G.R. No. L-3989 July 30, 1952
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Benito Ramos, et al., defendants. Consolacion Jaime, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Benito Ramos and Consolacion Jaime were jointly charged with murder in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. After separate trials, both were found guilty. Ramos was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and did not appeal. Appellant Consolacion Jaime was found guilty as a principal by inducement and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, from which judgment she appealed. The appellant had lived for several years as the common-law wife of the victim, Isaac Pariñas, with whom she had several children. She suffered cruelty and maltreatment from Pariñas. In December 1948, she became the paramour of her co-accused, Benito Ramos. After eloping with Ramos and later returning to Pariñas upon police advice, the cruelty continued. Urged by this, the appellant induced Benito Ramos to kill Isaac Pariñas. In the afternoon of May 2, 1949, Ramos arranged for Pariñas not to perform guard duty that evening. Around 9:00 PM, Ramos went to Pariñas’s house, took him to a field, and there struck him with a Garand rifle, hitting him multiple times on the face and head. The appellant pretended to be asleep when Ramos called for Pariñas. Later that night, the appellant reported to neighbors that Pariñas had been taken by unknown persons. Pariñas was found unconscious with severe head wounds and died on May 4, 1949. The appellant’s conviction was based mainly on the confession of Benito Ramos, in conjunction with her own affidavit. During her separate trial, the appellant presented Benito Ramos as a defense witness and questioned him on his confession.

ISSUE

The primary issue refers to the admissibility of the confession of Benito Ramos against the appellant in her separate trial, it being contended that the confession is hearsay.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The confession of Benito Ramos became admissible against the appellant not only to impeach the exculpatory testimony of Benito Ramos (whom she presented as a defense witness) but also to show the concerted plan to kill Isaac Pariñas. The Court cited People vs. Manalo and Atienza, stating that after the appellant called Ramos as a witness, his confession became competent for the purpose of contradicting his testimony. The appellant’s attempt to repudiate her own confession and that of Ramos was futile, as the justice of the peace testified that both confessions were sworn to and signed after being translated into Ilocano, and both admitted they were correct and true. The appellant’s guilt as a principal by inducement was clear from the facts that she asked Ramos to kill Pariñas to free herself from his cruelty, and Ramos obeyed to continue exclusively enjoying her love. The crime is murder qualified by evident premeditation. The appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction (being illiterate) but this is offset by the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was proper.