Title
People vs. Orifon
Case
G.R. No. 36173
Decision Date
Nov 25, 1932
Maria Orifon, abused by her father, killed him in self-defense. Convicted of parricide, her confession was upheld, but the court recommended clemency due to mitigating circumstances.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 36173)

Petitioner, Respondent and Procedural Posture

Petitioner: The People of the Philippine Islands (plaintiff and appellee). Respondent: Maria Orifon (defendant and appellant). Procedurally, the accused pleaded guilty at the preliminary investigation but pleaded not guilty at arraignment on the information filed in the Court of First Instance. She was convicted of murder and sentenced to cadena perpetua by the trial court. On appeal to the Supreme Court the conviction was affirmed but the sentence was modified.

Key Dates

Relevant dates appearing in the record: the defendant’s confession is dated 13 July 1931; the killing is described as occurring on 2 July 1931; the Supreme Court decision in the matter was rendered on 25 November 1932.

Facts of the Offense (as stated in the defendant’s written confession)

The accused’s written confession (in her own handwriting and in Ilocano) recounts repeated acts of sexual intercourse by her father without her consent over a period of time, beginning about a year earlier and continuing because she feared him. She states that the last such act occurred the Wednesday before the father’s death. On the night of Thursday, 2 July 1931, she left the house while the family slept, went to the place called Santisima where her father was, entered his cobacha, lit a match and saw him sleeping. She took his bolo (a large knife) from its sheath and inflicted two cuts on him — one to the left side of the neck and one to the left side of the abdomen. After the attack she took the bolo, hid it under a caiia plant north of the house, returned home and slept. She did not reveal the killing until she made the written statement to Teniente Chavez on 13 July 1931.

Confession: Language, Translation and Admissibility

The principal evidence against the accused was her written confession, prepared in Ilocano and appearing in the record as a Spanish translation. No objection to the confession’s admission was made by defense counsel at trial, and no question was raised on appeal regarding the confession’s voluntariness. On appeal the only objection asserted by counsel was a technical contention that the Court could not take notice of a confession written in dialect because the Spanish translation in the record was not identified or certified. The Supreme Court addressed this by noting that a member of the Court with personal knowledge of Ilocano assured the Court that the Spanish translation in the record was substantially correct; the Court accepted the translation under those circumstances and cited Dionisio v. Dionisio, 45 Phil. 609, 611, as authority.

Corroboration and Evidentiary Conclusion

The Supreme Court found that there was sufficient corroboratory evidence, independent of the confession, to warrant its admission and use against the defendant. Because no contemporaneous objection was interposed at trial to the confession’s admission and because independent corroboration existed, the Court treated the confession as admissible and as constituting principal evidence supporting the conviction.

Applicable Law and Sentencing Adjustment

The trial court had imposed the penalty of cadena perpetua. The Supreme Court noted that, under the Revised Penal Code (the statutory penal law in force), the penalty of cadena perpetua no longer exists; accordingly, the Court modified the sentence to reclusion perpetua and ordered the accessory penalties provided by law to attend that sentence. The Court further invoked article 5, second paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code in expressing its view that, gi

...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.