Plaintiff-Appellee vs. vs. Accused-Appellant The Solicitor General Elison G. Natividad
Plaintiff-Appellee vs. vs. Accused-Appellant The Solicitor General Elison G. Natividad
Plaintiff-Appellee vs. vs. Accused-Appellant The Solicitor General Elison G. Natividad
SYLLABUS
DECISION
REGALADO , J : p
Pathetically, retrieved from the scene of the crime were a pair of rubber slippers,
a comb and a partial denture, all of which belonged to or were otherwise used by the
victim at the time of her death. 7 It does not appear that there was any other person
seen or reported to have been in the vicinity of the scene of the crime at or about the
time of its commission. LLpr
On the same night of the incident, the police investigator, Pat. Eliseo de Jesus,
and chief police investigator, Cpl. Ru no Buenviaje, proceeded to the hospital where the
former was informed by San Victores that it was Danilo Gole Cruz who killed Teresita.
When Pat. De Jesus went to the house of the accused, the father, Pio Gole Cruz, told
him that the accused was not at home; nevertheless he promised to surrender Danilo
later. That same night, the accused, in the company of his father, surrendered at the
police station. 8
The following day, December 23, 1977, Danilo Gole Cruz was interrogated by Cpl.
Buenviaje in the police station reportedly in the presence of Pat. De Jesus, which
interrogation was reduced into a written statement in Pilipino designated as
"Sinumpaang Salaysay." The statement was signed by the accused in the presence of
his sister, Benilda Gole Cruz, and Pat. Jose de los Santos who both signed as witnesses
thereto. However, the statement was not placed under oath because, according to Cpl.
Buenviaje, when he brought the accused to the o ce of Sta. Maria municipal judge
Alfredo C. Perez before noon and in the afternoon of that day, the judge was not in his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
o ce; and when the accused was eventually presented to said municipal judge on
December 26, 1977, the latter refused to administer the oath, which refusal he allegedly
also resorted to in past occasions. On its face, the statement states that the inquiry
started with questions purporting to constitute compliance with Section 20, Article IV
of the 1973 Constitution. In said statement, the accused admitted having killed Teresita
Gumapay, then resorted to the discreditable non mi ricordo answers to the other
questions asked by the investigator. 9
The information for rape with homicide, dated June 6, 1978, was led against
Danilo Gole Cruz with the then Court of First Instance of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, Branch V,
at that time presided over by Judge Jesus Elbinias. While bail of P40,000.00 was
recommended, the accused was not released for failure to post the same. 1 0
Accused pleaded not guilty in the arraignment held on July 25, 1978 and trial on
the merits followed wherein several witnesses were presented. The accused took the
stand on September 18, 1979 and on January 14, 1980. In both instances, however,
after the accused had testi ed for some time, the hearings were suspended and reset
for another date on the claim of the accused that he was feeling dizzy and could not
concentrate on the witness stand. 1 1
Thereafter, on January 18, 1980, defense counsel led by mail a motion to
submit the accused to psychiatric examination. 1 2 After hearing, on February 12, 1980
the trial court ordered the director of the National Mental Hospital to cause the
examination of the accused and to submit the corresponding report to the court. 1 3
Subsequently, a report on the mental and physical condition of the accused, dated
March 18, 1980 and signed by Dr. Simplicio Masikip, Medical Specialist I and Physician-
in-Charge and Dr. Arturo Merit, Chief of Forensic Psychiatry Service, was submitted in
compliance with the order of the court. 1 4 The report states that the accused was
admitted to the National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong, Rizal on February 16, 1980.
As remarks, the report states that the accused "was found suffering from a mental
disorder called schizophrenia, manifested by underactivity, vacous (sic) stares,
mumbling alone by himself, indifference, dullness of affect, thought blocking,
perceptual aberration of hearing strange voices, disorientation and lack of insight. He is
psychotic or insane, hence cannot yet stand trial in court. He needs further
hospitalization and treatment."
The accused escaped from the hospital on October 13, 1980 but was
apprehended the next day by the security force and police agencies of said institution.
15
On March 22, 1982, Dr. Eduardo T. Maaba, Medical Specialist and Physician-in-
Charge, submitted a report with respect to the mental and physical condition of the
accused remarking that, based on the examinations and observations conducted,
"Danilo Gole Cruz y Santos is now free from sign and symptoms of psychosis, and
hence he can now stand trial. He is therefore recommended for discharge from this
hospital and return to the Provincial Jail of Bulacan." 1 6
Nevertheless, at the hearing in the trial court on September 20, 1982, counsel for
the accused manifested that he had been conferring with the accused and the latter
refused to further testify, hence another defense witness would be presented.
Consequently, the prosecution moved that the testimony of the accused be stricken
from the records for lack of cross-examination. The accused was never presented
again in court because on October 29, 1982, an order was issued by the court below
granting the motion of the defense counsel himself to terminate the testimony on
direct examination of the accused, with a request for a ve-day period from the date of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
the order to le his offer of evidence in writing. 1 7 In addition, the court granted the
motion of the private prosecutor to expunge the direct testimony given by the accused
for lack of cross-examination. The prosecution was also given the same period to le
an opposition to the offer of evidence and to thereafter present rebuttal evidence at the
next hearing set on December 28, 1982. 1 8
In its order of December 28, 1982, the private prosecutor having waived the right
to present rebuttal evidence, the trial court declared the case submitted for decision,
granting the parties thirty days from the completion of the transcript to submit
simultaneous memoranda. 1 9 In spite of this, the said court later issued an order motu
proprio on January 7, 1983 reopening the case "to enable it to receive further expert
testimony from psychiatrists on the mental condition of the accused at about the time
he committed the instant offense as well as at the time he was placed on the witness
stand during trial of this case, but who refused to continue testifying . . ." 2 0 For such
purpose, a subpoena was issued to the Director of the National Mental Hospital to
appear and produce the clinical records of the accused and testify thereon at the
hearing set on February 17, 1983. 2 1
Before the scheduled hearing, however, the Judiciary Reorganization Act (Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129) took effect and the case was subsequently re-ra ed to the
Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch XIX, of the Third Judicial Region presided over
by Judge Camilo R. Montesa, Jr. The judge set the case for hearing on July 12, 1983.
Thereafter, as recited in the court's order of October 3, 1983, a subpoena was issued to
the Director of the National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong, Rizal but instead of Dr.
Masikip, Dr. Maaba appeared and explained that the former had already been
transferred to another department. Considering that Dr. Maaba had not actively taken
part in the mental examination of the accused, his testimony was not taken and, as
prayed for by the scal and the private prosecutor, the trial court granted them fteen
days within which to submit their opposition to or comment on the aforesaid January 7,
1983 order of Judge Elbinias. The defense counsel, was given a like period of time to
file his reply thereto. 2 2 The hearing of the case was reset to August 9, 1983. 2 3
At the scheduled hearing, both parties instead of ling their comments, argued
and opposed the reopening of the case and reiterated their stand that they were
submitting the case for decision. Hence, as likewise stated in the aforesaid order of
October 3, 1983, Judge Montesa further directed the Clerk of Court to forward the
expediente of the case to Judge Elbinias for rendition of the decision "(c)onsidering
that said judge wholly tried and heard this case from beginning up to the time when
both parties submitted the same for decision and in line with the resolution of the
Supreme Court en banc dated February 14, 1983." 2 4
About ve months later, counsel for the accused led a "motion to reopen the
case and allow accused to adduce additional evidence," praying that "the case be
reopened and the accused be allowed to continue testifying should the expert certi es
(sic) that he can stand trial; and/or adduce additional evidence in order to afford him
full opportunity to be heard and complete his evidence." 2 5
The promulgation of the decision having been set on May 7, 1984, notice whereof
was given on April 10, 1984, 2 6 that motion to reopen the case was denied for lack of
merit in an order of the trial court dated May 4, 1984. As explained therein, the decision
in the case having been prepared and duly forwarded to said court for promulgation of
judgment, the same was considered a fait accompli. 2 7
Accordingly, the court promulgated the decision which found the accused Danilo
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
Gole Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide; declared
his defense of insanity unavailing as an exempting circumstance; imposed the death
penalty upon the accused; sentenced him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the
amount of P12,000.00 for her death and P20,000.00 as moral damages; and ordered
him to pay the costs. 2 8
The accused seasonably appealed to this Court praying for his acquittal and,
alternatively, for the remand of the case to the lower court for further proceedings.
LLpr
We rst consider the threshold issue raised by the accused that he was denied
due process because he was not afforded full opportunity to exercise his constitutional
right to be heard and present evidence. His thesis is that the joint agreement
manifested in open court by the prosecution and the defense that the case be deemed
submitted for decision should be considered as having been withdrawn in view of the
filing of the motion to reopen the case about five months thereafter. 2 9
The sheer untenability of this contention is apparent. The failure of the accused
to complete his testimony was of his own making, on the initiation, con rmation and
reiteration of his own counsel. As discussed earlier, the suspension of the direct
examination of the accused was at his instance and as moved by his counsel. Later, Dr.
Maaba recommended on March 22, 1982 the discharge of the accused from the
mental hospital and for his return to the provincial jail of Bulacan, he having been found
t to stand trial. This unrebutted fact notwithstanding, the accused refused to take the
witness stand without any plausible justi cation. In addition, it was the defense itself
which moved to terminate the testimony of the accused, which fact became the basis
for such testimony being stricken from the records for lack of cross-examination. In
fact, when the former presiding judge thereafter ordered the reopening of the case sua
sponte, it was the defense that objected to the same and insisted that the case be
deemed submitted for decision. Verily, the present stance of the accused is a blatant
disregard of solemn agreements submitted to and approved by a court of justice and
would make a mockery of the judicial process.
Furthermore, the mere ling of a motion to reopen a case must not in any way
automatically vacate an agreement and order submitting the case for decision. While
the court may reopen a case for reception of further evidence after the parties have
closed their evidence, such action is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, 3 0
to be exercised only on valid and justi able reasons which undoubtedly are inexistent in
this case.
Coming now to the conclusion of the trial court that the accused raped and, on
the occasion thereof, killed Teresita Gumapay, the Court has painstakingly scrutinized
the record, with the concomitant calibration of the evidence and the consequent
determination as to whether the quantum thereof passes the test of moral certainty of
guilt.
There is no doubt that it was the accused who killed Teresita Gumapay, the
evidence thereon being capped by his own written confession of the same before the
investigating o cers. The authenticity of and the fact that he and the witnesses thereto
knowingly a xed their signatures on said extrajudicial confession were never
questioned. The only objection belatedly raised when he testi ed was its alleged
procurement through force and maltreatment, but no evidence of the supposed
maltreatment was ever produced, other than the self-serving and uncorroborated
testimony of the accused which was, however, stricken from the records. As pointed
out by the court below, the policemen who allegedly maltreated the accused were never
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
identi ed despite the fact that the accused and his parents have been residents of the
same town long enough to easily identify them. Neither did the defense counsel try to
discredit Cpl. Buenviaje's testimony, more particularly on the circumstances attendant
to the interrogation of the accused in the course of which he voluntarily made his
extrajudicial confession which was reduced to the statement in question. 3 1
Then, there is the matter of the signature of his sister on the document as a
witness to his having signed the same before her. It would be unlikely, if not incredible,
for her to sign the same without having read and understood its clear implications and
consequences, considering that the statement was written in the vernacular.
Signi cantly, the probative value of said extra-judicial confession is not being assailed
in the present petition. cdll
A Yes, sir.
Q How long more or less?
A 15 to 30 minutes she will lose consciousness and may die.
Q In a case like this a person similarly situated the loss of
consciousness from 15 to 30 minutes, will it be gradual or
spontaneous?
A It is gradual, sir." 3 4
It bears noting, since the records do not clarify this, that a person has two carotid
arteries, one on the left and the other on the right side of the neck, which convey the
blood to the head, and likewise two jugular veins each on said sides of the neck 3 5
which carry blood from the head back to the heart. The post-mortem report shows that
only the right jugular vein and carotid artery were cut, without even stating the extent or
gravity of the lesions. The hypothetical questions aforequoted are even misleading for
assuming that the two veins were cut, but this notwithstanding, the loss of
consciousness would still be gradual. With more reason would the loss of
consciousness be slower since, as already stated, only the right jugular vein and carotid
artery were affected, hence the loss of blood was necessarily reduced and slower.
Thus, from the evidence, the victim must have survived for more than one hour.
That period of time within which the victim could have lived, and did in fact live,
after the injuries were in icted is certainly long enough for her to have uttered the very
short answers as recalled by San Victores. In a manner of speaking, it was providential
that while she was denied the mercy of a swift death, she was thereby granted the
ultimate grace and opportunity to identify her assailant. prLL
On these considerations, the trial court did not err in nding that the deceased
did make those statements in articulo mortis. Perforce, we cannot also disturb the
nding that the deceased was raped by the accused on the strength of her dying
declaration to that effect. It can logically be concluded that the rape was the cause of
or interrelated with the killing since no other reason appears for the murderous assault
on the victim. In addition thereto, circumstantial evidence, such as the physical
condition of the victim, provide ample corroboration that rape was committed. As may
be recalled, San Victores found Teresita wounded and bleeding, her shirt was raised to
her lower ribs, she was nude from her waist down, only one foot of hers was in her pair
of shorts which was unbuttoned and lowered, her vagina was exposed, and during the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
autopsy a sticky substance simulating semen was found in her vagina. 3 6
It is conceded that said physician should have subjected the sticky substance to
a laboratory test which may remove any doubt that it was in fact seminal uid. There is
no showing, however, that such laboratory facilities were available. Nevertheless, the
declaration of the doctor, whose credentials and expertise were established, is clear
that he could determine that the sticky substance was semen and not any other vaginal
secretion, thus:
"Q Did you see vaginal secretion in this particular case?
A Yes, sir.
Q You are sure of that?
Q And how could you tell that it is secretion or semen or that it was a
combination of both?
A Because when you scoop the same you can determine the same." 3 7
On the contrary, what is not worthy of belief is the testimony of the accused,
which was stricken from the records, but which nevertheless is inherently incredible and
founded on alibi. Considering that the accused would allegedly want this Court to allow
him to resume his testimony in this case, the following observations of the trial court
have to be considered:
"No evidence was presented by the defense, however, to corroborate such
alibi; nor did it explain why it did not do so. Any one or some of those who played
basketball with accused in the afternoon of that day, as the latter claimed, should
have been presented to testify; but this was not done. Any one or some of those
who formed themselves into a group, which the accused claimed he joined to
search for the assailant should have been called as witnesses; but this was not
done either. The failure of accused to present any of those persons whom he was
allegedly with in a basketball game and later in the search for Teresita's assailant
at about the time Teresita was attacked and shortly after discovery of her
wounded body, renders this alibi dubious. What can be inferred from such
omission is that accused could not present those persons because what he
claimed is not true.
"Moreover, to be accorded credence to alibi, which is easily susceptible of
fabrication and very common defense in criminal cases, it does not su ce for
accused to merely prove that he was at some other place, but that the distance
was such as to render it physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the
crime shortly before, during or after it was committed. In the case at bar, the
distance between his father's farm and the resthouse on the one hand, and the
distance between the said boundary, and the resthouse, on the other, which are 2
and 1/2 kilometers, respectively, are not such distances as were physically
impossible for accused to negotiate or traverse; in fact, per his own testimony, he
was able to travel from his father's farm to the said boundary to play basketball
that same day. Besides, the house of accused's parents where he was living was
only 200 to 250 meters away from the resthouse, which distance accused could
have easily negotiated if he in fact was in his house and not on the farm nor at
the basketball game." 4 5
The defense also failed to explain why there were scratches on the left face and
wounds on the left palm of the accused. In fact, the accused even lied to the
investigating o cer about this. When Pat. De Jesus asked him how he sustained such
injuries, the accused claimed that one Romy Natividad caused the scratches in a
basketball game, but the person referred to speci cally denied the same. 4 6 No other
witness was even presented to con rm whether or not the accused was a participant in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
a basketball game.
We now dissect the claim that the accused is exempt from criminal liability under
the rst paragraph of Article 12, Revised Penal Code, for being allegedly insane. In
People vs. Aldemita, 4 7 with a reiteration in People vs. Aragon, 4 8 the Court explained
this exempting circumstance, as follows:
"As to what constitutes insanity in law, this Court has consistently hewed
to the old, but still valid, parameters established in rulings of the Supreme Court
of Spain interpreting paragraph 1, Article 8, of the old Penal Code of Spain from
which Article 12 of our Revised Penal Code on this exempting circumstance is
copied. In People vs. Formigones, (87 Phil. 658, 661) the following passage from
Guevara's Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code, 4th ed., pp. 42-43, was
quoted with approval:
'The Supreme Court of Spain held that in order that this exempting
circumstance may be taken into account, it is necessary that there be a
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, that the
accused be deprived of reason; that there be no responsibility for his own
acts; that he acts without the least discernment; that there is a complete
absence of the power to discern, or that there be a total deprivation of
freedom of the will. For this reason, it was held that the imbecility or
insanity at the time of the commission of the act should absolutely deprive
a person of intelligence or freedom of will, because mere abnormality of
his mental faculties does not exclude imputability.
"A line of later cases, notable among them, People vs. Cruz supra, People
vs. Renegado, supra, People vs. Ambal, and People vs. Magallano, rea rmed
adherence to the ruling in Formigones. Typical of these is Renegado, where it was
held that:
'In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing act (sic), that is, the accused is
deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment because there is
a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a total
deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental
faculties will not exclude imputability. The onus probandi rests upon who
invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance and he must prove it by
clear and positive evidence.'"
We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court that the accused is not
entitled to the exempting circumstance of insanity. The examinations made by Dr.
Masikip, the main support of the defense, were far removed in time from the date of the
crime. The accused was examined three times, on February 18, 1980, February 29, 1980
and March 17, 1980, 4 9 while the incident occurred on December 22, 1977. Thus, the
results of the examination could not have been re ective of the real and actual state of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
mind of the accused at the time he committed the crime more than two years earlier. 5 0
Aside from this, after an extensive analysis of the examinations conducted by
and the report and testimony of the doctor, the court a quo correctly held the same to
be "mere conclusions of his without corroboration in terms of veri able factual
evidence in the form of routinely recorded entries as required by the imperatives and
ethics of medical science or at least in the form of testimonies from quali ed persons
who may have also observed the behavioral manifestations of accused while he was
con ned in the National Mental Hospital." 5 1 As accurately observed by the lower court,
out of the four hundred patients to be visited by the doctor daily, he was simply
selecting those who in his "clinically experienced eye" needed to be interviewed and the
interview would last for only about thirty minutes to one hour. 5 2 In the case of the
accused, who had then been con ned for only one month, he was interviewed only three
times on the proximate dates above stated, each lasting from thirty minutes to one
hour. 5 3
On top of these, Dr. Masikip himself testi ed that the intelligence of a
schizophrenic is not affected; said person merely lacks mental concentration without
being deprived of judgment and reason. 5 4 The doctor also declared that if a person
talks to himself, stares blankly and is underactive, these would not be indicia that he is
insane as it could happen to a perfectly normal person, and that the accused was
coordinated in his activities with normal muscle reflexes. 5 5
Against the effete efforts in the accused's afterthought to create an insanity
defense is the whole weight of the presumption of sanity provided by law, 5 6 amply
supported by convincing circumstances laudably pointed out by the trial court with
page references to the record, as follows:
". . . the absence of any showing that he had ever been con ned in a
mental hospital or in any hospital for psychiatric or psychological treatment
before the incident in question; the testimonies of provincial guards, Consuelo G.
Santos and Leonardo Crisostomo to the effect that the accused had been a
normally-behaved inmate, talking and joking with the others in the provincial jail
since his rst day of detention on January 18, 1978; that two months following
his detention in said jail, accused was given special privileges and made one of
the trusties by the warden to maintain order inside the jail; that he was never
involved in any quarrel nor violated any prison rule; that, although he was brought
to the provincial hospital for fever, accused was never recommended by the
prison o cials for any mental examination; that, if any jail inmate acted
strangely, such inmate would immediately be brought to the doctor for
examination or recommended for further examination and the accused had never
been one such inmate; that no particular attention was paid to accused in said jail
because he was observed not to be mentally deranged." 5 7
Equally telling is the fact that the accused in his direct testimony could easily
recall with speci city the details of practically all relevant events and circumstances
that occurred during the week before the incident, through the day of the incident and
up to the time he rst took the witness stand to testify. 5 8 The self-serving claim of the
accused that he was losing his mind, his alleged failure to remember his father's name
and his own personal circumstances, as well as his being con ned in the mental
hospital, smack of theatrical subterfuges feigned and contrived in a desperate effort to
exempt him from liability on an insanity defense, a ploy well known in the annals of
criminal justice here and in other jurisdictions. LLpr
Footnotes
11. TSN, Sept. 18, 1979, 22-25; TSN, Jan., 14, 1980, 7-10.
40. People vs. Lat, 99 SCRA 297 (1980); People vs. Monteverde, 142 SCRA 668 (1981);
People vs. Viray, G.R. No. L-41085, Aug. 8, 1988.