G.R. No. L-16392; January 30, 1965
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FORTUNATO MENDOZA, ET AL., defendants, LORENZO VILLANUEVA and COPIA MANSAKA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On March 6, 1958, appellants Lorenzo Villanueva and Copia Mansaka, inmates at the National Penitentiary, killed fellow inmate Epifanio Paison inside Brigade No. 3B. They immediately surrendered to the keeper, Arsenio Pallera, turned over an improvised bladed knife and an ice pick, and confessed to the killing. They gave written statements (Exhibits E and F) to Prison Inspector Melito Geronimo, detailing a premeditated plan to kill Paison due to a prior altercation where Paison had injured Villanueva’s foot. An eyewitness, Ricardo Corpuz, testified seeing the appellants drag Paison to a toilet and stab him. The autopsy revealed fifteen wounds, with the most fatal on the chest and abdomen, and Paison’s right ear was cut off. At trial, the appellants admitted the killing but pleaded self-defense, claiming Paison attacked them first. They repudiated their extrajudicial confessions, alleging they were not read to them.

ISSUE

Whether the appellants are guilty of murder, and if their plea of self-defense and the validity of their extrajudicial confessions are tenable.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder and the imposition of the death penalty. The appellants’ guilt was established beyond doubt. Their extrajudicial confessions (Exhibits E and F) were deemed voluntary and credible, containing details only the perpetrators would know, and were executed without any allegation of coercion or irregularity. The plea of self-defense was rejected. The appellants failed to prove unlawful aggression by the victim. On the contrary, evidence showed they were the aggressors: they tricked their way into Brigade 3B by pretending to be “rancheros” to carry out a premeditated killing. The number, location, and severity of the victim’s wounds (fifteen, including a severed ear), compared to the appellants’ minimal injuries, negated self-defense. The crime was murder qualified by evident premeditation. Aggravating circumstances were present for both appellants: craft and contempt of public authorities. Additionally, Villanueva had reiteration and ignominy, while Mansaka was a recidivist. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was appreciated. However, with more aggravating than mitigating circumstances, the maximum penalty of death was properly imposed under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. The indemnity to the heirs was also affirmed.