People v. Mabassa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of July 25, 1936, the deceased Clemente Aquino was awakened by noise under his house. Upon investigating with a bolo and accompanied by his ten-year-old daughter, Maria Aquino, who held a lamp, Clemente Aquino went downstairs. There, he was seized by defendants Alberto Mabassa and Silverio Uy, while Domingo Tagalog attacked him with a bolo, wounding him on the head and right hand. Abelardo Labao emerged from under the house with stolen chickens. The defendants then fled. Clemente Aquino, after freeing himself, wounded Domingo Tagalog on the head with his bolo. Procedural History: Domingo Tagalog pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Alberto Mabassa, Abelardo Labao, and Silverio Uy were tried, found guilty, and sentenced. They appealed the sentence. The Petition: The appellants contended that the lower court erred in giving credit to the testimony of Maria Aquino, that her testimony was improbable, inconsistent, and ridiculous. They also impugned the ante mortem declaration of the deceased, alleging that the wounds were not mortal and that death was due to infection. Furthermore, they argued that the testimony of coaccused Domingo Tagalog was inadmissible against them and should have been presented after both sides rested.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimony of the ten-year-old witness, Maria Aquino, is credible and sufficient to sustain conviction. Whether the ante mortem declaration of the deceased, Clemente Aquino, is admissible and credible despite the nature of his wounds and the delay in his death. Whether the testimony of the coaccused, Domingo Tagalog, is admissible against the appellants. Whether the crime committed was robbery with homicide or theft and homicide. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength were present.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment, sentencing the defendants to reclusion perpetua. The Court found the evidence sufficient to establish guilt for robbery with homicide, considering the use of violence against the deceased during the commission of the robbery. The aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength were considered present, but due to lack of unanimity on the capital penalty and the deliberate seeking of the night, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Maria Aquino's testimony: The Court found the testimony of the ten-year-old witness, Maria Aquino, to be entirely satisfactory and convincing. The Court addressed the appellants' contentions of improbability and inconsistency, finding nothing anomalous in a child being awakened by noise, accompanying her father with a lamp, or identifying individuals known to her. The manner in which she held the lamp was deemed natural and did not obstruct her view. The Court concluded that her sincere testimony, in light of the circumstances, was sufficient to sustain the conviction, citing previous jurisprudence. On the admissibility and credibility of the ante mortem declaration: The Court held that the admissibility of an ante mortem declaration is not affected by the fact that the declarant died hours or days after making it, provided he believed himself to be in imminent danger of death at the time. The appellants' argument that the wounds were not mortal was countered by the fact that the deceased explicitly stated he felt he was going to die and did, in fact, die later. The Court reiterated that it is sufficient that the declarant believed himself to be in imminent danger of death, citing relevant cases. On the admissibility of Domingo Tagalog's testimony: The Court clarified that the testimony of a coaccused given at the trial is perfectly admissible against his coaccused, distinguishing it from extrajudicial admissions or confessions of a coconspirator. The appellants' argument that the testimony should have been presented after both sides rested was dismissed, as the court has the discretion to receive such evidence without prejudicing the substantial rights of the accused, who had ample opportunity to present their defense. On the classification of the crime: The Court ruled that the crime committed was robbery with homicide, not theft and homicide. This was based on the established evidence that the defendants used violence on the person of the deceased Clemente Aquino when they robbed him of his fowls. The act of seizing him and wounding him during the theft of his chickens clearly established the element of violence inherent in robbery. On the aggravating circumstances: The Court found the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength to be present in the commission of the crime. However, due to the lack of clear and satisfactory evidence that the defendants deliberately sought the night for the commission of the crime, and the lack of unanimity among the members of the Court regarding the imposition of the capital punishment, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed instead of the death penalty.
Main Doctrine
The testimony of a child witness, if found credible by the court, can be sufficient to sustain a conviction. An ante mortem declaration is admissible and credible if the declarant believed himself to be in imminent danger of death, even if death occurred days later. The testimony of a co-accused given at the trial is admissible against co-accused.