People v. Ganohon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the evening of August 16, 1982, in barangay Ticalaan, Talakag, Bukidnon, five individuals—Eduardo Anoos, Elina Pantao Anoos, Edgar Nuera, Gina Anoos, and Tuto Anoos—were killed. The accused-appellant, Charly Ganohon y Samia alias Dongdong, along with Gerardo Obod alias Meka (who remained at large), were charged with five counts of murder. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Bukidnon, Branch XI, found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua in each case and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victims. The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of treachery and dwelling. The accused-appellant appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant assigned as errors the trial court's failure to reject his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit C) allegedly extracted through torture, its holding that his rebuttal was insufficient, and the finding of guilt based on insufficient evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the extrajudicial confession (Exhibit C) is admissible despite allegations of torture and repudiation. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented sufficiently established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance for all five killings. Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was correctly appreciated.
Ruling
The decision of the trial court is MODIFIED. The accused-appellant is sentenced to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal each in Criminal Cases Nos. 71(3313) and 72(3314) (homicide), and to reclusion perpetua each in Criminal Cases Nos. 73(3315), 74(3316), and 75(3317) (murder). The civil indemnity for each victim is increased to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession (Exhibit C): The Supreme Court acknowledged that while Exhibit C might not be the sole basis for conviction due to allegations of torture and repudiation, it did not solely rely on it. The Court emphasized that other incriminatory statements and circumstances, if not seriously rebutted, could establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court itself noted that the confession could not be the sole basis, but the other evidence was compelling. The defense's claim of torture was noted, but the Court focused on the totality of evidence presented. On the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence: The Court affirmed that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient for conviction. It outlined five key circumstances: (1) Bernardino Signawan's testimony of seeing the accused and Gerardo Obod with bolos heading towards the victim's house, coupled with Eduardo Anoos' prior statement about who would be responsible if something happened to him; (2) Recto Obod's testimony of seeing the accused and Gerardo Obod near his house at midnight, carrying weapons and shouting that they had killed the Anoos family; (3) Ruperto Aynon's testimony of seeing the accused and Gerardo Obod wet and muddy with bolos on their waists coming from Ticalaan, and the father's subsequent anxiety; (4) Cpl. Leopoldo Pol, Jr.'s testimony about the accused's confession to hacking Eduardo Anoos' legs; and (5) Patrocinio Enecito's testimony about the accused confessing to using the kris (Exhibit B) and taking turns hacking the victims. The Court found these circumstances formed an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the appreciation of treachery: The Court modified the trial court's finding regarding treachery for the deaths of Eduardo Anoos and Elina Anoos, holding that treachery could not be properly appreciated in the absence of eyewitnesses to the actual manner of killing. The Court stated that treachery cannot be deduced from mere presumption or speculation. However, for the deaths of Tuto Anoos (one year old), Gina Anoos (six years old), and Edgar Nuera (twelve years old), the Court properly appreciated treachery, ruling that the killing of a child by an adult is murder even if the specific manner of attack is not shown, as it inherently involves treachery. On the aggravating circumstance of dwelling: The Court agreed with the trial court that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was present. The killings occurred in the victims' house, which is considered an aggravating circumstance under Article 14, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code. This circumstance was considered in determining the penalty for the offenses.
Main Doctrine
While a confession may be inadmissible if obtained through torture or violation of constitutional rights, other incriminatory statements and circumstances, if not seriously rebutted, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The killing of a child is murder even if the manner of attack is not shown, due to the inherent treachery involved.