EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-4847. May 15, 1953. ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOROS ANSANG, ET AL., Defendants. MORO ANSANG and MORO JUBAIL, Defendants-Appellants.
Abelardo S. Fernandez for Appellants.
Assistant Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor Ramon L. Avanceña for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CORPUS DELICTI, WHAT IT IS. — J was the son of A, who had a grudge against B. J and H were seen by two witnesses sailing from the shore, J carrying three hand grenades. When asked where they were going, J answered that they were going to fish. B and his companions have never returned from the trip and have never been seen or heard of by anybody. When J and H returned, they no longer had hand grenades nor did they bring any fish. The pieces of the wreckage of B’s vinta were seen on the shore of a nearby island. B and his companions must have met a violent death due to the commission of a crime. Held: This is the corpus delicti (U. S. v. Valdez, 41 Phil., 497, 498; People v. Marquez, 43 Off. Gaz., 1652, 1653), which may corroborate a conspirator’s extrajudicial confession.
D E C I S I O N
JUGO, J.:
Moros Ansang, Jubail and Jaho were accused of multiple murder of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. Moro Jaho was acquitted, but Ansang and Jubail were found guilty, and each was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, to pay the heirs of each victim jointly and severally an indemnity of P2,000, to suffer the accessory penalties of the law, and each to pay one-third of the costs. Ansang and Jubail appealed.
Sometime in October, 1949, Ansang complained to the Chief of Police of Maluso that Moro Berto was taking away the coconuts from his (Ansang’s) plantation. The chief of police told him to complain to the provincial fiscal. Ansang was unable to see said officer. Berto continued picking up the coconut fruits, claiming that he was the owner of the plantation.
On October 7, 1949, Jubail, the foster son of Ansang, went to the seashore of Sangbay, Basilan City, Zamboanga, and there saw Moros Berto, Abdani, Eka, and Kasim, loading seven sacks of copra gathered from the plantation Jubail asked Berto what was he going to do with the copra. The latter answered that he would take it to the town of Isabela that same day. Berto and his three companions sailed for said place.
A few days afterwards, Moro Abdul Samad saw Jubail with Jaho, boarding another vinta, Jubail carrying with him three home made bombs or hand grenades. When Moro Wahina asked what those objects were, Jubail answered that they were home made bombs which they were going to use for fishing. Afterward Jubail and Jaho sailed away. When they returned to Sangbay, Samad and Wahina noticed that they no longer had bombs, and that they did not bring any fish. From that time, Berto, Abdani, Eka, and Kasim have not been seen or heard from by anybody.
Abdul Samad saw pieces of Berto’s vinta on the seashore of the Island of Pilas.
When the authorities were apprised of the disappearance of Berto and his three companions, and the discovery of the wreckage of Berto’s vinta, they began to make an investigation, and arrested Ansang, Jubail, and Jaho.
Ansang made a confession (marked Exhibit "B") in which he said that in view of the fact that Berto and his companions had taken away copra from his plantation, he ordered his foster son Jubail to follow them and kill them.
Jubail also made a written confession, saying that upon order of his foster father, he gathered three home made bombs and invited Jaho to sail with him, telling the latter that they were going to fish. With Jaho as helmsman, they followed the vinta of Berto, which had sailed ahead. Upon reaching a point about seven brazas distant from Berto’s vinta, he, Jubail, ignited the bombs one by one and threw them successively at Berto’s vinta, causing its destruction and the disappearance of the four passengers. Then they sailed back and kept silent as to what they had done.
Jaho also made a written confession, stating that he was invited by Jubail to go fishing with dynamite. He acted as helmsman and upon instruction of Jubail, they followed the vinta of Berto. When they came near it, to his surprise, he saw that Jubail was throwing bombs or hand grenades at said vinta. He told Jubail that had he known that that was the purpose, he would not have accompanied him. Before going with Jubail, he believed that they were going to fish and had no idea at all that Jubail intended to commit a serious crime.
At the trial of the case, Ansang, Jubail, and Jaho did not assail the validity of their respective confessions, confining themselves to a general denial of the crime charged. They did not say that they were forced, tortured or given a promise to induce them to make and sign their confessions.
Appellant’s counsel contend that a conviction cannot be based on an extrajudicial confession without proof of the corpus delicti, independent of the confession. That is true, but, in the present case, the corpus delicti is shown by the following facts established by evidence independent of the confessions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Jubail was the foster son of Ansang, who had a grudge against Berto. Jubail and Jaho were seen by Samad and Wahina sailing from the shore of Sangbay, Jubail carrying three hand grenades. When asked where they were going, Jubail answered that they were going to fish. Berto and his companions have never returned from the trip and have never been seen or heard of by anybody. When Jubail and Jaho returned, they no longer had hand grenades nor did they bring any fish. The pieces of the wreckage of Berto’s vinta were seen on the shore of the Island of Pilas. Berto and his companions must have met a violent death due to the commission of a crime.
In the case of U. S. v. Valdez, (41 Phil., 497, 498) this Court said: "The work of raising the anchor seems to have proceeded too slowly to satisfy the accused, and he accordingly began to abuse the men with offensive epithets. Upon this Venancio Gargantel remonstrated, saying that it would be better, and they would work better, if he would not insult them. The accused took this remonstrance as a display of insubordination; and rising in rage he moved towards Venancio, with a big knife in hand, threatening to stab him. At the instant when the accused had attained to within a few feet of Venancio, the latter, evidently believing himself in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water and disappeared beneath its surface to be seen no more."cralaw virtua1aw library
In that case, the accused did not stab the deceased, but only threatened him with a knife. The deceased jumped into the river and was seen no more. The conclusion was that he died. This is the corpus delicti. The evidence of the corpus delicti in that case is very similar to that in the present.
In the case of People v. Marquez, * (43 Off. Gaz., 1652, 1653) this Court held: "Derecho Penal y Procedimiento Criminal; Robo y Hurto; Prueba; Confesion Extrajudicial; Corroboracion por ’Corpus Delicti’; Significacion del Articulo 96, Regla 123, del Reglamento de los Tribunales. — Invocando el articulo 96, Regla 123, del Reglamento de los Tribunales, se arguye que no se ha producido en el juicio el dinero robado, y que cuando los policias registraron el cuerpo del apelante no le hallaron ning
Sometime in October, 1949, Ansang complained to the Chief of Police of Maluso that Moro Berto was taking away the coconuts from his (Ansang’s) plantation. The chief of police told him to complain to the provincial fiscal. Ansang was unable to see said officer. Berto continued picking up the coconut fruits, claiming that he was the owner of the plantation.
On October 7, 1949, Jubail, the foster son of Ansang, went to the seashore of Sangbay, Basilan City, Zamboanga, and there saw Moros Berto, Abdani, Eka, and Kasim, loading seven sacks of copra gathered from the plantation Jubail asked Berto what was he going to do with the copra. The latter answered that he would take it to the town of Isabela that same day. Berto and his three companions sailed for said place.
A few days afterwards, Moro Abdul Samad saw Jubail with Jaho, boarding another vinta, Jubail carrying with him three home made bombs or hand grenades. When Moro Wahina asked what those objects were, Jubail answered that they were home made bombs which they were going to use for fishing. Afterward Jubail and Jaho sailed away. When they returned to Sangbay, Samad and Wahina noticed that they no longer had bombs, and that they did not bring any fish. From that time, Berto, Abdani, Eka, and Kasim have not been seen or heard from by anybody.
Abdul Samad saw pieces of Berto’s vinta on the seashore of the Island of Pilas.
When the authorities were apprised of the disappearance of Berto and his three companions, and the discovery of the wreckage of Berto’s vinta, they began to make an investigation, and arrested Ansang, Jubail, and Jaho.
Ansang made a confession (marked Exhibit "B") in which he said that in view of the fact that Berto and his companions had taken away copra from his plantation, he ordered his foster son Jubail to follow them and kill them.
Jubail also made a written confession, saying that upon order of his foster father, he gathered three home made bombs and invited Jaho to sail with him, telling the latter that they were going to fish. With Jaho as helmsman, they followed the vinta of Berto, which had sailed ahead. Upon reaching a point about seven brazas distant from Berto’s vinta, he, Jubail, ignited the bombs one by one and threw them successively at Berto’s vinta, causing its destruction and the disappearance of the four passengers. Then they sailed back and kept silent as to what they had done.
Jaho also made a written confession, stating that he was invited by Jubail to go fishing with dynamite. He acted as helmsman and upon instruction of Jubail, they followed the vinta of Berto. When they came near it, to his surprise, he saw that Jubail was throwing bombs or hand grenades at said vinta. He told Jubail that had he known that that was the purpose, he would not have accompanied him. Before going with Jubail, he believed that they were going to fish and had no idea at all that Jubail intended to commit a serious crime.
At the trial of the case, Ansang, Jubail, and Jaho did not assail the validity of their respective confessions, confining themselves to a general denial of the crime charged. They did not say that they were forced, tortured or given a promise to induce them to make and sign their confessions.
Appellant’s counsel contend that a conviction cannot be based on an extrajudicial confession without proof of the corpus delicti, independent of the confession. That is true, but, in the present case, the corpus delicti is shown by the following facts established by evidence independent of the confessions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Jubail was the foster son of Ansang, who had a grudge against Berto. Jubail and Jaho were seen by Samad and Wahina sailing from the shore of Sangbay, Jubail carrying three hand grenades. When asked where they were going, Jubail answered that they were going to fish. Berto and his companions have never returned from the trip and have never been seen or heard of by anybody. When Jubail and Jaho returned, they no longer had hand grenades nor did they bring any fish. The pieces of the wreckage of Berto’s vinta were seen on the shore of the Island of Pilas. Berto and his companions must have met a violent death due to the commission of a crime.
In the case of U. S. v. Valdez, (41 Phil., 497, 498) this Court said: "The work of raising the anchor seems to have proceeded too slowly to satisfy the accused, and he accordingly began to abuse the men with offensive epithets. Upon this Venancio Gargantel remonstrated, saying that it would be better, and they would work better, if he would not insult them. The accused took this remonstrance as a display of insubordination; and rising in rage he moved towards Venancio, with a big knife in hand, threatening to stab him. At the instant when the accused had attained to within a few feet of Venancio, the latter, evidently believing himself in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water and disappeared beneath its surface to be seen no more."cralaw virtua1aw library
In that case, the accused did not stab the deceased, but only threatened him with a knife. The deceased jumped into the river and was seen no more. The conclusion was that he died. This is the corpus delicti. The evidence of the corpus delicti in that case is very similar to that in the present.
In the case of People v. Marquez, * (43 Off. Gaz., 1652, 1653) this Court held: "Derecho Penal y Procedimiento Criminal; Robo y Hurto; Prueba; Confesion Extrajudicial; Corroboracion por ’Corpus Delicti’; Significacion del Articulo 96, Regla 123, del Reglamento de los Tribunales. — Invocando el articulo 96, Regla 123, del Reglamento de los Tribunales, se arguye que no se ha producido en el juicio el dinero robado, y que cuando los policias registraron el cuerpo del apelante no le hallaron ning
