GR 36833; (October, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 36833 ; October 11, 1933
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELENA MATONDO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Elena Matondo, the daughter of the victim Gavina Gelsano, was displeased with her mother’s second marriage to Crisostomo Roa, as it affected her enjoyment of the family property. On the night of May 24, 1931, during a town fiesta, Elena arranged for her mother to stay at her (Elena’s) house while she attended the fiesta. That same night, Elena’s chauffeur, Tomas Baring, transported two men—Rufino Pelen and Adriano Elicito—to the vicinity of Elena’s house. Pelen and Elicito entered the house and assaulted Gavina Gelsano, inflicting multiple knife wounds. Gavina died about seven weeks later from her injuries. Witnesses, including the servant Apolinaria Incierto, identified Pelen and Elicito fleeing the scene. After the crime, Elena allegedly confessed to Baring that she had her mother killed so her stepfather would not enjoy the property and promised to reward the perpetrators with insurance proceeds. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimonies of Baring and his companion, Asuncion Ajero.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence is sufficient to convict Elena Matondo of parricide and her co-accused, Rufino Pelen and Adriano Elicito, of murder.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, finding Elena Matondo guilty of parricide and Rufino Pelen and Adriano Elicito guilty of murder. The court sentenced each to life imprisonment and ordered them to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Gavina Gelsano. The court found a strong array of circumstantial evidence pointing to Elena Matondo’s guilt, including her motive (displeasure over her mother’s remarriage and property arrangements), her actions in setting the stage for the crime (having her mother stay at her house and sending away the servants), and her post-crime statements. The testimony of Tomas Baring, though from an accomplice, was corroborated by other evidence. The dissenting opinions questioned the credibility of the key witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence, but the majority found the proof beyond reasonable doubt.
AI Generated by Armztrong.