People vs Bantagan, 54 Phil 841
G.R. No. L-33045, August 15, 1930
Criminal Case Digest:
Digested Cases
Facts: This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the Province of Camarines Sur, finding the appellants, Martin
Bantagan (alias Martes), Luis Bantagan, Marcos de la Cruz, and Francisco
Fermino, guilty of the offense of murder, committed upon the person of one
Raymundo de los Santos, and sentencing Martin Bantaga n, as principal to
undergo imprisonment for life (cadena perpetua), with the accessory penalties
prescribed in article 54 of the Penal Code, and sentencing Luis Bantangan,
Marcos de la Cruz, and Francisco Fermino, as accomplices, to undergo
imprisonment for twelve years and one day, cadena temporal, with the accessory
penalties prescribed in article 56 of the same Code. The accused were
furthermore ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of
P500, and to pay each his proportional part of the costs of prosecution.
Martin Bantagan confessed that he and his son, Luis Bantagan, conceived
the idea of killing Raymundo de los Santos, because the latter had, several
months previously, taken away Martin’s daughter, Angela Bantagan, in order to
make her his mistress (querida) only. Luis, who was carrying a stick,
approached to Raymundo hit him once in the neck. Martin Bantagan also had a
stick and, when he saw that Raymundo was not yet dead, he hit him also in the
back of the shoulder. When Raymundo was dead they immediately wrapped his body
in a mat. They found a purse in Raymundo's pocket, and Martin took ninety
centavos (P0.90), showing a cause of resentment.
Luis Bantagan differently confessed that Francisco Fermino inflict fatal
blow on the deceased and also took a roll of paper money from the deceased.
Luis Bantagan admitted that he assisted in taking the body of the deceased.
Issues: Whether or not the Martin Bantagan be held principal of the crime as
independent evidence, apart from his confession?
Rationale: The rule to the effect that an accused person cannot be convicted upon
his confession alone, without some independent proof of what is called the
"corpus delicti" does not mean that every element of the crime must
be clearly established by independent evidence, apart from the confession. It
means merely that, in a jurisdiction where the question of guilt is determined
by a jury, there should be some evidence tending to show the commission of a
crime apart from the confession. As suggested in Wigmore's treatise on
Evidence, the rule requiring independent proof of the corpus delicti was merely
intended to guard against convictions upon false confessions of guilt (Wigmore,
Evid., sec. 2070). The utility of the confession as a species of proof would
vanish if it were necessary, in addition to the confession, to adduce other
evidence sufficient to justify conviction independently of such confession
Held: The provision made by the trial court with respect to indemnity to be
paid to the heirs of the deceased does not accord altogether with article 125
of the Penal Code; and this part of the judgment will be amended by providing
that Martin Bantagan, as principal, shall be required to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased in the amount of P500 and that, in case of his insolvency, his
three coaccused shall be jointly and severally liable, secondarily, for said
amount; and furthermore that the three accomplices, Luis Bantagan, Marcos de la
Cruz, and Francisco Fermino, shall be jointly and severally liable for another
P500, in the character of accomplices, and that Martin Bantagan shall, in case
of the insolvency of said three accomplices, be secondarily liable for such
amount.
It being understood therefore that the appealed judgment is modified
with respect to the provision for indemnity in the manner above stated, the
judgment, as thus modified, is affirmed. So ordered, with proportional costs
against the respective appellants.
MALCOLM, OSTRAND and JOHNS, JJ., dissenting:
From a legal point of view, we do not think that the evidence is
sufficient to convict Luis Bantagan as an accomplice. In all other respects, we
agree with the majority of the court.
