Case Title People v Butler

G.R. no. G.R. No. L-50276

Main Topic Aggravating Circumstance; Ignominy

Other Related Topic

Date: January 27, 1983

DOCTRINES

FACTS:
-Accused-appellant, Michael Butler and the victim, EnriquitaAlipo 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,
and one Rosemarie Suarez.
- The accused left the restaurant with the victim. Emelita Pasco, housemaid of
the victim, testified that Gina came home with Michael. They immediately went
into the former’s bedroom.
- The next morning, Pasco knocked at the door. She found that the victim was
lying on her bed, facing downwards, naked up to the waist, with legs spread
apart and 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 the 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.
- Accused confessed that he engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim her the
rear (anal sex). The next morning, he said that his five peso note in his sock was
missing. A quarrel ensued over the missing money. It went physical until the
accused grabbed the victim by the throat and picked up a statue of Jesus Christ
and hit her in the head. He then left the house.
- Upon medical examination, Dr. Roxas testified that the anal intercourse
happened after the victim’s 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, accused was found guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior
strength with the attendance of generic aggravating circumstances of treachery
and ignominy/outraging at the corpse of the victim without any mitigating
circumstance.
- Accused-appellant alleged that he was a minor at the time the offense was
committed, and having invoked his minority, he was entitled to the suspension of
the sentence pursuant to P.D. 603, Art. 192 before its amendment by P.D. 1179.
ISSUE:
1. WON there’s abuse of superior strength to qualify the killing to murder
2. WON there’s treachery.
3. WON there’s ignominy
4. WON there’s privilege mitigating circumstance of minority

HELD:

1. Yes. The SC held that there was an abuse of superior strength attending
the commission of the crime. Crime is qualified therefore to murder.It is
not only the notorious advantage of height that the accused had over his
hapless victim, he being 6 feet tall and weighing 155 lbs. while the girl
was only 4 ft 11 inches tall, but also fits 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, which pressure must
have been very strong and powerful to suffocate her to death and without
risk to himself in any manner or mode whatsoever that she may have taken
to defend herself or retaliate since she was already struck and helpless on
the bed, that convinced us to find and rule that the crime committed is
murder with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
2. No, there was no treachery. 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. The extra-judicial confession of the accused merely stated, thus: "I
thought she was going to do something dangerous to me so I grabbed her,
and we started wrestling on the bed. She grabbed me by the throat and I
picked up a statue of Jesus Christ that was sitting on the bedside stand and
I hit her in the head. She fell flat on her face." Although the figurine was
found broken beside her head, the medical report, however, do not show
any injury or fracture of the skull and no sign of intracranial hemorrhage
3. Yes, there was ignominy or outraging/scoffing at the corpse of the
deceased since it is established that the accused mocked or outraged at the
person or corpse of the victim by having 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.
Angeles Roxas, the medico-legal officer, and confirmed to be positive in
the Laboratory Report, Exhibit "B1 ", clearly established the coitus after
 death. This act of the accused in having anal intercourse with the woman
after killing her is, undoubtedly, an outrage at her corpse.
4. Yes, the accused is a minor and is entitled to the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority which reduces the penalty one degree lower. He
should also have been entitled to suspension of judgment of murder.