PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONARDO FLORES, ALEX KING CRUZ, SERVILLANO PARINAS AND ERNESTO SARSOZA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Flores

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Leonardo Flores, Alex King Cruz, Servillano Parinas and Ernesto Sarsoza for the brutal rape and killing of a registered nurse, Mercedes Dulay, on a barrio road in Pangasinan on the night of September 21, 1984. The case matters to the reviewee because it is the Supreme Court's clearest teaching on the weight of a co-accused's testimony: a judicial confession given in open court, where the other accused had the right and the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, may be received against them, and an uncorroborated but sincere and straightforward testimony of a co-conspirator can be sufficient to convict. It also illustrates how conspiracy is proved by the coordinated acts of the offenders themselves.

Procedural History

The four accused were charged with rape with homicide and robbery in the Regional Trial Court at Lingayen, Pangasinan. At the arraignment, Cruz, Parinas and Sarsoza, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. Flores first pleaded guilty, but the court prudently deferred action on the plea and recorded a plea of not guilty for him. He was later rearraigned, insisted on a plea of guilty after being admonished on its meaning, extent and effect, and the court entered that plea of guilty but deferred judgment until the prosecution had fully presented its evidence. Flores then volunteered to testify for the government.

In its lengthy decision of July 30, 1985, the trial court found all four guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of multiple rape with homicide on four counts, sentenced each of them to four death penalties, and ordered them to pay indemnity, moral damages, actual damages and loss of earning capacity. The records were forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review. While the case was pending, the 1987 Constitution took effect and abolished the death penalty, so the Court required the appellants to state whether they wished to continue the appeal. Flores chose to withdraw his appeal and accepted reclusion perpetua, and the Court dismissed his appeal, with judgment entered on June 15, 1989. Cruz, Parinas and Sarsoza chose to pursue their appeal, and it is their appeal that the Court resolved in this decision.

Facts

At about six o'clock in the evening of September 21, 1984, Flores was in the house of a friend, Jose Cacayan, together with Cruz, Parinas and Sarsoza. They drank a bottle of liquor and smoked marijuana. About an hour later the group parted ways, but all four returned to the same house at around seven thirty in the evening. Cruz told them to proceed east and wait for Mercedes, to get her money, kill her and rape her. The three agreed, and Sarsoza said he was going to rape and kill her.

The group waited in a forested area near the irrigation site. When Mercedes was some five meters away, Flores caught her by placing his left arm around her neck. Cruz pulled her dress, Parinas struck her head twice with a stone, and Sarsoza held her by the legs. They forced her to lie down on the barrio road. She cried that they could take everything from her but should not kill her. Cruz tore her dress, bra and half-slip with a bayonet, and then the four took turns having sexual intercourse with her, each holding her while another ravished her. Afterward Sarsoza stabbed her breast with his bayonet, and Cruz slashed her neck. They dumped her body in a canal about a meter from the road. Sarsoza cut a branch of an ipil-ipil tree and ordered Flores to insert it into her vagina, warning that he would kill Flores if he did not. Flores then took her graduation ring and one hundred pesos from her bag, and Cruz took her wrist watch.

The next morning her naked body was found with the branch inserted into her private part and with several hack and stab wounds. The autopsy attributed death to massive hemorrhage due to multiple stab and hack wounds. Flores was apprehended, fled, was pursued and mauled by the barrio people, and revealed the identity of his companions. A blood-stained bayonet was retrieved from his waist and the ring from his pocket. At the police station he executed a sworn statement without the assistance of counsel. Cruz, Sarsoza and Parinas denied the crime and interposed alibi, claiming they were drinking and then watching television programs at the time of the killing.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the appellants principally on the basis of the testimony and confession of their co-accused Flores.
• Whether or not conspiracy was established among the four accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi of Cruz, Parinas and Sarsoza should be credited over the prosecution evidence.
• Whether or not the testimony of Flores, the sole eyewitness for the prosecution, is sufficient to support conviction despite being uncorroborated.

Applicable Provisions

The information was filed under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, which the Court applies in fixing the penalty for rape with homicide. It provides:

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death. When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.

This provision supplies the death penalty for rape with homicide, which the trial court imposed and which the Court reviews.

The trial court also applied Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code on indivisible penalties, which provides:

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

This provision explains why the trial court imposed the death penalty notwithstanding any mitigating circumstances.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction may rest on the judicial confession of Flores. His extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because he was not assisted by counsel, and it may not even be given probative value in view of his admission of the crime in open court. Only his judicial confession should be weighed. The Court drew the distinction between extrajudicial and judicial confessions: the former deprives the other accused of the opportunity to cross-examine the confessant, while in the latter the confession is thrown wide open for cross-examination and rebuttal. It quoted its earlier ruling:

The general rule that the confession of an accused may be given in evidence against him but that it is not competent evidence against his co-accused, admits of exceptions. Thus, this Court has held that where several accused are tried together for the same complaint, the testimony lawfully given by one during the trial implicating the others is competent evidence against the latter. The extrajudicial admission or confession of a co-conspirator out of court is different from the testimony given by a co-accused during trial. The first is admissible against the declarant alone, but the second is perfectly admissible against his co-accused who had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

On the second issue, the Court held that conspiracy was established beyond reasonable doubt through the judicial confession of Flores and, independently, through the manner by which the appellants acted in concert. They performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose and design: while Flores grabbed the victim by the neck, two others held her limbs while another tore her garments with a bayonet, and the same cooperation was shown when they took turns raping her. The Court stressed that the rule requiring independent evidence of conspiracy before a conspirator's statement may be admitted applies only to an extrajudicial admission or declaration, not to testimony given directly in court where the defendants had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. It held that the testimony of a co-conspirator, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient provided it is sincere, given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner, and full of details that could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the alibi. The appellants did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that they were at some other place for such a period of time as to negate their presence at the time and place of the crime. It was not physically impossible for them to reach the irrigation area, which was a mere five hundred meters from the house where they claimed to be watching television, and the earlier house was only twenty five meters from that house.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Flores' testimonial confession, although uncorroborated, suffices to support conviction because it is positive and credible. The matter of credibility is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which observed that Flores was frank, candid and straightforward on the witness stand, while the appellants were nervous, quivering and hesitant.

Doctrine

A judicial confession is one given in open court during the trial, where the co-accused have the right and the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, and as such it is competent evidence against them. An extrajudicial confession, by contrast, is admissible only against the declarant, and it is inadmissible where the confessant was not assisted by counsel. The testimony of a co-conspirator, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient to convict provided it is sincere, given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner, and full of details that could not have been the product of deliberate afterthought. Conspiracy may be proved by the coordinated acts of the offenders themselves, showing a common purpose and design. Alibi must be established by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. These rules are tied to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which fixes the penalty for rape with homicide, and Article 63, which governs the application of indivisible penalties.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of Cruz, Parinas and Sarsoza, while the appeal of Flores had already been dismissed after he withdrew it and accepted reclusion perpetua.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a co-accused's testimony lawfully given in open court, where the others had the right and opportunity to cross-examine him, is competent evidence against them, while his extrajudicial confession is not. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between judicial and extrajudicial confessions and the sufficiency of an uncorroborated co-conspirator's testimony.