You are on page 1of 2

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

JUAN FRANCISCO Facts: On March 4, 1945, Juan Francisco, who had been previously arrested on charges of robbery, was being held as detention prisoner in the municipal ail of Mansalay, Mindoro! On that date he re"uested permission from the chief of police, and he was allowed to go with #ergeant $acifico $imentel, who was detailed to guard him! %pon their reaching the house, the sergeant allowed the prisoner to see his wife who was at the time in a room of said house, while said sergeant remained at the foot of the stairs! &fter a few moments, $imentel heard the scream of a woman! 'unning upstairs, he met defendant(s wife running out of the room and holding her right breast which was bleeding! #till moments later, $imentel saw defendant lying down with his little son 'omeo, aged one year and a half, on his breast! $imentel also found defendant to have a wound in his belly while his child had a wound in the bac)! $imentel found the child dead! *he defendant signed and sworn an affidavit, +,hibit -, confessing that he stabbed his wife, his child and himself! .ssue/ 0ether or not defendant should be convicted for the crime of parride! Held: Yes. *his case, as developed by the evidence for the prosecution, which has not been destroyed nor enervated by that of the defense, presents a truly strange happening! 1ut the fact of the commission of the crime of parricide appears to us to have been established beyond reasonable doubt! &s to the reasons impelling the commission of the act, the case is a strange one and admittedly not common! 1ut while it is not necessary even to prove motive in case the commission of the crime is established as re"uired by law, here we have a case of a crime proven beyond reasonable doubt, not absolutely without a proven motive, but with proof of a motive testified to by the accused himself in his confession, strange though it be! 1ut at times 2truth is stranger than fiction,2 and it so happens here! *he law must be applied to the facts! &s to +,hibit -, this document was sworn to and subscribed by said accused before the ustice of the peace of Mansalay! *his official testified that he as)ed the prisoner before the latter signed said e,hibit whether he understood the contents thereof, and that said latter answered in the affirmative! *he witness further declared that appellant signed the e,hibit voluntarily and that said appellant said that the said affidavit was his 3p! 14, ibid.5! *here is a total absence of evidence, besides the testimony of appellant himself, to show that his statements contained in said e,hibit were e,tracted form him by the use of violence and intimidation! 0hile we are not unaware of the practice resorted to by some peace officers of e,tracting admissions or confessions from persons accused of crime by the employment of third6degree methods, in the present case we fail to find from the evidence sufficient proof to destroy the categorical testimony of the ustice of the peace that +,hibit - was signed by appellant voluntarily and with a full understanding thereof! Furthermore, the statements of appellant in said +,hibit - were corroborated by the testimony of his wife on rebuttal! *his leads us to the consideration of the admissibility of the wife(s testimony! &t any rate, in the instant case the wife did not testify in the direct evidence for the prosecution but under circumstances presently to be stated! .t will be noted that the wife only testified against her husband after the latter, testifying in his own defense, imputed upon her the )illing of their son! 3p! 15, ibid.5 1y all rules of ustice and reason this gave the prosecution, which had theretofore refrained from presenting the wife as a witness against her husband, the right to do so, as it did in rebuttal7 and the the wife herself the right to so testify, at least, in self6defense, not of course, against being sub ected to punishment in that case in which she was not a defendant but against any or all of various possible conse"uences which might flow from her silence, namely/ 315 a criminal prosecution against her which might be instituted by the corresponding authorities upon the basis of her husband(s aforesaid testimony7 385 in the moral and social sense, her being believed by those who heard the testimony orally given, as well as by those who may read the same, once put in writing, to be the )iller of her infant

child! .t has been aptly said that the law of evidence is the law of common sense! $resuming the husband who so testified against his wife to be endowed with common sense, he must be ta)en to have e,pected that the most natural reaction which the said testimony would give rise to on the part of the prosecution, as well as of his wife, was to deny upon rebuttal the new matter which was involved in the same testimony, namely, the imputation that it was his wife who )illed their little son! %pon the part of the prosecution, because he not only limited himself to denying that he was the )iller, but went further and added what was really a new matter consisting in the imputation of the crime upon his wife! &nd upon the part of the wife, because of the reasons already set forth above! 9ence, in giving such testimony, the husband must, in all fairness, be held to have intended all its aforesaid natural and necessary conse"uences! 1y his said act, the husband : himself e,ercising the very right which he would deny to his wife upon the ground of their marital relations : must be ta)en to have waived all ob ection to the latter(s testimony upon rebuttal, even considering that such ob ection would have been available at the outset! &rticle 84; of the 'evised $enal -ode punishes parricide by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death! &rticle ;<, paragraph <, of the same code, provides that when the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, and the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied7 in this case, in view of the above indicated circumstance and there being no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty is reclusion perpetua, which was the penalty correctly applied by the trial court, which penalty, of course, carries with it the accessory penalties provided for in article 41 of the said -ode! *he accused should also be sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the deceased 'omeo Francisco in the sum of $8,444, and to pay the costs!

You might also like