People v. Carullo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Romulo Carullo y Bongao and Jose Taule y Omadto, along with Virgilio de los Reyes, allegedly broke into the Carolina Hairdresser, which also served as the dwelling of its owner, Carolina Coronel. They took valuables and proceeded to rape Coronel. De los Reyes allegedly killed Coronel by banging her head on the cement floor after the sexual assaults. The accused-appellants were arrested and executed extrajudicial confessions admitting participation in the crime. A security guard testified seeing Carullo near the scene of the crime. The victim's niece, Aileen Maclang, a four-year-old at the time of the incident, identified Carullo and De los Reyes as among those she saw inside the parlor, and testified to witnessing the robbery and the killing of her aunt. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, found accused-appellants Carullo and Taule guilty of robbery with homicide, sentencing them to three penalties of reclusion perpetua each and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The third accused, De los Reyes, escaped and remained at large. The RTC relied on the extrajudicial confessions, the testimony of the security guard, and the eyewitness account of Aileen Maclang. The Petition: Accused-appellants appealed the RTC decision, arguing, among other things, that their confessions were inadmissible, the prosecution failed to prove corpus delicti, and the trial court erred in disregarding their defense of alibi. They also questioned the credibility of the child witness.
Issue(s)
Whether the extrajudicial confessions of the accused-appellants are admissible in evidence. Whether the testimony of the four-year-old victim's niece is credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction. Whether the defense of alibi presented by the accused-appellants should be given weight. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the crime of robbery with homicide. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, abuse of superior strength, dwelling, and rape were correctly appreciated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants for robbery with homicide but modified the sentence and indemnity. The Court ruled that the extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible due to lack of assistance of counsel during their execution. The Court also found the testimony of the security guard insufficient to prove guilt. However, the Court gave full faith and credit to the testimony of the child witness, Aileen Maclang, finding her credible despite her young age and minor inconsistencies. The Court found the defense of alibi unmeritorious as the accused-appellants were not so far from the scene of the crime. The Court found the elements of robbery with homicide present. While the trial court erred in appreciating nocturnity, it correctly found abuse of superior strength, treachery, dwelling, and rape. Due to the 1987 Constitution suspending the death penalty, the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the sentence to one count of reclusion perpetua for each accused and increased the indemnity to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions: The Supreme Court agreed with the accused-appellants that their extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible. The Court reiterated the ruling in Morales v. Enrile (1983) and People v. Galit (1985), which established that a waiver of the right to counsel during custodial interrogation is invalid unless made with the assistance of counsel. The Court noted that the confessions in this case were made without the assistance of counsel, despite the investigating officer's claim that the accused-appellants waived their right. Therefore, the confessions were inadmissible under the proscription of Morales, and Section 29 of Rule 130 could not be applied. The Court clarified that this rule applied even to waivers made before the 1987 Constitution, as the Morales ruling was already in effect. On the credibility of the child witness, Aileen Maclang: The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly based its decision on the testimony of Aileen Maclang. Despite the accused-appellants' claims of inconsistencies and the trial court's own observation that her testimony was at times "off-tangent," the Court found her credible. Minor inconsistencies do not necessarily impair credibility; in fact, they can sometimes strengthen it. The Court emphasized that Aileen, at a tender age, was able to identify the accused-appellants in court and relate the events she witnessed, including the robbery and the killing of her aunt. The Court addressed concerns about the source of light, the distance, and the duration of observation, finding them not incredible given the circumstances, the size of the dwelling, and the fact that the men were facing her. The Court also affirmed that there is no minimum age for a witness, provided they can perceive and relate their perceptions, which Aileen demonstrated. On the defense of alibi: The Supreme Court found the defense of alibi unmeritorious. The Court reiterated that for alibi to prosper, it must not only be shown that the accused were elsewhere but also that they were so far away that they could not have been present at the scene of the crime. In this case, the places of alibi (Canumay) were less than two kilometers away from the crime scene (Paso de Blas) in Valenzuela, a distance that could be covered in less than five minutes. The Court stated that alibi is the weakest of defenses and will not prevail over positive identification by a credible witness. On the elements of robbery with homicide: The Supreme Court affirmed that all the elements of robbery with homicide were present. The evidence showed that the accused-appellants unlawfully took personal property belonging to another with intent to gain, using force upon things (picking the lock). The killing of Carolina Coronel occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The Court cited the testimony of Aileen Maclang and Josefina Coronel regarding the stolen items, including money, a cassette recorder, and a ring. Thus, the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code was established. On aggravating circumstances: The Supreme Court modified the trial court's appreciation of aggravating circumstances. It found that nocturnity was not sufficiently shown to have been purposely sought to facilitate the crime. However, it agreed with the trial court on the presence of abuse of superior strength, considering the number of assailants. The Court found treachery present, as the victim was bound and helpless. It also found dwelling as an aggravating circumstance and noted the presence of rape. The Court clarified that abuse of superior strength was absorbed by treachery. The Court noted that treachery, dwelling, and rape would have warranted the death penalty, but due to the suspension of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution, reclusion perpetua was the imposable penalty. The Court also corrected the trial court's imposition of three counts of reclusion perpetua, stating that only one count was proper for the single crime of robbery with homicide.
Main Doctrine
Extrajudicial confessions obtained without the assistance of counsel are inadmissible in evidence, even if the waiver of the right to counsel was made prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, if such waiver was not made with the assistance of counsel, following the ruling in Morales v. Enrile. The testimony of a child witness, despite minor inconsistencies, can be given weight if the child demonstrates the capacity to perceive and relate facts, and has no motive to testify falsely.