Case Digest (G.R. No. L-568)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Juan Francisco, G.R. No. L-568, July 16, 1947, Supreme Court En Banc, Hilado, J., writing for the Court. The accused, Juan Francisco (defendant and appellant), was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Mindoro for the crime of parricide committed on March 4, 1945, and appealed to this Court. The prosecution had sought the death penalty; the trial court imposed the lesser indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered indemnity and costs. On appeal the appellant asked for reversal and acquittal.On March 4, 1945, while detained on robbery charges in the Mansalay municipal jail, appellant was permitted by the chief of police, accompanied by Sergeant Pacifico Pimentel, to visit his home to arrange bail. During the visit appellant and his wife were alone in a room for a short time while Pimentel stayed at the foot of the stairs. The sergeant heard a scream, found the wife bleeding in the right breast, the child Romeo (about 1½ years old) lying wounded and dead, and appellant wounded in the belly. Appellant was later taken to the justice of the peace of Mansalay, where on March 5, 1945 he signed and swore an affidavit (Exhibit C; English translation Exhibit C‑1) stating that, in a fit of disturbed mind induced by threats from a relative and shame over alleged dishonor, he grabbed a pair of scissors, stabbed his wife, then his child, and then stabbed himself.
At trial the prosecution relied chiefly on (1) Exhibit C (the signed affidavit/confession), (2) Exhibit D (the justice of the peace arraignment record showing a guilty plea), and (3) rebuttal testimony of appellant’s wife, Emilia Taladtad. Sergeant Pimentel corroborated elements of the confession and testified that appellant told him he intended to kill his family because of shame. The justice of the peace and Pimentel both testified that Exhibit C was signed voluntarily and without coercion; appellant later repudiated it at his trial, alleging threats and torture.
The defense attacked the voluntariness of Exhibit C and objected to the admissibility of Exhibit D and of the wife’s testimony under section 26(d) of Rule 123 (spousal incompetency). The trial court admitted the wife’s rebuttal testimony after appellant had, while testifying in his own defense, asserted that his wife had inflicted the fatal wound on their child. The trial court found appellant guilty, applied reclusion perpetua (as the lesser penalty in view of mitigating circumstances), ordered indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs, and ta...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the rebuttal testimony of appellant’s wife admissible against him despite the marital incompetency rule in Rule 123, sec. 26(d)?
- Was Exhibit C (the extrajudicial affidavit-confession) voluntary and admissible in evidence?
- Did the factual record establish a mitigating circumstance under paragraph 9, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code (diminution of will-power without loss of consciousness), and what penalty should be imposed for parricide (Art. 246) in that event?
- Was the evidence sufficient to sustain ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)