G.R. No.
79619 August 20, 1990
PEOPLE vs. ANTONIO BUEZA
Facts:
- In view of the foregoing, the Trial Court finds the guilt of the crime of Murder Considering the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime which however is offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession
and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to accused Antonio Bueza.
- In the evening Nilda Rosela, was at their house cooking their night meal. At the time her husband Juanito Rosela and
their small child were asleep.
- While thus cooking their food, Antonio Bueza and Rodolfo Solis armed with bolo and powder and were drunk came and
tried to drag her to the dark place but she was able to hold at the wall of their house and also she told Rodolfo Solis that
she does not like as she has also a husband.
- Rodolfo Solis therefore threw stones at their house causing her husband, Juanito Rosela to wake up and who
thereupon got a bow and arrow, but Rodolfo Solis was able to grab the same and were thereafter assaulted by Antonio
Bueza and Rodolfo Solis, then dragged and strike him with stones.
-As he was being dragged, he pleaded 'Don't kill me for I have a family' and as he was hit, he kept on moaning. That was
the last time he was seen by Nilda Rosela that evening alive.
- After three days of search Juanito’s body, was found buried with his foot protruding from the underground near the
house of Paquito Lamiel. He was found by the Barangay Captain and the Kagawad and was Identified by Oscar Rosela,
his son.
- He was exhumed by Dra. Consuelo Margate and made her exhumation report findings show that Juanito Rosela was
exhumed from a grave 2 feet wide and four feet long and 1 foot and 2 inches wide. She found many injuries but the
'contusion with hematoma, 3 x 3 inches in the parietal region, right with concomitant fracture of the skull is the most
serious and caused his death.
- Police Corporal Nicomedes Lopez apprehended and investigated the persons of Antonio Bueza and Rodolfo Solis. In the
statement of Bueza he admitted having killed Juanito because Juanito chased him with bow and arrow, and he just act in
self-defense and they grappled and he was able to wrest the bow and arrow which he struck and killed Rosela.
- Court of Appeals accepted the trial court's findings as the facts of the case. Since no bail was recommended by the City
Fiscal, both the accused were detained. However, accused Rodolfo Solis escaped and remained at large. Hence, Bueza
was arraigned alone with assistance of counsel, and he pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
- The accused admitted that he killed the victim and outlined the commission of the crime in an extrajudicial confession.
The extrajudicial confession, however, has no probative value as it was taken without a competent and independent
counsel present to assist the appellant.
- The Constitution provides that the right to counsel cannot be waived except in writing and in presence of counsel. The
trial court credited the accused-appellant with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt arising from the
extrajudicial confession.
Issue: Whether or Not Antonio Bueza is entitled of mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession/surrender and plea
of guilty? NO
Held:
- Moreover, the Court of Appeals ruled that for this mitigating circumstance to be present, the requisites are (1) the
offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the confession of guilt was made in open court; (3) the confession of guilt
was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. The Court of Appeals stated that none of the
requisites mentioned were compel by the accused.
- Although the accused admitted having killed Juanito Rosela in self-defense in his extrajudicial confession, this allegation
was never proved nor even raised during the trial. When arraigned, he did not plead guilty to the offense charged but
insisted that he was not informed of the nature of the offense lodged against him. In his testimony, the accused kept on
denying the crime which "signifies a stubborn refusal to admit guilt" as observed by the Court of Appeals. Under the
above circumstances, the accused is clearly not entitled to this mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession.
Ruling:
NO, the accused is clearly not entitled to this mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession.
- WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the trial court as certified by the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED. The accused,
ANTONIO BUEZA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. Considering the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of treachery without any mitigating circumstance, the accused is hereby SENTENCED to
SUFFER the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the widow, NILDA NASAYAO ROSELA the sum of P30,000.00
and to pay costs.
