People v. Hipolito
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 18, 1966, Concepcion Bustamante Ang was shot and mortally wounded while making a telephone call. The necropsy report indicated death due to hemorrhage and shock from two gunshot wounds to the chest, penetrating the heart, lungs, and aorta. The crime remained unsolved for over a year and a half until Agent Pedro Jesuitas of the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) was assigned to investigate. Procedural History: Agent Jesuitas' investigation led to the arrest of Feliciano Hipolito y Clemente on May 16, 1968. Hipolito confessed to the killing and implicated Cirilo Malagamba y Montaras, the driver of the deceased's husband, as the one who hired him for P5,000.00 at the instance of the husband. Malagamba was arrested on May 20, 1968, and also admitted participation. An information for murder was filed on June 5, 1968, charging Hipolito, Malagamba, and an unknown person. The Court of First Instance of Manila found Hipolito guilty of murder, qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by commission for a price, reward, or promise, sentencing him to death. Malagamba was found guilty of murder, qualified by evident premeditation, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Both were ordered to indemnify the heirs. Malagamba appealed but later withdrew his appeal. Hipolito sought reversal of his death sentence, arguing his extrajudicial confession was obtained through deceit, force, and without assistance of counsel, and alternatively, that the crime should be homicide due to absence of qualifying circumstances. The Petition: The defendant-appellant, Feliciano Hipolito, sought reversal of the judgment and acquittal, contending that his extrajudicial confession was inadmissible due to coercion and lack of counsel during custodial investigation. In the alternative, he prayed for conviction of homicide, arguing the absence of circumstances qualifying the killing to murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant Hipolito is admissible in evidence. Whether the killing of Concepcion Bustamante Ang is qualified as murder by evident premeditation and aggravated by the circumstance of commission for a price, reward, or promise. Whether the offense committed is murder or homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto, upholding the conviction of Feliciano Hipolito y Clemente for murder and the imposition of the death penalty. The Court found the extrajudicial confession admissible and ruled that the killing was qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by commission for a price, reward, or promise.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession: The Court found no merit in Hipolito's claim that his confession was obtained through maltreatment and deceit. The claim of maltreatment was uncorroborated, and Hipolito failed to file any administrative, criminal, or civil case against those who allegedly coerced him. Furthermore, photographs taken of Hipolito the day after the confession showed no signs of maltreatment. The testimony of CIS Agent Pedro Jesuitas, corroborated by Capt. Protacio Laroya, indicated that Hipolito provided the statements freely and voluntarily. Hipolito's failure to complain about the alleged maltreatment to Col. Dumlao, before whom he was brought and confronted with Vicente Ang, militates against his claim. The confession was also replete with details only the declarant could have known, contradicting the claim it was prepared beforehand. The alleged promise of immunity by Agent Jesuitas, who was not a prosecuting officer, was insufficient to render the confession inadmissible. The absence of counsel during the custodial investigation did not render the confession inadmissible as it was executed prior to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, which mandated the right to counsel in such investigations. The Court cited People vs. De Torres and People vs. Urminita in support of these points. On the qualification of the killing as murder by evident premeditation and aggravation by price, reward, or promise: The Court found that evident premeditation was sufficiently established. The records showed that Hipolito agreed to commit the crime on September 15, 1966, and performed acts indicating his determination, including receiving the firearm and repeatedly going to the victim's residence to wait for her until the killing on September 18, 1966. This period allowed for reflection and a deliberate determination to commit the crime. The Court rejected the contention that evident premeditation is inherent in the aggravating circumstance of commission for a price, reward, or promise, citing U.S. vs. Rabor and Spanish Supreme Court jurisprudence which allows for the separate consideration of these circumstances. The non-prosecution of Vicente Ang was deemed irrelevant as Hipolito made arrangements with Malagamba, who paid him, and Malagamba claimed to be acting at the instance of Vicente Ang. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding Hipolito guilty of murder qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by commission for a price, reward, or promise. On whether the offense committed is murder or homicide: Based on the findings that the killing was qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by commission for a price, reward, or promise, the Court concluded that the offense committed was indeed murder, not homicide. The presence of these qualifying and aggravating circumstances elevated the crime from homicide to murder, justifying the penalty imposed by the trial court.
Main Doctrine
An extrajudicial confession obtained prior to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution is admissible even if the accused was not assisted by counsel during custodial investigation, as the right to counsel in such investigations was not yet constitutionally mandated at that time. Furthermore, evident premeditation and the aggravating circumstance of commission for a price, reward, or promise can be considered as distinct circumstances in murder.