People v. Gavarra
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 19, 1972, an eight-year-old girl, Celerina Lepiten Leyco, was sent to fetch water. She was last seen by a witness, Fe Garcia, on her way home. After an hour, her sister, Elizabeth Gabelo, became worried and, with her husband and David Garcia, searched for Celerina. They encountered the accused, Dominador Gavarra, who denied seeing the victim and refused to join the search. The search resumed the following morning with more help, and Celerina's body was discovered in a thicket near where Gavarra was previously seen. An autopsy revealed severe incised wounds causing death and findings in the genitals that were inconclusive for consummated rape but could indicate an attempt. Gavarra was arrested and subsequently signed an extrajudicial confession admitting to sexual abuse and hacking the victim to death. He claimed he was forced to sign the confession. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Sorsogon found Gavarra guilty of the complex crime of attempted rape with homicide, sentencing him to death, indemnifying the heirs, and paying costs. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The Petition: The accused appealed his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the extrajudicial confession of the accused is admissible in evidence. Whether the accused is guilty of attempted rape. Whether the accused is guilty of murder.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court. It held the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to eighteen (18) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The accused was ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the extrajudicial confession was executed voluntarily, despite the accused's claim of coercion. The Court noted the firm and regular signature on the confession, which matched other signatures of the accused, and the municipal judge's certification that no visible injuries were present upon physical examination. Although the Court condemned the post-confession public display of the accused by the police as barbaric, it held that this misconduct occurred after the confession was made and therefore did not affect its admissibility. The Court reiterated the principle that confessions must be shown to have been made freely and voluntarily. On the charge of attempted rape: The Court disagreed with the trial court's finding of attempted rape. The Court reasoned that the necropsy report did not substantiate consummated rape. While the report noted slight congestion in the victim's genitals, the physician testified that this could be caused by contact with a hard object or rubbing of clothes. Crucially, the Court found that the accused did not perform all the acts of execution for rape due to his own voluntary desistance, not because of impossibility. The victim's physical build would have allowed penetration, and she was found with her panty on. Therefore, the crime of attempted rape was not proven. On the charge of murder: The Court found the accused guilty of murder. It reasoned that the killing of an eight-year-old defenseless girl was done with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength. The Court concluded that the elements of murder were present, considering the nature of the wounds and the victim's vulnerability. Given the abolition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution, the penalty for murder was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period as the maximum sentence and reclusion temporal in its medium and minimum period as the minimum sentence.
Main Doctrine
The Court modified the conviction from attempted rape with homicide to murder, holding that the evidence did not support attempted rape due to the victim's physical build and the accused's voluntary desistance, but affirmed the killing was committed with treachery. The Court also upheld the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession despite police misconduct occurring after its execution, finding it was made voluntarily.