People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-appellee vs. Emiterio Villanueva, Pedro Percal and Felix Jasmilona, Defendants-appellants, G.R. No. L-12687, July 31, 1962

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-appellee vs. Emiterio Villanueva, Pedro Percal and Felix Jasmilona, Defendants-appellants, G.R. No. L-12687, July 31, 1962
Language: English
Source: The Lawyers Journal XXVII (9) September 30, 1962
Year: 1962
Subject: Confession (Law); Criminal law
Rights
Abstract: [This case began with the filing of an information charging the above defendants with the murder of Loreto Estacio, committed in the municipality of Calamba, province of Laguna. After trial, the court of first instance held that their guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt; and there being no circumstances modifying the commission of the crime, each of the said accused was sentenced to "cadena perpetua", to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the victim in the sum of P6,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay a proportionate part of the costs. From such convictions the three defendants appealed to this Supreme Court, raising the usually basic question whether or not the evidence for the prosecution shows beyond reasonable doubt that all of them are guilty as charged. Appellants were convicted partly on the strength of the extrajudicial confession of the accused Felix Jasmilona which appears to be corroborated by circumstantial evidence.]
Fulltext: said section, the court can only author ize an alteration which may not impair the rights rec.orded in the decree, or one which will not prejudice such r ights, or one which is consented to by all pnrties concerned, or can authorize the correction of any error or mistakes which would not involve the reopening of the original decree of registration. Herc the petition will have such effect, for it will involve the correction of the technical cfcscription of the land covered by the certificate of title in question, segregating therefrom the portion alleged to have been erroneously included, which eventually will cause the amendment of the original decree of registrntion. This cannot be done at this stage after the kpse of 23 years from the issuance of the certificate of title. After hearing both parties, the court a quo issued an order denying the mction to dismiss and requiring Navcra to answer the petition wit.bin the reglc•nentary period. After this motion for reconsideration was denied, Navel"a filed the present petition for certiorari disputing the jurisdiction of the court a. quo. It is alleged by the municipality of Ligao that in the course of the construction or repair of Natera street of said municipality it wa~ ascertained by a duly licc:-i~e<I surveyor that Lot No. 2793-A of the cad3stral survey of Ligao has encroached upon said street by depriving the street of an area a.no~mting to 123 sq. m. which w.is erroneously included in Lot No. 2793-A now covcrcci by Transfer Certificnte of Title No. T-9304 issued in the name of Godofredo Navera. Hence, the municipality prays for the corredion of such error in the techr1ical description of the lot. as well as in the certificate of title, with a view to excluding thf.'rcfrom the portion of 123 sq. m. erroneously included therein. The court a. qiw, over the objection of Navcra, granted the petition even if the same was fil,..d under Section 112 of Act No. 496. The court predicates its ruling upon the followin~ 7'aeionalc; "It is a rule of law that lands brought under the operntiun of the Torrens System are deemed relieved from 3\1 clairr.<i and encu'Y!brances not :Of·pearing on the title. However, the law excepts certain rights and liabilities from the rule, and tl:ere are certain burdens on the !ands registered which continue· to exist and remain in force, although not noted on the title, by express provisions of Section S9 of Act No. 496, as amended. Among the burdens on the land registered which continue to exist, pursuant to said Section 39. is 'any public highway, way, private way established by law, or any Government irrigation ca.nal or lateral thereof. where the certificate of title does not state that tl:e boundaries ot such hichway, way, or irri~tion canal or lateral thereof, have been determined.' The principle invohe<l here is that, if a person obtains a title under the Torrens System which includes by mistake or oversight a land which car.not be registered, he does not by virtue of such certificate alone bec?me the owner of the land illegally included therein. In the case of Ledesma vs. Municipality of Iloilo, 49 Phil., 679, the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine that t'hc inclu1>ion of public highways in the certificate of title under the Torrens Systen: docs not thereby give to the holder of ~uch cerUf;catc sai<l public highways.' " Petitioner Navera docs not agree with this ruling, invoking in his favor what we stated in a recent case to the effect that, "lhe lnw authorizes only alterations which do not Impair rights recorded in the decree, or alterntio:-is which, if they <lo not prcjudie<: such rights, are consented to by all parties concerned, or alterations to correct obvious mistakes, without opening the origina~ decree of registration" (Director of Lands v. Register of Deeds, G. R. No. L-4463, promulgated March 31, 1953). Navera contends that the purpose of the instant petition is not merely to correct a clerical error but to reopen the original decrC<e of registration which was issued in 1937, and this is so because the petition seeks to direct tbe registe: of deeds to make the necessary correction in the teehnical description in order that the portion erroneously included may be returned to the municipality of Ligao. In effect, therefore, the petition docs not seek merCly the correction of a mistake but the return or reconveyance of a portion of a registered property to respondent. This c.annot be done without opening the original decree of registration. The theory entertained by the court a q· uo that if the portion to be segregated was really erroneously included in the t itle issued to petitioner because it is part of the Nadera street which belongs to the municipality of Ligao that portion may be excluded under Section 112 of Act 496 because under the law! ;my public highway, even if not noted ·on a title, is deemed excluded therefrom as a legal lien or encumbrarice, is in our opinion correct. This is upon th'.! principle that a person who obtains a title which includes by mistake a land which cannot legally be registered does not by virtue of such inclusion become the owner of the land erroneously included ~hcrein.2 But this theory only holds tl"ue if there is no dispute that the portion to be excluded is r eally part of a public highway. This principle only applies if there is unanimity 3s to the issue of fact involved. Here said unanimity is Jacking. The claim of the mu:-iicipality that an error has been committed in the survey of the lot reeorded in respondent's name by including a portion of the Natera street is not agreed to by petitioner. In fact, he claims that that is a question of fact that needs to be proven because it is controversial. There being dissension as to an important question of fact, the petition cannot be granted under Section 112 of Act No. 496. "'Ve are of the opinion that the lower court did not err in finding that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present petition for the simple reason that it involves a controversial issue which takes this case out of the scope of Section 112 of Act No. 496. While t his section, among other things, authorizes a person in interest to ask the court for any erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title 'upon the ground that registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminn.ted and ceased, and apparently the petition comes under its scope, such relief can only be granted if there is unanimity a.mong the parties, or there is no adverse claim or serious objection on , the part of any party in interest; otherwise the case becomes controversial and should be threshed out in an ordinary ca.se or in the case where the incident properly belongs. x x x" (Tangunan, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines, G. R. No. L-5545, DCC')mber 29, 1953: See also Jimenez v. De Castro, 40 O.G. No. 3, 1st Supp. p. 80; GoTernmcnt of the Philippines v. Jalandoni, 44 0. G., 1837) Wherefore, petition is granted. The order of respondent ceurt dated March 8, 1961, as well as its order dated March 25, 1961, are hereby set aside. No costs. Bengzon, C.J., Pa<lilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Ban·.~i·a, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and iltakalintal, JJ., concurred. IX People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-appcllee vs. Emitedo Villanueva, Pedro Percal and Felix Jasmilona, Dgfenda.nts-a.ppellants, C.R. No. L-12687, July 31, ~962, Bengzon, C.J. I. CRIMINAL LAW; CONSPIRACY; WHEN MAY EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF ONE CONSPIRATOR BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST PARTIES CONCERNED.- The rule is that where the recitAls in the extrn-judicial confession of one of the conspirators a!·e corroborated in its important details by other proofs in the record, it. may considered as part of the evidence against the parties concerned. 2. IO.; CONFESSION; AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED MAKING THE CONFESSION; HEARSAY EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS CO-DEJ<~ENDANTS; EXCEPTIONS.While a confession is against him but not against his co-defend· t Section 39, Act 496. 2 Ledesma v. Municipality of l loilo, 49 Phil. 709. September 30, 1962 LAWYERS JOURNAL Page 277 ants to whom said confession is hearsay evidence, the rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. One of them is when a defendant, who made the confession, is called to testify ai;: a witness for his co-defendants, his confession then becomes competent evidence for the purpose of contradicting his testimony in behalf of his co-defendants (People vs. Manalo, 46 Phil. 573). This was what happened in this case because Emiterio Villanueva and Pedro Perea} adopted as part of their defense not only the testimony of Felix Jasmilona but also the statement given by him before the J ustice of t he Peace of Calamba on March 10, 1956. DE CISION This case began with the filing of an information chnriing the above defendants with the murder of Loreto Estacio, committed in tt.e municipality of Calamba, province of Laguna. After trial, the court of first instance held that their guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt; and there bei11g no circumstances modifying the conunlssion of the crime, each of the sa id accused was sentenced to "cadena perpetua", to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the victim in the sum of P6,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay a proportionate part of the costs. · From such convictions the three defendants appealed to this Supreme Court, raising the usually basic question whether or not th(' evidence for the prosecution shows b!'yond reasonable d0ubt that all of them are guilty as charged. Appellants were convictea partly on the strength Qf the extrajudicial confession of the accused Felix Jasmilona which a ppears to be corroborated by circumstanlial evidence. Such extra-judicial confession written down by Corporal Villegas on February 6, 1956 in the presence of Lt. Carungcong, was signed and sworn to the next day before llustice of the Peace FC'Jix Angeles, and contains statements to the effect that Loreto Estacio was killed in the "taklab" (camarin) of Emiterio Villanueva, who had resented the filing of a criminal charge against him by Loreto Estacio; that Loreto was mauled and badly beaten on different parts of the body and when he was already unconsr.ious, he was stabbed in the abdomen; that the body of Loreto was then carried and later thrown into a marshy place in barrio Linga commonly called "tikiwan"; that the persons who took part in the killing were Emiterio Villanueva, one of his sons, Pedro Fer· cal, Elpidio Habacon and Felix Jasmilona; that it was the son of Emiterio who beat and mauled Loreto while Pedro Percal was the one who stabbed him; that Elpidio Ha bacon and Pedro Perea! were paid by Emiterio Villanueva the sum of P400 for their cooperation. x x x According to the lower court, the chain of circumstances which in connection with Jasmilona's confession, tended to establish the guiJt of the prisoners were the following: "1. In the afternoon of December 21, 1955, Emiterio Villanueva asasulted Loreto Estacio with fist blows on the face; "2. Loreto Estacio immediately filed a criminal complaint for slight physical injuries against Emiterio Villanu~va; "3. On December 22, 1955, Emiterio Villanueva asked Benito Mendoza to persuade Loreto Estacio to drop his complaint. Benito Mendoza, who was mar ried to a niece of Loreto Estacio, declined to intervene in the case, and so Emite1·io Villanueva left disgusted a nd stated that he would not stop until something untoward would happen to Loreto Estacio; "4. On December 23, 1955, the Justice of the Peace Court set the preliminary investi,;ation of the Criminal Case against Emiterio Vllanueva for January 3, 1956; "5. Patrolman Balder rama notified the accused the next day; "6. Late in th(' evening of December 26, 1955, Pedro Perea! asked Loreto to withdraw his complaint against Emitcrio Villanueva. When Loreto r efused, Pedro Pe!"Cal threatened him, saying 'something bad would happen'; "7. At about 5 a.m. on December 27, 1955, LoreOO Es· tacio left his house to check the water irrigating his Tice field. About this t ime, Benito Mendoza saw him between Emiterio Villanueva and Pedro Percal, the three walking single-file, passing in front of his store, coming from the direction of Loreto Estacio's house. "8. Between 5:30 arid 6 p.m., Enrique Fatiga saw Pedro Percal and Felix Jasmilona pa~sing his rice field, thE' two proceeding in the direction of the 'taklab' of Emiterio Villanueva about 200 meters away; "9. At about half past 7 in the evening of the same day, while Enrique Fatiga was pToceeding home he heard sounds coming from inside which seemed to be the gtoans of a person. He slowed down to find out what it was, but then he h!'ard the voice of a person inside the 'takleb' prodding another and saying - 'sulong Felix', 'sulong Pedro', followed by laughter. Enrique Fatiga then thought that those persons inside the 'taklab' were having some fun and so he did not give much thought to what he heard and hurried on his way home; "10. Loret.o Estacio did not return home on December 27, 1956 and so on tli.e following morning, his wife, Cresencia Pacana, began to look for him. Four days later on December 31, 1955 his cadaver was found floating on a marshy place called 'tikiv;an' in barrio Linga, Calamba, Laguna; "1 1. The dark stains on different parts of the 'tak!a'h' of Emiterio Villanueva proved to be of human blood; "12. When Dr. Sunico and his part:v ldt the 'taklab' nf Emiter io Villanueva to boar(l the \•(!hicle whnein they had traveled from Manila, the wifo of Emiterio Vilhmueva, who was with the group, suddenly grabbed a wooden pestle from her son. tht'n threw it into an irrigat;on canal and thereafter she tr ied to wash off the dark stain (b1ood) at one enC. thereof with the use of her hat\ds. Unon bein1t asked by Sergeant Vejosano for her susp:cious behaviour, Villanueva'!!' wife refused to answer and merely kept silent ; "13. Eight hematoma wounds (contusions) were found on the corpse, in addition to the stab wound on t he abdomen." (See pp. 16-19 of the decision of the lower court) Appellant lJasmilona assails the admissibility and credibility of his extra-Judicial confession on the ground that it was not made volunt::i.rily. He claims that he was punrhed in the belly, and on the neck by one Set. Ve;osano; that he was tak('n tn a swimmin1t pool in Los Baii.os. La(!Una where hP. waii .l!iVPn the "water trPatment"; that he was aga;n strnck on the stomach b} hi!: investi1tators and then when he still refused to Si2"n the Pxtrajudicial confession, he was threatened with bodily harm. Amado Camillas, a witness for the defense, stated in com-t that when l1e saw J asmilona alight from the jeep that carried him to the municipal jail, the latter was limping a little; that upon i11quiry he was told by Jasmilona that he was maltri:.:ated by his investigators. Dr. Fiorentino Elasique, also a witness for the defense, issued a medical certificate (Exh. "3") iohowing that there were contusions on both shoulders just below the neck of said accused. However, a prosecution witness, Dr. J uan 1\1. Cardena~, who conducted an examination on the body of appellant llasmilona on February 6, 1956 (i.e. one day after the dE-fense doctor performed his examination) said that he did not see any sign of external injuries or contusions on any pa,rt of Jasm1·loM'8 body; th~t he could not determine the cause of pain complain~d of by said accused in the lower auxiliary region, right side of the body. (t.s.n. pp. 4-5, Mar. 12, 1957.) A significant fact pointed out by the Government is that if appellant J asmilona had really been maltreated by the said inves· tigators, he would have complained to \Judge Angeles before whom Page 278 LA WYERS JOURNAL September 30, 1962 the extra-judicial confession was signed and sworn to. But h~ did not. Judge Angeles stated in cou1t that he himself read to Jasmilona the contents of the affidavit (extra-judicial confession) and has asked the latter whether or not, he was willing to sign the same and to swear to the truth of its contents. J nsmilona said yes, and willingly. Moreover, he also stated that when such extra-judicial confession was about to be read to the accused, for signature and oath, he (J udge Angeles) ordered the soldiers accompanying the prisoner to leave the room. Considering therefore the circumstances under which this extra-judicial confession was executed, we arc not inclined to dis· a~ree with the lower court on its finding that it was voluntarily made. The next question is whether or not said extra-judicial conf ession may serve as the basis for the conviction of appl!llant• Jasmilona, Villanueva and Perea!. It is urged that granting the confcssicn was admissil,>lc, appellant IJasmilona must be absolved because said affidavit contains exculpatory statements exonerating him from guilt. On this point, we say that courts need not believe the confession in its entirety. As to t-he other accused, it was alleg-:-dly error for 1he low<'r court to use the extra-judicial confession of Jasmilona against them. On this issue, the rule is that where the recitals in the cxtrajudicial confession of one of the conspirators are corroborated in its important details by other prooofs in the record, it m.'.ly be considered as part of the evidence against the parties concerned. In the case of U. S. vs. Reyes, et al. (I) we opined: "The truth of the incriminating statements of Miguela Sibug, Damaso Valencia's widow, in connection with each of the said three defendant, is proved by those made by the other witnesses for the prosecution, Lorenzo R0 yes, and by the confession, although extra--judicW.l, made by Faustino Mafiago himself in the municipality of Hagonoy to the lieutenant of the Constabulary, Cristobal Cerquella, and to the municipal president and a policeman of the said pueblo; and this confession is worthy of credence and is admissible against him, as it is likewise credible and admissible against his codefendants, Abdon de Leon and Severino Perez, his accu;:ation of their participation in the crime, ina!:'much as th(' confession is corroborated both by the testimony of Miguela Sibug herself and by that of Lorenzo Reyes and confirmed by other evidence related thereto and found in the record." This brings us to the query: Are the recitals in the extrajudicial confession and the other proofs sufficient to support cenviction? We arc satisfied that the trial judge made painstaking efforts to evaluate the, evidence of record. The circumstances it found to have indicated the guilt of the accused, are indeed substantiated. We do not need to recount them now. At this juncture, it may be added that we think the trial judge exercised sound judgment when it considered Jasmilona's confession against the other two defendants as an exception to the general rul" against its admission, for the following rc.'.lsons: "While a confession is against him but not against his codefendants to whom said confession is hearsay cvidenc(', t he rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. One of them is when a defendant, who made the confession, is called to testify as a witness for his co-defendants, his confession then becomes competent evidence for the purpose of contradicting his testimony in behalf of his co-defendants (People vs. Manalo, 46 Phil. 573). This was what happened in this case because Emiterio Villanueva and Pedro Perea! adopted as part of their defense not only the testimony of Felix Jasmilona (t) 32 Phil. 163, 173. but also the statement given by him before the Justice of the Peace of Calamba on March 10, 1956." 1t is urged that some of the prosecution witnesses were biased, because Enrique Fatiga was a dismissed it'nant of Emitel"io Villanueva, and Benito Mendoza was related by marriage to the deceased, (Mendoza's wife being his niece). Howevel", upon examining the testimony of such witnesses, this Court finds no compelling reason for disbelief. There is no tinge at all of exaggeration or improbability in their testimonies. Besides, th~ defen~e itself has shown that the differences between Fatiga and Villanueva had been settled amicably sometime in Or.tober, 1950, many years before this fatal incident, On the other hand, the defendants' alibi carrie3 no weight. Aside from the fact that it is not corroborated by others, it is definitely without sufficient strength in the fact of the assertit'm of witnesses who saw them at or nea:t· the scen1: of the crime en Dec. 27, 1955, Appellants ascribe error to the lower court in concluding that there was conspiracy among them. In support of their ussertion, they claim that accused Percal and J asmilona had no motive in kilting the deceased, Loreto Estacio; that it was only Emiterio Villanueva, who had been charged by the deceased in the J ustice of the Peace Court of · Calamba in the criminal complaint. who could have reason to kill. Although it is true that there is no direet proof of conspiracy among the accused, their acts, in the light of the recitals in the extra-judicial confession show that the killing of Loreto was planned among them and carr ied out accordingly. This confession, as stated, is supported and corroborated by competent evidence, The chain of circumstances, fitting well into the statements in the extra-judicial confession, is more than sufficient to establish conspiracy, as found by the trial court. Wherefore, the judgment of conviction must be upheld, and the sentence affirmed. The imprisonment however should be 1·eclusion perpetua, instead of caden.a perpetua. Costs against appellants, who shall be credited with one-half of the period of ' their preventive imprisonment, in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code. So ordered. Padilla, Baut'i.eta Angelo, Concepcion, Bwn·era, Paredes, Dizon, Regala. and Makalintal, JJ., concurred. x Sergio del Rosario, Petitioner, vs. People of the Phil., Respondent, C.R. No. L-16806, December 22, 1961, Concepcion, J. CRIMINAL LAW; USING FORGED PHILIPPINE TREASURY NOTES.-The possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines wherein any of "the figures, letters, word3 or signs contained" in which had been erased and/ or altered, with knowledge of such erasure and alteration, and with the intent to use such notes, as they were used by the accused and his codefendants, is punishable under Article 168, in relation to Article 169, subdivision (1), of {he Revised Penal Code (U.S. vs Gardner, 3 Phil., 398; U.S. Solito, 36 Phil., 785). P. lit. Stnart del Rosario, for petit:oncr. The Solicitor General, for respondent. D EC I S IO N Accused of counterfeiting Philippine treasury notes, Sergio de! Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto Ci.el Pilar were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Davao of illegal posses· sion of said forged treasury notes and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 10 yr:ars and 1 day of prision :mayor, and to pay a fine of P5,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, as well as a proportionate part of the costs. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed (Continued on page 287') September 30, 1962 LAWYERS JOURNAL Page 279
pages: 277-279