People v. Pareja
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 3, 1961, Antonio Abad Tormis, a lawyer and newspaper editor, was shot and killed outside a barber shop in Cebu City. The investigation led to the apprehension of Gaspar Mesa and Avelino Monzolin. Mesa executed a sworn statement implicating Cesar Roble (Cesario Orongan) as the gunman and identifying Monzolin as the gunman's companion. Mesa also stated that he and Roble were brought to the office of appellant Felipe B. Pareja, the City Treasurer, where the murder plan was finalized. Monzolin confessed that Pareja ordered him to find a killer for Tormis due to Tormis's relentless attacks in his newspaper column regarding the "garbage can scandal." Monzolin also stated that Pareja supplied the murder weapon. A search of Pareja's office and house led to the discovery of a .32 caliber Colt revolver, identified as the murder weapon, in a small safe in his office. Cesario Orongan, the confessed gunman, corroborated the statements of Monzolin and Mesa, detailing the planning and execution of the killing, including receiving P400.00 as payment from Monzolin, which was sourced from Pareja. Orongan also stated that Monzolin returned the murder weapon to Pareja. Procedural History: Felipe B. Pareja, Avelino Monzolin, Gaspar Mesa, and Cesario Orongan were charged with murder. Orongan pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Pareja, Monzolin, and Mesa pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Cebu found Pareja, Monzolin, and Mesa guilty of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Only Felipe B. Pareja appealed the decision. The Petition: Appellant Felipe B. Pareja assigned eight errors, primarily challenging the voluntariness and admissibility of the extrajudicial confessions of his co-accused, the credibility of witnesses, the identification of the murder weapon, the existence of conspiracy, and his conviction for murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the extrajudicial confessions of Gaspar Mesa, Avelino Monzolin, and Cesario Orongan were voluntarily given. Whether the extrajudicial confessions of Monzolin, Mesa, and Orongan are admissible as evidence against appellant Pareja. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Cesario Orongan, Major Epifanio Hermosisima, Lauro Cauba, Captain Nicomedes Bacalso, and Municipal Judge Joaquin T. Maambong. Whether Exhibit "O" is the death gun. Whether there was a conspiracy among the accused to kill Antonio Abad Tormis. Whether appellant Pareja is guilty of murder.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu finding Felipe B. Pareja guilty of murder is affirmed. The penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, and he is ordered to pay jointly and severally with the other accused the heirs of the victim the sum of P131,785.65.
Ratio Decidendi
On the voluntariness of extrajudicial confessions: The Court found that the extrajudicial confessions of Gaspar Mesa and Avelino Monzolin were voluntarily given. Despite their claims of maltreatment, the Court noted the lack of spontaneity in their delayed complaints, their numerous appearances before judges without raising such issues, and the fact that their confessions contained details beyond what would be expected if they were coerced. Furthermore, a medical examination revealed no traces of physical injury. The voluntariness of Cesario Orongan's confession was less relevant as he testified during the trial. On the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions against appellant Pareja: The Court held that while confessions are generally admissible only against their makers, they can be considered as circumstantial evidence against an implicated co-accused, especially when made independently without collusion, are identical in essential details, and are corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the confessions of Monzolin, Mesa, and Orongan, when read together, corroborated the testimony of Orongan and indicated Pareja's participation. On the credibility of witnesses: The Court found no reason to doubt the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including Cesario Orongan, Major Epifanio Hermosisima, Lauro Cauba, Captain Nicomedes Bacalso, and Municipal Judge Joaquin T. Maambong. Orongan's testimony was corroborated by his own confession and those of his co-accused, as well as physical evidence. The testimonies of the other witnesses, though tangential, lent credence to the main evidence against Pareja. On the identification of the death gun: The Court gave more weight to the conclusion of the NBI ballistics expert, Attorney Osmundo L. Galang, who identified the .32 caliber Colt revolver (Exh. "O") found in Pareja's safe as the murder weapon. This conclusion was based on the presence of at least eight corresponding striations, a standard for identification in ballistics. This finding was contradicted by the defense's expert, Lieutenant Simeon Molina, whose report was less definitive and potentially biased due to his engagement by the defense. The positive identification of the gun by the confessed gunman, Cesario Orongan, further solidified this finding. On the existence of conspiracy: The Court found that the acts of the accused demonstrated a common design to kill Tormis. Pareja was the instigator who provided the weapon and reward, Monzolin acted as the contact man and handled the details, and Mesa served as the look-out. Their individual participations were geared towards the unified purpose of killing Tormis, making them liable as co-principals under the principle that the act of one conspirator is the act of all. On the conviction for murder: The Court affirmed the conviction for murder, qualifying the crime by the circumstance of "in consideration of price, reward, or promise." The Court also appreciated treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance, contrary to the trial court's ruling, because in conspiracy, all conspirators are responsible for the acts of others in furtherance of the conspiracy, including the manner of execution. Evident premeditation was not considered a separate aggravating circumstance as it was absorbed by the circumstance of reward. The Court also found that passion and obfuscation was not a mitigating circumstance as the period between the victim's articles and the killing was too long for it to preclude sober realization of the wrongfulness of the act.
Main Doctrine
Extrajudicial confessions, independently made without collusion, which are identical with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record, are admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated to show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.