BETITO, Kathleen D. A !t.

"

10/17/2013 Criminal Law Review,

#EO#LE v BERA$% &Ba!'(') *ACT+, Beling, the supposed wife of the accused, and his children, a four-year old and a six-month old, were boloed to death in the accused house. The first Government agents who arrived at the house were Constabulary Sergeant and the health inspector. The accused told the sergeant that he illed his wife and children because he was mad with rage. !n the same day, the accused, who showed some wounds, was ta en to the hospital. "owever, the following day, the accused admitted that he illed his Beling and his children and having wounded himself on the nec and head, answering the #uestions of the fiscal in the presence of the Sergeant, deputy cler of court, and another officer.

The appellant was charged in three different cases with parricide. "e was ac#uitted in one of them and found guilty in the other two. $rom these %udgments he appealed to the SC. The accused contends that his guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt& that the testimony of his mother is contradictory. "e testified that while he was sleeping, he was wounded by Beling, and when he wo e up he saw his daughter dead by his side, and upon noting that Beling was holding a bolo, he grabbed it from her and gave her bolo blows, because according to him he too pity on his children. I++-E, 'hether accused-appellant is deemed guilty of both parricide and homicide( .ELD, )es. *etition +,-.,+, +ecision /ffirmed.

RATIO,

$inding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illing his daughter and his Beling, with whom he cohabited, in the absence of clear evidence of the marriage, the court considered the crime committed by Berang in illing his Beling as homicide only, ac#uitted the accused in one of the three cases, while sentencing him in the other. $or the crime of homicide, an indeterminate penalty ranging from 1 months and 0 day of prision mayor to 02 years and 0 day of reclusion temporal, as well as to indemnify the heirs of Beling in the amount of *2,333 was sentenced. !n the third case, for the crime of parricide for the death of his daughter, it sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua, and to pay the costs in both cases, without pronouncement as to the indemnity for the death of said daughter, considering that the accused, as the father, is the presumptive heir of the deceased.

#EO#LE v ALI$% *ACT+, -ori%a 4ohamad was stabbed in the chest. The victim was brought to the hospital, however, she died two days later.

/irol /ling, the accused and husband of the accused under muslim rites, was investigated by the police.

"e declared in the Chavacano that he illed his wife because he was informed in prison by his relatives that his wife was living with another man and fooling around with other men.

Two policemen in their affidavit of affirmed that /irol admitted to the Seargant in their presence that he stabbed his wife because she had been going with many men .

/ling was charged with parricide. .t was alleged in the information that /irol was a convict serving sentence at the penal colony for robbery with frustrated homicide.

The case was called for arraignment. The accused signified his willingness to plead guilty although he had no lawyer. / counsel de oficio was appointed for him. The trial court granted counsel5s motion to transfer the arraignment. !n that date, by 2

agreement of the parties, the arraignment was again transferred three more times. !n that last date, the information was translated into the Tausug dialect which is spo en by the accused. 'ith the assistance of his counsel, he pleaded guilty.

Then, the accused was placed on the witness stand and examined by his counsel. "e admitted that he illed his wife. "e declared that after he was informed by his counsel that the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment, he, nevertheless, admitted the illing of his wife because that was the truth. .n answer to the #uestion of the fiscal, the accused said that he understood that by pleading guilty he could be sentenced to death or reclusion perpetua because he was an escaped convict. "e said that he was not coerced nor ca%oled into entering a plea of guilty. "e admitted that he was a prisoner in the penal colony.

"e stated during trial that he is a 4uslim belonging to the Samal tribe of Siasi Sulu. "e illed his wife because while he was in prison, she did not visit him and she neglected their four children. "e was able to leave the penal colony because he was a 6living-out-prisoner6. 'hen he went to his house, his purpose was to be reconciled with his wife but when she saw him, instead of waiting for him, she ran away. "e had information that his wife was guilty of infidelity or had a 6 abit6. That was a grievous offense under 4uslim customs

"e identified his signature in his confession which was sworn to before the cler of court. The trial court sentenced /irol /ling to death and to pay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to the heirs of -ori%a 4ohamad. .t noted that he pleaded guilty with full nowledge of the meaning and conse#uences of his plea.

The case was elevated to the SC for automatic review of the death penalty.

Counsel de oficio contends that the marriage of /irol to -ori%a was not indubitably proven. That contention cannot be sustained. The testimony of the accused that he was married to the deceased was an admission against his penal interest. .t was a confirmation of the maxim semper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption 6that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage6.

I++-E, 'hether petitioner should be convicted of the crime of parricide(

.ELD, /E+. *etition +,-.,+, TC /ffirmed. Guilty of Parricide. HOWEVER, since only Justices (Barredo, Ma asiar, !ntonio, !"uino, #oncepcion Jr., Guerrero, !$ad %antos, &e #astro and Melencio'Herrera( )oted for t*e imposition of t*e deat* penalty, +ud,ment is affirmed -it* t*e modification t*at, for lac of one )ote, t*e accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua

RATIO, "e and the deceased had five children, he alluded in his testimony to the victim8s father as his father-in-law, which implies, the fact that he bitterly resented her infidelity, her failure to visit him in prison, and her neglect of their children implies that the deceased was his lawful wife and confirmatory of their marital status.

The contention that the accused did not understand fully he nature and effect of his plea of guilty is belied by the record. The trial %udge, a 4uslim, too pans to follow the rule that in case a plea of guilty is entered in a capital case, evidence should be received in order to leave no room for reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and that he had full nowledge of the meaning and conse#uences of his plea of guilty.

.n this case, the arraignment was postponed three times in order to enable his counsel to confer with him and explain to him the conse#uences of his plea of guilty. The accused testified. "is confession and the affidavit of the policemen who investigated him were presented in evidence.

The contention that the crime was mitigated by the plea of guilty lac of intention to commit so grave a wrong and the circumstance that the accused is a non-Christian is not well ta en because he is a #uasi-recidivist. The special aggravating circumstance of #uasi-recidivism cannot be offset by generic investigating circumstances.

The fact that he escaped from confinement in order to ill his wife shows a high degree of perversity and incorrigibility "is being a non-Christian cannot serve to extenuate the heinousness of his offense. "e understood the gravity of his crime 9

because he had attained some education. "e reached first year high school and he used to be a chec er in a stevedoring firm.

#EO#LE v +-BA$O

*ACT+, Subano and his wife Ban alot had a #uarrel because the latter, then suffering from a headache, refused to wor in their ai:gin. The defendant then remar ed in a fit of anger that it would be better if she were dead. The #uarrel was resumed the following morning when she again refused to accompany her husband to a cree of the 4acasin ;iver to catch fish& but this time, defendant dragged her along with him. 'hen he returned home the afternoon of that day, he was alone and was noticeably pale and restless.

,bol, father of Ban alot, and Biwang, father of another wife of the Subano, noticed bloodstains on his $olo and on its scabbard. Subano sought to explain these bloodstains as of a big fish which he had cut. They noticed, however, that the Subano had not brought home any fish. Suspecting the something might be wrong, ,bol as ed the defendant where his daughter was. Subano disclaimed nowledge of her whereabouts. 'ith nightfall bringing no sign of Ban alot8s coming, ,bol and Biwang began searching for her. $our days later, they found her dead body lying in an isolated place in the middle of a cree of a ;iver with a mortal wound on the bac and another at the nec which almost severed the head from the body, and with several contusions.

The <ieutenant with whom the case was reported went to the hut of the Subano, who, in turn, came down with an unsheathed $olo accompanied by his brother also carrying a $olo. The lieutenant ordered them to drop their $olos and when they refused he ordered his men to aim their rifles at them, whereupon the accused dropped his $olo and was arrested.

Ta en to the scene of the crime, he would not loo at the dead body of his wife although he was as ed to view and identify it, and showed no sign of grief. The accused at the trial denied having illed his wife.

I++-E, =

'hether defendant is guilty of parricide(

.ELD> -!. +ecision 4!+.$.,+. The crime committed is homicide and not parricide.

RATIO, The identity of the accused as the author of the crime has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Before conviction can be had upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved should constitute an unbro en chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the defendant, to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime. This re#uirement has been fully met in the instant case, as the chain of prior and subse#uent circumstances mentioned leaves no room for doubt as to the identity of the accused as the author of the crime, unless otherwise satisfactorily explained.

Ho-e)er, t*e crime committed is *omicide and not parricide . .rom t*e testimony of E$ol, fat*er of t*e deceased, it appears t*at t*e defendant *as t*ree -i)es and t*at t*e deceased -as t*e last in point of time. !lt*ou,* t*e practice of poly,amy is appro)ed $y custom amon, t*ese non'#*ristians, poly,amy, *o-e)er, is not sactioned $y t*e Marria,e /a- -*ic* merely reco,ni0es tri$al marria,e rituals. 1*e deceased, under our la-, is not t*us t*e la-ful -ife of t*e defendant and t*is precludes con)iction for t*e crime of parricide.

?udgment is modified and the accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from eight years of prision mayor to fifteen years of reclusion temporal, with costs.

#EO#LE v D-E$O, et al.

*ACT+, The group of the trhree accused, namely $elipe +ueno and Sofronio +ueno, and /ndresito Belonio, were all armed with pistol, revolver and fighting bolo, conspiring with one another shot and hit Bernardo +emontano which resulted to his death. 1

@pon arraignment all of the accused pleaded not guilty. /t the trial, the prosecution presented its testimonial evidence. The appeal was directed to the Court of /ppeals, but, in view of the penalty involved, the records were forwarded to the SC. /fter the case had been submitted for decision, appellants $elipe +ueno and Sofronio +ueno, withdrew their appeals. These withdrawals were allowed,hence, only the appeal of accused appellant /ndresito Belonio is wider review in this decision. I++-E, 'hether accused-appellants committed murder under( .ELD, ),S. *etition +,-.,+. TC +ecision /ffirmed, with the modification that the indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the deceased should be without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency

RATIO, 1*e e)idence for t*e prosecution esta$lis* t*at t*e t*ree accused'appellants fired upon Ro"ue &ellomos and .ederico &olfo $ut missed t*em2 and in t*e e)enin, of t*e same day, t*e t*ree a,ain -ere 3dentified as t*e assailants -*o fired upon and illed Bernardo &emonta4o -*o -as mista en for Ro"ue &ellomos and5or .ederico &olfo. 3t also appears t*at t*eir defense of ali$i -as not -ort*y of credence. 1*e ,uilt of t*e t*ree accused'appellants, t*erefore, *as $een esta$lis*ed and pro)ed $eyond reasona$le dou$t. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty of life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua is the proper penalty in accordance. The civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, however, should be raised from. The trial court5s decision should accordingly be modified.

/ccused-appellants $elipe +ueno and Sofronio +ueno had withdrawn their appeals, and the decision of the trial court already became final and executory as to them. The decision is binding as to the third accused-appellant, /ndresito Belonio, who pursued his appeal.