G.R. No. L-4847




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 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. 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 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 said 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 sea-shore 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 begun to make an investigation, and arrested Ansang, Jubail and Jaho. Ansang made a confession (marked Exhibit "B") in which he said that in the view of the fact that Berto and his companions had taken away copra from his plantation, he ordered 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 it's destruction and the dissapearance 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 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. Appellants 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: 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 granades. 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. vs. Valdez, (41 Hhil., 497, 498) this Court said: "The work of raising the anchor seems to have proceed slowly to satisfy the accused, and he accordingly begun to abuse the men with offensive epithets. Upon this Venancio Gargantel remonstrated, saying 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 dissappeared beneath its surface to be seen no more." In that case, the accused did not stab 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 its similar to that in the present. In the case of People vs. Marquez,^* (43 Off. Gaz., 1652, 1653) this Court held: Derecho Penal y Procedimiento Criminal; Robo y Hurto; Prueba; Confecion Extra-judicial; Corroboracion por "Corpuz Delicti"; Significacion del Articulo 96, Regla 123, del Reglamento de los Tribunales. Invocando al articulo 96, Regla 123, del Reglamento de los Tribunales, se arguye que no se ha producido en el juicio al dinero robado, y que cuando los policias registrar on el cuerpo del apelante no le hallar oningun dinero. De esto se quiere deducir que no existe prueba del corpus delicti excep to la confesion extrajudicial. En primer lugar, aqui hay una confusion de conceptos. El corpus delicti no es el cuerpo del delito, tal como este concepto se entiende vulgarmente, v. gr., la cosa robadao hurtada en los casos de robo y hurto. Solo secondariamente se emplea a veces la frase o concepto para denotaral sujeto del delito y su efecto visible, como el cadaver de la persona asesinada y las ruinas de una casa incendiad. Basicamente, esencialmente, "el termino corpus delicti, con referencia a un crimen particular, significa que un delito especifico se ha cometido actualmente poralguno y se compone de los elementos: primero que cierto resultado se ha producido; segundo, que alguien es criminalmente responsable". En segundo lugar, la regla de prueba citada "no significa que se debe demonstrar, mediante prueba aparte de la confesion, toods los elementos del delito, sino que meramente debera haber algunas pruebas, aparte dela confesion, que tiendan a demonstrar que seha cometido un delito." In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed with the modification that the indemnity should be raised to 6,000, with costs against the appellants. Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuazon, Reyes, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur. Footnotes ^* 77 Phil., 93. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation