Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16937)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Aurelia Mabborang, G.R. No. L-16937, September 30, 1963, Supreme Court En Banc, Makalintal, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution, The People of the Philippines (plaintiff and appellee), charged Aurelia Mabborang, alias Elieng (defendant and appellant) with double murder and frustrated murder arising from an alleged arsenic poisoning on October 23, 1956. The case was tried before the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, which found appellant guilty and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties, ordered indemnities of P6,000 to the heirs of each deceased (Honorata Badajos and her daughter Erlinda Baturi), and imposed costs.
The factual background: Mrs. Aniceta Caronan owned and managed a sari-sari store, panciteria and a rice mill in Tuguegarao, and several persons resided or worked in the premises: appellant (a laundress and child minder), Cristina de la Cruz (cook), Valeriana Baturi (salesgirl and sister-in-law of deceased Honorata), Mariano Baturi (rice-mill machinist and Honorata’s husband), Gregorio Baquiran (mill helper), and Honorata with her daughter Erlinda, who used the Caronan kitchen. On October 23, 1956, at about 11:00 a.m., witnesses testified that after preparing rice and pinakbet they ate at the store and soon vomited; Erlinda died about 5:00 p.m., Honorata about 9:00 p.m., and post-mortem and chemical examination of portions of their intestines showed arsenic poisoning.
At trial the prosecution’s case depended mainly on two eyewitnesses, Rosa Bacud and Valeriana Baturi, who said they either saw appellant lift the lid of the pot in which the pinakbet was cooking and place something inside or later observed a whitish substance on the food. Rosa initially did not disclose this in a Constabulary investigation conducted three days after the incident and mentioned it later in an affidavit; she also thought the substance was salt but still added the bagoong. Valeriana’s testimony contained inconsistent statements about where she was when she saw the act (bathroom, dining room, sala) and was contradicted in parts by Aniceta Caronan and Arturo Caronan, who testified that neither appellant nor Valeriana admitted seeing anything on the occasion when vomiting victims were discovered.
Appellant denied the charge, testified she remained at the bathroom near the rice-mill washing clothes all morning until called after the poisoning, and there was no clear proof of motive. The defense pointed to (1) the delay and inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ accounts, (2) the absence of chemical analysis of the leftover pinakbet itself (only intestines were analyzed), and (3) the NBI chemist’s concession that arsenic could have been present on the vegetables’ surfaces or administered in other ways.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Solicit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction of Aurelia Mabborang supported beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence presented?
- Did the prosecution satisfactorily prove that the pinakbet was the agency (vehicle) by which arsenic was administered t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)