G.R. No. 128827 . August 18, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO CAYAGO y REYES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rolando Cayago was charged with parricide for killing his wife, Myra Cayago, through strangulation. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to death. The evidence established that on August 2, 1995, SPO2 Belino Zinampan received a report from Cayago about a decomposing body at an abandoned barangay hall in Santolan, Pasig City. Upon verification, Cayago identified the body as his wife’s and lost consciousness. During police questioning, he gave inconsistent statements and was advised to undergo a polygraph test. On August 3, 1995, while being escorted to Camp Crame, Cayago requested to go to a church, where he admitted to SPO2 Delos Reyes that he killed his wife. Assisted by Atty. Reynario Campanilla, who apprised him of his constitutional rights, Cayago voluntarily wrote and then read his extra-judicial confession, which was recorded and signed in the presence of the lawyer. The medical findings revealed the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation, evidenced by a fractured windpipe and hemorrhage inside it, along with injuries indicating a hard object was inserted into her vagina with extensive pressure, lacerating her uterus. In his testimony, Cayago claimed he embraced his wife tightly to stop her from pushing him during an argument and did not notice she had stopped breathing until she went limp and died.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant Rolando Cayago of the crime of parricide.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for parricide but modified the penalty. The elements of parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code are present: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed her; and (3) the deceased was the legitimate spouse of the accused. Cayago’s own testimony and extra-judicial confession, corroborated by medical evidence, established that he strangled his wife, causing her death. The medical findings of a fractured windpipe and internal hemorrhage were consistent with manual strangulation, contradicting his claim of a mere tight embrace. The Court found the confession voluntary and given with proper assistance of counsel. However, the trial court’s decision was criticized for being cursory and not stating facts and law clearly as required. The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was not proven. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The Court thus modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and affirmed the award of damages.