You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2e9c?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[PEOPLE v. ESTER DEL ROSARIO MURRAY](https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2e9c?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c2e9c}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. L-4467, Apr 30, 1959 ]

PEOPLE v. ESTER DEL ROSARIO MURRAY +

DECISION

105 Phil. 591

[ G.R. No. L-4467, April 30, 1959 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ESTER DEL ROSARIO MURRAY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

LABRADOR, J.:

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Hon.  Ceferino  de los Santos, presiding, finding appellant Mrs. Ester del Rosario-Murray guilty of parricide for  the  death of her husband George  C.  Murray, and sentencing her to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of  said  deceased,  and pay  the  costs.

The following facts appear sufficiently  proven by the prosecution.   The appellant  herein  was married to the deceased George Murray during the liberation, more specifically on May 9, 1946.   Appellant  was a widow at the time of the marriage and had four children by her former marriage, namely, Maria Luisa, 16, Caridad, 17, Jasmin, 6, and Eddie, 4 years.  The deceased  was a retired officer of the United States Army and together with a  partner, Thomas Simmons, was ostensibly engaged  in  buying and selling surplus U. S. Army equipment.   The appellant and her husband and  the children of the former  lived in a rented two-story house at No. 202 N. Domingo Street, San Juan, Rizal.   They had a maid by the name of Maria Naral, and a driver, Jose Tagle.  They had two cars, one a Buick, used by Mrs. Murray and her  children, ordinarily driven by the driver and occasionally by her, and  another, a  Cadillac, driven by Murray himself. The upper  story of the house had three bedrooms, one used by the spouses, another beside it, used by the younger children  Jasmin and Eddie Boy, and a third,  separated from the couple's bedroom by a small hall  where the  stairs landed occupied by the  elder children  and  the  housemaid.  The driver slept  in the  garage, where the two cars  of  the family were  kept.  Mrs.  Murray  kept three  boxer (bull)  dogs and three native dogs.  The  former were kept in a kennel in the yard while the three native dogs were  kept in the garage.

Both Murray and Mrs. Murray appeared to have loved each other.  They often went  dancing  in night clubs, and also spent time  together aboard a yacht, the  "Mistress," which the deceased and his partner owned.  While aboard the yacht the deceased had taught  the appellant to use the revolver, in which use she became proficient.  Murray seemed to be much in love with his wife.  On one occasion he came to blows with an  American who tried to dance with her without  his previous permission.

Murray  and the appellant seemed to have lived quietly until May, 1949, when Murray met Carolina Trinidad, a young cinema actress, 20,  whose  screen  name is Carol Varga.  The occasion of the meeting was aboard the yacht "Mistress," where a  picture was  then being filmed, in which Carol Varga was one of the members of the cast. The Sunday after that meeting Murray invited Varga to lunch, then in the evening  took her to night club where they stayed till 3:00 a.m.  As time passed by their meetings and going  to night clubs became more and  more often.  Murray made love  to  her and  she accepted  his love and they became engaged.  In June or July  Murray went to Hongkong and while there  kept sending cables to her, telling her how he  was missing her (Exhs. "V," "V-1" "V-5").

The last time  that Carol saw Murray was  on August 12, 1949, at  about  7:00  in the evening.   They went on a ride in Murray's Cadillac to "Marifusa" where they took drinks.  At 9:30 they left the place and Murray conducted Varga to her home.  After that, he went home, reaching   it at 10:00 p.m.  When he left her, he  told her he was going  to  the Riviera.

The same  evening at  7:00  Mrs. Murray arrived home with her children, who had come from school.  She opened a drawer of a sewing machine near the dining room and took out  therefrom Murray's revolver, which  she placed in her white bag.   Then  she went down to the garage and from there went out in the Buick car, alone, driving it herself.  It  so happened that the car had a flat tire, so she left it, and ordered Tagle to fetch the car. Tagle arrived with the car at 9:00.  Murray  arrived at 10:00 in the evening and began looking for his revolver.  But he could not find it, and was mad about not finding it.  As above stated, Mrs Murray had  taken the revolver earlier in the evening and did not give it to him.  They went up talking; then Murray  came down  alone and left.

Murray came home about 4:00 o'clock the next morning, August 13th.  Some thirty minutes thereafter Mrs. Murray entered the room of the girls where the maid and the two  older  girls slept.   Mrs. Murray  brought there  the small boy,  Eddie,  and  asked the maid to let him sleep beside her; then she  left, closing the door  behind her. Not long after Mrs. Murray had left, the maid heard four shots,  one  after another, at short intervals.   The shots came from the room of the spouses.   She turned around on the bed wondering,  but as she felt an urge to urinate, she stood up and opened the door, and as she did so, she saw Mrs. Murray opening the door of their room  also. Mrs.  Murray proceeded down the  stairs, while the maid followed her.  At  the  middle of the stairs Mrs.  Murray suddenly turned back  while the maid continued on  her way down  to the bathroom to  urinate.  When the maid went up, she saw that the two eldest  daughters of Mrs. Murray were already with the latter in the  bedroom  of the spouses, crying,  so she also went  inside.   There  she saw Mrs. Murray standing beside the window, bending over her lifeless husband, who  was bleeding  and  motionless.  Mrs. Murray said in Tagalog, "George, are you dead now?"  Murray was lying down on the bed naked,  except his drawers,  as was his habit when going to bed to sleep.  She noticed  that the  two windows  were slightly opened, while the  door leading  to the balcony was also open.   It  had been  the practice of  the couple  to have  both  windows  open, while the door to  the porch was kept closed.

Jose Tagle, the driver of the family, slept as  usual in  the  garage  on  the  evening  of  August  12,  1949. Between 4:00 and 5:00  at dawn he  was awakened by the noise of two  shots.  He stood  up immediately and again heard  two shots.  He went up the driveway  to the stairs leading  up the house.  Upon arriving at that place he noticed that  the door of  the balcony above the stairs,  leading  to  the room  of the spouses,  was  being opened. Then  he  saw  that  it was  Mrs. Murray  who had opened it and further saw her in the act of throwing something  away, after  which  he heard  leaves rustling and then  a thud produced by something falling on the ground, near the place where the boxer dogs were  being kept.

Not  long after the  maid had come  up to the bedroom of the spouses, Mrs. Murray ordered her daughter Caridad to phone for a  doctor and fetch  a policeman.  Caridad and the maid went down; so did the other  girl,  Maria Luisa.  Caridad could not use the phone as it  was out  of order.  They proceeded to the garage  and told the driver to have the  car ready.   The  three rode in  the  Buick  car and went first  to the house  of one  Dr.  Santos and   from  there they  went  to  the municipal building.  A  policeman  came with them in the auto.  On their way   back they  passed  by the house of the  doctor, but  as   he was not  yet ready,  they  returned  home with the   policeman  only.  The  policeman ordered  that  the  things   in the bedroom be not  touched, then asked  for  a cup  of coffee,  and the  maid went down to brew coffee.

When the maid  went  to the bedroom of the spouses, after having  fetched the policeman, she noticed that the  wardrobe was already open and the clothes were scattered    around. The  wardrobe   was  closed  when  they  left  to fetch the doctor and  there  were no  clothes scattered in the room.  She also  noticed that Mrs. Murray had already changed her  dress,  after having taken a  bath.   When  seen  going  out of her bedroom  after  the  shots were heard,  appellant was wearing a white silk  gown with flowers, but  when the  maid and  the two  girls came back, she was already wearing a dress with stripes.

At 11:00 o'clock in the morning a medico-legal officer examined  the body of  the   deceased Murray.  At  that time  the   body  was already  in  rigor mortis.  The following  wounds  were  found:  One wound,  the  point of entrance of which was on the  center end  of the left eyebrow and the point of exit at the back.  A  second wound with point of entry on the right side of the lower lip but without exit.  The bullet, according to the medico-legal officer, upon hitting the teeth must have been deflected.  This  wound  was  not fatal.  A  third  wound with  entry just below the neck, left breast, and point of exit at the back, penetrating the thorax and the upper lobe of the right lung, and point of exit at the right side of the scapula.  A fourth wound penetrating the upper thorax  and the border of the  upper  lobe  of the left lung,  lacerating through and through  the back  of the aorta and  trachea and without point of exit because the slug had  lodged at the  muscles  at the back.  The wounds penetrating the head and the chest caused the death  of  Murray  (Exh.  "II"). The  direction of the wound indicated that the assailant must have been towards the legs of the victim, on the left side.

Appellant denies the following facts testified  to by the maid and the  driver: that she kept  the revolver of the deceased in her white bag on the evening of August 12, alleging that she returned it to him upon finding it in the drawer of her  sewing machine; that she was  seen by the maid  wearing  her white  nightgown  and negligee, just after the shots; that she had  opened the door of the balcony, and threw something down from the window, which fell near the dog kennel; that the room of the spouses was in order just after the discovery of the murder, and  all the other circumstances pointing to her as the author of the crime.

The theory which the appellant tried to develop by the evidence she submitted is that the deceased was of a violent temper; that some unidentified robber must have entered their bedroom when appellant was downstairs taking coffee and preparing  materials to sew; that the murderer must have  climbed the balcony  and  passed the  door leading to the  bedroom, which door was then open; that the murderer ransacked the clothes of the deceased and must have found the revolver which she had given the deceased before the latter left at 10:00 o'clock the previous evening; that the  intruder must have found the wallet  of the deceased, and took away therefrom something less  than P600, leaving the empty wallet on his way out of the room.   Another possibility which she merely insinuated, is  that someone who had dealings with the deceased in connection with the latter's business of smuggling ammunition and carbines, might have had the interest to eliminate him and  thus caused or induced the murder.  This latter theory is  supported by evidence submitted by her to the effect that the police had been trying to check up the murder on  this angle.

The first theory is supported mainly by her own testimony and by those of her two daughters.  In  the main it runs counter to the declarations of two star witnesses for the prosecution, namely, the maid Maria Naral and the driver, Jose Tagle, which have been already  set forth above as: sufficiently proved.

Appellant also testified that the door of the balcony of their bedroom was open  the night of the  murder,  thus contradicting the  testimony of the  maid  that it  was closed as  the  family  had been accustomed  to do.   The fact, however,  is  that  the night of August 12 had  been a rainy night and the balcony door must have been closed to prevent the rain from getting in.   The appellant  also wants the court to believe that some intruder must  have entered the room and shot the  deceased and in order to prove this, she and her daughters testified that the clothes of the deceased had been  scattered around, and  his wallet was found empty on  the floor, near the  door of the balcony.  But these claims are  in  turn contradicted by the maid who  testified that when she entered  the  death room for the first time, the clothes of -the deceased were not scattered around, as  well as by the finding of the first policeman who went  into the room  for investigation that  he found  no footprints in the room towards the balcony.

The police, following her subordinate theory, had  tried to follow and check up appellant's claim that some enemy of the deceased must have caused his death but it appears that  they  were never able  to get confirmation of said theory.  Instead, the findings of the National Bureau  of Investigation  on the  existence of  nitrates on the right-hand  glove and the  cartridges  in the' revolver of the deceased, as well as the slugs near the latter's body  fully and completely  support the testimonies of the maid and the driver as to appellant's having herself, in all probability, committed the murder.

Where the identity  of  a person  committing a crime is in dispute, the motive that may have impelled the commission is very  relevant.   (U.S.  vs. MacMann, 4  Phil.,  561; People vs.  Ragsac,  61  Phil., 146; People vs. Bastatas and Bastatas, 65  Phil.,  543; People vs.  Tagasa, 68  Phil.,  147; People vs.  Caggauan, et al., 94 Phil.,  118.)  So  we come to the motive that could have impelled the commission of the crime  by the  appellant.  The prosecution claims jealousy of  another  woman, Carol   Varga.  Appellant denies this and claims that she  never  came  to know Carol  Varga.  But the  mother  of  the  latter  declared that appellant had once gone to their house on Calle Pepin, pretending to be another actress name  "Daisy," a  supposed companion of Carol Varga,  asking if Carol had  gone to the Riviera the previous night.   The driver,  Jose Tagle also testified  that he used to  drive appellant along Santa Mesa  Boulevard on many occasions, and as they would approach the junction  of  Pepin Street, residence  of Carol Varga,  appellant would ask him to  lessen his  speed  to enable appellant to see if her husband's car was parked in front of Carol Varga's residence.  But a minor incident testified  to by  one of appellant's  daughter  shows  that appellant knew Varga and knew her to be the object  of the  attentions to her deceased husband, and  that said daughter knew: that her mother was  aware of these attentions.   A joint picture of the deceased and-Carol Varga was found by  appellant's daughter, Caridad, in  the  Buick car, in which she,  Maria Luisa, Naral  and the driver rode to call for a doctor and the police soon after discovery of the murder.  According to Caridad herself, said picture was burned by her  on  August 14, the day following the murder because she  "did not want my mother to see it." (Testimony  of Caridad del Rosario, t.s.n., p.  29.)   This conduct and statement of appellant's  daughter  Caridad creates the reasonable inference that appellant  knew the affection of the deceased for Varga and she, the appellant, was jealous thereof.

Another  incident  which  indicates how  appellant  felt towards Carol Varga is testified to by Adriano del  Rosario, owner of Funeraria Quioque, who had been contracted by appellant for the funeral  of her husband.  Del  Rosario testified that the appellant expressly ordered him to keep  the coffin of the  deceased closed, and in accordance with appellant's instruction, he  placed the following notice on it: "Thru the request of the widow, this coffin will  not  be opened."   Carol Varga went to the funeral parlor and asked  permission to have  the  coffin opened and  see  the  face of the deceased, and as Del Rosario had been instructed   to have the coffin closed and not to open it, he  went to   appellant to have her permission for Carol Varga to see     the  cadaver,  but  appellant there  upon refused  Carol  Yarga's request,  saying: "She  (Varga) could not because  she  was  the cause  of  all this  trouble"  (Testimony of Adriano del Rosario, t.s.n.,  p.  2).  

John Snure, Jr., a  friend of the deceased living  in Park Avenue, Pasay, testified that on  one occasion, at about 1:30   in the afternoon, the deceased  and Carol Varga visited  him at his home where he was  living alone.   As Snure    went up to the bathroom situated on  the second  floor of  his house, the deceased followed him there and told him  that his life was  being threatened.  According to Shure, "he (Murray) told me that his wife knew that he  was going with Carol Varga;" (Testimony of John Snure, Jr., t.s.n.,  p. 107); that he  (Snure) refused to allow the deceased to live with him because he did not want to interfere with his domestic difficulties."   (Idem, p. 108.)

Mrs. Margaret  S. Pier, a close friend of the Murrays, who had been frequently visiting at the Murray house in July, testified that on one occasion Mrs. Murray told  her, in her presence and that of the deceased, that a certain Mr. Yatco had asked  appellant if she knew her  husband was going  around with other girls and  movie stars, to which the deceased replied that Yatco had nothing to do with it.   On another occasion witness was present during a quarrel or sort  of misunderstanding between appellant and the deceased,  at which time the deceased told witness that appellant did not want him to go out; and at  one time she  saw appellant grab Murray's necktie and shirt and open its  botton, but  despite  appellant's attitude the deceased  went on to change his  shirt and then  left the house.  (Testimony of M. S. Pier, t.s.n., pp. 68-69).  She further testified that  Murray had  once confided  to  her that he wanted a  divorce  and had asked appellant for it, explaining that he was still young and had not yet "finished sowing his wild oats."   (Id., p. 70).  Note that when appellant married the deceased on May 9, 1946,  the latter was only 26 years,  7  months, while the former  was already  31  years  and 9 months  (Exh. "B-1") with four children  by a former  marriage.  The deceased  was an American who considered  divorce  as a simple matter, demandable at the will of either of the spouses, but which opinion is not shared and is seldom  tolerated by  Filipino women.

Whether or not the appellant knew of the love relations between her husband and  Carol Varga, and her reactions towards such relations, are matters which cannot be proved other than by appellant's utterances or acts or conduct.

Unless such acts or statements are admissible, the inner feelings of an individual would be  impossible to  prove in court.  The  testimony, therefore, of the  mother  of Carol Varga  as to appellant's visit on one  occasion and what she  (appellant) had asked about; that of Del Rosario on why appellant refused to  have the coffin of her husband opened; that of Snure as to what the deceased had told him; that of Mrs. Pier as to the incidents testified to by her; and the act of appellant's  daughter in destroying the picture of the deceased with Carol Varga all these in the opinion of the Court, are admissible as relevant to prove the knowledge by appellant  of, and her attitude towards, her husbands actions.   To all the above we must add the testimony of Carol Varga herself that in the month of June she used  to  go night-clubing with the deceased two or three  times a week (Testimony of Carol Varga, t.s.n., p. 4); that the deceased used to fetch her between 8:00 and 8:30 in the evening for dinner; that after dinner they would go to a nightclub, remaining there till two or three o'clock in the morning, when the deceased would bring her home.  In the month of July, also according to Carol Varga, there  was one  whole week when she  saw him everyday.  It   is not  possible  that appellant's  attention could  have been attracted by these continuous meetings of the deceased with Carol Varga and his much to frequent absences from home.  So, consistent with this knowledge, in the afternoon of August 12, at about 7:00 o'clock, she drove the Buick car herself, along Santa Mesa Boulevard, evidently with the  purpose of seeing  if her husband was at Varga's house again.  When her husband came home at 10:00 o'clock that evening, bringing along with him some P600, she must have suspected that he was again going out with Carol Varga; and finally, when the deceased arrived at 4:00 o'clock the following  morning, again asking for some more money, as appellant herself stated, she must have  convinced herself that her husband had again come from the nightclub with Carol Varga.

When  we consider appellant's claim that the deceased had loved her, had frequently taken her for a ride in his yacht  and  to   dancing  places or  nightclubs,  and  had 'demonstrated his love by such  act of possessiveness as assaulting  another who had tried to dance with her without his permission, which must have made  her so happy, the sudden change in his conduct in frequently going to night clubs  without taking her along, must have at  first aroused  her suspicion,  and then  later,  her jealousy, especially  upon learning that a  beautiful  rival was behind his sudden change of attitude towards her.

So  when  the  deceased  arrived  at 4:00  o'clock in  the morning of August 13, she must  have been overcome by such an  overpowering feeling of jealousy that she decided to destroy the man she loved so dearly, rather than allow another to enjoy his love and  affection, and thereby put an  end to her misery.  Revenge  must  have blinded her reason and goaded her to destroy the man  who had once loved but had now turned cold to her.  This must have been  the state  of  her  mind when  her husband arrived at  4:00  o'clock  on that fateful morning  of August  13, when she brought her young son  to the room where  the maid  and her  two  daughters  had  their beds  and were sleeping, most probably to keep  him away from any danger. The fact that she thereafter  closed the door leading to the said  room, contrary to her usual practice of leaving it open,  clearly indicates an attempt to conceal an act, which she was  then  intending to commit,  from the rest of  the household.

We will now consider the positive evidence which point to her as the one who had fired the shots at her sleeping husband. They are as follows:

1. The first policeman who came to the bedroom where the dead body of Murray lay,  found that entrance to  the bedroom  could not have been effected through the windows because there were grilled and all doors downstairs were locked; that the door to the balcony, which faced N. Domingo Street, was slightly open,  but there were no footprints  in the balcony  itself  nor  in  the  room leading therefrom to the  death bed.  The policeman made the above  inquiries  because  Mrs. Murray explained to him that the assailant might  have passed through  the door in the balcony.  On going to the first floor he also noticed that all the  doors were locked and there was no opening for anyone to enter,  so he did not try to find out if there were footprints  there.  He also looked  over the  grilles of the first floor just under and leading up to the balcony but saw no  marks mud or  earth, on the grilles to show that  persons had  gone  climbing up  the   said grilles. Neither did he see any ladder or bamboo pole near the balcony which could have been used to climb to the balcony. These  circumstances positively prove  that  the assailant could not have come from the outside and could have been an inmate of the, house.

2. The revolver, Exhibit "C", found by the maid at about 8:00 o'clock the  next morning when she went to feed the dogs, was given to  the  agents  of the National Bureau of Investigation  together with two slugs found near the scene of the crime.   The N. B. I. found that the revolver had its barrel end clogged with mud or earth (Exh. "AA") ; that in the magazine chamber there had been five bullets, four of which were fired (Exh. "BB").  The fifth,  which had not been fired, was between the first two fired bullets and the last two fired bullets (Exh. "III").   This circumstance tallies with the testimony of the driver that he first heard two shots, then after  a brief interval,  another two. The  middle  bullet  was left  unfired probably  because the welder of the revolver had drawn the cock  before firing the last two  bullets so as to insure the death of the victim. A test  was  made  to determine from  what  revolver the two slugs had been fired, and it was found that they came from the same revolver (Exh. "III").  The revolver in question is a .38-caliber police pistol, licensed in the name of Mr. George Murray  (Exh. "T" and "T-l"), and known by  a close friend of the  deceased  as belonging to the latter.

3. At about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of August 13, 1949, three policemen went to investigate the murder room. Two of them saw a pair of gloves, then suspected by them to have been used.  Appellant, upon seeing that the gloves were being examined admitted that the gloves were hers, but explained that she had  been  using them when she worked in the garden.  A neighbor testified that it was she who had given appellant said  gloves.  That  morning the policemen saw the left glove lying on the floor near a rattan chair,  while the  right glove  was on  top  of  a suitcase place on a chair.  At 11:30 a.m. when the two policemen who first saw the gloves were already in their station, their sergeant phoned them from the  death  room to inquire  if they had  seen a pair of gloves,  and they answered that they did.   At that time (11:30 a.m.), however,  one of  the gloves, the right one, had disappeared. Appellant was asked to try to locate this missing glove, and  it was only on August 17, that  she  informed the police by phone that her daughter  had found  it in the laundry room.   However, she refused to give  it up, upon advice of her attorney, so that a search warrant (Exh. "WW") had to be secured, and only then were the police able to secure possession of the right glove.   The disappearance of the glove and appellant's refusal to give  it to the police when requested by the latter, indicate a guilty mind, and is enough to convince one that it must have been used  by her when she shot the  deceased.

4. Early at dawn after the maid heard the shots, she tried to hear if  there was any one walking in the house, turning around  in her  bed, but she heard none.  Then she felt like urinating, so she stood up and  opened the door to go down  to the comfort room, but as she opened the door  of their room, she saw Mrs. Murray also opening the door of her  room.   This was just after the shots had been fired.  Appellant was then wearing a white silk  gown and a negligee.  When the maid returned with the policeman, whom she and appellant's two daughters had fetched, appellant had already taken a bath and changed her attire and was already wearing a striped dress.   This, she pretended to the police, to be the dress she was wearing when the  shots were  heard.   As the  investigation progressed, it was noticed  that the dress  she  had  on when  seen coming out of her bedroom  right after the shots were heard, had disappeared, and when the police finally located it, it had already been washed, although some stains were found on it.   These stains, appellant explained,  were supposedly caused by  her  monthly  menstruation.

5. The  right glove was found  by the chemist who examined it to have spots of nitrate at the dorsum about the first phalange thumb, ring finger, and  third finger (Exh. "YY-1") Appellant tired to explain the presence of this substance in the right-hand glove, saying that it was caused by the fertilizer that she had used for her plants in the garden, but the chemist disproved her claim by saying that if the nitrate had been caused  by her handling  of "vigoro," the  substance would have been in  bigger sizes on the palm, not as mere spots at the dorsum of the glove. The  above facts conclusively show that the hand with the glove on had something in its grip, which could have been no other than a revolver, the firing of which caused the spots found in the  dorsum of the  glove.

6. Appellant, from the start of the investigations by the police, had always answered the questions of the policemen, both for herself and for the maid, instead of allowing the latter to face the investigators and answer their questions herself.  On one occasion appellant ordered the maid to hide in a closet of the house just so the policemen could not talk to her.  Later  on, she hid the  maid in the house of her laundry  woman, planning  to  send  her  away  to Cavite to prevent her  from facing the investigators.   It was when the maid was about to board a jeep to go away that she was grabbed by agents  of  the N.B.I,  and taken into custody for  purposes of investigation and later for use as a witness for  the prosecution.

It can be seen from the above  that the prosecution has succeeded in weaving a net of incidents, facts and circumstances, all belying  the  claim of  the appellant  that  some intruder might have entered the  room  and shot her  husband.   None  of the incidents,  facts or  circumstances is consistent  with her  claim of innocence;  on the contrary, each  one  of them points to her guilt, and each is  consistent with all the others.  All of them put together produced a conviction in  the mind of the Court that it was appellant, and no other, who had a motive to end the life of the deceased, and  that it was she herself who voluntarily shot the deceased.
* *  * in order that circumstantial evidence may constitute  proof beyond reasonable doubt,  there  must be a series of circumstances satisfactorily proved, that  the  circumstances are consistent with each other, and that each and everyone of them  is consistent with defendant's guilt and inconsistent with his innocence.   (U.  S. vs. Douglas,  2  Phil., 461, 474; U.S. vs.  Lim Sip, et  al., 10 Phil., 627; People vs. Chan Uh, 57  Phil., 523; People vs. Ludday, 61  Phil., 216.)" People vs. Mahlon, et  al., 92 Phil.,  883.

"No  general rule  can be laid down as  to the quantity of circumstantial evidence necessary to convict."   (People vs. Ludday, 61 Phil.,  216, 221).  "All  the  circumstances  must be consistent with each other,  consistent  with the hypothesis  that the  accused  is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with  the hypothesis that he is innocent."  (U.S. vs. Levente, 18 Phil., 439; People vs. Chan Uh, 51 Phil., ,523; People vs. Tan-choco y Marcelo,  76 Phil., 463; People vs. Mahlon. et al., supra; see 3 Moran,  1957 ed., p. 592.)

"* * *  the evidence  submitted  by  plaintiff, which  is  all circumstantial and  therefore  less  susceptible to fabrication, constitutes an unbroken chain  of  natural  and rational circumstances   corroborating  each  other, and  it certainly  can  not be  overcome by the very inconcrete and  doubtful evidence submitted by the  defendants.'' Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. vs. Exconde,  93 Phil.,  894.
The  Rules of Court expressly provides:
"Sec. 98. Circumstantial evidence when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence  is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more  than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt."
We have, therefore, no other alternative than to follow the  law as  quoted above  and find  the  appellant  guilty of parricide  as charged and, as found by the court below. Whether or not the deceased was awake when appellant assaulted and  shot him, the  evidence is  not sufficiently clear to convince  us one  way  or  the  other.  Only the appellant knows under what  circumstances  she shot the deceased.  We  are  constrained  to  find,  therefore,  no aggravating  or  mitigating circumstances  attending the commission of the crime.   Since the penalty prescribed for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death, the  penalty  to be imposed on  the appellant  should be that  of reclusion perpetua, in accordance with Article 63, par.  2(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

As to the indemnity,  we do not see any reason for departing from the  practice of fixing it at P6,000.   The decision should,  therefore, be modified in this respect. Before closing, some word of explanation must be  given why the case lasted  more than eight years in this Court.

The records were  forwarded to this Court on January 8, 1951.   But it took  four years and  eight months before the stenographic notes  could  be  fully  transcribed by the stenographers who took  notes at the trial.   The counsel for the accused was notified of the completion of the record only on October 25, 1955,  and he  filed appellants  brief on March  26, 1956.

The  Solicitor-General  should have filed  his  brief for the  Government  on April 25, 1956, but no less than fifteen extensions were asked for and granted, and  the Government's  brief was filed only on August 30, 1956.  The case was submitted for decision only on June 12,  1957. All the above  explain  the delay in the disposal of this case.

For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with modification as to the indemnity as above indicated.   With costs against appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.

tags