People vs. Ursal

An extrajudicial confession taken before January 17, 1973, is admissible even if the accused was not assisted by counsel, because the right to counsel under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution has no retroactive application. A sudden and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim, without any showing that the victim was given an opportunity to defend herself, constitutes treachery and qualifies the killing to murder.

On the afternoon of October 25, 1970, in Barrio Curva, Libertad, Bogo, Cebu, Aquilina Lepon was hacked on the head with a bolo. Her husband Severo, sleeping nearby, was also attacked but survived. The incident was witnessed by a child who had been sent to buy petroleum. Accused fled and was arrested on November 2, 1970. The following day, he swore to an extrajudicial confession before the municipal judge, admitting the killing and the assault. The case was tried before the Court of First Instance of Cebu under the legal regime predating the 1973 Constitution.

• The Attack: At around four o’clock in the afternoon of October 25, 1970, in Barrio Curva, Libertad, Bogo, Cebu, Aquilina Lepon, 53, was near the awning of her house when accused Cristituto Ursal suddenly hacked her on the head with a bolo. The attack was witnessed by ten-year-old Maximina Ortega, who was on an errand to buy petroleum at the victim’s store.
• Aftermath and Dying Declaration: Aquilina ran toward the house of neighbor Rita Mitante, screaming “Please help us, because we are being hacked by Totong.” She collapsed with head wounds and was unable to speak further. Severo Lepon, her husband, was also attacked while sleeping near the awning but survived.
• Flight and Arrest: Ursal fled—first to his house in Poblacion, Bogo, then to a co-laborer’s house, and finally to a barrio in Tabogon, Cebu—until he was arrested on November 2, 1970.
• Extrajudicial Confession: On November 3, 1970, Ursal was brought before Bogo Municipal Judge Vicente de Roda, where he subscribed and swore to an extrajudicial confession (Exhibit A). In it, he admitted killing Aquilina and assaulting Severo.
• Defense Version: Ursal claimed he took shelter from the rain near the Lepon house and witnessed a certain Juanito Nogas strike Aquilina on the head with a piece of wood. Nogas then allegedly handed Ursal a bolo and ordered him to hack the sleeping Severo. When Ursal refused, Nogas stabbed his hand, and out of fear, Ursal struck Severo once in the forehead. He denied hacking Aquilina and disputed that he affixed his thumbmark on the affidavit before the judge.
• Medical Evidence: Dr. Leopoldo Jiao testified that Aquilina suffered lacerated head wounds and a skull fracture, which caused her death. A single blow with a piece of wood would not have produced three lacerated wounds.
• Witness Credibility: Maximina Ortega had known Ursal for some time and identified him in court. No motive was shown for her to falsely implicate him. Rita Mitante corroborated the victim’s dying declaration and saw the head injury.

• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confession: Whether the trial court erred in admitting the extrajudicial confession despite the accused not having been assisted by counsel.
• Reliability of Confession Due to Absent Witnesses: Whether the confession should have been rejected because not all attesting witnesses were presented.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the remaining prosecution evidence, independent of the confession, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances: Whether treachery qualified the killing to murder, and whether disregard of sex and dwelling should be appreciated as aggravating.

• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confession: The confession was taken on November 3, 1970, before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution has no retroactive effect and does not apply to confessions obtained before January 17, 1973. Consequently, the absence of counsel did not render the confession inadmissible under the law then prevailing. The claim that the statements were not his own was rejected; the details in the confession matched Maximina Ortega’s testimony, confirming voluntariness.
• Reliability of Confession Due to Absent Witnesses: Even if Exhibit A were entirely excluded, the testimonies of Maximina Ortega and Rita Mitante were independently sufficient to sustain the charge. The absence of some attesting witnesses did not affect the outcome.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The positive, credible testimony of the child eyewitness, free from any discernible improper motive, together with the victim’s dying declaration and the accused’s flight, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense version—that Nogas killed Aquilina with a piece of wood—was inconsistent with the medical evidence of multiple lacerated wounds and a skull fracture, and was unsupported by any corroboration.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances: Treachery was present because the attack on the victim was sudden and unexpected, affording her no opportunity to defend herself. Disregard of sex was not appreciated because there was no showing that the accused deliberately sought to kill a woman or that any specific insult to womanhood accompanied the killing, per United States vs. De Jesus. Dwelling was not appreciated because the victim was struck “near the awning,” indicating she was outside the house at the time.

• Non-retroactivity of 1973 Constitution Right to Counsel — The right to counsel during custodial investigation under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution does not apply retroactively to confessions obtained before January 17, 1973. The admissibility of such confessions is governed by the law in force at the time of their execution.
• Voluntariness of Confession Sworn Before a Judge — A confession subscribed and sworn to before a municipal judge and corroborated by independent evidence is deemed voluntary.
• Flight as Evidence of Guilt — The flight of an accused to a distant locality after the commission of a crime is a circumstance strongly indicative of guilt.
• Treachery — Treachery exists when the attack is sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any chance to defend herself. It qualifies the killing to murder.
• Disregard of Sex — For disregard of sex to be considered an aggravating circumstance, it must be shown that the accused deliberately targeted the victim because of her sex or that some specific insult or disrespect to womanhood accompanied the killing, not merely that the victim was a woman (United States vs. De Jesus, 14 Phil. 190).
• Dwelling as Aggravating Circumstance — Dwelling may not be appreciated when the victim was outside the house at the time of the attack, such as “near the awning.”

• “Section 20, Article IV of the New Constitution, has no retroactive effect and does not apply to confessions obtained before January 17, 1973 when the constitution took effect.” — This excerpt encapsulates the controlling rule on the admissibility of the uncounseled confession.
• “Even discounting Exhibit ‘A’ as prosecution evidence, the testimonies of Maximina Ortega and Rita Mitante were enough to sustain the charge against appellant.” — The Court emphasized the independent sufficiency of the eyewitness and dying declaration evidence.
• “A single blow with a piece of wood would not be able to cause three lacerated wounds.” — Medical evidence was used to discredit the defense version.
• “In United States vs. De Jesus, 14 Phil. 190, the aggravating circumstance of sex ‘is not sustained by the fact that the victim was a woman, unless it further appears that aside from the unlawful taking of her life, there was in the commission of the crime some specific insult or disrespect shown to her womanhood.’” — The standard for disregard of sex was reaffirmed.

• People vs. Viduya, 97 SCRA 666 — Followed; held that Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution has no retroactive effect and does not apply to confessions taken before its effectivity.
• United States vs. De Jesus, 14 Phil. 190 — Followed; defined the parameters of disregard of sex as an aggravating circumstance.

• Section 20, Article IV, 1973 Constitution — The right to counsel during custodial investigation; ruled to have no retroactive effect, thus inapplicable to a confession taken in 1970.
• N/A for other specific statutory provisions directly cited; the Revised Penal Code provisions on murder and aggravating circumstances were applied implicitly through doctrinal references.

Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concurred. Teehankee, J., took no part. Aquino, J., was on leave.