|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - JESSIE MALIAO y MASAKIT,
NORBERTO CHIONG y DISCOTIDO and LUCIANO Accused, JESSIE MALIAO y MASAKIT, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 178058
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio MORALES, chico-nazario,* leonardo-de castro,** and PERALTA,*** JJ. Promulgated: July 31, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
For automatic review before this Court is the Decision[1] dated
In a Second Amended Information[3] dated
That
on or about the seventeenth (17th) day of March, 1998, in the City
of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another, with lewd design, and by means of force, violence or
intimidation applied upon the person of one AAA,[4] a minor who is six
(6) years of age, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge with said AAA, and in pursuance of their conspiracy and acting
simultaneously or otherwise, and with the qualifying circumstances of
treachery, [evident] premeditation and taking advantage of their superior
number and strength to the said victim who is a minor and of tender age and
with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
assault, attack, strangle and hit with a wooden stool said AAA which
directly caused her death shortly thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of
the parents of said AAA.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[5]
During arraignment on
The prosecution presented the oral testimonies of Dr.
Ronaldo Mendez, Senior Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), Dennis Alonzo, SPO2 Norberto Maninang, Jr., SPO3 Orlando
Reyes, NBI Forensic Biologist I Pet Byron Buan, Atty. Alreuela Bundang Ortiz,
Danilo Agrabio, Armando Tadeo, and Roel Santos.
It also presented the testimonies of BBB and CCC, AAA’s mother and
grandaunt, respectively. The defense
presented the testimony of accused Jessie Maliao.
The facts, culled from the records, are as follows:
AAA was born on
AAA left her house at about
At about noontime of the following day,
On
On
Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez, Medico-Legal Officer of
the NBI, performed the autopsy on the body of AAA on
After the prosecution rested its case, the accused
Among the accused, only Maliao put up a defense.
On
WHEREFORE,
finding all accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged,
this Court hereby sentences them each to suffer three (3) death penalties. They are further ordered jointly and
severally to indemnify in the amount of P100,000.00 … the heirs of the
victim; P100,000.00 for moral damages and to pay the costs of the
proceedings.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[16] this case was first
referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated August 2,
2006, affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC by finding accused
Maliao guilty not as principal but as an accomplice to the crime as well as
modifying the damages awarded. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, by
finding accused-appellants Norberto Chiong y Discotido and Luciano Bohol y
Gamana guilty as principals in the crime of rape with homicide and sentencing
each of them to two (2) reclusion perpetua, and finding
accused-appellant Jessie Maliao y Masakit guilty as accomplice in the same
crime and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE
(1) DAY of prision mayor, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS,
EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as
maximum.
The accused-appellants are further ORDERED to pay the heirs of AAA
the amounts of P200,000.00 as civil indemnity, P200,000.00 as
moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, with the principals
being solidarily liable for P150,000.00 as civil indemnity, P150,000.00
as moral damages and P35,000.00 as exemplary damages and subsidiarily
for the accomplice, and the accomplice being liable for P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P15,000[.]00 as
exemplary damages and subsidiarily for the civil liability of the principals.
SO ORDERED.[17]
From the Court of Appeals, the case was then elevated
to this Court for automatic review. In separate
Manifestations, appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
and appellant Maliao, through the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), informed the
Court that they were no longer filing supplemental briefs and will merely adopt
their briefs before the Court of Appeals as their supplemental briefs.
Accused-appellant Maliao raises the following issues:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE ALLEGED
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
III.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY IN THE
CASE AT BAR.[18]
The only issue to be resolved is:
Was accused-appellant Maliao’s guilt as accomplice in the crime of rape
with homicide proven beyond reasonable doubt?
The appeal, in our view, lacks merit.
Appellant Maliao’s conviction as accomplice in the crime of rape with
homicide must be sustained.
The Court of Appeals correctly held that despite the inadmissibility of his
extrajudicial confession, Maliao is not entitled to an acquittal. Citing People v. Culala,[19] the Court of
Appeals rightfully noted that the extrajudicial confession of an accused who
was assisted by a Municipal Attorney during the custodial investigation is not
admissible in evidence because the latter cannot be considered an independent
attorney.[20]
However, in spite of the inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession,
Maliao is not entitled to an acquittal because when he testified on
cross-examination, he admitted that all the answers he gave to the questions
propounded on him by the police investigator are true and correct of his own
personal knowledge.
On cross-examination, Maliao implicitly admitted, to wit:
Q: Now, in this sketch[,] there
is a figure, who made this sketch?
A: [(Maliao)]: I, myself, sir.
Q: And also there is [the] name
AAA nakahiga, who wrote [these] words?
A: Me, sir.
Q: And the other human figure,
thereof there appears an arrow pointed to Luciano – nakadapa, who wrote
these words?
A: I was the one, sir.
Q: And there is also a word “papag”
who wrote this?
A: I, sir.
Q: And you also sketch[ed] the papag?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you please explain to
us why you said Luciano-nakadapa and AAA-nakahiga?
A: Because I have seen [the]
incident in my house.
Q: So, you saw Luciano on top
of AAA?
ATTY.
ABELLERA:
Objection, the description
is nakadapa not on top, your honor.
Q: So, when you said Luciano-nakadapa,
Luciano was on top of AAA?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, where were you in this
sketch if you will be required to point your distance from Luciano and AAA when
you saw them in that specific position?
A: I was beside the aparador,
sir.
Q: More or less how many f[ee]t
or meters?
A: Around 1 ˝-arm leng[th].
Q: You testified that you have
several companions in having a drinking spree?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And eventually you left your
house together with certain persons, who are these persons?
A: Luciano Bohol and Norberto
Chiong, sir.
Q: And [the] two co-accused of
yours arrived with a girl?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And then after the incident
happened and during the investigation, you depicted that in your sketch the
persons of AAA and Luciano Bohol?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, in all events that
happened in your house, you want to impress the court that you have nothing to
do with the incident?
A: None, sir.
Q: Now, you pinpointed Norberto
Chiong what was he doing at that time?
A: He was just inside our
house.
Q: What do you mean inside the
house was it together with Luciano Bohol and AAA?
A: He was with Luciano Bohol
and AAA.
x x x x
Q: So who brought AAA to your
house?
A: Luciano Bohol and Norberto
Chiong, sir.
Q: So what did you do when you
saw the scene that Luciano was on top of AAA?
ATTY.
ABELLERA:
Objection, your honor.
Q: Were you the one who lead
the Police Investigator to recover the wooden stool?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Were you the one who lead
the Police to recover the t-shirt worn by AAA?
A: No, sir.
Q: What about some pieces of
clothes?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why did you lead the Police
to recover [the] pieces of clothes?
A: Because they told me to help
them, sir.
Q: And where did you find [the]
pieces of clothes?
A: The pieces of clothes were
recovered at the other side of the fence.
Q: The fence of your house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you know who [threw] [the]
pieces of clothes at the fence?
A: Yes, sir. I, myself.
Q: Why did you throw [the]
pieces of clothes?
A: Because of my fear, sir.
Q: And [those were] the clothes
worn by AAA during that time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What time were you
investigated by Police Investigator Reyes?
A: Around 11 or
Q: But the final investigation
was only terminated at around
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And it was the time when
Atty. Bundang arrived?
A: Atty. Bundang arrived at
around 5 to 6 and it was already dark, sir.
Q: Mr. Jessie Maliao, is it not
a fact that before the commencement of the investigation, you asked the Police
Officer to call Atty. Alinea [who] [was] the best friend of your father when he
was in [the] mines?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY.
ALINEA:
No more questions.
ATTY.
ABELLERA:
Q: Mr. [W]itness, you said that
you were the one who lead the Police to recover the stool of AAA and this was
recovered near your place, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And did you go with them
when you recovered those clothes?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And when you went to that
place do you know [who your companions were]?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And when you went to that
place do you know [who your companions were]?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who are they?
A: Maninang, delos Reyes, Ducot and other
Police Officers, sir.
Q: Were you accompanied by
Atty. Ortiz in going to that place?
A: No, sir.
ATTY.
ABELLERA:
That’s all, your honor.
COURT:
Q: During the incident subject
matter of this case, you [stated] that [the blood were] scattered in your
house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you were the one who
wiped it off?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And [you] used the curtains
in wiping it off?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And were those curtains
included when [you] pointed the wooden stool to the Police?
A: Yes, sir.[21]
Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court on Evidence provides that
an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that
no such admission was made. Maliao
admitted he saw Bohol and Chiong rape AAA; that Chiong picked up a wooden stool
and hit AAA with it on the chest and head; that Bohol and Chiong carried the
bloodied body of AAA, instructed him to clean the floor and then they went out
of the house; that he cleaned the room by wiping the bloodstains; and that he
threw the t-shirt of AAA, placed the latter’s short pants inside a sack
containing garbage, threw the curtains which he used in wiping the bloodstains,
and hid the wooden stool. He likewise
admitted that he led the police officers to the place where he threw the pieces
of clothes which he used in wiping the bloodstains in his house and that he
accompanied the police officers to his house and pointed to them the wooden
stool which he hid.
To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements
must concur: (1) community of design, which means that the accomplice knows of,
and concurs with, the criminal design of the principal by direct participation;
and (2) the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that
are not indispensable to the commission of the crime.[22] In this case, Maliao facilitated the
commission of the crime by providing his own house as the venue thereof. His presence throughout the commission of the
heinous offense, without him doing anything to prevent the malefactors or help
the victim, indubitably show community of design and cooperation, although he
had no direct participation in the execution thereof.
Having admitted his involvement in the crime and considering the weave of
evidence presented by the prosecution, seamlessly linking Maliao’s
participation in the heinous offense, as elucidated by the autopsy report and
testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, no doubt can be entertained as to
Maliao’s guilt. Beyond reasonable doubt,
he is guilty as accomplice to the crime of rape with homicide.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
||
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
||
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 658.
** Designated
member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 635.
*** Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 664.
[1] CA rollo, pp. 134-154. Penned by Associate Justice
[2]
[3] Records, pp. 41-42.
[4] Consistent with the Court's decision in People
v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] CA rollo, p. 136.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Records, p. 255.
[14] TSN,
[15] CA rollo, p. 82.
[16] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[17] CA rollo, pp. 153-154.
[18]
[19] G.R. No. 83466,
[20]
[21] TSN,
[22] People v. Cachola, G.R. Nos.
148712-15,