GR L 53196; (July, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53196 July 31, 1986
PACIFICO DE SAGUN, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (COURT OF APPEALS), respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from the death of Felisa Malabanan, a 13-year-old student boarding in the house of spouses Alfredo and Paulina de Sagun in Lemery, Batangas. On the evening of October 18, 1957, after supper, Felisa went upstairs, followed by the spouses’ son, Pacifico de Sagun. The housemaid, Mariquita Andres, later heard a commotion upstairs and shouts from Alfredo and Paulina. She then saw Pacifico push Felisa down the stairs, causing her to fall headfirst onto the cement pavement. The family administered minimal aid and warned Mariquita not to disclose the incident. The following day, Felisa revealed to her aunt that Pacifico had placed himself on top of her, she bit his shoulder in resistance, and he subsequently beat her. Felisa died from her injuries. Pacifico, along with his parents, was charged with attempted rape with homicide.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the conviction of Pacifico de Sagun for homicide, as affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court, is correct, particularly regarding the credibility of the lone eyewitness and the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of minority.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the credibility of Mariquita Andres, the eyewitness, finding her testimony clear, consistent, and credible despite minor inconsistencies, which were deemed natural. Her account was corroborated by the dying declaration of the victim to her aunt and the physical evidence, including Pacifico’s shoulder wound, which he falsely claimed was a dog bite. The Court found the defense of alibi weak and unsubstantiated.
On the legal penalty, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General’s recommendation to appreciate the special mitigating circumstance of minority. Pacifico was either 16 or over 17 but under 18 at the time of the crime, entitling him to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed for homicide. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. With the mitigating circumstance, the penalty is reduced to prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. The civil indemnity was also increased to P30,000.00. The Court sustained the appellate court’s finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove attempted rape, convicting Pacifico only of homicide.