G.R. No. 31402 August 17, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELICIANO HIPOLITO y CLEMENTE and CIRILO MALAGAMBA y MONTARAS, defendants, FELICIANO HIPOLITO y CLEMENTE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On September 18, 1966, Concepcion Bustamante Ang was fatally shot in Malate, Manila. The crime remained unsolved until May 1968, when PC-CIS Agent Pedro Jesuitas investigated and arrested Feliciano Hipolito. Hipolito executed an extrajudicial confession admitting he was the triggerman and implicating Cirilo Malagamba, the driver of the victim’s husband Vicente Ang, as the one who hired him for P5,000 to kill the victim at Ang’s instance. Malagamba was subsequently arrested and also confessed. An information for Murder was filed against them.
At trial, Hipolito sought to repudiate his confession, claiming it was extracted through force, violence, and deceit by Agent Jesuitas, who allegedly slapped him, dunked his head in a toilet, and promised he would not be jailed if he implicated Vicente Ang. He argued he was not assisted by counsel during custodial investigation. The trial court convicted both accused. Hipolito was sentenced to death for Murder qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by price/reward. Malagamba received reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) the admissibility and voluntariness of Hipolito’s extrajudicial confession; and (2) the correctness of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances applied.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the death penalty. On the first issue, the Court found Hipolito’s claim of coercion unsubstantiated. His testimony lacked corroboration, and he never filed any administrative, criminal, or civil complaint against the alleged perpetrators. In contrast, the prosecution presented Agent Jesuitas and Capt. Protacio Laroya, who testified that Hipolito gave his statement freely and voluntarily and swore to it before the latter. The confession contained details only the perpetrator would know, lending to its credibility. The claim of no counsel during investigation was immaterial, as the 1935 Constitution then in force did not yet require it; voluntariness was the sole test.
On the second issue, the Court upheld the finding of evident premeditation. The confession detailed how Malagamba initially proposed the killing for a price, Hipolito later agreed after a meeting, and they meticulously planned the execution, including surveillance of the victim’s routine. This demonstrated deliberate planning and persistence. The Court also affirmed the aggravating circumstance of price or reward. Hipolito admitted receiving P2,800 from Malagamba for the killing. The non-prosecution of the alleged mastermind, Vicente Ang, was irrelevant, as the agreement and payment were between Hipolito and Malagamba. The Court rejected the argument that price/reward absorbs premeditation, citing Spanish jurisprudence that they are not incompatible and both can be appreciated. Thus, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and the aggravating circumstance of price/reward were properly applied.