People v. Juliano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the morning of June 11, 1970, the lifeless body of Perfecto Tayao, a tricycle driver, was found along the road going to the Catholic cemetery of Bustos, Bulakan. The cause of death was shock due to multiple fractures of the head. Procedural History: An information for murder was filed against Reynaldo Juliano. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, imposing the death penalty, considering the aggravating circumstances of craft and uninhabited place. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The Petition: The accused-appellant argued that his confession was inadmissible due to the lack of counsel during interrogation and that it was extorted by force. He also contended that treachery and evident premeditation were not proven, and that intoxication should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
Issue(s)
Whether the confession of the accused-appellant is admissible in evidence. Whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were proven. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, use of superior strength, craft, and uninhabited place were proven. Whether the mitigating circumstance of intoxication should be considered; and the crime committed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the lower court. It found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide only, attended by the aggravating circumstance of despoblado, but offset by the mitigating circumstance of intoxication. The accused-appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment of seven (7) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the confession: The Court ruled that the confession obtained from the accused-appellant was admissible. Although he was not informed of his right to counsel during the interrogation, the confession was obtained before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. The Court reiterated the ruling in Magtoto v. Manguera that the constitutional mandate on the right to counsel for confessions has prospective effect. Furthermore, the Court found no proof that the confession was extorted by force, violence, or intimidation, noting the detailed nature of the confession and its consistency with other testimonies, as well as the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers and the mayor. The accused's failure to report the alleged maltreatment or seek medical attention also negated his claim. On the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation: The Court agreed with the defense counsel that treachery and evident premeditation were not proven. There was no direct evidence that the accused planned to kill the victim, and the confession indicated an intention to merely scare the driver. The Court found no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time elapsed before its execution, thus evident premeditation could not be considered. Similarly, there was no showing that treachery was employed, as the confession described hitting the deceased on the face and the testimony of Romy de Vera did not establish a deliberate, unexpected attack that insured the commission of the crime without risk to the assailants. On the aggravating circumstances: The Court found that the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and use of superior strength were not proven. It also questioned the trial court's appreciation of craft, stating that the accused was practically in a stupor and could not have used craft. However, the aggravating circumstance of despoblado (uninhabited place) was considered proven because the evidence showed that the site near the Catholic cemetery was purposely chosen to scare the tricycle driver, as stated in the accused's confession. The Court noted that the trial court did not explain its consideration of craft and uninhabited place. On the mitigating circumstance of intoxication and the crime committed: The Court agreed with the defense that intoxication should be considered a mitigating circumstance. The evidence showed that the accused had been drinking since the early evening of June 10, 1970, which was confirmed by witnesses. There was no evidence that the intoxication was habitual or related to the intention to kill. Therefore, this mitigating circumstance offset the aggravating circumstance of despoblado. Based on the lack of proof for treachery and evident premeditation, the Court concluded that the crime committed was homicide, not murder. The aggravating circumstance of despoblado was present but was offset by the mitigating circumstance of intoxication.
Main Doctrine
A confession obtained before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, even if the accused was not informed of his right to counsel, is admissible in evidence. The aggravating circumstance of despoblado was proven, but it was offset by the mitigating circumstance of intoxication.