G.R. No. L-23786 and L-23787; August 29, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CORNELIO MANUEL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Two informations were filed against appellant Cornelio Manuel before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte: one for murder (Criminal Case No. 2511) and another for illegal possession of firearm (Criminal Case No. 2512), related to the death of Dominador Irorita. A joint trial was held for the prosecution’s evidence, but appellant was granted a separate trial for presenting his defense. The trial court acquitted Indelecia Saguid-Irorita (the victim’s wife) but convicted appellant of both charges. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for murder and ten years imprisonment for illegal possession of firearm. The prosecution established that Dominador Irorita died from gunshot wounds on September 6, 1956, and that appellant had illicit relations with the victim’s wife, Indelecia. After exhumation and post-mortem, the cause of death was confirmed. Appellant executed an extrajudicial confession (Exh. “A”) admitting he shot the victim with an unlicensed .45 caliber sub-machinegun. Before the Justice of the Peace, he reaffirmed the truth of his confession but later recanted, claiming it was extracted through force and maltreatment by PC soldiers. The trial court, in convicting appellant, also considered the testimony of Indelecia given during her separate trial.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in considering the testimony of Indelecia (given in her separate defense) against appellant and in convicting appellant based on the evidence presented, particularly his extrajudicial confession.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the indemnity. The trial court erred in considering Indelecia’s testimony against appellant, as it violated his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, given their separate trials and his absence during her testimony. However, appellant’s conviction was sustained based on his extrajudicial confession. The Court found the confession voluntary, noting that when appellant ratified it before the Justice of the Peace, he voluntarily affirmed its truth except for the part admitting ownership of the firearm. His claim of maltreatment was doubtful, as the medical evidence did not strongly support it, and he had the opportunity to recant before the judge but instead reaffirmed the confession’s veracity. The penalty for murder was correctly imposed as reclusion perpetua, considering the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was offset by the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. For illegal possession of firearm, the maximum penalty of ten years was justified. The indemnity to the heirs of the victim was increased to P12,000.00.