G.R. No. L-38325 - People vs. Gajetas

The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, prosecuted the case in the Court of First Instance of Romblon.
Antonio Gajetas, accused-appellant, was convicted of the special complex crime of attempted rape with homicide.
Francisco Gajetas, co-accused, was charged jointly but acquitted by the trial court for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision under review is an automatic review of a death sentence imposed by the trial court; the Supreme Court rendered an en banc decision.

On the evening of January 6, 1972, between 8:00 and 12:00 o'clock, Panchita Fosana Ramilo was killed inside her house in Sitio Canlumay, Barrio Tumingad, Odiongan, Romblon.
At the time of the killing, only the deceased's two small daughters (the eldest aged about four, the youngest about one year and three months) were present; the husband Gerundio Ramilo was absent, having left for Batangas on December 9, 1971.
The body was discovered at around 6:00 a.m. on January 7, 1972, by Miguel Ramilo, who heard the older child, Necy Ramilo, say the mother was dead and then found Panchita sprawled on her belly in the bedroom.

Policeman Manuel Fabroa, with policemen Freddie Fojas and Miguel Ramilo, inspected the scene, made a rough sketch (basis of Exhibit B), and found strands of hair (Exhibit C).
Necy told investigators that two persons went to the house the preceding night and one had a skin disease called "garit," but she did not name names.
Dr. Julian Ornum conducted a post-mortem on January 7, 1972, and issued the death certificate (Exhibit A) stating death from hemorrhage due to lacerated wounds on the right side of the neck.
The post-mortem listed multiple lacerated wounds including a fatal wound cutting cervical vertebrae, muscles and great vessels of the right side of the neck; Dr. Ornum testified a bolo or scythe could have caused the injuries.

On January 11, 1972, a complaint for "Attempted Rape with Double Murder" was filed against Antonio and Francisco in the Municipal Court of Odiongan.
After the first-stage preliminary investigation, both accused were arrested.
During the second-stage preliminary investigation the accused entered pleas recorded in Exhibit X. Francisco pleaded not guilty. Antonio's recorded plea admitted killing Panchita but denied conspiracy, treachery, and premeditation and declined to plead guilty to Double Murder and qualifying circumstances; both waived the second-stage preliminary investigation and requested remand to the Court of First Instance for trial.
The information later filed in the Court of First Instance accused them of conspiring to effect attempted rape with homicide, alleging use of force and a scythe, and that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party (aggravating circumstance).

The prosecution presented Necy Ramilo, the then 3- to 4-year-old daughter, as the only eyewitness; the trial court discounted her testimony because she was unsworn and of tender years and allegedly made contradictions.
The prosecution offered the extra-judicial confession of Antonio consisting of two pages (Exhibits D and D-1) and a statement admitted as Exhibit X containing admissions including intent to have carnal knowledge, the sequence of events, and participation of Francisco.
The confession described appellant and his brother entering the victim's house, appellant embracing and kissing the victim after she refused sex, a struggle over a bolo, and appellant scything the victim on the right neck; Francisco allegedly stabbed the victim on the left arm.
Physical items shown to appellant in his statement included a scythe with bloodstains and khaki pants with bloodstains, which he identified as belonging to him and the same used in the killing...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the extra-judicial confession of Antonio Gajetas was voluntary and admissible.
Whether the prosecution proved corpus delicti and corroborated the confession sufficiently to sustain conviction.
Whether the acts admitted by appellant (embracing and kissing) constituted overt acts commencing the perpetration of rape, thus supporting attempted rape with homicide conviction.
Whether the defense of alibi was credible and physically impossible for the appellant to have committed the crime.
Whether the trial court erred in discounting...(Subscriber-Only)