PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO CABURAL

8/23/22, 2:28 PM PEOPLE v.
TIMOTEO CABURAL
EN BANC
[ GR No. L-34105, Feb 04, 1983 ]
PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO CABURAL
DECISION
205 Phil. 450
RELOVA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte,
dated June 4, 1970, convicting Timoteo Cabural of the crime of Robbery with Rape
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; and, convicting
Leonide Cabual, Benjamin Lasponia and Ciriaco Yangyang of the crime of Robbery
and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of
Prision Mayor, as minimum, to ten (10) years of Prision Mayor, as maximum; to
indemnify the offended party in the sum of P9,435.50, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay proportionately the costs of the
proceedings.
The statement of facts in the brief filed by the People of the Philippines is as follows:
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c6390?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09 1/17
8/23/22, 2:28 PM PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO CABURAL
". . . [A]t about 2:00 o'clock in the morning of September 14, 1960, three masked
men entered the building of the Kim San Milling in Palao, City of Iligan, thru an
opening of the roof above the kitchen that was being repaired and forced
themselves inside a room where Pua Lim Pin, Bebencio Palang, Sy Chua Tian
and Siao Chou were sleeping (tsn, pp. 78-82, May 31, 1965; tsn, pp. 141-148,
June 13, 1961). The masked men, at gunpoint, hogtied the four occupants of the
room and after commanding them to lie on the floor, face down, were all covered
with blankets (tsn, pp. 82-83, ibid). The inmates of the room heard that the
cabinets were being ransacked (tsn, p. 82, ibid). As this was going on, one of the
men approached Pua Lim Pin to ask him if he could open the safe to which he
answered in the negative as he was a mere employee of the firm (tsn, p. 83, May
31, 1961). An hour later, one of the men approached Sy Chua Tian (also See Chou
Kian, tsn, p. 89, ibid) and told him: 'now is 3:30, if by 4:00 the safe is not open
we will kill you.' (tsn, p. 94, ibid.)
"As this was going on, another episode was taking place inside the next room
where the maids were sleeping (tsn, p. 91, May 31, 1961). Restituta Biosano,
Panchita Maghanoy and Agripina Maglangit have retired at about 10:00 o'clock
in the evening of September 13, 1960, after their chores were performed (tsn, p.
91, ibid; tsn, p. 10, May 7, 1961; tsn, p. 13, May 29, 1961; tsn, p. 25, ibid). At about
2:00 o'clock the following morning, they were awakened by two persons, one
holding a pistol and the other holding a hunting knife. Like the fate of the four
inmates of the other room, the maids were all hogtied, made to lie on the floor,
face downward, and were all covered with blankets (tsn, pp. 25-29, May 29,
1961). The two then left the room (tsn, p. 29, ibid). After two hours later, one of
the two men re-appeared in the room and after discovering that Agripina
Maglangit had freed her hands, he showed anger and remarked that he would
separate her from the rest. With his pistol pointed at her, he took her outside the
building to a secluded place within the Kim San Compound (tsn, pp. 30-33,
ibid.). Here, with her hands tied, she was made to lie down flat on the ground
face upwards. He then raised her skirt, pulled down her panties, and had sexual
intercourse with her. She was unable to resist him and fight back because at the
time she had lost her strength not to mention the fact that she was deprived of
the use of her hands that were both tied together. The rape having been
consummated, he pulled her left arm so she could stand up. He then left her (tsn,
pp. 33-35, ibid.).
"Agripina Maglangit recognized the features of the man that raped her. She
identified her rapist to be the accused Timoteo Cabural (tsn, pp. 36-39, ibid.).
"At about four o'clock that morning (September 14, 1960) all the intruders must
have left because the four men that were hogtied in the other room noticed
complete silence. They each struggled to free themselves which they succeeded.
Maghanoy lost her 'Alosa' 15-jewel watch costing her P65.00 (tsn, p. 22, May 29,
1961); Sy Chua Tian (See Chou Kian) lost his Omega automatic wrist watch
valued in the amount of P385.00 that was snatched from his wrist by one of the
robbers, besides his wallet containing P264.00 in paper currency (tsn, p. 85 and
p. 95, May 31, 1961). After the robbers left, the inmates discovered that cash and
some personal belongings in the total amount of P9,435.50 were asported by the
robbers (tsn, pp. 29-36, Oct. 23, 1961; tsn, pp. 120-125, June 13, 1961).
"The accident having been reported, both the local police as well as the
Philippine Constabulary stationed in Iligan conducted their investigation. In the
course of the investigation, members of the Philippine Constabulary found a .30-
caliber carbine with 4 magazines and a .45 caliber pistol well wrapped in a banca
at the shore behind the house of the accused Benjamin Lasponia. This led to the
investigation of Lasponia who subsequently admitted the crime and pointed to
his companions that night. On September 18, 1960, Benjamin Lasponia signed a
confession before Assistant Fiscal Leonardo Magsalin, Exhibits B, B-1, B-2, and
B-3, at the PC headquarters in Iligan (pp. 1025-1028, Vol. III Rec.). He confessed
to the last detail his participation in the crime. On September 19, 1960, the
accused Leonide Cabual subscribed to an affidavit before the same Fiscal
Magsalin regarding his participation and that of his co-accused in the robbery of
Kim San Milling in the early morning of September 14, 1960, Exhibits C, C-1, C-
2, C-3 and C-5 (pp. 1029-1034, Vol. III, Record). Ciriaco Yangyang followed. He
subscribed his confession before Special Counsel Dominador Padilla in the Office
of the City Fiscal of Iligan on September 26, 1960, Exhibits H, H-1 and H-2 (pp.
1036-1038, Vol. III, Record, See complete testimony of Eustaquio Cabides, tsn,
pp. 52-72, July 17, 1969)."
On September 21, 1960, (1) Timoteo Cabural, alias Romeo alias Tiyoy; (2) Benjamin
Lasponia; (3) Leonide Cabual alias Eddie; (4) Ciriaco Yangyang; (5) William Tate alias
Negro; (6) Fausto Dacera, and, (7) Alfonso Caloy-on, alias Pablo, were charged before
the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte of the crime of Robbery in Band with
Rape, in an information filed by the City Fiscal of Iligan City. The crime charged was
allegedly committed as follows:
"That on or about September 14, 1960 in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, in company
with one Fred Ybañez alias Godofredo Camisic and one John Doe, who are still
at-large, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one
another, and armed with deadly weapons, all unlicensed, to wit: carbines,
revolvers, tommy guns, garand rifles and knives, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and by means of violence against
and intimidation of persons, and with the use of force upon things, to wit: by
passing through an opening not intended for entrance or egress, enter the main
building and office of the Kim San Milling Company, an inhabited building, and
once inside, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal,
rob and carry away therefrom, the following personal properties, to wit:
"Cash money P5,972.00

Wrist watch 'Technos' 100.00
Gold Ring 20.00
Sunglasses 30.00
Four pieces of golden bracelets 1,400.00
Chinese gold ring with dark blue
90.00
stone
One gold ring with brilliant stone 400.00
One Chinese gold necklace with red
150.00
stone
One pair of earrings Chinese gold
60.00
with red stone
Three pairs of earrings with pearls 120.00
Four Chinese gold rings with stones
140.00
of different colors
Sweepstake tickets 45.00
One American gold Lady's ring with
30.00
dark pink stone
Four men's rings 32.00
One and a half dozens handkerchiefs 34.50
Lady's wrist watch 30.00
Three ladies watches 69.00
One Men's watch 60.00
One Chinese gold necklace 58.00
One Lady's wrist watch 15.00
One Chinese gold necklace 58.00
One Men's wrist watch 60.00
One Men's wrist watch 'Tugaris' 65.00
Knife 12.00
One Men's wrist watch 'Omega
385.00
Seamaster'
with a total value of P9,435.50, belonging to the Kim San Milling Company,
Bebencio Palang, Agapito Tan, Restituta Biosano, Panchita Maghanoy, Catalina
Boisano, Pua Lim Pin, and Sy Chua Tian, to the damage and prejudice of the said
owners in the said sum of P9,435.50, Philippine currency; and that on the
occasion or by reason of the said robbery, the above-named accused except

William Tate alias Negro, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of one Agripina Maglangit, a woman, by means of violence and
intimidation and against her will.
"Contrary to and in violation of Article 294 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by Republic Act No. 18 and Article 296 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by Republic Act No. 12, Section 3, with the following
aggravating circumstances, to wit: that the said offense was committed during
night time and by a band; that it was committed with the use of disguise; and
that it was committed with the use of a motor vehicle."
Upon arraignment, the defendants pleaded not guilty. However, during the course of
the trial, three (3) of the accused, namely: William Tate, Fausto Dacera and Alfonso
Caloy-on were dropped on petition of the City Fiscal and trial proceeded against the
four (4) remaining accused, namely: Timoteo Cabural, alias Romeo Cabural;
Benjamin Lasponia, Leonide Cabual and Ciriaco Yangyang. As aforesaid, Cabural,
Lasponia, Cabual and Yangyang were convicted. Benjamin Lasponia did not appeal;
however, Cabural, Yangyang and Cabual did and claimed that the trial court erred:
I.
"IN HOLDING THAT THE AFFIDAVITS OR EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS
OF ACCUSED BENJAMIN LASPONIA, LEONIDE CABUAL, AND CIRIACO
YANGYANG WHICH WERE NOT OBTAINED THROUGH FORCE, VIOLENCE,
INTIMIDATIONS AND THREATS AND SERIOUS MALTREATMENTS ARE
ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE COULD BE A LEGAL BASIS
FOR THE CONVICTIONS OF ACCUSED.
2.
"IN HOLDING THAT EVEN IF IN THE EXECUTION OF SAID AFFIDAVITS OF
CONFESSIONS BY THE THREE ACCUSED SOME PERSONAL
INCONVENIENCE WERE MADE BY THE PC SOLDIERS BUT BECAUSE THE
CONTENTS OF SAID CONFESSIONS ARE TRUE SAID EXTRA-JUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AND COULD BE MADE A
LEGAL BASIS FOR THE CONVICTIONS OF ALL ACCUSED.
3.
"IN HOLDING THAT THE THREE EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS BY

THREE ACCUSED BEING INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS IS ENOUGH AND
SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THEIR CONVICTIONS ON PROOF BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT;
4.
"IN HOLDING THAT THE THREE EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS OF
THREE ACCUSED INTERLOCKED WITH EACH OTHER EVEN IF
INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE BECAUSE OBTAINED THROUGH FORCE,
VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, ETC. IS ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THE
CONVICTION OF ACCUSED TIMOTEO CABURAL BECAUSE HE WAS
SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED BY VICTIM AGRIPINA MAGLANGIT AS HER
RAPIST;
5.
"IN HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE FOR THE
CONVICTIONS OF ACCUSED REACHED THE LEGAL STANDARD OF PROOF
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS REQUIRED BY LAW."
On October 14, 1971, this Court granted the motion of Leonide Cabual to withdraw his
appeal (p. 60, rollo).
Appellant Cabural declared that from 2:00 in the afternoon of September 13, 1960 to
3:00 in the early morning of September 14, 1960, he was playing mahjong with
Virginia Cruz Maruhom and one Gomer in the store of Ason in Maigo, Lanao del
Norte which is about 37 kilometers from Iligan City and would take about two (2)
hours by bus or about one (1) hour by car to negotiate the distance between the two
places; that he could not have been present at complainant's place at 2:00 in the
morning of September 14, 1960 when the robbery took place; that he was brought to
the Philippine Constabulary Headquarters in Iligan City by PC soldiers on September
15, 1960 and was subjected to all kinds of torture; and that after he was severely
maltreated, including the 7-Up treatment and threatened with pistol, he was asked to
sign an affidavit. Despite his insistence that he was innocent he was induced to sign a
statement after he was told: "if you obey us you may get free" and that "if you confess
we will protect you."
Ciriaco Yangyang also denied participation in the commission of the crime

considering that at that time he was in Barrio Mentering attending the counting of
votes for the muse of the barrio fiesta. He was reading the ballots cast for each
candidate at the microphone. It was only in the following morning of September 14,
1960 when he returned to Maigo.
The identity of appellant Timoteo Cabural as the rapist of Agripina Maglangit is
established in the testimony of the latter as follows:
After that man had told you that you would be separated from the rest,
"Q
what happened next, if any?
A I was brought outside.
Q What do you mean by 'outside?'

A I was brought outside of the office of the Kim San.
Q After you have been taken outside, what happened, if any?

A I was threatened and I was forced.
Q How were you threatened?

A He pointed to me his pistol and let me lie down.
This place where he threatened you and made you lie down outside, was
Q
this place near to the place where you had slept?
A It is very far but it is within the compound of the Kim San.
After he had threatened you and made you lie down, what, if any, did you
Q
do?
A He raised my skirt.
Q At the time he was raising your skirt, what was your position?
A I was lying down with face upward.
Q After he had raised your skirt, what happened next, if any?

When my skirt was raised and since I have no more strength because (as
A demonstrated by the witness), her laps were numb, he took off my
pantie.
Q How did your laps happen to be numb?

A Because my laps were pushed so that I cannot move.
Q What particular part of your body did he push to numbness?

A My laps.
Q After he had taken off your pantie, what, if any, did he do?
A I feel that he had what he wants.
Q What do you mean by that?

A To disgrace my honor.
Q How did he disgrace your honor?

A He had sexual intercourse.
Q How long did he have that sexual intercourse with you?

A I do not remember how long because of my fear.
Q Did he finish having sexual intercourse with you?

A Yes, sir.
After he had that sexual intercourse with you, what happened next, if
Q
any?
A (As demonstrated by the witness, her left arm was pulled to stand up)
Q Were you able to stand up?

A Yes, sir.
Q After you have stood up, that man where, if any, did he go?
A I did not notice where the man go but I went back to our room.
Q Upon your arrival to your quarters, what, if any, did you do?
A I told my companions.
Q Who were they?

A They were Restituta Biosano, Pena Maglangit, Catalina Biosano.
That man who had sexual intercourse with you, is he here now in the
Q
courtroom?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please point him out?
(Witness went down from the stand and went to the accused seated in
A the courtroom and pointed to the accused Timoteo Cabural)." (tsn, pp.
32-35, May 29, 1961 hearing)
We agree with the lower court that Cabural alone was responsible for the rape on
Agripina. There is no evidence that his co-appellant Yangyang and the other
malefactors made advances on her. Besides, the extra-judicial confessions of Lasponia
(Exhibits B, B-1, B-2 and B-3), Leonide Cabual (Exhibits C, C-1 to C-5), and Ciriaco
Yangyang (Exhibits H, H-1 and H-2) point to appellant Cabural as the mastermind
and the role each of them would play (as in fact they did) in the commission of the
crime. Their interlocking confessions indicate how they would go to the scene of the
crime, the manner by which they would enter into the premises of Kim San Milling
Company and, as aptly observed by the trial court, the details which only the
participants could amply give.
Further, accused Cabual and Lasponia were sworn by Fiscal Leonardo Magsalin who
instructed the PC investigators to leave the room so that they (Cabual and Lasponia)
would be able to speak their minds freely. Fiscal Magsalin testified that said accused
readily and without hesitation signed their respective extra-judicial confessions.
Finally, We find no merit in the alibis interposed by appellants Cabural and Yangyang.
As pointed out by the Solicitor General in his brief:
"The fact that Cabural played mahjong with Virginia Cruz Maruhom and a
certain Gomer at the store of Ason in Barrio Maigo, from 2:00 P.M. of September
13, 1960 to 3:00 A.M. of September 14, 1960 is no guarantee that he could not be
at the scene of the crime (Kim San Milling Company, situated in Palao), a 37-
kilometer stretch which could be negotiated in one hour by car (tsn., p. 8, Sept.
20, 1966). Considering the confessions of Lasponia, Cabual and Yangyang all
pointing to Cabural as the one in control of the vehicle utilized in the commission
of the crime, the conclusion is not hard to reach that his presence at the scene of
the crime is much likelier than at Maigo."
Otherwise stated, appellants failed to show the plausibility and verity of their alibis
and the crime is aggravated by dwelling and nighttime.
As aforesaid, the trial court convicted Timoteo Cabural of the crime of robbery with
rape, which is penalized by Article 294 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, by reclusion
temporal medium to reclusion perpetua. Effective August 15, 1975 (or subsequent to
this date), Presidential Decree No. 767 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death "when the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons."
In People vs. Perello, Jr., 111 SCRA 147, it was mentioned that "[t]he Chief Justice and
the herein ponente (Justice Ramon C. Aquino) are of the opinion that article 335
cannot be applied to robbery with rape and that that offense should be penalized
under article 294 (2) in which case reclusion perpetua should be imposed. As the
accused was charged with a crime against property, he should not be convicted of a
crime against chastity, a private offense. (See People vs. Olden, L-27570-71,
September 20, 1972, 47 SCRA 45)." However, also in the same case, "Justices
Teehankee, Barredo and Makasiar believe that article 335 should be applied to this
case. (See People vs. Carandang, L-310102, August 15, 1973, 52 SCRA 259; People vs.
Mabag, L-38548, July 24, 1980, 98 SCRA 730; People vs. Arias, L-40531, January 27,
1981, 102 SCRA 303; People vs. Boado, L-44725, March 31, 1981, 103 SCRA 607;
People vs. Cañizares, L-32515, September 10, 1981; People vs. Pizarras, L-35915,
October 30, 1981)."
The writer of this decision is of the opinion that robbery with rape, the accused should
be penalized under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code because it is a crime
against property and not a crime against chastity, a private offense.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. With costs
against both appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Escolin, Vasquez and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., concurs in a separate opinion.
Teehankee, J., files a brief concurrence.
Makasiar, J., accused Cabural should be sentenced to death under Art. 335, R.P.C.
Melencio-Herrera, J., I vote for the application of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code
and the imposition of the death penalty.
Plana, J., on official leave.
CONCURRING OPINION
FERNANDO, C.J.:
My concurrence in the opinion of the Court penned by Justice Relova is full, entire,
and complete. Nonetheless, I wish to express my gratification that this Court by a
[1]
decisive vote sustains the basic postulate in both civil law and common law
jurisdictions, expressed in the maxim Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege. It is
undoubted, therefore, that unless there be a radical change in the thinking of the
Court, it is Article 294(2) not Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code that calls for
application in the crime of robbery with rape.[2] As noted in the opinion of the Court
penned by Justice Aquino in People v. Perello:[3] "Effective August 15, 1975 (or
subsequent to this case) Presidential Decree No. 767 imposes the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death 'when the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with the
use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons.' That increased penalty cannot be
retroactively applied to this case."[4] As such offense of robbery was committed before
that date, it is Article 294(2), before its amendment, that supplies the governing rule.
The applicable law then is clear and explicit. It defined the offense and prescribed the
penalty. The doctrine announced in Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico[5] by Justice
Moreland, in categorical language comes to mind. Thus: "The first and fundamental
duty of courts, in our judgment, is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation
come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate
without them."[6] There is relevance too to this excerpt from Kapisanan ng mga
Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad Company Credit Union, Inc. v. Manila Railroad
Company:[7] "The applicable provision of Republic Act No. 2023 quoted earlier,
speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity. As thus worded, it was so applied. Petitioner-
appellant cannot therefore raise any valid objection. For the lower court to view it
otherwise would have been to alter the law. That cannot be done by the judiciary. That
[8]
is a function that properly appertains to the legislative branch."
Nothing more appropriately appertains to the legislative branch than the definition of
a crime and the prescription of the penalty to be imposed. That is not a doctrine of
recent vintage. It is traceable to United States v. Wiltberger,[9] an 1820 American
Supreme Court opinion. No less than the eminent Chief Justice Marshall spoke for the
Court. To quote his exact language: "The rule that penal laws are to be construed
strictly, is perhaps not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the
tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the
power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is
the legislature, not the court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment."
[10] That ruling was followed in the Philippines in a 1906 decision, United States v.
Almond.[11]
So it has been in the Philippines since then. It was the same Justice Moreland who in
United States v. Abad Santos[12] promulgated in 1917, gave expression to a variation
of such a fundamental postulate in this wise: "Criminal statutes are to be strictly
construed. No person should be brought within their terms who is not clearly within
them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the
statute."[13] The same year, Justice Carson in United States v. Estapia[14] in rejecting
the contention that the application of a penal provision even if not covered by its
terms should be viewed by the judiciary as commendable, conducive as it is "to the
repression of a reprehensible practice" pointed out: "To this it should be sufficient
answer to say that neither the executive nor the judicial authorities are authorized to
impose fines and prison sentences in cases wherein such fines and prison sentences
are not clearly authorized by law, and this without regard to the end sought to be
attained by the enforcement of such unauthorized penalties."[15]
It is to be admitted that from the standpoint of logic alone, there is much to be said for
the view that since rape under certain circumstances is penalized with death, it is an
affront to reason if robbery with rape carries with it a lesser penalty. The latter offense
is far more reprehensible, ergo it must be punished at least with equal if not more
severity. It is from that perspective that in People v. Carandang[16] while the penalty
imposed is that of reclusion perpetua, there were two separate opinions one from
Justice Teehankee and the other from the late Chief Justice, then Justice, Castro. They
would apply Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Retired Chief Justice Makalintal,
now Speaker of the Batasan Pambansa, then Acting Chief Justice, concurred in the
separate opinion of the late Chief Justice Castro. Less than a year before, however, in
September of 1972, Carandang being a 1973 decision, he penned the unanimous
[17]
opinion in People v. Olden affirming the joint judgment of a Court of First
Instance of Davao in two cases, one of which was robbery in band with multiple rape.
[18]
It was not the death sentence that was imposed but reclusion perpetua. That case
[19]
is certainly later than People v. Obtinalia[19] decided in April of 1971, where, in a per
curiam opinion, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code was applied, although the
offense for which the accused were found guilty was robbery with rape. It is, therefore,
reassuring that with the decision of this case, the uncertainty which has beclouded the
issue of the appropriate imposable penalty has been removed.
One last word. The maxim Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege has its roots in
history. It is in accordance with both centuries of civil law and common law tradition.
Moreover, it is an indispensable corollary to a regime of liberty enshrined in our
Constitution. It is of the essence then that while anti-social acts should be penalized,
there must be a clear definition of the punishable offense as well as the penalty that
may be imposed a penalty, to repeat, that can be fixed by the legislative body, and the
legislative body alone. So constitutionalism mandates, with its stress on jurisdictio
rather than guvernaculum. The judiciary as the dispenser of justice through law must
be aware of the limitation on its own power.
Such a concept calls for undiminished respect from the judiciary. For it is the
department by which the other branches are held to strict acccountability. It sees to it,
in appropriate cases of course, that they are held within the bounds of their authority.
Certainly, the judiciary is not devoid of discretion. It can, to paraphrase Cardozo, fill
in the gap and clear the ambiguities. To that extent, it is free but, to recall Cardozo
anew, it "is still not wholly free. [A judge] is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a
knighterrant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He
is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles."[20]
Tersely stated, the judiciary administers justice according to law. This is by no means
to imply that in the case at hand, justice according to law is at war with the concept of
justice viewed from the layman's standpoint. The system of criminal law followed in
the Philippines, true to the ways of constitutionalism, has always leaned toward the
milder form of responsibility, whether as to the nature of the offense or the penalty to
[21]
be incurred by the wrongdoer. Where, as in this case, the law speaks in clear and
categorical language, such a principle is impressed with greater weight.
[1] There are ten votes for the ponencia of Justice Relova and three dissents from
Justices Teehankee, Makasiar and Melencio-Herrera. Justice Plana was on official
leave.
[2]
Article 335 was first amended by Republic Act No. 2632 which took effect on June
18, 1960 and then by Republic Act No. 4111 which took effect on June 24, 1964.
[3] L-33064, January 27, 1982, 111 SCRA 147.
[4]
Ibid, 157.
[5]
24 Phil. 504 (1913).
[6] Ibid, 513.
[7] L-25316, February 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 616.
[8] Ibid, 620. Cf. Banawa v. Mirano, L-24750, May 16, 1980, 97 SCRA 517.
[9] 5 Wheaton 76.
[10] Ibid, 95.
[11]
6 Phil. 306.
[12]
36 Phil. 243.
[13] Ibid, 246.
[14] 37 Phil. 17.
[15] Ibid, 24. Cf. Director of Lands v. Abaja, 63 Phil. 559 (1936); People v. Purisima,
L-42050-66, November 20, 1978, 86 SCRA 542.
[16] L-31012, August 15, 1973, 52 SCRA 259.
[17] L-27570 & 27571, September 20, 1972, 47 SCRA 45.
[18] Barredo, J., did not take part.
[19] L-30190, April 30, 1971, 38 SCRA 651.
[20] Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process, 141 (1921).
[21]
Cf. People v. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38 (1922).

PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO CABURAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO CABURAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO CABURAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/23/22, 2:28 PM PEOPLE v.

[ GR No. L-34105, Feb 04, 1983 ]

PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO CABURAL

"Cash money P5,972.00

occasion or by reason of the said robbery, the above-named accused except

"IN HOLDING THAT THE THREE EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS BY

Ciriaco Yangyang also denied participation in the commission of the crime

Q What do you mean by 'outside?'

Q After you have been taken outside, what happened, if any?

Q How were you threatened?

Q After he had raised your skirt, what happened next, if any?

Q How did your laps happen to be numb?

Q What particular part of your body did he push to numbness?

A I feel that he had what he wants.

Q What do you mean by that?

Q How did he disgrace your honor?

Q How long did he have that sexual intercourse with you?

Q Did he finish having sexual intercourse with you?

Q Were you able to stand up?

Q Who were they?

Q Will you please point him out?

You might also like