratory equipments, neither did
the defense prove that the stains were not human blood. As a matter of fact, the accused did not
explain how Exhibit J got those bloodstains nor did he deny that they were
bloodstains.”[5]
The accused-appellant
attempted to destroy the chain of circumstantial evidence by claiming
that his small rented house is made of “bojos” and its floor on the
second storey is made of bamboo splits; that it is located beside a provincial
highway and is adjoined on its two sides by small houses, the adjoining houses
on the southern side being only 6 meters away and on the northern side also
barely a few meters distant; that
it is therefore very improbable
that the one-armed accused could have so overwhelmingly over-powered the victim
in one stroke without the latter being able to raise an outcry. Appellant’s contention is untenable, as correctly
argued by the Solicitor General, for there is completely no evidence on the
record that the adjoining houses were tenanted at all or that at the particular
time of the afternoon in question, there were people in the houses. The fact
that accused-appellant has the full use only of his right arm does not
in the least make the commission of the crime of rape with homicide on a
ten-year old girl incredible. In People
vs. Savellano, 57 SCRA 320, this Court affirmed the conviction of the accused
therein, who had the full use of his left arm only for the crime of rape
against a seventeen year old girl.
Accused-appellant next
lays stress on the absence of finding that the blood stains on the pants,
Exhibit “J”, were human blood. Such finding is immaterial when We consider that the blood stains on
the pants were found around the area of the opening; that the victim’s vagina
had fresh and clotted blood and that the accused wanted said pants washed on
the very afternoon the victim was raped. The foregoing facts and circumstances establish the inference that the
blood found on the trousers could not be but the blood of Clarita.
Accused-appellant further
points to some alleged improbabilities in the testimony of Valeriano
Constantino (the eight-year old brother of the victim) that he was shoved away
by accused-appellant when he and his sister, Carmelita, tried to follow Clarita
up the house. He assails as unnatural
the fact that he did not tell their mother about such incident, more so for not remembering the
same when he was initially asked by their mother where Clarita was. But We do not find anything unusual in such incident of his being shoved away
that would merit the immediate report to the mother by a boy of tender
age. Neither is it so significant or
extraordinary that it would easily be re-called or remembered. However, upon further inquiry, said
eight-year old boy narrated what happened in front of appellant’s house that
afternoon. When placed on the witness
stand, the lower court noticed that he even demonstrated unconsciously how the
accused waived his hand in calling Clarita up the second floor of the house and
gesturing to him and Carmelita to go away when their sister was already
inside. This observation merits great
weight. It is by reason of the lower
court’s ability to observe the demeanor and deportment of witnesses during
trial that its findings of fact are held binding on this Court especially since
such findings are essentially findings on credibility of witnesses.[6]
In resume, We hold that
not a shred of doubt was cast by accused-appellant on the findings of the trial
court. We find that the guilt of the
accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt not only by his categorical
and repeated admissions in Exhibits “C” and “C-1” and his plea
of guilt in Exhibits “E” and “E-l”, but also by the duly
established facts and circumstances surrounding the case and pointing to no
other but him as the culprit.
When the hapless victim
is below twelve, We have always considered rape alone as a detestable crime.[7] In People vs. Malate, 116 SCRA 487, this
Court, in sheer aghast over such crime even stated that “there should be a
special place in hell for child molesters, for they are men who are dirty,
despicable, deviant and the dregs of society.” Where the crime is rape
with homicide against a girl below twelve, as in this case, the criminal
perversity of the accused is even greater, the helplessness and the
harmlessness of the victim being further taken advantage of to camouflage or
deflect the commission of the crime. Indeed, the punishment for this heinous and outrageous complex crime of
rape with homicide should be nothing less than death.
We find the decision appealed from to be correct, the same being
in accordance with the evidence and the law, except that the indemnity should
be increased from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is hereby
AFFIRMED with the modification that the indemnity be and is hereby increased
from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De
Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., and
Teehankee, J., no part.
Relova, J., for reclusion
perpetua.
[1]
Brief for Accused-Appellant, Rollo, p. 76.
[2]
The full text of Exh. C and C-1 is as follows, except the pertinent portions
(4.C-, S- to 11.C-, S-) already quoted above:
“REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES
IN
THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF MASINLOC,
PROVINCE OF ZAMBALES
PRELIMINARY
EXAMINATION OF MARTIN MAGTIRA Y DE LA CRUZ
1. COURT: Mr.
Martin Magtira, tungkol sa dito sa nilagdaan mong affidavit na inaamin mong
ginahasa at pinatay si Clarita Constantino nuong Biyernes, 9 ng Junio 1967,
itong Juzgado gusto pa kayong tanungin sa ilan pang bagay tungkol sa nangyari,
ngunit kung gusto ninyong magkaroon ng abugado ngayon o sa ano mang hakbang
gagawin tungkol sa asuntong ito, maari naman;
ngunit kung gusto mong sagutin ang mga tanong ng Juzgado saiyo ngayon, sa
kusang loob mong magbigay ng declaracion, maari naman, ngayon, nahahanda ka
bang sagutin ang mga tanong ng Juzgado saiyo?
ANSWER: Opo.
2. C- Kung
ganon, sa harap ng mga saksi dito sa Juzgado ngayon, sabihin mo ang iyong
pangalan at iba pang mga bagay tungkol sa iyong pagkatao?
S- MARTIN MAGTIRA, 33 taong gulang, hindi kasado ngunit may kasama, walarig
trabaho at kasalukuyang naninirahan sa Baloganon, Masinloc, Zambales.
3. C-
Anong ang pangalan ng kinakasama mo at nasaan siya ngayon?
S- Siya po ay si Remedios Imanas at nasa Maynila siya ngayon. Umalis siya nuong Juwebes ng umaga, mga alas
onsi.
x x x
12. C- Sa mga sandaling ito lasing ka pa ba?
S- Hindi na po.
13. C- Tiga saan kayo?
S- Tiga Paumbong, Bulacan po.
14. C- Sinabi mo sa itaas na kayo’y lasing nuong nagawa mo itong bagay
kay Clarita, Sabihin mo nga kung paano ka nalasing.
S- Nag-inoman po kami sa silong ng bahay namin.
15. C- Sino-sino ang mga kasama mo na nag-inoman sa silong ng iyong
bahay?
S- Si Nita na ina ni Clarita, si Josie na hindi
ko alam ang apeliyido at si Manuel Alberto.
16. C- Ano ang ininom ninyo?
S- Naghalo-halo na po; may Tanduay, serbesa at
San Miguel gin.
17. C- Gumamit kayong chaser o
pang-halo?
S- Opo.
18. C- Ilan botilyang alak
kung natatandaan mo pa.
S- Tatlong (3) botilyang lapad na Tanduay, isang (1) boteng Gin (San
Miguel) na bilog at labing limang (15) boteng serbesa.
19. C- Anong oras kayo nag-i-inoman?
S- Alas 6:00 hanggang alas onse (11:00) ng
umaga.
20. C- Ang
gusto mong sabihin kung ganon ay naganap itong ginawa mo kay Clarita nuong wala
ng mga taong ka-inoman mo?
S- Opo.
21. C- Pinatutunayan mo itong lahat na nasabi mo sa itaas, na inaamin
mong kasalanan kahit na ikaw ay maparusahan?
S. Opo.
22. C- Kung ganoon nahahanda
mong lagdaan at pinagsusumpaan itong salaysay mo?
S- Opo.
(SGD.) MARTIN MAGTIRA Y DE LA CRUZ
SUBSCRIBED AND
SWORN to by Martin Magtira before me this 10th day of June 1967 in the presence
of witnesses Messrs. Reynaldo Edora, Arsenio Aguilon & Isidro B. Bautista
at Masinloc, Zambales.
(SGD) G. ELICAÑO
Municipal Judge
Masinloc, Zambales
(SGD.) REYNALDO EDORA (SGD.)
ARSENIO AGUILON
(SGD.) ISIDRO B. BAUTISTA “
[3]
Brief for Appellee, pp. 2-8.
[4]
Brief for Accused-Appellant, Rollo, pp. 77-79.
[5]
Decision, Rollo, pp. 39-44.
[6]
People vs. Chavez, 121 SCRA 806; People vs. Ramos, 94 SCRA 842;
People vs. Gargoles, 83 SCRA 282; People vs. Pascual, 80 SCRA 1;
People vs. Ancheta, 60 SCRA 333; People vs. Boduso, 60 SCRA 60;
People vs. Cardenas, 56 SCRA 631; People vs. Carandang, 52 SCRA
259; and People vs. Espejo, 36 SCRA 400.
[7]
See: People vs. Laguisma, 98
SCRA 69; People vs. Morales, 94 SCRA 191; People vs. Sarmiento,
94 SCRA 944; and People vs. Conchada, 88 SCRA 683.