People v. Abejero y Villón
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 26, 1971, at approximately 5:00 PM, Clinton C. Tan and Chua Sy boarded a calesa. While en route, four male individuals stopped the calesa. Two of them, identified as Leopoldo Abejero and Jesus Reyes, entered the calesa and announced a holdup. Abejero, Reyes, and a third companion, Benjamin Mallari, were armed with knives. They demanded money, and Tan and Sy surrendered sixty pesos and Sy's wallet containing a Hongkong dollar. When their demand for more money was not met, Abejero stabbed Sy. Tan escaped and was pursued by Reyes but desisted upon the arrival of a jeep. Sy was hospitalized and died two days later from two stab wounds in the chest that lacerated his heart, liver, and diaphragm. Procedural History: Based on Tan's description, Patrolman Jose de la Cruz, Jr. identified Abejero as a possible suspect. Abejero was apprehended on January 10, 1972, and after verbally admitting his participation, executed an extrajudicial confession sworn before Fiscal Mariano Chavez. In his confession, Abejero admitted to the holdup, identified his companions as Susing, Benny Bulok, and Ebot, and stated he stabbed Sy because the latter fought back. He also described the knife used and the subsequent activities of the group. Based on this confession, Abejero was charged with robbery with homicide. Subsequently, Jesus Reyes (Susing) and Benjamin Mallari (Benny Bulok) were apprehended and also confessed, implicating Abejero as the killer. The three cases were tried jointly. The trial court convicted Abejero of robbery with homicide, aggravated by abuse of superiority, and sentenced him to death. Reyes, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and Mallari, being a minor, received an indeterminate penalty. The court ordered them to pay solidarity an indemnity and return the stolen items or pay damages. On Abejero's motion, the decision was set aside for a new trial after Reyes recanted his confession, claiming he was the sole stabber and that Abejero was not his companion. However, during the new trial, Reyes disavowed his recantation, stating he did not know how to read and was forced to sign the statement prepared by Abejero's lawyer. The trial court, in an amended decision, reaffirmed its prior judgment, and Abejero appealed. The Petition: Abejero appealed the decision of the trial court, raising issues regarding the admissibility and voluntariness of his confession, the corroboration of eyewitness testimony, and the commission of robbery with homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether Abejero's extrajudicial confession is admissible and voluntary. Whether the testimony of Clinton C. Tan requires corroboration. Whether the crime committed was robbery with homicide. Whether the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superiority was correctly appreciated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting Leopoldo Abejero of robbery with homicide. Costs were assessed against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility and voluntariness of Abejero's extrajudicial confession: The Court held that Abejero's extrajudicial confession was admissible and voluntary. While Abejero claimed maltreatment, he did not complain to Fiscal Chavez when he swore to the confession, nor did he ask his counsel de oficio to report the alleged maltreatment. The fact that Fiscal Chavez required him to read and sign the confession again, and that he signed the sketch of the knife twice, further supported the voluntariness of the confession. The Court reiterated that a repudiated confession should not be disregarded without careful scrutiny of the reasons for repudiation, and Abejero's failure to complain militated against his claim of involuntariness. The confession was corroborated by the corpus delicti and the eyewitness testimony of Clinton C. Tan. On the corroboration of Clinton C. Tan's testimony: The Court found no merit in the contention that Clinton C. Tan's testimony needed corroboration. The principal evidence against Abejero was his own confession, which was corroborated by the corpus delicti and reinforced by Tan's eyewitness testimony. Therefore, the eyewitness testimony, while important, was not the sole basis for conviction and was sufficiently supported. On whether the crime committed was robbery with homicide: The Court affirmed that the crime committed was robbery with homicide. The Court clarified that the provision in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, stating that homicide be committed "by reason or on occasion of the robbery," means that a mere occasional relationship between the robbery and the homicide is sufficient. The homicide need not be a necessary means to commit the robbery, nor does the perpetrator need the intent to kill; the crime exists even if the death occurs by accident, as long as it happens by reason or on occasion of the robbery. In this case, the killing of Sy occurred after the robbery had been committed and when the victims did not immediately comply with further demands, establishing the necessary connection. On the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superiority: The Court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superiority. The four malefactors took advantage of their superior strength to overwhelm the two unarmed victims. The fact that one of the victims, Tan, had to jump from the calesa to avoid physical injury further demonstrated the imbalance of force and the deliberate use of superiority by the assailants.
Main Doctrine
An extrajudicial confession, even if repudiated, is admissible and may be given weight if it is corroborated by the corpus delicti and eyewitness testimony. The defense of alibi is unavailing when the accused's residence is near the scene of the crime and the confession is voluntary and corroborated.