People v. Borromeo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: At noon on July 3, 1981, the four-year-old niece of Elias and Susana Borromeo reported to Susana's mother, Matilde Taborada, that Susana was shouting for help because Elias was killing her. Matilde instructed the child to inform her son, Geronimo. Geronimo, upon hearing the report, went with his father to Susana's hut. They found the windows and door closed. Geronimo peeped through the bamboo slats and saw Susana lying motionless, apparently dead, beside their one-month-old child. Elias Borromeo was lying near Susana, holding a bloody kitchen bolo. Susana's father called the police, who arrived shortly. Elias eventually opened the door, and the police found Susana dead with her intestines spilled out. A small kitchen bolo was beside her. Elias mumbled incoherent words when questioned. Procedural History: The accused, Elias Borromeo, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide by the Circuit Criminal Court, Fourteenth Judicial District, Cebu-Bohol. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Susana Taborada-Borromeo in the sum of P12,000.00, and to pay the costs. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the decision, contending that the trial court erred in holding that he and Susana Taborada were legally married, arguing that the officiating priest's testimony and the absence of a marriage contract indicated no valid marriage, thus the crime should be homicide. He also argued for the appreciation of mitigating circumstances of provocation or obfuscation and voluntary surrender, without aggravating circumstances, and that the conviction for parricide and the penalty of reclusion perpetua were erroneous.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused and the deceased were legally married, thereby constituting the crime as parricide instead of homicide. Whether the mitigating circumstances of provocation or obfuscation and voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of the accused, and the corresponding penalty to be imposed. Whether the conviction for parricide was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision, with a modification increasing the indemnity to P30,000.00. The conviction for parricide was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of marriage: The accused-appellant's contention that he and the deceased were not legally married was rejected. The Court found that the accused himself admitted in his testimony that the deceased was his legitimate wife, stating they were married by a priest in a chapel. The Court held that there is no better proof of marriage than the admission of the accused. Furthermore, the Court invoked the presumption of matrimony, stating that persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed to be married, as this is the common order of society. The presumption in favor of matrimony is one of the strongest known in law, leaning toward legal matrimony and morality. The absence of a marriage record does not invalidate the marriage if all requisites for its validity were present during its celebration. On the issue of mitigating circumstances and penalty: The Court noted that the penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. It stated that even assuming the presence of the mitigating circumstances of provocation or obfuscation and voluntary surrender, without any aggravating circumstance to offset them, the penalty would still be reclusion perpetua, as per Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, which mandates the application of the lesser penalty when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties and the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances with no aggravating circumstance. Therefore, the imposition of reclusion perpetua was correct. On the conviction for parricide: Based on the established fact of marriage through the accused's admission and the presumption of matrimony, the killing of a legal wife constitutes parricide. The Court found no error in the trial court's conviction of the accused for parricide.
Main Doctrine
The admission of the accused regarding the existence of a marriage is sufficient proof thereof, and the presumption of matrimony favors legal union over concubinage, even in the absence of a marriage certificate, provided all requisites for a valid marriage were present.