Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47147)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Senen Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, July 03, 1987, Supreme Court En Banc, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.The information charged Senen Ola as principal in Attempted Robbery with Homicide and Unintentional Abortion before the Court of First Instance of Marinduque; co-accused Jose Bustamante and Rustico Matimtim were charged as accomplices. The amended information alleged that on November 30, 1970 Ola entered the house of Lolita Muhi intending to rob her, and that, when she attempted to call for help, Ola stabbed her, causing her death and the abortion of her fetus.
At arraignment Ola pleaded not guilty; Bustamante and Matimtim initially pleaded guilty, but during the prosecution’s presentation Matimtim, through counsel, sought to withdraw his plea of guilt and entered a plea of not guilty; the trial court allowed the change “in the interest of justice.” Trial proceeded as to Ola and Matimtim, while the pleas of the two accomplices were ultimately the subject of separate dispositions. After trial the lower court convicted Ola as principal of Attempted Robbery with Homicide (treated as murder under Article 297, Revised Penal Code) complexed with Unintentional Abortion and imposed the death penalty; it sentenced Matimtim as accomplice to the indeterminate term (prision mayor to reclusion temporal) and Bustamante to a lesser term after finding mitigating circumstances. Bustamante’s and Matimtim’s sentences were not appealed and became final as to them.
Because death had been imposed, the complete record was transmitted to this Court for automatic review under Rule 122, Sec. 8 (and Article 47, RPC as amended). While the case was under review, Article III, Sec. 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution automatically reduced existing death sentences to reclusion perpetua; the Court noted that where death sentences had not yet been finally affirmed, the accused could only receive reclusion perpetua even if convictions were affirmed. On appeal Ola argued that (1) Bustamante’s testimony came from a “polluted” source and lacked detail; (2) Matimtim repudiated his extrajudic...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the uncorroborated testimony of the confessed accomplice Bustamante sufficiently credible and detailed to establish Ola’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Were the extrajudicial statements (confession) of co-accused Matimtim admissible against Ola and capable of corroborating Bustamante’s testimony?
- Did the circumstantial evidence (footprint, hole in kitchen wall, wounds on Ola, and the victim’s alleged dying gesture) satisfactorily corroborate Bustamante’s testimony as to Ola’s identity?
- In the face of reasonable doubt on identity, should Ola have been...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)