PEOPLE v. DESALISA [229 SCRA 35 (1994)]

Nature: Appeal from a decision of RTC Sorsogon. 1994.FACTS: Emmanuel Desalisa, a 22-yr old farmer, lived w/ his 18-yrold legal wife, Norma, who was then 5 mos pregnant and their 2-yrold daughter in a small nipa hse on a hill at Pinaductan, Sorsogon.The whole neighborhood consists of 3 houses. The other 2 housesare about 150 meters away: the house of his parents-in-law and thehouse of Carlito Dichoso. The view of the houses is obstructed bythe many fruit trees and shrubs prevalent in the area.On Oct 9, 1983, Vicente Dioneda, the father-in-law of the accused,testified that the latter went to their house and left his 2 yr-old. Thenext day, at about 6 or 7AM, Vicente went to the house of theaccused only to find plates scattered on the floor, the kettle w/cooked rice untouched, and the other rope holding the hammockmissing. He went out of the house and noticed the couple’s pig to behungry. He thought of feeding it w/ coconut meat from the tree w/cwas nearby. He saw the back of the body of his daughter. He calledher and touched her back. However, her body swayed. It was onlythen that he realized that she was hanging from a branch of thejackfruit tree. Her neck was suspended about 4 inches above theground. Her neck was tied w/ the missing rope of the hammock.There were no eyewitnesses to the incident.Accused-appellant often manhandled his daughter because hesuspected her of having a paramour and that the baby in her wombwas not his. He believed that one Ariate was courting his wife.Desalisa invokes the defense of denial. He speculates that it washis wife who was jealous. She suspected him of having an affair w/the daughter of Manoy Charito.HELD: The accused has the opportunity to commit the crime. Thehouse where they lived is up a hill and isolated. The wholeneighborhood consists only of 3 houses. No one can go up the hill tovisit w/o being known to the neighbor. Moreover, the motive ofjealousy is evident for what can be more humiliating to a man asidefrom a wife being unfaithful to be refused entry to one’s very home?Although the accused did not flee after the crime, there is no caselaw holding that non-flight is conclusive of proof of innocence.The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can not beappreciated against accused-appellant absent any proof as to howand when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before itwas carried out. Neither may the aggr circumstance of nighttime beappreciated against him because there is no proof that it waspurposely sought or taken advantage of or that it facilitated thecommission of the crime.However, the aggr circumstance of uninhabited place is present.The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance ofthe nearest house to the scene of the crime but WON there wasreasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help in the placeof commission. Considering that the killing was done duringnighttime and many fruit trees and shrubs obstructed the view of theneighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for thevictim to receive any assistance.Accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of thecomplex crime of parricide w/ unintentional abortion and sentencedto suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay civil indemnityof PhP50K. Being a single indivisible penalty, reclusion perpetua isimposed regardless of any mitigating or aggr circumstances.