People v. Paterno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants, members of an underground organization called volunteer guards, were attacked by a Japanese patrol. Subsequently, they marched to the barrio of the men who had betrayed them. Upon finding Primo Jurolan and his wife, Delfina Gatillo, the defendants tied their hands, led them upstairs, and stabbed them to death with daggers. Thereafter, one of the accused set fire to the house with the victims' bodies and their three-day-old infant inside, resulting in the infant's death. The accused removed Jurolan's two elder children before the burning. Procedural History: The court below found the defendants guilty of murder for the death of Delfina Gatillo and sentenced them accordingly, including reclusion perpetua for Florentino Paterno and indeterminate penalties for the others. They were also sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the death of the child, with indemnities. For the murder of Primo Jurolan, the defendants were granted amnesty under Proclamation No. 8, as he was found to be a Japanese spy. The Appeal: The defendants' plea on appeal was that they acted under direct orders and threats from Anselmo Onofre, their alleged commander, fearing for their own lives if they refused. They claimed Onofre was the sole person with a firearm, while they were armed only with bolos. The accused did not present their own evidence, relying instead on the testimony of two companions who had testified for the prosecution.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants acted under duress or obedience to superior orders, thereby exempting them from criminal liability. Whether the killing of Delfina Gatillo and her infant, and the subsequent burning of the house, constituted murder or arson. Whether the confessions of the accused were admissible as evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder in the killing of Delfina Gatillo but modified the conviction for the death of the infant and the burning of the house to arson. The Court held that the defendants were guilty of arson, not murder, for the death of the child, as the killing was a consequence of the burning, which was the primary objective. The Court also increased the indemnity for the deaths of Delfina Gatillo and her baby to P6,000 each. The appealed decision was affirmed with modifications.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found the plea of acting under duress or obedience to superior orders unconvincing. The Court noted that the defendants did not present evidence to substantiate this claim and relied on witnesses who had previously given statements without implicating Anselmo Onofre. The Court found the explanation for not naming Onofre earlier (fear) to be unconvincing, especially since Onofre was not present when the initial statements were made and civil order had been restored. Furthermore, the defendants' own sworn confessions, used as sole evidence for their petition for amnesty, did not implicate Onofre, except for Paterno and Lemente, and even then, no compulsion or duress was mentioned. The Court also dismissed Lemente's claim of being forced to kill Delfina Gatillo at gunpoint, finding it improbable that Onofre would use such means when he could have committed the act himself. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants were guilty of arson for setting fire to the house, which resulted in the death of the infant. The Court clarified that under Article 321, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, murder or homicide is absorbed in arson when the killing is a mere consequence of the burning, and not the primary objective. The Court distinguished this from situations where the killing is the objective and the burning is merely a means to achieve it. In this case, the burning of the house with the victims inside was the end, and the child's death was a consequence. Therefore, the crime committed was arson, not murder or homicide. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court found the defendants' exception to the admission of their confessions (Exhibits D, E, F, G, and I) as inadmissible copies to be without merit. The Court stated that the impugned exhibits were certified true copies of carbon copies of the originals, which were kept in the office of the justice of the peace. The non-presentation of the original documents bearing the defendants' signatures was explained by the fiscal as being due to their destruction by fire. The Court further noted that these confessions, independent of other testimony, were conclusive proof of the appellants' guilt, and their voluntary character was not challenged. Even Paterno's affidavit, which implicated Onofre, did not mention compulsion or duress, and thus did not serve to justify the appellants' deed.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder in the killing of Delfina Gatillo, but modified the conviction for the death of the infant and the burning of the house to arson. The Court clarified that when arson is the primary objective and death is a mere consequence, the homicide or murder is absorbed by the crime of arson. Conversely, if the killing is the objective and the burning is merely a means to achieve it, then murder or homicide is the principal crime, with the burning serving as an aggravating circumstance. The Court also increased the indemnity for the deaths.