G.R. No. 170096-97 - Santos vs. Cruz

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170096-97)

Procedural Posture

Accused pleaded guilty at arraignment. Under then‑applicable procedure the trial court nevertheless required presentation of evidence from both prosecution and defense to ascertain motive and surrounding circumstances (Rule 116). The trial court convicted the accused of parricide, imposed reclusion perpetua, ordered indemnity of P50,000 to heirs, and costs. The accused appealed, contesting both factual findings and the court’s refusal to recognize mitigating circumstances sufficient to reduce penalty.

Material Facts

Ruben and Lucia Takbobo married in 1969 and had nine children. On the night of March 25, 1991, at around 11:00 p.m., a quarrel awakened their youngest child, Madilyn, who testified she saw her father obtain a hunting knife and bolo from a cabinet and repeatedly hack and stab her mother—inflicting multiple fatal wounds. The victim was found dead the following morning. The accused went to the police and was investigated the next day.

Eyewitness and Corroborating Testimony

Madilyn (6 years old) gave a detailed account at the preliminary investigation describing the quarrel, the accused taking a hunting knife and a bolo, and the multiple areas where the victim was hacked and stabbed. Other children testified about prior instances of violence by the accused against family members. Patrolman Reynaldo Singco testified that during the custodial investigation the accused did not mention discovering his wife in flagrante with another man or that he had just returned from fishing.

Defendant’s Theory and Testimony

The accused consistently admitted killing his wife but maintained he did so after surprising her in a sexual act with neighbor Cadiz Catulong upon returning from fishing; he claimed his original intent was to kill the man, not his wife, and that the wife pushed the man which resulted in her being fatally wounded. He relied principally on his own testimony to invoke the special mitigating circumstance under Article 247 (discovery of sexual intercourse).

Physical Evidence

Photographs of the deceased (Exhibits A–D/14‑A to 14‑D) showed multiple stab wounds consistent with an intentional and violent attack. Two exhibits indicated the victim appeared to be wearing undergarments, contradicting the accused’s claim that she had no panties at the time he allegedly surprised her with another man.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

The trial court found the accused guilty of parricide, concluding the killing was deliberate and supported by eyewitness and physical evidence. The court imposed reclusion perpetua (the prescribed penalty for parricide under Article 246) and ordered indemnification to the heirs.

Issues on Appeal

Primary issues raised by the accused included: (1) whether the exceptional circumstance under Article 247 (discovery of a spouse in the act of sexual intercourse) or the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation applied; and (2) whether other mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender, voluntary plea of guilty) should reduce the penalty to reclusion temporal. The prosecution (Solicitor General) conceded some mitigating circumstances but disagreed on the applicable reduction given the indivisible nature of the penalty for parricide.

Supreme Court Analysis — Burden and Proof of Article 247 Exceptional Circumstance

The Court held that while the accused admitted the killing, he bore the burden to prove the factual predicate for the Article 247 exception (that he discovered his wife in sexual congress with another person, in flagrante or immediately thereafter). The Court emphasized that such a circumstance must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The accused’s uncorroborated testimony, inconsistent statements, and contradictions with physical evidence and other testimony (including failure to mention the alleged discovery during custody) rendered his claim unproven and unconvincing.

Supreme Court Analysis — Credibility and Weight of Child Witnesses

The Court accepted the testimonies of the accused’s children, including the six‑year‑old, noting that admissibility and reliability of child witnesses have been favorably regarded in prior jurisprudence. Those testimonies reinforced the prosecution’s account and undermined the accused’s alleged discovery defense.

Mitigating Circumstances Found and Rejected

The Court agreed with both parties that voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilty were present and properly mitigating, since the accused voluntarily surrendered to authorities and pleaded guilty in open court. However, the Court rejected mitigation for passion and obfuscation because the accused failed to prove the triggering unlawful act (discovery of sexual congress) and the requisite temporal proximity; what the accused alleged appeared as an afterthought to lessen liability rather than a fact established by evidence.

Application of Rules on Indivisible Penalties (Articles 63 and 64, Revised Penal Cod

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 170096-97)

Case Caption, Docket and Decision Date

G.R. No. 102984; Second Division; decision dated June 30, 1993.
Case caption in the record: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUBEN TAKBOBO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Lower court reference: Criminal Case No. CBU-21961, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 8, presided by Judge Bernardo LL. Salas.
Disposition at the Supreme Court: Judgment of the court a quo affirmed.

Nature of the Case and Charge

Criminal prosecution for the killing of the accused’s wife, charged in the information as parricide.
Specific allegation in the information: that on or about 11:00 P.M. on March 25, 1991, in Barangay Guiwanon, Ginatilan, Cebu, Ruben Takbobo hacked and stabbed his wife, Lucia Takbobo, with a knife and bolo, inflicting multiple fatal hack and stab wounds which resulted in instantaneous death.

Procedural Posture and Trial Court Disposition

Appellant entered a plea of guilty at arraignment.
Despite the plea, the trial court, pursuant to precedent and Sections 3 and 4, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, ordered both prosecution and defense to present evidence to determine motive and circumstances surrounding the killing.
On October 14, 1991, the trial court found appellant guilty as charged, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, ordered indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased, and assessed costs.
Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court judgment.

Relevant Factual Background — Family, Residence and Circumstances

Ruben and Lucia P. Takbobo were married in 1969 and had nine children, one of whom was already dead.
At the time of the incident the couple lived with their youngest daughter, 6-year-old Madilyn, and a nephew in Barangay Guiwanon, Ginatilan, Cebu.
The other children were staying with a certain David Manus; their daughter Marybel stated they "were afraid of their father."
The killing occurred at approximately 11:00 P.M. on March 25, 1991.

Child Witness Testimony (Madilyn) — Facts Observed

Six-year-old Madilyn awakened by noise caused by a quarrel between her parents and testified to witnessing the incident at the preliminary investigation.
Madilyn’s testimony (as taken at the preliminary investigation) records:
- Her companions while sleeping were "Dodong gamay, Mama Lucia and Papa Ruben."
- She woke because of noise; parents were quarreling about failure to pay "Danilo."
- Father fetched a hunting knife and a bolo from the cabinet; she saw him get the hunting knife from the cabinet.
- She testified her father hacked her mother at the feet, on the neck (pointing to her neck), on the hands, armpit, and breasts; one breast was sliced.
- On the following morning her mother was already dead and her father was no longer there.

Other Witness Testimony and Evidence of Domestic Violence

Irene Takbobo, a 16-year-old daughter, testified that on a prior occasion the father suddenly hacked them with a bolo, resulting in one daughter’s finger being cut and another’s third finger split, illustrating a propensity for violent acts against family members.
Marybel’s sworn statement indicated that several children stayed away from home because they were afraid of their father.

Police Investigation and Custodial Statements

Appellant went to police authorities shortly after the incident and was investigated on March 26, 1991, by Pfc. Alfredo Cavalina of the Office of the Station Commander, PNP, Ginatilan, Cebu.
Patrolman Reynaldo Singco was present about three meters away during the investigation; Singco testified he did not hear appellant state the reason for the killing and that appellant did not mention he had come from fishing that night.
Singco’s testimony, quoted in the record and relied upon by the trial court, records that during custodial investigation appellant did not mention surprisal of his wife with another man.

Defendant’s Version / Defense Claim

Appellant’s asserted defense: he arrived at about 3:00 A.M. from sea fishing, opened the door, and surprised his wife sleeping with another man — neighbor Cadiz Catulong.
Appellant claimed he tried to kill the man by stabbing him; the man allegedly jumped out of the window after the wife pushed him; appellant asserted his wife was hit by his thrust and he then discovered his wife had no panty.
Appellant stated he tried to look for the alleged man but failed to find him and later related the incident to the police though he was "very confused" and could not execute an affidavit.
In his briefs and testimony, appellant insisted his purpose was to kill the man and that his wife’s death was accidental in the attempt to attack the man.

Evidentiary Assessment — Corroboration, Consistency and Physical Evidence

The Supreme Court emphasized that appellant’s lone testimony, uncorroborated by independent evidence, was insufficient to prove the alleged dis