Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4263)
Facts:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, prosecuted ARMINGOL HANASAN Y NUNEZ ALIAS JOSE N. LITERAL, defendant-appellant, for the March 25–27, 1965 poisoning and death of Guillermo Literal in Manila after the appellant had procured a P10,000.00 life policy naming himself beneficiary on March 5, 1965. The appellant gave an extrajudicial confession to the NBI on December 8, 1965 admitting he poured an arsenic solution into the victim’s food; the trial court accepted his voluntary plea of guilty but still heard evidence on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, found murder by means of poison with evident premeditation and abuse of confidence, sentenced him to death, and awarded indemnity; the case was automatically reviewed under section 9 of Rule 122.Issues:
- Was the death of the victim caused by arsenic poisoning?
- Was the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender properly credited to the accused and did it offset the aggravating circumstances?
Ruling:
The Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4263)
Facts:
- Parties and case identity
- THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARMINGOL HANASAN Y NUNEZ ALIAS JOSE N. LITERAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
- The case was an automatic review of Criminal Case No. 80837 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VIII, elevated pursuant to section 9 of Rule 122, Rules of Court.
- Formation of relationship and household arrangement
- The defendant met Guillermo Literal sometime in the middle of 1964.
- Literal went to live with the defendant in January 1965 at 682 Manga Avenue, Sta. Mesa, Manila, and worked as a helper in the defendant's appliance buying-and-selling business.
- Deception and procurement of life insurance
- The defendant assumed the name Jose N. Literal and represented himself as the younger brother of Guillermo Literal.
- The defendant persuaded the illiterate Guillermo to insure himself for P10,000 with the Philippine American Life Insurance Company.
- The insurance application was accomplished and thumbmarked by Guillermo on March 5, 1965, and the policy was approved and issued that same day.
- Poisoning incident and immediate aftermath
- On March 25, 1965, the defendant admitted in his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit A) that he poured an arsenic solution on Guillermo's plate of rice and on the "paksiw na galungong" while Guillermo's back was turned after being asked to get water.
- Guillermo consumed about three-fourths of his rice and about six of the fish and drank part of the sauce.
- About an hour after lunch Guillermo began vomiting, complained of dizziness, and suffered loose bowels.
- The defendant threw away the remainder of the food, did not promptly seek medical treatment, gave hot water when asked, and later took Guillermo to the house of Dra. Ligaya C. Santos late afternoon of March 25, 1965, without disclosing the poisoning.
- Guillermo died at about 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. on March 27, 1965.
- Confession, exhumation, and toxicological evidence
- The defendant gave an extrajudicial confession to the NBI on December 8, 1965, detailing the poisoning and admitting he had added lye to make arsenic more soluble and the solution more potent; he identified the bottle containing arsenic.
- The NBI exhumed the remains and Toxicology Report No. T-65-826 (Exhibit B) by Dr. Lorenzo A. Sunico showed a spectrographic examination of the right pelvic bone positive for traces of arsenic.
- The defendant acknowledged the toxicology report and that the specimens were from the deceased.
- Charging, plea, and trial court disposition
- On December 10, 1965 the defendant was charged by information with murder, alleging intent to kill, treachery, evident premeditation, consideration of a prize, cruelty, grave abuse of confidence, employing craft or fraud, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Proof of cause of death
- Whether the lower court erred in finding that Guillermo Literal died from arsenic poisoning in view of the defendant's statements and the forensic evidence.
- Mitigating circumstance of *voluntary surrender* and offsetting of aggravating circumstances
- Whether the lower court erred in discounting *voluntary surrender* and in appreciating only the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of gui...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)