G.R. No. 97437-39 - People vs. Molas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 97437-39)

Factual Background

On the evening of February 2, 1983, three members of the Resonable family were fatally wounded at their home in Sitio Inas, Barangay Dobdob, Valencia, Negros Oriental. The victims were Soledad Resonable, her daughter Dulcesima Resonable, and Dulcesima’s eight-year-old brother, Abelardo Resonable. Dulcesima and the accused, Josue Molas, were engaged to be married and had two sons. Bernardo Resonable discovered Abelardo bleeding at the doorway and brought him inside; Abelardo, while dying, identified the assailant as the appellant. Bernardo found Dulcesima’s lifeless body near a dried carabao mud pool and Soledad’s body near the house. Abelardo was taken to the provincial hospital and died the following day.

Surrender, Statements and Physical Evidence

At dawn on February 3, 1983, Josue Molas, with blood-stained clothes, surrendered to Patrolman Geronimo Vallega at the municipal hall of Pamplona and handed over the hunting knife he said he used in the killings. He was first detained in the Pamplona jail and then transferred to the Valencia Police Station. After being informed of his constitutional rights, he initially refused to speak. On March 10, 1983, however, Patrolman Paquito Fetalvero took a sworn statement which the appellant signed; that statement admitted stabbing and hacking the three victims. The appellant also signed a translated affidavit before a municipal judge. Police witnesses testified to his admissions.

The Charges and Trial Proceedings

Three separate Informations dated June 3, 1983 charged Josue Molas with murder in Criminal Cases Nos. 5811, 5812 and 5813, respectively, corresponding to the deaths of Dulcesima, Abelardo and Soledad. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the cases were jointly tried because they arose on the same occasion and involved the same accused and common evidence. The prosecution presented witnesses including the victims’ father and police officers. The appellant testified as the sole defense witness.

Appellant’s Trial Testimony and Defense Theory

At trial the appellant repudiated his earlier sworn statement and related a different account. He claimed to have discovered the victims wounded, to have attempted to summon help, and to have been chased by three unidentified persons whose presence he said caused him to flee. He admitted signing the March 10 affidavit but denied knowledge of its contents, asserting language and translation issues. He alleged, without medical corroboration, that he had been manhandled while detained.

Trial Court Findings

The Regional Trial Court found the appellant’s trial testimony unworthy of belief because it contained material inconsistencies and implausibilities. The trial court credited the dying declaration of Abelardo and the police testimony recounting the appellant’s admissions. On August 10, 1990, the court convicted Josue Molas of three counts of murder and imposed three penalties of reclusion perpetua, and ordered payment of P30,000 as death indemnity to the heirs of each victim.

Issues on Appeal

On appeal the appellant raised three principal arguments: (1) that his extra-judicial confession was inadmissible because it was given without the assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Constitution; (2) that the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to Abelardo’s dying declaration; and (3) that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Analysis on Dying Declaration and Extrajudicial Confession

The Supreme Court examined admissibility of Abelardo’s statement under Sec. 31, Rule 130, Rules of Court and the authorities cited by the trial court. The Court reiterated that a dying declaration is admissible when it concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of death, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death at the time, the declarant was competent, and the declaration is offered in a criminal case in which the declarant is the victim. The Court found that these requisites were present when Abelardo, grievously wounded and later deceased, identified the appellant as the assailant. As to the appellant’s extrajudicial confession, the Court acknowledged that the statement taken without counsel’s assistance was inadmissible as a confession in evidence. The Court, however, observed that an extrajudicial confession may be treated as a verbal admission and proved through the testimony of persons who heard the declaration or who conducted the investigation, citing People vs. Carido, People vs. Feliciano, and People vs. Fontanosa. The Court accepted the police testimony that recited the appellant’s admissions.

Corroboration, Motive and Sufficiency of Evidence

The Court emphasized that the conviction did not rest solely on the repudiated written statement. It found an unbroken chain of corroborative evidence: the appellant’s voluntary surrender with blood-stained clothes and the alleged murder weapon shortly after the killings; Abelardo’s dying declaration identifying the appellant; and police testimony recounting admissions. The Court noted that rage arising from seeing Soledad assault Dulcesima provided a plausible motive and that absence of motive bears decisive weight only when the perpetrator’s identity is not established, citing People vs. Ballinas. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the corpus of evidence proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Aggravating Circumstance and Penalty

The trial court did not find treachery as a qualifying cir

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 97437-39)

Parties and Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted three separate criminal informations against Josue Molas for the murders of three members of the Resonable family.
The three informations were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 5811, 5812 and 5813 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dumaguete City.
The accused entered a plea of "not guilty" to all charges and the three cases were tried jointly because they arose on the same occasion and involved substantially the same evidence.
The trial court convicted Josue Molas of three counts of murder and imposed three penalties of reclusion perpetua and ordered P30,000.00 death indemnity per case.
The accused appealed to the Court's First Division, which issued the decision now under review.

Key Facts

On or about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of February 2, 1983, three members of the Resonable family were found mortally wounded at Sitio Inas, Dobdob, Valencia, Negros Oriental.
The victims were Dulcesima Resonable, her mother Soledad Resonable, and Abelardo Resonable, an eight-year-old boy who later died.
The Informations detailed multiple stab and incised wounds on each victim, including deep neck and chest wounds on Dulcesima and Soledad and penetrating abdominal and spinal injuries on Abelardo.
Shortly after the killings, Josue Molas surrendered at the Pamplona municipal hall in blood-stained clothes and turned over a hunting knife he said he had used.
Abelardo made an extrajudicial statement to his father, while mortally wounded, identifying Josue Molas as the assailant and died shortly thereafter.
On March 10, 1983, Josue Molas executed a sworn extrajudicial statement at the Valencia Police Station which was translated and signed before Judge Celso P. Tayrosa.
At trial, Josue Molas testified as the sole defense witness and gave an account markedly different from his earlier extrajudicial statement, claiming the presence of three unidentified assailants and denying knowledge of the contents of his signed affidavit.

Procedural History

The three criminal informations were filed on June 3, 1983 and were tried jointly by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dumaguete City.
The trial court rendered judgment on August 10, 1990 convicting Josue Molas of three counts of murder and imposing three penalties of reclusion perpetua plus P30,000.00 death indemnity in each case.
Josue Molas appealed from the judgment raising evidentiary and sufficiency-of-evidence grounds.
The First Division reviewed the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification of the death indemnity awards.

Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in admitting and relying on the accused's extrajudicial confession allegedly made without the assistance of counsel.
Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the dying declaration of Abelardo Resonable.
Whether the prosecution established the guilt of Josue Molas beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution offered