Essence of the crime

The general rule is that in order to be convicted of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, the corpus delicti or the body of the offense or the essence of the crime, must first be proved. Hence in cases of killing a person, the corpus delicti consists of: first, the death of the victim or the identity of the body; and secondly the existence of criminal agency as its cause. This is explained in this case of Jordan. Also explained here is the credibility of a confession as proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt if it is subsequently renounced.

Jordan was married to Lara and residing in a nearby town. The marital peace of the couple have been disturbed now and then by occasional jealousies of Jordan against one named “Geloy” whom he suspected of having illicit relations with his wife. After almost ten years of marriage, Lara mysteriously disappeared. She was last seen alive that afternoon going to Jordan’s poultry farm in a barrio of the town to bring merienda to him. The following day, Jordan disclaimed knowledge of Lara’s whereabouts when asked by Kanor, Lara’s father. So Kanor reported the matter to the town’s police chief who informed him that according to Jordan himself, Lara ran away with another man.

More than two years after Lara’s disappearance, Kanor’s brother-in-law, Bonoy, informed him about the apparition of a woman used to be seen in the barrio’s well near Jordan’s house. Said well was filled with earth and covered on top with the framework of a roof. So Kanor asked some people to dig the well in the presence of the town mayor, chief of police, a representative of the provincial fiscal’s office, a sergeant and other government officials. The excavation revealed a human skeleton with a lockset bearing the initial “L,” the soles of a slipper, and an iron bolt. The skeleton which was upside down had two gold crowns and four ivory teeth in the skull. An analysis of the skeleton by a medico-legal officer disclosed that the mortal remains was a female between 25 to 30 years of age, about 153 meters in height; that the body must have been interred two years before its exhumation; that the skull, the fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and the left scapula had signs of violence; and that the cause of death was concussion or intra cranial hemorrhage possibly produced by a violent blow of a blunt instrument.

And so the next day, Jordan was charged with the crime of parricide after he readily made a written confession before the police officers in which he narrated in detail the circumstances which impelled him to kill Lara and how she was killed and interred in the well. He also identified all the articles found with the skeleton as those pertaining to Lara. The next day, he even reenacted on the spot how he committed the crime. Then he subscribed to another statement explaining his first confession.

After trial, Jordan was convicted of parricide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties. Jordan appealed and sought reversal of the conviction on two grounds: (1) it is not certain that the unearthed skeleton is that of Lara; and (2) even if it were, there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that he caused Lara’s death. He contended that his written confession was signed by him after he was tortured.

But according to the Supreme Court (SC), the extrinsic evidence leaves no room for doubt that the skeleton exhumed was that of Lara. The dentist identified the two gold crowns and four ivory teeth in the skull tallied exactly with the dental work he performed on her. Jordan himself corroborated this finding by his admission that they were Lara’s teeth. Lara’s father also testified corroborating these findings. The locket bearing the initial “L” meaning “Lara” and the mortal remains examined by the medico legal officer disclosed that they pertained to a female with same age and height of Lara. Then there was also the testimony of Anton the driver of Jordan who witnessed the killing of Lara.

The SC also ruled that, on its face, the confession has no sign of suspicious circumstance casting doubt on its integrity. It is replete with details which only the accused could supply. The narration reflects spontaneity and coherence which cannot be psychologically associated with a mind which has been tortured and intimidated. Besides this was denied by the police officers and the chief clerk of the provincial fiscal’s office who unanimously testified that the confession was voluntarily given. These officers must be so totally devoid of conscience and recreant to official duty as to confabulate together in pinning a capital offense on an innocent man without any reason. The inconsistency in the first and second confession is even proof that it was voluntary. If it was made by the police and imposed upon Jordan, it would be as perfectly tight as to leave no possibility for Jordan to escape his guilt. Besides the testimony of the eyewitness Anton and other events Jordan narrated including his reenactment of the crime strongly corroborate his confession. It is also unbelievable that after successfully hiding his crime for two years, Jordan would readily confess his guilt because of pressure. It is not strange that a criminal would come out in the open and confess his guilt when suddenly confronted with the discovery of the victim’s body after several years of successful concealment of his crime. Hedged between a troubled conscience and the clear evidence of his culpability from which he feels escape is no longer possible, confession is generally his only recourse (People vs Cruz, G.R. 47795, August 24, 1942).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected].