Title
People vs. Mate y Abad
Case
G.R. No. L-34754
Decision Date
Mar 27, 1981
Silvestre Mate kidnapped Susan Butler for ransom, murdered a maid, and shot Caroline Butler in 1971. His voluntary confession and evidence led to a death penalty upheld by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-34754)

Filing, Arraignment, and Immediate Conviction

On November 16, 1971, the information was filed. The case was set for arraignment on November 20, 1971. On that date, counsel de officio entered appearance, informed the accused of the nature of the charges and the probable penalty, and the accused declared readiness for arraignment. The trial court read and interpreted the information to the accused. The accused then entered a plea of guilty.

During the court’s examination, the accused affirmed that he understood the consequences of his plea, including the possibility of the death penalty. After confirming that he had reflected upon the consequences from the time of arrest and that, notwithstanding such risk, he remained ready to receive whatever penalty the law would impose, the trial court promulgated a decision immediately convicting him based on his plea of guilty.

Alleged Criminal Acts in the Information

The information alleged that the accused, with evident premeditation, conspired and confederated with his co-accused, and entered the Butler premises for the purpose of kidnapping Susan and Lynn Butler to extort ransom. It alleged that inside the Butler guesthouse, the accused surprised Martina Caldoza, a Butler maid, and with intent to kill, treachery, and use of superior strength, attacked her with a shotgun and stabbed her with a screw driver, causing her mortal injuries.

It further alleged that upon the approach of Mrs. Caroline Butler, the accused shot her, inflicting gunshot wounds in vital parts. The information described the killing of Martina as having been commenced through acts of execution which would have produced murder but did not, on account of timely and able medical attendance. It added that after these assaults, the accused held and threatened to kill Mrs. Butler for the purpose of extorting ransom, demanded P25,000.00, received P15,000.00, and carried away the kidnapping victim, Suzie Butler, to Botolan, Zambales.

Prosecution Evidence After the Guilty Plea

Although the trial court committed an irregularity in rendering judgment immediately after the plea, it thereafter conducted hearings for the reception of the prosecution’s evidence. The prosecution presented several witnesses, including police and military investigators and officers, a security chief at Forbes Park, and Dr. Orlando V. Salvador, who conducted the autopsy and prepared the necropsy findings, together with documentary evidence.

The evidence showed that at about 11:00 p.m. of October 31, 1971, the accused and Albino (Ben) Bohol gained entrance into the yard of Mr. Charles Butler at No. 15 Ipil Road, Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal. They stayed in the guesthouse within the yard until the morning of November 1, 1971. Around 7:30 a.m., Mate saw a man and a woman approach the guesthouse but they did not enter. About thirty minutes later, a woman entered the guesthouse. Mate and Bohol watched her as she moved. The evidence then narrated that Mate and Bohol approached Martina Caldoza, who was the woman and became surprised and afraid, shouting for assistance. Mate held Martina to stop her from shouting. Bohol then hit Martina on the head with the handle of a shotgun. When Martina became unconscious and fell, Bohol stabbed her twice at the back with a screwdriver. Mate and Bohol brought Martina to the bathroom of the guesthouse, where Bohol repeatedly stabbed her until she died.

The prosecution evidence further stated that after about five minutes, Mrs. Butler approached the guesthouse as if looking for something. Mate pointed the shotgun at her and told her not to shout. Mrs. Butler shouted and tried to run for help, but Mate shot her at the back. Mate then entered the Butler house and ordered a woman he met to accompany him to the bedroom. Inside the bedroom, Mate saw Suzie Butler, who accompanied him into one of the rooms.

When police authorities arrived and surrounded the place, Mate held Suzie as a hostage inside a locked room. An uncle of Suzie tried to negotiate for release. Mate agreed to talk with a newspaperman, Ruther Batuigas, and food was allowed inside the room. Mate ultimately negotiated for the ransom amount and accepted P15,000.00, provided that Mate would be brought by helicopter to his desired place for escape. The police officers agreed. At about 3:00 p.m. on November 1, 1971, Mate, Suzie, her uncle, and Batuigas boarded the helicopter to Botolan, Zambales, landing at about 5:30 p.m. The evidence stated that the P15,000.00 was given to Mate by Suzie’s uncle and that Suzie was released. Mate remained as the others left.

Medical Findings and Cause of Death

Dr. Orlando V. Salvador conducted the autopsy on Martina Caldoza y Cagadoc. The necropsy report described ligature marks around the ankles, multiple abrasions and contusions, a lacerated wound with a skull fracture, and a series of stab wounds to the chest and back, including injuries that penetrated the thoracic cavity and perforated lung tissue and involved the heart. The findings also included hemothorax and meningeal hemorrhage. The report gave the cause of death as stab wounds of chest and back, with a fractured skull and meningeal hemorrhage, described as traumatic and contributory.

For Caroline Butler, the evidence stated that she was shot with a shotgun and suffered gunshot wounds in vital parts that would have caused death had it not been for timely and able medical attendance.

Arrest, Recovery of Evidence, and Extrajudicial Confessions

After the helicopter escape, Mate went to the house of Mr. Juan Dizon at Pulong Bato, Botolan, and stayed there until about 3:00 a.m. of November 2, 1971, when Dizon woke him. Mate was then brought to Sitio Paitan because he would be arrested by the BSDV. He was arrested by the PC. Capt. Roman P. Madella led the apprehending group, and the authorities recovered money amounting to P13,553.00 from Mate, as well as a shotgun.

The prosecution evidence also relied heavily on Mate’s voluntary extra-judicial statements contained in exhibits identified in the record as Exhibits “A,” “B,” and “J.” Investigators and a patrolman testified that Mate voluntarily narrated the facts. Exhibit “B” included Mate’s revelation of the brown suitcase he brought to the Butler residence containing things needed to commit the crime and an asserted well-prepared plan to kidnap the Butlers’ children for ransom. Police Investigator Manolo Dizon corroborated that a brown suitcase with contents was recovered at the scene of the crime. Exhibit “J” was described as containing a detailed narration of how the crime was planned and committed and as being substantially harmonious with Exhibits “A” and “B.”

Further, the decision noted that long after conviction, on May 7, 1973, Mate testified for the prosecution against co-accused Albino Bohol, and he affirmed the narrations in the cited exhibits and elaborated on them.

Issues Raised by the Defense

The defense argued that the trial court committed serious error by rendering judgment of conviction immediately after Mate pleaded guilty and before the prosecution received evidence. The defense also complained that the prosecutor, Cornelio Melendres, allegedly failed to make a formal offer of his exhibits, though they were marked and identified.

Ruling on the Conviction Despite the Procedural Irregularity

The Court acknowledged that the trial court had indeed committed an irregularity in pronouncing judgment in open court immediately after the plea of guilty and before requiring the prosecution to present evidence. However, the Court held that the irregularity did not justify setting aside the conviction, because the judgment was supported by the accused’s judicial and extra-judicial confessions and by other evidence.

The Court relied on its prior doctrine in People v. Dumdum (L-35279, July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 198), where it likewise recognized an irregularity in the timing of judgment after a guilty plea but sustained the conviction when supported by confessions and other evidence.

Assessment of the Confessions and Evidentiary Objections

On the alleged failure to formally offer exhibits, the Court treated the omission as trivial because the evidence was recorded and the witnesses identified the exhibits during testimony. It reasoned that even without the exhibits formally offered, the prosecution had established the case through witness identification and recorded testimony.

The Court also upheld the admissibility of Exhibits “A,” “B,” and “J” against Mate, finding that it appeared with clarity that Mate had voluntarily and spontaneously given those narrations without compulsion. The Court discounted claims that the accused’s elaborate narration implied mental abnormality. It stated that the n

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.