G.R. No. L-50884 March 30, 1988 –CASE OF COMPLEX CRIME
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FILOMENO SALUFRANIA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS: On 7 May 1976, Filomeno
Salufrania y Aleman was charged before the CFI of Camarines Norte,with the
complex crime of parricide with intentional abortion. It was alleged that
on the 3rd day of December, 1974, the accused Filomeno Salufrania y Aleman did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and use
personal violence on his wife, MARCIANA ABUYO-SALUFRANIA by then and there
boxing and stranging her, causing upon her injuries which resulted in her
instantaneous death; and by the same criminal act committed on the person of the
wife of the accused, who was at the time 8 months pregnant, the accused caused
the death of the unborn child,committing both crimes of PARRICIDE and
INTENTIONAL ABORTION as defined and punished under Art. 246 and Art. 256,
paragraph I, of the Revised Penal Code.
At the trial court, Dr. Juan L. Dyquiangco Jr., Pedro Salufrania
testified that,he was called upon by the Municipal Judge of Talisay to examine
the corpse of Marciana Abuyo-Salufrania that was exhumed from its grave in
which the cause of death was cardiac arrest.
Dr. Dyquiangco testified that after conducting the post mortem examination,
he issued a certification thereof (Exhibit "A"); that he issued a
death certificate (Exhibit "B") for the deceased Marciano
Abuyo-Salufrania, bearing the date of 5 December 1974, made on the basis of the
information relayed by a certain Leonila Loma to his nurse before the burial,
without mentioning the cause of death; that the cause of death, as cardiac
arrest, was indicated on said death certificate only after the post mortem
examination on 11 December 1974. The
lower court allowed the son of the accused, Pedro Salufrania, The lower court
stated that, by reason of interest and relationship, before Pedro Salufrania
was allowed to testify against his father-accused Filomeno Salufrania, after
careful examination by the prosecuting officer and the defense counsel under
the careful supervision of the court a quo, to determine whether, at his
age of 13 years old, he was already capable of receiving correct impressions of
facts and of relating them truly and, also, whether he was compelled and/or
threatened by anybody to testify against his father-accused.He stated that his father Filomeno Salufrania and his mother
Marciana Abuyo quarrelled at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of 3 December
1974, he saw his father box his pregnant mother on the stomach and, once fallen
on the floor, his father strangled her to death; that he saw blood ooze from
the eyes and nose of his mother and that she died right on the spot where she
fell. His brother,Eduardo Abuyo and had refused and still refused to live with
his father-accused, because the latter has threatened to kill him and his other
brothers and sister should he reveal the true cause of his mother's death.The brother in law and sister of the deceased victim,Narciso Abuyo
also declared that after the burial of Marciana Abuyo, the three (3) children
of his deceased sisterrefused to go home with their
father Filomeno Salufrania; that when asked why, his nephew Alex
Salufraña told him that the real cause of death of their mother was not stomach
ailment and headache, rather, she was boxed on the stomach and strangled to
death by their father; that immediately after learning of the true cause of
death of his sister, he brought the matter to the attention of the police
authorities .
The CFI found him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the complex crime of Parricide with
Intentional Abortion, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Marciano Abuyo in the sum of P12,000.00 and
to pay the costs. "For unselfish, valuable and exemplary service rendered
by counsel de oficio, Atty. Marciano C. Dating, Jr., a compensation of P500.00
is hereby recommended for him subject to the availability of fund. Since
the accused was sentenced to death, this becomes an automatic review before the
Supreme Court.
The defense had for witnesses Geronimo Villan, Juanito Bragais,
Angeles Liling Balce and the accused Filomeno Salufrania.Geronimo Villan testified that he was a neighbor of Filomeno
Sulfrania whio tried to help him administer a native treatment around 6am in
the morning of December 4, 1974, but she died around 7am. Witness Juanita
Bragais testified that he was fetched by Felipe Salufrania, another son of
Filomeno Salufrania Marciana Abuyo was already dead so he just helped Filomeno
Salufrania in transferring the body of his wife to the house of the latter's
brother-in—law.Angeles Liling Balce, who claimed to be a former resident she
arrived in the house of Filomeno Salufrania at about 6:00 o'clock in the
morning Marciana still in a coma lying on the lap of her husband who informed
her that Marciana was suffering from an old stomach ailment. The accused admitted
that he was that lawful husband of the deceased Marciana Abuyo; that he sent r
Juanito Bragais but the latter was not able to cure his wife, that there was no
quarrel between him and his wife that preceded the latter's death, and that
during the lifetime of the deceased, they loved each other; that after her
burial, his son Pedro Salufrania was taken by his brother-in-law Narciso Abuyo
and since then, he was not able to talk to his son until during the trial; and
that at the time of death of his wife, aside from the members of his family,
Geronimo Villan Francisco Repuya and Liling Angeles Balce were also present.Appellant alleges that the trial court failed to determine the
competence of Pedro Salufrania before he was allowed to testify. He also questions the competence of Dr. Dyquiangco as an expert
witness, and alleges that the findings of Dr. Dyquiangco and the testimony of
Pedro Salufrania do not tally. But this contention is without merit. The Court
notes, first of all, that appellant did not even bother to discuss his defense
in order to refute the massive evidence against him. This is tantamount to an
admission that he could not adequately support his version of Marciana Abuyo's
death.Lastly, appellant alleges that, assuming he indeed killed his
wife, there is no evidence to show that he had the intention to cause an
abortion. In this contention, appellant is correct. He should not be held
guilty of the complex crime of Parricide with Intentional Abortion but
of the complex crime of Parricide with Unintentional Abortion. The
elements of Unintentional Abortion are as follows:
1. That there is a pregnant woman. 2. That
violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion. 3.
That the violence is intentionally exerted. 4. That as a result of the violence
the foetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in its ruling of
complex crime with parricide and intentional abortion?
HELD: According to the
Supreme Court,
“Trial judges are in the best position to ascertain the truth and
detect falsehoods in the testimony of witnesses. This Court will normally not
disturb the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, in
view of its advantage in observing first hand their demeanor in giving their
testimony. Such rule applies in the present case.
The Solicitor General's brief makes it appear that appellant intended
to cause an abortion because he boxed his pregnant wife on the stomach which
caused her to fall and then strangled her. We find that appellant's intent to
cause an abortion has not been sufficiently established. Mere boxing on the
stomach, taken together with the immediate strangling of the victim in a fight,
is not sufficient proof to show an intent to cause an abortion. In fact,
appellant must have merely intended to kill the victim but not necessarily to
cause an abortion. The evidence on record, therefore, establishes beyond
reasonable doubt that accused Filomeno Salufrania committed and should be held
liable for the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. The
abortion, in this case, was caused by the same violence that caused the death
of Marciana Abuyo, such violence being voluntarily exerted by the herein
accused upon his victim. It has also been clearly established (a) that Marciana
Abuyo was seven (7) to eight (8) months pregnant when she was killed; (b) that
violence was voluntarily exerted upon her by her husband accused; and (c) that,
as a result of said violence, Marciana Abuyo died together with the foetus in
her womb. In this afternoon, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code states that
the accused should be punished with the penalty corresponding to the more
serious came of parricide, to be imposed in its maximum period which is death.
However, by reason of the 1987 Constitution which has abolished the death
penalty, appellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. “
In the present case, the Supreme Court modified, the judgment appealed from was AFFIRMED.
Accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The indemnity of P12,000. 00 awarded to the heirs of the deceased Marciana
Abuyo is increased to P30,000.00 in line with the recent decisions of the
Court. With costs.
SOURCE: Lawphil.net
No comments:
Post a Comment