People vs.

Butler, 120 SCRA 281

Facts:
- Accused-appellant Michael Butler and the victim, Enriquita Alipo alias
Gina Barrios were together at Colonial Restaurant in Olongapo City.
- They were seen together by Lilia Paz, an entertainer and friend of the
victim, who claimed to have had a small conversation with the accused
and one Rosemarie Suarez.
- The accused left the restaurant with the victim together with Rosemarie.
- Emelita Pasco, housemaid of the victim testified that Gina came home
with Michael. They immediately went into the formers bedroom. Shortly
thereafter, the victim left the room with a paper containing the ff. words:
MICHAEL BUTLER, 44252-8519 USS HANCOCK.
- She then rushed back to her room after instructing Pasco to wake her up
in the morning. But before retiring. Rosemarie arrived and had a small
conversation with her.
- Pasco, in the morning, knocked at the door. She found that the victim was
lying on her bed, facing downward, naked up to the waist, with legs spread
apart with a broken figurine beside her head. She immediately called the
landlord and the authorities.
- An investigation was conducted by the authorities. After being located and
identified as a crew member of USS Hancock, the accused was brought to
the legal office of the ship. The accused was searched, handcuffed and
was brought to the Naval Investigation Services Resident Agency office.
- The result of the NISRA investigation was a document taken from the
accused consisting of 3 pages signed and initialed on all pages by him
and containing a statement that he was aware of his constitutional rights
and a narration of the facts of the case.
- Dr. Roxas testified that the anal intercourse happened after the victims
death. He also testified that the victim died of asphyxia due to suffocation
when extreme pressure was exerted on her head pushing it downward,
thereby pressing her nose and mouth against the mattress.
- After trial, the accused was found guilty of murder.
- A motion for new trial was filed by the accused-appellant alleging that he
was a minor at the time the offense was committed. The motion was
denied. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed which was
also denied. Hence, a petition for mandamus.
Issues:
1. WON the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of the
prosecution witness
- As a matter of established jurisprudence, the findings of the trial court on
credibility of a witness are not disturbed on appeal unless there is a
showing that it failed to consider certain facts and circumstances which
would change the same.
- There were three persons who identified the accused. the finger print
examination showed that one of the three prints lifted from the cellophane
wrapping of the figurine was identical with the accused finger; and the
accused failed to present clear and positive evidence to overcome the
scientific and specific finding and conclusion of the medico-legal officer.

2. WON the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the alleged extra-judicial
admission of the accused and appreciating it against him
- Contrary to what the counsel for the accused-appellant contends, there is
no evidence showing that the accused was roughly handed from the very
start. Neither is there any evidence to prove that he was first handcuffed
and informed that he was first handcuffed and informed that he was a
suspect in a murder case before he was warned of his rights.
- While it may be true that a considerable span of time elapsed from the
moment the accused was brought to the NISRA office to the time the
interrogation was begun and reduced to writing, there is no competent
evidence presented to support the allegation that the statement made by
the accused was a result of pressure and badgerings.

3. WON the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of
murder qualified by abuse of superior strength
- The Court holds that there was an abuse of superior strength attending
the commission of the crime. It is not only the notorious advantage of
height that the accused had over the hapless victim, but also his strength
which he wielded in striking her with the figurine on the head and in
shoving her head and pressing her mouth and nose against the bed
mattress.

4. WON the trial court erred in appreciating treachery and abuse of superior
strength simultaneously and separately
- The evidence on record, however, is not sufficient to show clearly and
prove distinctly that treachery attended the commission of the crime since
there was no eyewitness account of the killing.

5. WON the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of Dr. Roxas, the
medico-legal Officer, that asphyxiation by suffocation was the cause of
death of the victim
- The Court sustains the finding of the lower court that the aggravating
circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the deceased
applies against the accused since it is established that he mocked or
outraged the person or corpse of his victim by having an anal intercourse
with her after she was already dead.
- The fact that the muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence
of spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by Dr. Roxas and
confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report clearly establishes the
coitus after death.

6. WON the trial court erred in denying the accused the benefits of Sec. 192
of PD 603 before its amendment by PD 1179 on Aug. 15, 1977
- At the time of the commission of the offense, the trial and rendition of
judgment, the applicable law was PD 603. The Court does not agree with
the reasoning of the trial court that the accused did not invoke the law
because the records manifestly show the vigorous plea of the accused for
its application.
- The Court likewise holds that the penalty of death was not justified. The
accused is a minor and he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
minority.
- The amendment to keep away from its beneficient provision cases of
conviction of a minor when penalty imposed is death cannot prejudice the
accused whose case was pending appeal when the amendment took
effect.

Disposition: The case against the accused is DISMISSED. Civil liability
imposed upon him by the lower court shall remain.


DISSENTING OPINION

Aquino, J

- The speculations of the medico-legal officer and the trial judge that there
was posthumous sodomy are unwarranted. The prosecution is bound by
Butlers confession. He alleged that the squabble over his five-peso bill
which the victim took without his consent, was the cause of the fight which
he had with the victim.
- The confession also proves that Butler did not intend to commit so grave a
wrong as that which he committed and that he was intoxicated at the time
the killing was perpetrated.
- I dissent from the ponentes opinion that Butler should have been given a
suspended sentence and that, by reason of his good behavior while
confined in the Subic Naval Base Stockade , he should now be released
and discharged.
- If at the time the case is decided by this Court, the accused is no longer a
minor with more reason, he is not entitled to a suspended sentence.