Extreme cruelty

This is a case where the court finds the imposition of death penalty appropriate because of the inherent wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity of the crime committed. It happened when the death penalty law (RA 7659) was still in force and effect. This is the case of Vina and Vicky.

Vina and Vicky were sisters staying in the same apartment in the suburbs of Manila together with their 74-year-old mother and Vicky’s children. Vina was a buxom, matured woman older and taller than Vicky, although Vicky was the one with a steady job and even drives her own car. Needing somebody to help them in the household chores, the sisters decided to hire a domestic helper.

So they hired Suzette, a poorly nourished 16-year-old teenager living in a province who was then looking for employment in the big city because of grinding poverty. Her older sister Sheryl often visited her and noticed that Suzette was being maltreated. One time she saw Suzette’s hair was unevenly cut to the scalp by Vina allegedly because she destroyed their rice cooker. Thus Sheryl told the sisters that she was already taking Suzette back but Vina and Vicky refused.

After about one and a half years of working with Vina and Vicky, the police informed Sheryl that Suzette’s dead body was found inside a cardboard box in the compartment of Vicky’s car after responding to an anonymous call and chasing Vina and Vicky. The police reported that Vicky and Vina themselves identified the corpse as that of Suzette.

So the police arrested Vina and Vicky and charged them with the crime of murder after the autopsy findings on Suzette’s body revealed that the cause of death were multiple traumatic wounds and first and second degree scalding burns on the head, trunk, upper and lower extremities comprising about 72 percent of Suzette’s entire body surface as a result of hot liquid within the range of boiling point being poured on the victim at various times prior to her death.

At the trial, Sheryl, the two police officers and the medico legal officer testified and reiterated the above events that transpired. On the other hand Vina testified and denied the charge. She claimed that Suzette “died because she got sick, and not because I mauled her.”

But during the trial, Vina testified that while Suzette was kind, industrious and respectful at first, she later on caught her stealing money and jewelry in their bedroom but did prosecute her because she pleaded for a second chance and promised that she would not do it again. But after that incident, Vina claimed that she often caught Suzette stealing money from them and destroying their appliances triggering a fight between them during which she would pour boiling water on her to “pacify her and stop her from fighting back.”

Vina also admitted having pulled Suzette’s hair and banged her head (inuumpog ang ulo), and that they fought about six times in a particular month but she would treat Suzette’s wounds after their fight. Suzette however would scratch her wounds and making them fresh again causing her to lose appetite until she discovered Suzette’s body already bent and flexed forward (nakabaluktot) lying in bed, lifeless. Due to panic, Vina said that she hid the body in a cardboard box then placed it inside the luggage of Vicky’s car because she was afraid that her 74-year-old mother who was suffering from a heart ailment would see the body and be affected.  And Vina further narrated that when Vicky arrived that evening, she met her at the gate of their house and asked her to drive the car promising to tell Vicky about a problem she had. It was then that they were apprehended by elements of the Police force.

But the lower court still convicted Vina of murder and sentenced her to death. Vicky on the other hand was found guilty as an accomplice and sentenced to reclusion temporal.

On automatic review by the Supreme Court only Vina’s sentence was affirmed while Vicky was acquitted. The SC said that the death of the Suzette was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the injuries she sustained in the hands of Vina. The wounds inflicted on Suzette were extremely dangerous in nature, calculated to destroy life, although they did not immediately result in her death. A person is responsible for the natural consequences of her own acts. If she inflicts wounds of such gravity as to put the life of the victim in jeopardy, and death follows as a consequence of her felonious and wicked acts, she is the cause of the victim’s death. Vina should be sentenced to death because of abuse of superior strength and cruelty. She was much bigger and stronger than the tiny Suzette who was a mere 16 year teen about 5 feet tall. Her cruelty is evident in the savagery and ruthlessness of her acts on another woman. She forfeits her rightful place in a civilized society

As to Vicky the court said that her act of driving the car where the corpse of Suzette was hidden, her resistance to stop the car when chased by the police and to immediately open the luggage compartment as requested by the police, her act of lying to the police by claiming that the box in the compartment contained only dirty clothes, and her refusal to open said box may sufficiently indicate knowledge of the crime and assistance to Vina in concealing the corpus delicti to prevent its discovery. But since she is the sister of Vina, her relationship to Vina exempts her from criminal liability under Article 20, of the Revised Penal Code.

Vina was thus sentenced to death and ordered to pay the heirs of victim Suzette: P50,000.00 for civil indemnity, P35,000.00 for actual damages, P300,000.00 for moral damages,  P50,000.00 for exemplary damages, and to pay the costs while Vicky was ordered released. (People vs, Mariano G.R. 134847 December 6, 2000).

E-mail: [email protected]