Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ROGER UGOS,
Accused-Appellant. September 12, 2008
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Before us is an appeal from the October 25, 2007
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
00310-MIN entitled People of the Philippines v. Roger Ugos y
Lanzo alias Dodong. The CA affirmed the February 8, 2000
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15 in
Davao City in Criminal Case No. 39413-97, finding accusedappellant Roger Ugos guilty of raping his stepdaughter and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
The Facts
On August 11, 1997, accused-appellant was charged with rape
under an Information which reads:
and credible testimony that should determine accusedappellants guilt. She detailed both in direct and crossexaminations how accused-appellant violated her; she minced
no words about what accused-appellant did to her on August
7, 1997.
Accused-appellant does not dispute AAAs testimony,
arguing that she might have been coached in her answers. He
likewise states that what AAA and her mother reported to the
police was an attempt to rape AAA. It was only when the
prosecutor asked her leading questions that she testified that
accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina.
The Court is not persuaded by his contentions for the
following reasons: First, the testimony of Police Officer Jickain,
who related that AAAs mother approached him onAugust 7,
1997 while he was on duty as Police Station Child and Youth
Officer, has documentary support. He stated that AAAs mother
reported that accused-appellant raped her daughter.
[17]
Second, accused-appellants contention is at odds with what
are contained in the records, which show that during crossexamination the trial court asked AAA what accused-appellant
did to her, as follows:
COURT:
Q You said it is painful, is it because the finger
was inserted or the penis?
A Because he inserted his finger into my
vagina.
Q He did not insert his penis?
A He inserted.[18]
[20]
The line of leading questions objected to by accusedappellant was warranted given the circumstances. A child of
tender years may be asked leading questions under Section
10(c), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Sec. 20 of the 2000
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness also provides, The
court may allow leading questions in all stages of examination
of a child if the same will further the interests of justice.
The afore-cited rule was formulated to allow children to
give reliable and complete evidence, minimize trauma to
children, encourage them to testify in legal proceedings, and
facilitate the ascertainment of truth.[21]
DECISION
SO ORDERED.[4]
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
For allegedly sexually assaulting 5-year-old AAA, Rene Santos
was charged with Rape in an Information[1] alleging
That on or about in the afternoon of between
17th and 23rd of July 1999 in the [B]arangay of
xxx, [M]unicipality of xxx, [P]rovince of
Pampanga, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, RENE SANTOS, with lewd
designs and by means of deceit, force and
intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously succeeded in having
carnal knowledge with AAA, 5 years of age,
against her will.
Contrary to law.
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.
[2]
Trial thereafter ensued, after which the Regional Trial Court
of
Macabebe,
Pampanga,
Branch
55,
rendered
[3]
judgment imposing the death penalty thus:
20, 21 and 22, 1999, appellant plied the San FernandoMalolos route on board his passenger jeepney.[19]On July 23,
1999, appellant went to Makati leaving xxx at 10:00 a.m.,
returning only at 10:00 p.m.[20]
On July 30, 1999, between 6:30 to 7:30 a.m.,[21] he was
sweeping the ground in front of his house when a white car
pulled over.[22] The vehicles occupants introduced themselves
as police officers and asked him if he was Rene Santos.
[23]
Thereafter, he was taken to the police headquarters for
questioning. Once they arrived at the headquarters, he was
detained and remained in detention up to the time of his trial.[24]
We have examined the evidence on record and find no
cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and the
Court of Appeals. We accord great respect on the findings of
the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies, for the trial judge observes the behavior and
demeanor of the witnesses in court. His evaluation or
assessment of the credibility of witnesses and of testimony
acquires greater significance in rape cases because from the
nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be
offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the victims
testimony.[25]
This credibility given by the trial court to the rape victim
is an important aspect of evidence which appellate courts can
rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct and attitude
during the direct and cross-examination by counsel. [26] It is
likewise well established that the testimony of a rape victim is
generally given full weight and credit, more so, if she is a 5year-old child as in this case. The revelation of an innocent
child whose chastity has been abused deserves full credit, as
her willingness to undergo the trouble and the humiliation of a
public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her
FISCAL PINEDA
Questioning
If Rene Santos is inside this courtroom, can you
point at him?
WITNESS
Answering
WITNESS
Answering
I do not know when, sir.
FISCAL PINEDA
Questioning
Yes, sir.
INTERPRETER
Q In Apalit, Pampanga?
A Yes, sir.
COURT
Questioning
Is this Rene Santos inside this courtroom?
WITNESS
Answering
Q Point to him?
A There he is, sir.
Yes, sir.
INTERPRETER
ATTY. VIOLA
Leading, Your Honor.
COURT
Reform the question.
FISCAL PINEDA
Questioning
When he inserted his penis into your vagina,
what was his appearance?
WITNESS
Answering
It was hard, sir.
Q What was hard?
A His penis, sir.
the
the
the
the
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. H.C. No. 01424 finding appellant Rene Santos guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and odering him
to indemnify the victim the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages,
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of
moral damages is increased to P75,000.00 and that in lieu of
the death penalty, appellant Rene Santos is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuawithout possibility of
parole.
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1753. February 5, 2004]
CAPISTRANO OBEDENCIO, JR., complainant, vs. JUDGE
JOAQUIN M. MURILLO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC,
BRANCH
26,
MEDINA,
MISAMIS
ORIENTAL, respondent.
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
[1]
In
a
letter-complaint, complainant
Capistrano
Obedencio, Jr., charged respondent Judge Joaquin M. Murillo,
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Medina,
Misamis Oriental, Branch 26, of unjustly dismissing Criminal
Case No. 1401-M (2000) for rape, entitled People v. Dexter Z.
Acenas.
This Court agrees with the findings of the OCA, but not
with the recommended penalty.
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 140895. July 17, 2003]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ALMA BISDA
y GAUPO and GENEROSA JENNY ROSE BASILAN
y PAYAN, appellants.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Before this Court on automatic review is the Decision [1] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, Branch 272,
convicting appellants Alma Bisda and Generosa Jenny Rose
Basilan, of kidnapping for ransom; sentencing each of them to
the extreme penalty of death by lethal injection, and ordering
them to indemnify the parents of the victim Angela Michelle
Soriano the amount of P100,000 as moral damages, and to
pay the costs of the suit.
The Case
In an Amended Information docketed as Criminal Case
No. 98-2647-MK, the appellants were charged with the felony
of kidnapping for ransom committed as follows:
That on or about the 3rd of September 1998, in the City of
Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and helping one another, did there and then
willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly kidnap, detain
and deprive ANGELA MICHELLE SORIANO y SAN JUAN of
her liberty for six (6) days for the purpose of extorting ransom
from her/or her family.
Contrary to law.[2]
When arraigned, the appellants, assisted by counsel,
entered separate pleas of not guilty.[3]
The Evidence for the Prosecution[4]
William Soriano, a training consultant by profession, and
his wife Marymae Soriano, had two children: Kathleen Denise
and Angela Michelle. They rented a house at No. 5 Col. Divino
St., Concepcion, Marikina. Their landlady who lived nearby
asked what Jenny Rose was doing in her school. Jenny Rose
introduced Angela to Alma as her niece, and informed Alma
that she would be bringing Angela with her to her boarding
house in Espaa Street.
At that point, Alma asked Jenny Rose and Angela if they
wanted to eat. When they agreed, the three of them
proceeded to the Jollibee Restaurant near the Meralco office
in Marikina City. After eating, Alma bade them goodbye and
was about to leave for her office when Jenny Rose asked if
she and Angela could come along with her to Cubao. She
acceded to the request, and they rode a Tamaraw FX taxi.
Because Angela was getting sleepy, Alma offered to bring
them to Jennys boarding house in Espaa, and dropped them
off there. Alma thereafter proceeded to her office at 1258 Paz
St., Paco, Manila, where she had been holding office since
January 1997, and arrived thereat at about 2:00 p.m.
At or about 8:00 p.m. of the same day, Alma passed by
Jenny Roses boarding house to give her instructions on what
to do the following day. She saw Angela crying profusely. She
told Jenny Rose to bring Angela home, but Jenny Rose told
her that Angelas parents would be coming to fetch
her. Thinking that Angela was probably bored, Alma suggested
that they stay in her office in Paco so that they could watch
television while waiting for Angelas parents. Jenny Rose
agreed. They arrived at the said office at around 8:40 p.m.
Alma left at around 10:00 p.m. and went home to her rented
house in Palmera Homes, Antipolo, where she stayed until
September 6, 1998.
On September 7, 1998, at around 12:00 noon, Alma
arrived at her office in Paco, Manila, and found that Jenny
Rose and Angela were still there. Jenny Rose assured Alma
that Angela would be fetched by her parents. At around 4:00
p.m., Alma instructed Jenny Rose to go to the province to
collect some debts, Jenny Rose left for the province on the
same day. Alma stayed in the office because she was having
her menstrual period at the time and was not feeling well. She
took care of Angela while Jenny Rose was away.
The next day, September 8, 1998, Alma was still in her
office with Angela. At about 3:00 p.m., while she was watching
television with Angela, someone knocked at the door. When
she opened it, two male persons entered. One of them was
Inspector Ricardo Dandan who showed her a photograph of
Angela and asked if she knew the child. Alma answered in the
affirmative. Ricardo then asked her, Dont you know that this is
kidnapping? to which Alma replied, I do not know. She also
told Dandan that she did not know what was happening to her.
Suddenly, Alma was handcuffed. Angela cried and asked
Alma: What are they doing to you, Tita? She was brought to
Camp Crame where she was interrogated and detained. Alma
did not make any telephone calls that day. William, Marymae
and Angela arrived at Almas detention cell. When Angela saw
her, the girl tried to run to Alma but William held on to his
daughter. William asked Alma why she took Angela, Alma
replied that it was Jenny Rose who brought the girl along with
them. She told William that they were both victims.
Sometime on October 26, 1998, Jenny Rose visited Alma
to ask for forgiveness and to assume full responsibility for the
incident. Jenny Rose also informed her that she wanted to ask
forgiveness from the Sorianos so that she could finish her
schooling. It was only then that she realized what Jenny Rose
had done to her. Nevertheless, she still believed that Jenny
Rose was a good person. She advised her to go home and
continue with her studies.
When Angelas sworn statement was shown to her, Alma
noticed that Angela did not mention Jenny Rose as one of the
two persons who had kidnapped her. Alma executed a
handwritten statement denying the truth of the contents of
Angelas affidavit.[20]
Jenny Roses Evidence
Jenny Rose did not testify in her defense. She presented
Atty. Aurelio Trampe, Jr. as her witness who testified [21] that he
is the very essence of the crime.[33] The general rule is that the
prosecution is burdened to prove lack of consent on the part of
the victim. However, where the victim is a minor especially if
she is only five years old, lack of consent is presumed. She is
incompetent to assent to seizure and illegal detention.[34] In this
case, Angela was merely five years old when she was
kidnapped; thus incapable of giving consent. The consent of
such child could place the appellants in no better position than
if the act had been done against her will. The appellants
cannot rely on Angelas initial willingness to go along with them
to the restaurant. As Judge Shepherd stated in State v.
Chisenhall:[35]
It is clear that the consent of the child, obtained by means of
persuasion, is no defense, since the result of such persuasion
is just as great an evil as if it had been accomplished by other
means.
A kidnapper should not be rewarded with an acquittal
simply because she is ingenious enough to conceal her true
motive from her victim until she is able to transport the latter to
another place.
Although Angela was free to roam around in the dirty
house, to draw and to watch television during the entire period
of her detention, and was regularly fed and bathed, the
appellants are nevertheless guilty of kidnapping and illegally
detaining the five-year-old child. As Judge McGill of the United
States Court of Appeals said in United States v. McCabe[36],to
accept a childs desire for food, comfort as the type of will or
consent contemplated in the context of kidnapping would
render the concept meaningless.
In People v. Baldogo,[37] this Court held that illegal serious
detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended, includes not only the imprisonment of a person but
also the deprivation of her liberty in whatever form and for
whatever length of time. It includes a situation where the victim
cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention or is
restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. [38] In this case, the
Atty. Salamera:
Knife, your Honor.
Pros. Junio:
It was covered on cross.
Court:
Objection denied. Overruled. Witness may answer.
Witness:
One night.[91]
There was, thus, no inconsistency in Angelas testimony
on this point.
Angelas hands were tied, and her mouth was covered
with scotch tape the day after she was brought to the dirty
house. Angela testified on direct examination, thus:
Pros. Junio:
Okay, where did you go?
Witness:
To the dirty house.
Pros. Junio:
Who was with you or who were with you at that
time?
Witness:
Alma Besda (sic) and Jenny Rose, maam.
Pros. Junio:
Where is this dirty house located?
Witness:
I do not know, maam.
Pros. Junio:
Upon arriving at that dirty house, what did you do?
Witness:
They changed my clothes once.
Pros. Junio:
Do you remember the color of the dress?
Witness:
No, maam.
Pros. Junio:
Witness:
Alma Besda (sic) and Jenny Rose.[92]
On cross-examination, Angela testified that on the day she
was rescued, she could watch the television, make drawings
and roam around the room:
Atty. Larracas:
You did . . . At that time you were allegedly
rescued, Jenny Rose was not at the place where
you were rescued?
Witness:
She was not there, maam.
Atty. Larracas:
All along you were watching tv (sic) at the place
where you were taken?
Witness:
Only once, maam.
Atty. Larracas:
And when you were not watching tv (sic), what
were you doing Angela in that dirty house?
Witness:
I was drawing, maam.
Atty. Larracas:
So you watched tv once and the rest of the time
you were drawing?
Witness:
Yes, maam.
Atty. Larracas:
Of course, you cannot draw if your hands were
tied, Angela?
Witness:
Yes, mam.
Atty. Larracas:
So your hands were not tied?
Witness:
No, maam.
Atty. Larracas:
Witness:
SAAN AKO KUKUHA NG FIVE MILLION PESOS?
ALAM MO NAMAN NA NAKATIRA LANG AKO
SA APARTMENT.
Pros. Junio:
What did she say?
Witness:
She answered, HINDI KO MASASAGOT YAN.
Pros. Junio:
Did she tell you why she could not respond to you?
Witness:
She continued to say TATANUNGIN KO
NA LANG SA AKING MGA BOSS.[100]
5. In the morning of September 7, 1998, Inspector Ricardo
Dandan and SPO4 Tito Tuanggang, acting on an anonymous
tip, rushed to the vicinity of No. 1303 Paz Street, Paco, Manila,
the office of the MSC Freight Service, to conduct surveillance
operations. Later in the afternoon, they saw appellant Bisda
emerging from a small house about fifty meters from the office
of the MSC Freight Service;
6. At about 3:40 p.m. on September 8, 1998, appellant
Bisda emerged from the house at No. 1258 Paz Street, and
went to the small store near the house. Chief Inspector
Dandan and Tito Tuanggang were about two meters from the
store and saw appellant Bisda enter the same, lift the
telephone and talk to someone over the telephone;
7. At about the same time, William received a telephone
call from a woman demanding where the money was and
when William replied that he was ready with P25,000, the
woman replied: Hindi ko masasagot iyan, dadalhin na lang
namin ang bata sa aking boss. When William intimated that he
could raise P50,000 but pleaded for more time to produce the
amount, the woman retorted: Hindi ko masasagot
iyan. Williams testimony reads:
Pros. Junio:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 142930. March 28, 2003]
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
vs. KAKINGCIO CAETE, appellant.
appellee,
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision [1] of
the Regional Trial Court of Leyte, Branch 36, in Criminal Case
No. 2523, convicting appellant of rape, imposing on him the
death penalty and ordering him to pay damages to the victim
in the amount of P50,000.
Abdomen: normal
Extremities: normal
Pelvic Examination: scanty pubic hair noted
External Genitalia: grossly normal
Internal & Speculum Examination Findings:
Introitus: non-parous, admits 2 fingers with slight difficulty
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PARTICIPATING DIRECTLY
AND ACTIVELY IN THE PRESENTATION AND RECEPTION
OF THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE THEREBY FAILING
TO UPHOLD THE COLD NEUTRALITY OF AN IMPARTIAL
JUDGE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF RAPE DESPITE WANT OF
CLEAR, POSITIVE AND CONVINCTING IDENTIFICATION.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT
AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND IN DISREGARDING THE
EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE.
IV
ON THE ASSUMPTION HOWEVER THAT THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT IS GUILTY OF RAPE, THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON HIM THE PENALTY OF
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP WAS
COURT:
Q How did he manage to have his penis inserted to
your vagina?
A No, sir, because when he placed himself on top of
me he pulled down his shorts and thereafter he
inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q At that time what was your apparel going up from
your vagina?
A I was wearing then a t-shirt and skirt, sir.
Q About your skirt?
A He pulled up my skirt, sir.
Q What about your t-shirt?
PROS. PERIDA:
ATTY. DILOY:
ATTY. DILOY:
We request Your Honor that the question not be made
in a leading manner!
COURT:
It was being worn by the accused!
Place of record the comment!
PROS. PERIDA:
PROS. PERIDA:
Let the witness answer that Your Honor!
I withdraw that Your Honor!
ATTY. DILOY:
Q Where was the short pants which your uncle
originally wearing that time?
ATTY. DILOY:
COURT:
PROS. PERIDA:
A He was still wearing Your Honor.
At this moment now, when he was already on top of
the victim!
Q What clothes?
ATTY. DILOY:
Proceed Fiscal!
PROS. PERIDA:
PROS. PERIDA:
Q So, after he laid himself over you with his trouser,
what else happened?
ATTY. DILOY:
COURT:
directly
COURT:
WITNESS:
A Because we were the only one staying in the
house, and besides I can detect his smell.
PROS. PERIDA:
A Her daughter Ate Belen.
Q Why? What was his smell?
PROS. PERIDA:
WITNESS:
Q What is her real name?
A Smells like a smoker.[12]
WITNESS:
A Belen Pepito.
PROS. PERIDA:
PROS. PERIDA:
WITNESS:
WITNESS:
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any reason or reasons why your
own wife would report this rape incident against
your person?
A I dont know sir what is her reason.
Q And you dont know likewise of any reason or
reasons why your own niece, a twelve (12) year
old child would accuse you of rape, right?
A I dont know also, sir.[17]
THIRD DIVISION
dated
July
31,
during her 24-hour duty on March 25, 1998, she could not
recall any rape that had taken place in one of the hotel rooms.
[16]
A Yes, sir.
Q Who?
A Jennifer Fernandez, sir.
Q You said the reason why you did not immediate[ly]
give your statement because you were afraid of
the accused. Why were you afraid of the
accused?
WITNESS:
A Because he threatened me that he will kill me and
my mother and brother, sir.
FISCAL:
Q This Atanacio Mendoza the accused in these two
case[s], do you know where he was residing?
A Yes sir.
Q Where?
A He is our neighbor at Centerville, sir.[24]
It must be noted that a young girl, unlike a mature woman,
cannot be expected to have the courage and the intelligence
to report immediately a sexual assault committed against her,
especially when a death threat hangs over her head. [25] It is not
proper to judge the action of children who have undergone
traumatic experiences by the norms of behavior expected of
mature individuals under similar circumstances. [26] This is
A By Atanacio Mendoza.
FISCAL:
Q Now sometime in February 1996, do you recall
having seen or witnessed any unusual incident
that happened to your sister Marilyn Bernardo?
A Yes, sir.
Q Please tell the Court what that unusual incident that
happened to your sister that you witnessed all
about?
A I saw Atanacio Mendoza on top of my sister sir.
Q And in what place did you see the accused on top
of your sister on that date of February 1996?
A In our house.
Q And how did you happen to see that?
A I was awakened because I felt that my sister was
fighting.
Q When you said you were awakened because your
sister was fighting with the accused, what did you
do when you woke up?
A Nothing sir because I was afraid.
FISCAL:
Q You said this incident happened in your house,
what part of your house did you see the accused
on top of your sister when your sister was fighting
him?
A In the bedroom of my mother sir.
Q Who were inside the room where you said you saw
the accused on top of your sister?
A Only the two of us, my sister and I.
Q When you said your sister, you are referring to
Marilyn Bernardo.
A Yes, sir.
Q And after you were threatened that you would be
killed and you said you were scared, what
happened next, if any?
A Thats it, sir. I was not able to do anything because I
was afraid.
Q How about the accused, what did he do next after
you said you were threatened?
A Nothing more.
xxxxxxxxx
A Yes, sir.
Second Issue:
Sufficiency of the Prosecution Evidence
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your sister doing at the time you saw him
for the second time that the accused was on top
of your sister?
A She was fighting sir.
Q Who were inside the bedroom?
A The two of us sir.
Q And then what did you do when you again saw the
accused on top of your sister and your sister was
fighting?
A I was then to go out of the room when he pulled my
arms and told me not to leave the room.
ATTY. SAMUELA:
FISCAL:
xxxxxxxxx
WITNESS:
A Because on February 1996 he first inserted his
finger into my private part, sir, and then he went
on top of me. But he was not able to insert his
private part into my private part, sir. But on March
1997, that was the time when he was able to do
what he wanted to do with me, sir.[41]
On re-direct examination, she declared:
FISCAL
Q Now, when asked by the defense counsel
regarding that incident of February 1996 you said
that the accused was able to insert his penis into
your private part and your answer was yes, now
you were referring to your statement regarding
the same incident wherein you stated the
following:
A Yes, sir.
Q Could you tell the Court what was that unusual
incident that happened to you?
A I was then going to the school when Atanacio
Mendoza waited for me in the corner of
Centerville.
Q Where was this Centerville where Atanacio was
waiting for you or inaabangan ka?
A It is near our house, sir.
Q And where is [your] house located? What barangay
and municipality?
A Brgy. Paciano Rizal, Calamba, Laguna.
Q When you said the accused Atanacio Mendoza
was at the corner of Centerville, Paciano Rizal,
Calamba, Laguna and you were then walking,
what did he do to you?
A He told me to go with him and I answered him I do
not want but he told me that If I will not go with
him something will happen to me.
Q Did he tell you why he wanted you to go with him?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did he tell you?
A He just told me to go with him and if I will not,
something will happen to me.
Q When he said if you will not go something will
happen to you, what did you feel?
A I was afraid sir.
Q When you were left inside the tricycle why did you
not run and shout?
A Because he is known to the tricycle driver and he
told the tricycle driver to guard me and I was very
afr[a]id.
A None sir.
A None, sir.
A He kissed my body.
requested
him
to
A From Tasyo.
A No, sir.
A I was afraid.
Q Afraid of him?
[56]
EN BANC
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
Accused GREGORIO HERMOSA and GABRIEL
ABELINDE were meted the death penalty for the crime of
murder. The crime was allegedly committed as follows:[1]
That sometime on January 11, 1995, at about 1:00 oclock in
(the) morning more or less, at Barangay Gahit, Municipality of
Caitingan, Province of Masbate, Philippines, within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with intent to kill, conspiring and confederating and
mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation,
use of superior strength and noctornity (sic) as cover,
treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with the use of sharp and pointed bolo, assault,
attack, hack and stab a woman named ELEONOR (sic)
CONDE MALIPOTthereby hitting the latter at the different
parts of her body which was the direct and logical (cause) of
her instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
victim beside the creek, about seven (7) meters from their
house. She embraced the victim and cried.[15]
Elizalde corroborated the testimony of Marither that the
accused tried to get liquor from the victim on credit, but the
victim refused.
The two accused were arrested on the day the body of the
victim was discovered. Policeman Raymundo Meliton
investigated the incident. He proceeded to the house of the
victim and talked to Macuibelle and Dexter. They did not
immediately reveal the names of the accused as suspects. He
then interviewed the people in the neighborhood and those in
the house of Habanez. When policeman Meliton returned to
the house of the victim a few hours later, Macuibelle revealed
to him that the accused were the assailants. He learned that
the accused got mad at the victim when she refused to sell
liquor to them on credit. Policeman Meliton picked up the
accused for investigation. They denied any participation in the
killing.[16] Nonetheless, he prepared the affidavits of the
prosecution witnesses and charged the accused.[17]
The defense proffered was denial and alibi.
Gabriel Abelinde testified that he attended the birthday
party of Habanezs son. His companions were his son, his
father, and spouses Eulalio and Clementina Pagunsan. At 9:30
p.m., Hermosa joined his group. They engaged in a drinking
spree. They consumed four (4) jars of tuba until 10:30 p.m.
Abelinde claimed that the victim participated in the
dancing and in the drinking spree. Allegedly, the victim
approached him and told him to look out for one Ludy
Gonzales because the latter owed her money. Strangely,
xxxxxxxxx
(ATTY. ROMAGOS):
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you have also testified at the time you saw your
mother, she was already in (sic) the main door. Why is
it Macuibelle Malipot that you peeped when your
mother is on (sic) the main door?
PROSECUTOR:
The witness testified that she was at (sic) the room.
xxxxxxxxx
WITNESS:
A: She was carrying it with her left hand and she was
holding a bolo.
Q: Do you know why your mother was holding a bolo?
A: I do not know.
xxxxxxxxx
ATTY. ROMAGOS:
ATTY. ROMAGOS:
Q: You did not know why your mother was carrying a bolo
on that particular night. But how long was that bolo she
was carrying on (sic) that moment?
WITNESS:
INTERPRETER:
A: It could be seen.
ATTY. ROMAGOS:
Proceed.
ATTY. ROMAGOS:
Q: You stated she was dragged but it was a very dark night,
Macuibelle?
A: Yes, sir.
A: But my mother has a lamp.
COURT:
Q: How far is the creek from your house?
INTERPRETER:
A: Yes, sir.
COURT:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now from the creek you mentioned, where did you
see accused Gregorio Hermosa stab your mother?
mother. For the appellants, such behavior meant she did not
witness the incident.
Again, we disagree. Macuibelle was only eight (8) years
old when she witnessed the shocking incident. Despite her
plea, no one came to help them when the appellants attacked
the victim and dragged her from their house. She was helpless
and afraid. She knew her brother Zaldy and sister Marither
were not around to protect her. After the traumatic incident, it
is difficult to fault her when she chose to go back to sleep and
wait for her siblings to arrive the next day. Her behavior is not
irrational.[34]
The appellants further insist that Macuibelle is not a
credible witness because, contrary to her claim that the victim
was stabbed on the chest, the medical report of Dr. Ching
showed that the wounds of the victim were mostly located on
the neck. Moreover, appellants suggest that the stabbing
incident must have transpired first before the victim shouted
for help, thus, when Macuibelle woke up later, she did not
really see what happened to the victim.
The argument does not impress. The exact location of the
victims wounds does not destroy Macuibelles testimony that
appellant Hermosa was the one who stabbed the victim and,
with Abelindes help, dragged her to the nearby creek where
they finally finished her off. The misdescription of where
appellant Hermosa stabbed the victim does not mean the
witness perjured herself. The violent incident happened fast.
Macuibelle just woke up and witnessed the bloody assault. It
was a traumatic experience for the eight-year old girl. She
cannot be expected to have a perfect memory of an event she
may even want to forget.
violent death. He went to plow the field and plant his crops as
if nothing unusual had happened.
We
sustain
the
trial
courts
finding
of
conspiracy. Conspiracy does not require an agreement for an
appreciable period prior to the commission of the crime. It
exists when, at the time of the commission of the offense, the
malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its
execution.[38] Macuibelle testified that appellant Abelinde
clubbed the victims carabao. Thereafter, he joined appellant
Hermosa who was then at the main door of the victims
house. They acted in unison in dragging the victim from her
house to the creek where they finally finished her off. Their
conduct clearly showed their mutual intent to kill the victim.
We now determine whether or not the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances alleged in the information, to wit:
evident premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength and nighttime, were established.
of them thrust her with a knife and dragged (her) to the dark
(sic) creek to finish her (off); 3) with abuse of superior strength
because the victim (a woman) was attacked with a deadly
weapon; and 4) by nocturnity because the accused took
advantage of the darkness.
We hold that the trial court erred in appreciating the
qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. There is
evident premeditation when the following requirements are
proved: (a) the time when the appellant decided to commit the
crime; (b) an overt act showing that the appellant clung to his
determination to commit the crime; and (c) the lapse of
sufficient period of time between the decision and the
execution of the crime, to allow the appellant to reflect upon
the consequences of the act. Evident premeditation must, like
the crime itself, be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[40]
1) with evident premeditation because the killing was preplanned (upon the victims refusal to give liquor on credit at
about ten oclock in the evening, the accused roused with
anger or showed signs of wrath followed by cool utterance or
intention to follow the victim home, and finally after the lapse of
about three hours or at one oclock early dawn, they killed
herthe accused had sufficient time to reflect dispassionately
upon the consequences of their contemplated act); 2) with
treachery because the malefactors took the defenseless victim
at the main door of the house while on her way down and one
THIRD DIVISION
G HOLDINGS, INC.,
Petitioner,
- versus NATIONAL MINES AND
ALLIED WORKERS UNION
Local 103 (NAMAWU); SHERIFFS
RICHARD H. APROSTA and
ALBERTO MUNOZ, all acting
Sheriffs; DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT,
Region VI, Bacolod District
Office,Bacolod City,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
PROMISSORY NOTE
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the October 14, 2003
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
75322.
The Facts
MAKATI, METRO MANILA, PHILIPPINES, October 2, 1992
3.
(Maker)
x x x x[9]
Upon the signing of the Purchase and Sale Agreement
and upon the full satisfaction of the stipulated down payment,
GHI immediately took physical possession of the mine site and
its facilities, and took full control of the management and
operation of MMC.[10]
Almost four years thereafter, or on August 23, 1996, a
labor dispute (refusal to bargain collectively and unfair labor
practice) arose between MMC and NAMAWU, with the latter
eventually filing with the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board of Bacolod City a notice of strike.[11] Then Labor
Secretary, now Associate Justice of this Court, Leonardo A.
Quisumbing, later assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and
ruled in favor of NAMAWU. In his July 30, 1997 Order in OSAJ-10-96-014 (Quisumbing Order), Secretary Quisumbing
declared that the lay-off (of workers) implemented on May 7,
1996 and October 7, 1996 was illegal and that MMC
committed unfair labor practice. He then ordered the
reinstatement of the laid-off workers, with payment of full
backwages and benefits, and directed the execution of a new
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) incorporating the terms
and conditions of the previous CBA providing for an annual
increase in the workers daily wage. [12] In two separate
casesG.R. Nos. 133519 and 138996filed with this Court,
we sustained the validity of the Quisumbing Order, which
became final and executory on January 26, 2000.[13]
On May 11, 2001, then Acting Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Secretary, now also an Associate Justice
of this Court, Arturo D. Brion, on motion of NAMAWU, directed
the issuance of a partial writ of execution (Brion Writ), and
Tomas Writ and from conducting any public sale of the leviedon properties, subject to GHIs posting of a P5M bond.[25]
Resolving, among others, NAMAWUs separate
motions for the reconsideration of the injunction order and for
the dismissal of the case, the RTC issued its December 4,
2002 Omnibus Order,[26] the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
respondent NAMAWU Local 103s Motion for
Reconsideration dated October 23, 2002 for the
reconsideration of the Order of this Court
directing the issuance of Writ of Injunction
prayed for by petitioner and the Order dated
October 18, 2002 approving petitioners
Injunction Bond in the amount of P5,000,000.00
is hereby DENIED.
Respondents Motion to Dismiss as
embodied in its Opposition to Extension of
Temporary Restraining Order and Issuance of
Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Motion to
Dismiss and Suspend Period to File Answer
dated October 15, 2002 is likewise DENIED.
Petitioners Urgent Motion for the return
of the levied firearms is GRANTED. Pursuant
thereto, respondent sheriffs are ordered to
return the levied firearms and handguns to the
petitioner provided the latter puts [up] a bond in
the amount of P332,200.00.
WHETHER
OR
NOT,
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT
THE
PERTINENT DECISION OR ORDER IN THE
SAID LABOR DISPUTE BETWEEN MMC AND
NAMAWU MAY BE ENFORCED AGAINST
GHI, THERE IS ALREADY A FINAL
DEETERMINATION BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN
SAID LABOR DISPUTE CONSIDERING THE
PENDENCY OF G.R. NOS. 157696-97.
MAY
BE
VI
WHETHER
OR
NOT,
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE VALIDITY
OF THE SAID REAL AND CHATTEL
MORTGAGE MAY BE COLLATERALLY
ATTACKED, THE SAID MORTGAGE IS SHAM,
FICTITIOUS AND FRAUDULENT.
III
VII
WHETHER OR NOT GHI IS THE ABSOLUTE
OWNER
OF
THE
PROPERTIES
UNLAWFULLY
GARNISHED
BY
RESPONDENTS SHERIFFS.
IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE
HENRY D. ARLES CORRECTLY ISSUED A
WRIT OF INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
UNLAWFUL EXECUTIOIN ON GHIS
PROPERTIES.
V
WHETHER OR NOT THE VALIDITY OF THE
DEED OF REAL AND CHATTEL MORTGAGE
OVER
THE
SUBJECT
PROPERTIES
2.
3.
notes
uniformly
contains
stipulations establishing
and constituting in favor of GHImortgages over MMCs real and
personal properties. The stipulations were subsequently
formalized in a separate document denominated Deed of Real
Estate
and
Chattel
Mortgage
on September
5,
1996. Thereafter, the Deed was registered on February 4,
2000.[36]
We find both decisions critically relevant to the instant
dispute. In fact, they should have guided the courts below in
the disposition of the controversy at their respective levels.To
repeat, these decisions respectively confirm the right of
NAMAWU to its labor claims[37] and affirm the right of GHI to its
financial and mortgage claims over the real and personal
properties of MMC, as will be explained below. The assailed
CA decision apparently failed to consider the impact of these
two decisions on the case at bar. Thus, we find it timely to
reiterate that: courts have also taken judicial notice of previous
cases to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot
one or whether or not a previous ruling is applicable to the
case under consideration.[38]
However, the CA correctly assessed that the authority of the
lower court to issue the challenged writ of injunction depends
on the validity of the third partys (GHIs) claim of ownership
over the property subject of the writ of execution issued by the
labor department. Accordingly, the main inquiry addressed by
the CA decision was whether GHI could be treated as a third
party or a stranger to the labor dispute, whose properties were
beyond the reach of the Writ of Execution dated December 18,
2001.[39]
In this light, all the more does it become imperative to take
judicial notice of the two cases aforesaid, as they provide the
necessary perspective to determine whether GHI is such a
party with a valid ownership claim over the properties subject
of the writ of execution. In Juaban v. Espina,[40] we held that in
value
of P241,702,122.86,
computed pursuant to the
prepayment provisions of the
Agreement. Plaintiff shall pay the
balance simultaneously with the
delivery of the Deed of Transfer
and actual delivery of the shares
and notes.
SO ORDERED.
The Solicitor General filed a notice of appeal on behalf
of the Republic on June 28, 1996. Contrary to
the rules of procedure, however, the notice of
appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals (CA),
not with the trial court which rendered the
judgment appealed from.
No other judicial remedy was resorted to until July 2,
1999 when the Republic, through the APT, filed
a petition for annulment of judgment with the
CA. It claimed that the decision should be
annulled on the ground of abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the trial court. x x x
Finding that the grounds necessary for the
annulment of judgment were inexistent, the
appellate court dismissed the petition. x x x x[43]
With the RTC decision having become final owing to the failure
of the Republic to perfect an appeal, it may have become
necessary to execute the Deed of Real Estate and Chattel
Mortgage on September 5, 1996, in order to enforce the trial
Civil
Code
of
We also observe the error in the CAs finding that the 1996
Deed of Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage was not supported
by any consideration since at the time the deed was
executed, all the real and personal property of MMC had
already been transferred in the hands of G Holdings.[58] It
should be remembered that the Purchase and Sale Agreement
between GHI and APT involved large amounts (P550M) and
even spawned a subsequent court action (Civil Case No. 9576132, RTC of Manila). Yet, nowhere in the Agreement or in
the RTC decision is there any mention of real and personal
properties of MMC being included in the sale to GHI in
1992. These properties simply served as mortgaged collateral
for the 1992 Promissory Notes.[59] The Purchase and Sale
Agreement and the Promissory Notes themselves are the best
evidence that there was ample consideration for the mortgage.
Thus, we must reject the conclusion of the CA that the Deed of
Real Estate and Chattel Mortgage executed in 1996 was a
simulated transaction.
On the issue of whether there
had been an effective levy upon
the properties of GHI.
The well-settled principle is that the rights of a
mortgage creditor over the mortgaged properties are superior
to those of a subsequent attaching creditor. In Cabral v.
Evangelista,[60] this Court declared that:
Defendants-appellants purchase of the
mortgaged chattels at the public sheriff's sale
and the delivery of the chattels to them with a
certificate of sale did not give them a superior
right to the chattels as against plaintiffsmortgagees. Rule 39, Section 22 of the old
Rules of Court (now Rule 39, Section 25 of the
Revised Rules), cited by appellants precisely
provides that the sale conveys to the purchaser
all the right which the debtor had in such
property on the day the execution or attachment
was levied. It has long been settled by this
Mines
and
Allied
SO ORDERED.