PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALEXANDER DE LA FUENTE Y MAHILUM, ACCUSED WHOSE DEATH SENTENCE IS UNDER AUTOMATIC REVIEW.

This is a review en consulta
of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
del Norte, Dipolog City Branch I, convicting
Alexander M. de la Fuente of “the complex
offense of double murder with frustrated murder”, sentencing him to death
and ordering him to pay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to each set of
heirs of the victims, Elvira B. Dumapig and Matilde B. Dumapig (Criminal
Cases Nos. 2969 and 2970).

There is no question that De la Fuente,
21, killed his common law wife Elvira and her mother Matilde
Baclayon Dumapig.  The principal evidence against him is his extrajudicial confession (Exh.
A) wherein he admitted the killing.  The confession is admissible under section 20,
Article IV of the Constitution because he ratified it while he was on the
witness stand.  His voluntary plea of
guilty, a judicial confession, removed any doubt as to his guilt.

In his confession, he
boasted that his motive for the killing was that he “wanted to”
kill.  He bragged that he already killed
three persons, one of whom was named Kokoy (Nos.
12 and 13, Exh.
A).  He made the same admission to a police officer (p. 7, Record).

Just an hour or two
before the killing, when his wife and her sister Imelda were returning home
after a program at the School of Fisheries, his wife did not go to the rented
house where she and De la Fuente were residing.  The house was surrounded by some unknown
persons because De la Fuente had assaulted a person (12 and 13 tsn, December 6, 1982). 
Elvira slept in her parents’ house which was about twenty-five
meters away.

When the Dumapig family was still in General Santos City and Elvira, a teenager, was engaged in
selling halo-halo in the public market, De la Fuente
got acquainted with her.  One night De la
Fuente threatened her with a hunting knife and they
eloped.  Elvira’s father sent for De la Fuente’s parents but his own father refused to give his
consent to the marriage because Alexander used to challenge his father to a
fight (21 tsn, December 6, 1982).  So
Elvira and De la Fuente cohabited without getting married and lived with her
parents in a barrio in Dipolog City.

At his arraignment on November
23, 1982, De la Fuente, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty Judge Simplicio M. Apalisok asked him
if he understood the information.  The
accused answered in the affirmative. 
Again, the accused was asked as to his plea.  He answered “guilty”.  Judge Apalisok apprised the accused that he was charged with two murders,
which are capital offenses, and the death penalty might be imposed on him.  He was asked again by the Judge if he
understood the information.  He
said:  “Yes, sir, I do
understand”.

In answer to another
question of the trial judge, De la Fuente said that
he knew the consequences of his plea of guilty to an
information charging him with the murder of two women.  He was asked if he wanted to change his plea
to “not guilty”.  De la Fuente said:  “I
will not change my plea, Your Honor”.

Then, he was arraigned on
the information for frustrated
murder.  He
was assisted by the same counsel.  He
also pleaded guilty.

To dissipate any doubt as
to his guilt and find out whether he deserved capital punishment, Judge Apalisok required the fiscal to present his evidence.  In addition to the extrajudicial confession,
the fiscal presented the eyewitness testimony of Imelda Dumapig,
16, a first year high school student and Elvira’s sister; the hospital doctor
who examined Imelda; Alejandro Dumapig, the husband
of the deceased Matilde; Marcos Sorronda,
the intelligence officer of the city police who got De la Fuente
from the barangay captain of Pian,
Polanco, Zamboanga del
Norte to whom he had surrendered after the killing.

According to the prosecution at about eleven o’clock on the night
of September 21, 1982, Elvira with her one- year-old baby, her mother Matilde and her younger brother Alan and two nephews were sleeping in Matilde’s
house located in Barangay Olingan,
Dipolog City. Elvira’s common-law husband, De la Fuente, suddenly barged into the house.  On that occasion, Alejandro Dumapig, Matilde’s
husband, happened to be in Aloran, Misamis Occidental.

Imelda Dumapig, Elvira’s sister, who
was still awake, combing her hair, saw De la Fuente
who, without any preliminaries, stabbed with his knife (Exh.
C) Matilde on the left breast and Elvira on the
middle portion of her chest while both victims were fast asleep.  Imelda with her wounded mother Matilde jumped out of the window.  On the ground, they were separated.

De la Fuente,
who had gone out of the house, stabbed Imelda on the left buttock.  She fled towards the checkpoint where she
chanced to meet the head teacher of the School of Fisheries who brought her to the hospital.  Her
wound was not fatal.

Elvira and Matilde died as a result of the stab wounds (Exh. F and H).  Matilde had a
penetrating wound in the left breast which cut the nipple and areola and
fractured her sixth and seventh ribs.  Elvira had a three-centimeter wound in the
chest.  The wounds affected the victims’
hearts and lungs (Exh. E and G).

De la Fuente
was charged with double murder in one information and with frustrated
murder in another information with respect to the
wounding of Imelda.  As stated already,
he executed an extrajudicial confession wherein
he admitted that he killed the two women (Exh. A).  He was assisted by
Manuel P. Abad, a lawyer of the Citizens Legal
Assistance Office.

The confession was sworn
to before an assistant city fiscal of Dipolog City
who certified that he personally examined De la Fuente
and that he was satisfied that
the latter voluntarily executed and understood his confession.

The fiscal agreed that
plea of guilty and voluntary surrender to the authorities were mitigating but
he disagreed with counsel de oficio’s contention
that passion and obfuscation should also be mitigating.  De la Fuente had to
testify in his own behalf to prove that mitigating circumstance.

His version was that at
about two o’clock in the afternoon, a few hours before the killing, he asked for twenty
pesos from Elvira.  He was angered by the
intervention of Matilde who on such occasions used to
advise Elvira to leave him.  He gambled
with the twenty pesos.

At about ninety-thirty in
the evening, when he went to the house of Matilde, he
was asked by Elvira about the twenty pesos. 
She and Matilde were allegedly still awake at
that time.  Elvira and De la Fuente had a spat about the loss of the money.  Elvira bit him in the left breast near
the nipple.  That supposedly provoked him
to assault the two women.

After assaulting the two
women, he jumped out of the window.  In
the darkness, he encountered a person whom he did not recognize.  He also stabbed that person who turned out to be Imelda.

The trial court did not
give credence to his testimony.  It did
not appreciate passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance.  Counsels de oficio seek
only a modification of the
trial court’s decision.  They contend that the accused committed only
two homicides and attempted homicide.

We hold that the killings are separate offenses because they were perpetrated by means of
distinct acts.  They cannot be considered
complex.  As the victims were asleep, the
two killings were attended with treachery which absorbs nocturnity.  They were correctly categorized as
murders.  Counsels de oficio’s contention
that the killings were homicides is not supported by the evidence.  Even the accused in his confession did not
state that he killed the victims when they were awake.

The accused supplied the
evidence on evident premeditation when in his testimony he declared that he had
an altercation at two o’clock
in the afternoon with the two victims and he killed them about nine hours later
in the evening of the same day (4-5 tsn, November
23, 1982).  He had sufficient time for meditation and
reflection and ample opportunity to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will (vencer las determinaciones de la voluntad) had he desired to hearken to its warnings (U.
S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530, 547).  Hence, premeditacion conocida
is aggravating.

Dwelling is also aggravating since the murders were committed in
the humble abode of Matilde B. Dumapig
which was not the habitation of the accused.

As to Imelda B. Dumapig, the crime is attempted murder, not
attempted homicide as contended by counsels de oficio.  Treachery was present in the stabbing of
Imelda because she was the victim of a sudden and unexpected assault.  She had reason to feel safe after she had
jumped out of the window and landed on the ground.  Even the accused did not know that he was attacking
Imelda.  He did not recognize her.  It was dark. 
The attempted murder was not aggravated by evident premeditation
and dwelling.

Plea of guilty and voluntary surrender to the authorities are
admittedly mitigating, but passion and obfuscation cannot be considered
extenuating because the accused acted in a spirit of unmitigated
lawlessness.  Moreover, the act producing
the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time (People vs. Hernandez, 43 Phil. 104; People vs. Alanguilang,
52 Phil. 663).

Considering the attending circumstances, reclusion perpetua is the proper penalty for each murder.  For the attempted murder, the proper
penalty, after giving the accused the benefit of two mitigating circumstances
without any generic aggravating circumstance (Art. 64[5], Revised Penal Code),
is six months of arresto mayor.

Alejandro Dumapig, 51, widower,
testified that the mental anguish caused by the death of his wife and daughter
cannot be evaluated in terms of money. 
He spent P1,900 for the funeral, prayers and
miscellaneous expenses.  The civil
liability awarded by the trial court is increased to thirty thousand pesos for
each set of heirs.

WHEREFORE, the death penalty is set aside.  The accused is sentenced to two reclusion perpetuas for the
assassination of Matilde B. Dumapig
and Elvira B. Dumapig.  He should pay an indemnity and damages of
thirty thousand pesos to each set of the victims’ heirs.

For the attempted murder, he is sentenced to six months of arresto mayor and to pay Imelda B. Dumapig an indemnity of five thousand pesos.  Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad
Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., no part.