People vs Bardaje (August 29, 1980) On December 20, 1965, MARCELINA Cuizon lodged the following complaint with

the Court of First Instance of Samar against ADELINO and five (5) others 'namely, Lucio Malate, Pedro Odal, Adriano Odal, Silvino Odal and Fidel Ansuas (hereinafter called the FIVE OTHERS): 14th day to 17th day of December, 1965, in Bo. Lopig, Sta. Rita, Province of Samar, drag Marcelina Cuizon from the house of Norma Fernandez and brought her to a far away place and once there, accused Adelino Bardaje, by means of force and intimidation forcibly had sexual intercourse with her several times while his coaccused were on guard. ADELINO was arrested on December 17th, and it was on December 20th, when he signed the alleged confession, Exhibit "C", admitting having kidnapped and molested MARCELINA December 21st, Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses Adelino Bardaje and five others with Crime of Rape with Illegal Detention. Of the six (6) persons accused, the FIVE OTHERS were never arrested, and only ADELINO stood trial. On June 2, 1966, before the arraignment of ADELINO, the Information was amended to include the allegation that MARCELINA was detained and deprived of liberty for a period of 3 days, which allegation could be taken into account in connection with Illegal Detention but not in connection with Forcible Abduction. Since according to Exhibit "C", MARCELINA was "kidnapped" at midnight of December 14th, and ADELINO was arrested in the morning of December 17th, or an interval of less than 72 Hours, it could not be correctly pleaded that MARCELINA was deprived of liberty for three (3) days. ADELINO's lawyer submitted his Memorandum on July 26, 1967, in which he specifically argued that "the prosecution did not establish the elements of Rape and Illegal Detention as prescribed by Articles 335 and 267 of the Revised Penal Code. It was only in the Memorandum of the Fiscal, dated July 27, 1967, when the position was taken that the crime which should be imputed to ADELINO is Rape with Forcible Abduction. The prosecution's Memorandum stated: Although the information is for Rape with Illegal Detention instead of Rape with Forcible Abduction, yet from the body of the information it could be clearly gleaned that the elements of abduction are sufficiently alleged therein and hence the accused can be convicted thereunder.

The trial Court found ADELINO guilty of Forcible Abduction with Rape with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and aid of armed men, and sentenced him to death. The version of Marcelina: She lives in the house of her Aunt, Sofia, where she worked as a beautician. She knew Adelino since they were still small because they were classmates in Grade II. While she eating supper on Dec. 14, Adelino and five others entered the house and began drinking sho hoc tong. Odal broke the kerosene lamp after consuming the liquor which caused complete darkness. She then ran to her mother but Pedro choked the mother and four males who were armed with bolos forced her downstairs and dragged her to the mountain two kilometers from the barrio. She was slapped and lost consciousness and when she regained consciousness, Adelino was already raping her. Marcelina said she didnt know who owned the hut and that the room was just a one room affair with a woman and two small children. The five others guarded the house while Adelino was raping her. The following morning, arriving there past noon, she was brought to the house of one Ceferino, a relative of Adelino. She was kept in one room while the five others guarded the room. Adelino in the evening had another sexual intercourse with her. The next day she curled the hair of the daughter of Ceferino because she was threatened to be killed if she did not. In the morning of Dec. 16, two soldiers and the father of Marcelina arrived and apprehended Adelino while the five others jumped down the window nad fled. She embraced her father and cried. When cross-examined, Complainant admitted that Ceferino, his wife. and seven children were living in the same hut where she was taken the second time, which hut was about waist high from the ground, consisted of one room, 3 x 2 meters, a sala, 6 x 3 meters, and a kitchen. Between the room and the sala was a wall of split bamboos so that noise inside the room could be heard clearly from the other side. Dr. Vitus Hobayan, Jr., Resident Physician at the Samar Provincial Hospital, declared that he examined MARCELINA on December 20, 1965 and issued a Medical Certificate with the following findings: 1. No evidence of external injuries around the vulva or any part of the body. 2. Hymen no intact, presence of old healed laceration at 4, 7, 12 o'clock.

PMPD / 1

3. Vagina easily admits two fingers. 4. Vaginal smear negative for spermatozoa For his part, ADELINO, aged 18, admitted having had carnal knowledge of MARCELINA but denied having raped her. He claims that they eloped on December 14 to 17, 1965 as previously planned, they having been sweethearts since November 12, 1964. As such, they used to date in Tacloban and "anything goes". MARCELINA's family used to have a house in Barrio Crossing but now MARCELINA just stays in the house of her aunt, Sofia, which was about five houses away from theirs. RTC: prosecutions version of the incident more worthy of credence stating that complainant had no improper motive to implicate Adelino in such a detestable crime as rape. Issue: WON Adelinos guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Held: No. On the basis of the evidence, testimonial and documentary, we find that the guilt of ADELINO has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. In crimes against chastity, the conviction or acquittal of an accused depends almost entirely on the credibility of a complainant's testimony since by the intrinsic nature of those crimes they usually involve only two persons the complainant and the accused. The offended party's testimony, therefore, must be subjected to thorough scrutiny for a determination of its veracity beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, we find MARCELINA's charge that she was forcibly abducted and afterwards raped by ADELINO in conspiracy with FIVE OTHERS highly dubious and inherently improbable. Complainant alleged that she was slapped and that she wrestled hence, physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together. Also the expert opinion bolsters the defense that Marcelino and Adelino had previous amorous relations. Also, as admitted by complainant the first hut was too small and was a one-room affair occupied by a woman and her two children, it is highly improbable that she was ravished in that same room. The second hut where she was brought, as she admitted also, consisted of a small room separated from the sala by a wall of split bamboo. Ceferino, his wife and seven children lived therein. Ceferino, the wife, and the children should have heard her outcries.

The aphorism still rings true that evidence to be believed must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself. This case also constitutes an exception to the general belief that a young girl would not expose herself to the ordeal of public trial if she were not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit who had ravished and shamed her placed behind bars. As we view it, MARCELINA was confronted with a paradoxical situation as a daughter of relative tender age who could not shamefacedly admit to her parents that she had eloped and voluntarily submitted to sexual intercourse, since that elopement must have met with righteous indignation on the part of her parents. As a result, MARCELINA was faced with no other choice but to charge ADELINO with rape or incur the ire of her parents and social disrepute from a small community. In respect of the alleged confession of ADELINO, suffice it to re-state that "an extrajudicial confession made by an accused shag not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Corpus delicti is proved when the evidence on record shows that the crime prosecuted had been committed. That proof has not been met in the case at bar, the evidence establishing more of an elopement rather than kidnapping or illegal detention or forcible abduction, and much less rape. Moreover, ADELINO, aged 18, was by himself when being investigated by soldiers, without benefit of counsel nor of anyone to advise him of his rights. Aside from his declaration that Ws confession was obtained through maltreatment and violence, it was also vitiated by a procedural irregularity testified to by no less than prosecution witness Sgt. Pedro Gacelos to the effect that he and room after he presented the statement to the Clerk of Court, Mr. Rojas. There is reason to believe, therefore that the so called confession was attested without ADELINO's presence so that the latter cannot be said to have duly subscribed and sworn to it. While it is true that an accused can be punished for a crime described by the facts alleged in tile Information despite a wrong designation of the crime in the preamble of the Information, yet, in capital cases, it should be desirable that, whenever a discrepancy is noted between the designation of the crime made by the Fiscal and the crime described by the facts pleaded in his Information. The lower Court should call attention of the accused to the discrepancy, so that the accused may be fully apprised of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This was not done in regards to ADELINO who all the time was under the impression that he was being tried for Rape with Illegal Detention, and not for Forcible Abduction with Rape. If ADELINO had known that he was being tried for Forcible Abduction with Rape, he may have changed the strategy or tactics of his defense. Again, one of the rights of an accused is "to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses on his behalf. 14 ADELINO had stated that, while

PMPD / 2

MARCELINA was in the house of Ceferino Armada, she curled the hair of Narita. one of the latter's children, as well as the hair of other girls in the vicinity. ADELINO wanted to have Narita testify on his behalf, and a subpoena had been issued to her. But instead of taking effective steps to have Narita brought to Court, the lower court gave responsibility for Narita's attendance to the defense, expressly stating that, if the defense was not able to bring her to the Court, her testimony will be dispensed with. Considering that this case involved a prosecution for a capital offense, the lower Court acted precipitously in not having Narita brought to Court, by ordering her arrest if necessary ADELINO was deprived of his right "to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses on his behalf. Adelino also testified that he and Marcelina used to go together to Tacloban and that they had sexual intercourse because she likes it. MARCELINA could had been examined on the two matters mentioned above, with the Court excluding the public from the hearing under the provisions of Rule 119, Section 14. MARCELINA might have testified without feeling the pressure of her relatives or other persons, if such pressure had in fact existed. Disposition: WHEREFORE, upon reasonable doubt, the judgment appealed from imposing the death penalty, is reversed and the appellant, Adelino Bardaje, acquitted of the crime with which he is charged. His immediate release is ordered unless lie is held on other charges. Aquino dissenting: But there is no doubt that Bardaje and his companions committed kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor as well as of a "female", an offense penalized in article 267(4) of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion perpetua to death. Republic Act No. 18 specifically made kidnapping of a minor and a woman a capital offense in order to deter the kidnapping of minors and women, a crime which was very rampant after liberation. The victim, being a minor, was still under parental authority. Her parents were entitled to her custody and to keep her in their company. They were obligated to take care of her and to see to it that her rights were respected.

Sison vs People (Nov 16, 1995) 2 groups sometimes broke into violence. On July 27, 1986, it resulted in the murder of Stephen Salcedo, a known "Coryista." There was supposed to be a rally held in LUneta by the Marcos loyalists byt their application for rally was denied. Still thousands of them formed and gathered. It was led my Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega, both IBP members (lawyers). One Colonel Torres arrived and asked for their permit. No permit can be produced so they were asked to dsoperse. From August to October 1986, several informations were filed in court against eleven persons identified as Marcos loyalists charging them with the murder of Salcedo. Raul Billosos y de Leon Gerry Nery y Babazon Romeo Sison y Mejia, Nilo Pacadar y Abe Joel Tan y Mostero; Richard de los Santos y Arambulo; Joselito Tamayo y Ortia; Rolando Fernandez y Mandapat. Accomplices: Oliver Lozano Benjamin Nuega Annie Ferrer Prosecution presented 12 witnesses including 2 eyewitnesses Ranulfo Sumilang Renato Banculo-cigarette vendor And police officers who were at Luneta Prosecution also presented documentary evidence: newspaper accounts of the incident and various photographs taken during the mauling. A small group of the loyalist converged at the Chinese Garden and they saw Annie jogging around and they approached her and told her about their dispersal and she angrily ordered them, gulpihin niyo ang mga cory hecklers, marcos pa rin, bugbugin ang mga nakadilaw A few minutes later, the police arrested Ferrer. Renato saw the loyalists attacking persons in yellow so Renato removed his shirt. He then saw a man in yellow being chased. They caught Salcedo and boxed and kicked him. Renato saw Ranulfo Sumilang, an electrician at the Luneta, rush to Salcedos aid. Sumilang tried to pacify the maulers so he could extricate Salcedo from them but still they pursued.

PMPD / 3

Richard de los Santos boxed Salcedo twice on the head. Joel Tan boxed him on the left side of his head and ear. Nilo Pacadar puched him on his nape. Tamayo bosed Salcedo on the left jaw and kicked him. Renato saw Sison trip Salcedo and kick him on the head and repeatedly boxed him when he tried to stand. Sumilang saw Gerry Neri approach the victim but did not notice what he did. Salcedo collapsed and Sumilang flagged down a van and with the help of a traffic oicer, brought Salcedo to Medical Center Manila but was refused admission. So they took him to PGH.

CA: On appeal, the Court of Appeals 23 on December 28, 1992, modified the decision of the trial court by acquitting Annie Ferrer but increasing the penalty of the rest of the accused, except for Joselito Tamayo, to reclusion perpetua. The appellate court found them guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, but convicted Joselito Tamayo of homicide because the information against him did not allege the said qualifying circumstance. Hence, Tamayo is just sentenced to Reclusion Temproar as max. Issue: Accused-appellants assigned the ff errors:

The mauling of Salcedo was witnessed by bystanders and several press people, both local and foreign. The press took pictures and a video of the event which became front-page news the following day, capturing national and international attention. This prompted President Aquino to order the Capital Regional Command and the Western Police District to investigate the incident. A reward of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) was put up by Brigadier General Alfredo Lim, then Police Chief, for 11 persons who could give information leading to the arrest of the killers. Several persons, including Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo, cooperated with the police, and on the basis of their identification, several persons, including the accused, were apprehended and investigated. Defenses: Tamayo: He was not in the photos presented by the prosec. He was in his house in QC. Gerry Nerry: He was at the Luneta Theater. Sison: commercial photographer at his office near Lunera waiting for some pictures to be developed. He claimed to have hernia. Richard de los Santos: he was in Luneta at the time of the mauling but denies hitting. He just watched thats why his face was on the photos. Nolo Pacadar: admits that he is a loyalist. But he just watched. Joel Tan: He tried to pacified the maulers. Lozano, Nuega and Ferrer: opted not to testify in their defense. RTC: Sison, Pacadar, Tan, De los Santos, Tamayo- guilty as principals of the crim of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to 14 years 10 months and 20 days of RT as minimum and RP as max. Annie was convicted as acoomplice. Billosos, Nerry, Fernandez, Lonzano, and Nuega: prosecution failed to prove guilt.

a.

b.

c.

d. e. f.

g. h. i.

COURT ERRED TO HAVE NOTED THAT ACCUSED FAILED TO CITE ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THEIR AVERMENT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES WHO HAVE COME FORWARD TO IDENTIFY THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF STEPHEN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE UNRELIABLE, DOUBTFUL, SUSPICIOUS AND INCONCLUSIVE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESS RANULFO SUMILANG. NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT ANY OF THE ACCUSED CARRIED A HARD AND BLUNT INSTRUMENT, THE ADMITTED CAUSE OF THE HEMORRHAGE RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED. IN FINDING THAT THERE EXISTS CONSPIRACY AMONG THE PRINCIPAL ACCUSED THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED IS MURDER AND NOT DEATH (HOMICIDE) CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY. A CONCLUSION OF FACT UTILIZING SPECULATIONS, SURMISES, NONSEQUITUR CONCLUSIONS, AND EVEN THE DISPUTED DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT, TO UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF THE VERY SAME JUDGMENT, ALL CONTRARY TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. ADMITTING EXHIBITS "D", "G", "O", "P", "V", TO "V-48", "W" TO "W-13", ALL OF WHICH WERE NOT PROPERLY IDENTIF HAT CONSPIRACY EXISTED IN THE CASE AT BAR DISREGARDING ALTOGETHER THE SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER. CRIME COMMITTED WAS MURDER, NOT DEATH (HOMICIDE) IN TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY SIDESTEPPING IN THE PROCESS THE FACTUAL GROUNDS SURROUNDING THE INCIDENT

According to them, the testimonies of these two witnesses are suspect because they surfaced only after a reward was announced by General Lim. There is no proof that Banculo or Sumilang testified because of the reward announced by General Lim, much less that both or either of them ever received such reward from the government. On the contrary, the evidence shows that Sumilang reported the incident to the police and submitted his sworn statement

PMPD / 4

immediately two hours after the mauling, even before announcement of any reward. 29 He informed the police that he would cooperate with them and identify Salcedo's assailants if he saw them again. The fact that Banculo executed three sworn statements does not make them and his testimony incredible. The sworn statements were made to identify more suspects who were apprehended during the investigation of Salcedo's death. The records show that Sumilang was admonished several times by the trial court on the witness stand for being argumentative and evasive. This is not enough reason to reject Sumilang's testimony for he did not exhibit this undesirable conduct all throughout his testimony. On the whole, his testimony was correctly given credence by the trial court despite his evasiveness at some instances. Except for compelling reasons, we cannot disturb the way trial courts calibrate the credence of witnesses considering their visual view of the demeanor of witnesses when on the witness stand. As trial courts, they can best appreciate the verbal and non-verbal dimensions of a witness' testimony. Banculo's mistake in identifying another person as one of the accused does not make him an entirely untrustworthy witness. It does not make his whole testimony a falsity. An honest mistake is not inconsistent with a truthful testimony. Perfect testimonies cannot be expected from persons with imperfect senses. In the court's discretion, therefore, the testimony of a witness can be believed as to some facts but disbelieved with respect to the others. We sustain the appellate and trial courts' findings that the witnesses' testimonies corroborate each other on all important and relevant details of the principal occurrence. Their positive identification of all petitioners jibe with each other and their narration of the events are supported by the medical and documentary evidence on record.

The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. Atty. Winlove Dumayas, counsel for accused Joselito Tamayo and Gerry Neri used Exhibits "V", "V-1" to "V-48" to prove that his clients were not in any of the pictures and therefore could not have participated in the mauling of the victim. At subsequent hearings, the prosecution used the photographs to cross-examine all the accused who took the witness stand. 56 No objection was made by counsel for any of the accused, not until Atty. Lazaro appeared at the third hearing and interposed a continuing objection to their admissibility. The objection of Atty. Lazaro to the admissibility of the photographs is anchored on the fact that the person who took the same was not presented to identify them. We rule that the use of these photographs by some of the accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness and accuracy thereof. That the photographs are faithful representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when appellants Richard de los Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan identified themselves therein and gave reasons for their presence thereat. The absence of the two appellants in the photographs does not exculpate them. The photographs did not capture the entire sequence of the killing of Salcedo but only segments thereof.

Exhibit "O" is the Joint Affidavit of Pat. Flores and Pat. Bautista, the police intelligence-operatives who witnessed the rally and subsequent dispersal operation. Pat. Flores properly identified Exhibit "O" as his sworn statement and in fact gave testimony corroborating the contents thereof. Besides, the Joint Affidavit merely reiterates what the other prosecution witnesses testified to. Identification by Pat. Bautista is a surplusage. If appellants wanted to impeach the said affidavit, they should have placed Pat. Flores on the witness stand. The admissibility of these photographs is being questioned by appellants for lack of proper identification by the person or persons who took the same.

Death in a tumultuous affray is defined in Article 251 of the Revised Penal code as follows: Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. When, while several persons, not composing groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous

PMPD / 5

manner, and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prison mayor. If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall have used violence upon the person of the victim. For this article to apply, it must be established that: (1) there be several persons; (2) that they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally; (3) these several persons quarrelled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner; (4) someone was killed in the course of the affray; (5) it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and (6) that the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified. A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression at this stage of the incident. Treachery as a qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated in the instant case. There is no proof that the attack on Salcedo was deliberately and consciously chosen to ensure the assailants' safety from any defense the victim could have made. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked. Evident premeditation was alleged in the information against Joselito Tamayo. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in this case because the attack against Salcedo was sudden and spontaneous, spurred by the raging animosity against the so-called "Coryistas." It was not preceded by cool thought and reflection. We find however the existence of a conspiracy among appellants. At the time they were committing the crime, their actions impliedly showed a unity of purpose

among them, a concerted effort to bring about the death of Salcedo. Where a conspiracy existed and is proved, a showing as to who among the conspirators 67 inflicted the fatal wound is not required to sustain a conviction. Each of the conspirators is liable for all acts of the others regardless of the intent and character of their participation, because the act of one is the act of all. Disposition: Sison, Pacadar, Tan and De los Santos = Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance Tamayo=Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide with generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and sentenced to 12(min)PM to 20(max)RT years. Actual, moral damages + indemnity for the death and costs.

PMPD / 6

People vs Amestuzo (July 12, 2001) for the accused UP OLA Narration of Bragas of his arrest: One of the cardinal rules of criminal law is that the guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. In the present case, there being a doubt as to the guilt of accusedappellant, the constitutional presumption of innocence stands and he must be acquitted. Appeal from the decision of the RTC in Caloocan finding Albino Bagas guilty of the complex crime of robbery in band with double rape and sentencing him accordingly. Feb. 22, 1991, 9:30 pm, 8 armed men wearing masks entered the house of Perlita delos Santos Lacsamana at Sacred Heart Village in Calloban and robbed said premises of valuables in the amount of P728L. In the course of the robbery two members of the gang, raped Catanyag and Rolago, niece and employee of Lacsamana. Feb. 27, 1991, Bagas, Amestuzo, Ampatin, Vinas and 3 other whose identities are unknown and who are still at large up to the present were charged with the complex crime of robbery in band with double rape. Arraignment: NOT GUILTY. Afterward, trial ensued. Perlita and others reside in a compound where the residence and offices and quarters for Lacsamanas employees are situated. The men tied Lacsamaa including all her employees and members of her household. Rolago was brought inside her room and then was brought to the guest room and there she was raped by Amestuzo. Bragas, almost simultaneously, sexually assaulted and ravished Fe Catanyag. They were brought to the nearest clinic and then to St. Lukes. RTC: Ameztuzo, Ampatid, Bagas, Vinas = Robbery in Band with Double Rape = Double Reclusion Perpetua and indemnify Perlita 800,000, Catanyag and Rolego 50K each as indemnity. Bagas appealed: From the judgment of conviction by the trial court, only herein accused-appellant Bagas appealed to this Court. His appeal is based mainly on: (1) the alleged deprivation of his constitutional right to be represented by counsel during his identification, (2) the trial court's error in giving due weight to the open court identification of him which was based on a suggestive and irregular out-of-court identification, and (3) the trial court's improper rejection of his defense of alibi. Held: The contention is not meritorious. The guarantees of Sec. 12 (1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, may be invoked only by a person while he is under custodial investigation.6 Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating 7 statements. Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right 8 to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage. This 9 was settled in the case of People vs. Lamsing and in the more recent case of People 10 vs. Salvatierra. The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed by the accused during identification in a police line-up because it is not part of the custodial investigation process. This is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory11 and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the line-up. Feb. 26, 4 days after the alleged incident, group of police, together with Amapatin, went to the handicrafts factory in NIA Road where Bragas was working as stay-in shell cutter. They were looking for a certain Mario. Failing to find that Mario, the police hit Ampatins nape with the gun and said, Niloloko lang yata tayo ng taong ito Magturo ka kahit sino! It was at this juncture that Ampatin pointed to Bragas who was the first person Ampatid chanced to look upon. When the complainants arrived, accused-appellant was brought out, instructed to turn to the left and then to the right and he was asked to talk. Complainant Lacsamana asked him if he knew accused Amestuzo and Vias. Accused-appellant answered in the negative. The policemen told the complainants that accusedappellant was one of the suspects. This incited complainants to an emotional frenzy, kicking and hitting him. They only stopped when one of the policemen intervened. Bragas maintains that the identification was a critical stage of prosecution at which he was as much entitled to the aid of counsel as during the trial proper.

Issue: WON Identification was a critical stage of prosecution at which he is entitled to the aid of counsel and WON his identification as a suspect is valid.

PMPD / 7

Moreover, there was no showing that during his identification by the complainants, the police investigators sought to elicit any admission or confession from accusedappellant. In fact, records show that the police did not at all talk to accusedappellant when he was presented before the complainants. The alleged infringement of the constitutional rights of the accused while under custodial investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which an extra-judicial admission or confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of his 13 conviction. In the present case, there is no such confession or extra-judicial admission. It is alleged that the identification was irregular as he was not placed in a police line-up and instead, made to stand before the complainants alone. Again, the contention has no merit. As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, there is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper identification. We agree that complainants' out-of-court identification of accused-appellant was seriously flawed as to preclude its admissibility. In resolving the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications, we have applied the totality of 15 circumstances test enunciated in the case of People vs. Teehankee which lists the following factors: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification process.

We ruled that a "show-up" or the presentation of a single suspect to a witness for purposes of identification is seriously flawed as it "constitutes the most grossly suggestive identification procedure now or ever used by the police. The testimony of accused-appellant was materially corroborated by two of his co-employees who were with him on the night of the incident. Rodolfo Rosales, his co-worker, testified that he worked overtime until 10 p.m. in the Pasay City factory together with accused-appellant. Upon finishing work, they went to sleep in their quarters on the second floor of the building because they were stay-in employees of the factory.21 Another co-worker of accused-appellant, Clemente Gahelan, was similarly offered as a witness to corroborate Rosales' testimony and his testimony was duly admitted by the prosecution. The defense of alibi or denial assumes significance or strength when it is amply corroborated by a credible witness. There was no evidence that these witnesses were related to accused-appellant; neither was it shown that they had any personal interest nor motive in the case. As impartial credible witnesses, their testimonies cannot be doubted absent a clear showing of undue bias or prejudice, or convincing proof of the impropriety of their motives to testify for the accused. Though inherently weak as a defense, alibi in the present case has been sufficiently established by corroborative testimonies of credible witnesses and by evidence of physical impossibility of accused-appellant's presence at the scene of the crime. Alibi, therefore, should have been properly appreciated in accused-appellant's favor. Ampatin and accused-appellant were charged as co-conspirators in the crime of robbery with rape. As a co-accused, it would have been more consistent with human nature for Ampatin to implicate accused-appellant if indeed he was one of the gang. In fact, the Court has recognized that "as is usual with human nature, a culprit, confessing a crime is likely to put the blame as far as possible on others rather than himself. The fact that he testified to the innocence of a co-accused, an act which resulted in no advantage or benefit to him and which might in fact implicate him more, should have been received by the trial court as an indicum of the truth of Ampatin's testimony and the innocence of herein accused-appellant.

The out-of-court identification of herein accused-appellant by complainants in the police station appears to have been improperly suggestive. The identification was practically suggested by the police themselves when they announced to the complainants that accused-appellant was the person pointed to by Ampatin.

PMPD / 8

Ampatin's testimony, therefore, should have been given weight by the trial court. The testimony of witness Rosales corroborates Ampatin's declaration in court that he does not know herein accused-appellant and merely pointed to him out of fear of the police. These testimonies remain unrebutted by the prosecution as the arresting officers were not presented to refute or deny the same. The foregoing testimonies exculpating accused-appellant have sufficiently cast at least a shadow of doubt as to his guilt. Disposition: Bragas conviction of robbery with multiple rape reversed and acquitted.

People vs Berama (July 30, 1976)

PMPD / 9

People vs Vallejo (May 9, 2002) Rape-slaying of a 9-year old child, Daisy Diolola, in Rosario, Cavite on July 10, 1999. Arraignment not guilty. July 9, 1999, mother of victim sent her to sister of accused to help her with her lessons. They were looking for a book which accused could copy to ame a drawing or a poster that Daisy would submit to her teacher. Aimee was not feeling well because of her menstrual period. Dead body of daughter tied to the root of an aroma tree by the river after the compuerta found by Freddie Quinto. Accused was fetched by the barangay officials and the mother pointed at accused as the probable suspect. Jessiemin Mataverdesaw Daisy playing with the other children outside her house. Daisy even watched TV in her house. Jessmien testified that she saw accused buying cigarettes at the store across her house. His short was wet and his shirt was also wet but removed from body. His face and hair were not wet. SPO1 Cuevas testified that upon receipt of report they responded to the call. When they arrived the body was already in the barangay hall. They took picktres. Charito Paras-Yepes and Jessiemin saw that policemen go to accuseds house and recovered the basketball shirt with bloddstains. Mayor Abutan and Atty Leyva testified that the accused told them the truth. Atty Leyva just corroborated the statement of the Mayor. When accused was brought before Inquest Prosecutor Itoc, accused had a handwritten confession and admitted not only the killing but also the rape. Atty. Abuna, lawyer from PAO, testified that Itoc and accused came to her and Itoc asked her to assist accused. Accused said that he voluntarily executed the document because he was bothered by his conscience. Aida Magsipoc, Forensic Chemist of NBI- DNA testing n the specimens collected by Dr. Vertido, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, and testified that the vaginal swabs contained the DNA profiles of the accused and the victim. Defense: He was watching television. He drew the assignment and gave to the victims aunt and went home and didnt go out of the house. Then after the mother of Daisy looked for her at his place, he went to the pilapil and talked to some friends and then went home at 8 pm. He admitted only because he was maltreated by the police.

RTC: Rape with Homicide with death. Indemnify 100,000 as civil indemnity and 50,000 for moral damanges. Hence appeal. Issues: a. Insufficiency and weakness of the circumstantial evidence. b. Hearsay are the oral confessions. c. Written extrajudicial confession was obtained through force. Held: Convicted with Rape with Homicide.

An accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, provided sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.21 In rape with homicide, the evidence against an accused is more often than not circumstantial. This is because the nature of the crime, where only the victim and the rapist would have been present at the time of its commission, makes the prosecution of the offense particularly difficult since the victim could no longer testify against the perpetrator. Resort to circumstantial evidence is inevitable and to demand direct evidence proving the modality of the offense and the identity of the perpetrator is unreasonable.22 Under Rule 133, section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if: "(a) there is more than one circumstance; "(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and "(c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, that the accused-appellant voluntarily brought out the clothes sought by the police becomes more convincing when considered together with his confessions. A consented warrantless search is an exception to the proscription in Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution. As we have held, the consent of the owner of the house to the search effectively removes any badge of illegality.

DNA is an organic substance found in a person's cells which contains his or her genetic code. Except for identical twins, each person's DNA profile is distinct and unique. When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or from the victim's body for the suspect's DNA. This is the evidence sample. The evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the suspect and the victim.30

PMPD / 10

The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between the evidence sample and the reference sample.31 The samples collected are subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among others things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. In conclusion, we hold that the totality of the evidence points to no other conclusion than that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime charged. Evidence is weighed not counted. When facts or circumstances which are proved are not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but also inconsistent with his innocence, such evidence, in its weight and probative force, may surpass direct evidence in its effect upon the court.3

something false. Indeed, counsel should not prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. n all of them, the extrajudicial confessions were held admissible in evidence, being the spontaneous, free, and voluntary admissions of the guilt of the accused. We note further that the testimony of Mayor Abutan was never objected to by the defense.

And in People vs. Andan, it was explained:

"Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused to admit something false, not prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth." Third: The admissibility of the extrajudicial confessions of accused-appellant is also attacked on the ground that these were extracted from him by means of torture, beatings, and threats to his life. The bare assertions of maltreatment by the police authorities in extracting confessions from the accused are not sufficient. The standing rule is that "where the defendants did not present evidence of compulsion, or duress nor violence on their person; At all events, even if accused-appellant was truthful and his assailed confessions are inadmissible, the circumstantial evidence, as already shown, is sufficient to establish his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses presented a mosaic of circumstances showing accused-appellant's guilt. Their testimonies rule out the possibility that the crime was the handiwork of some other evil mind. These witnesses have not been shown to have been motivated by ill will against accused-appellant. We have held time and again that alibi cannot prosper if it is established mainly by the 57 accused and his relatives, and not by credible persons. It is well settled that alibi is the weakest of all defenses as it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. For this reason, this Court looks with caution upon the defense of alibi, especially when, as in this case, it is corroborated only by relatives or friends of the accused.

The claim is untenable. Section 12 of Art. III of the Constitution provides in pertinent parts: "(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. "(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. "(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 shall be inadmissible in evidence against him." There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in this constitutional provision: (1) coerced confessions, the product of third degree methods such as torture, force, violence, threat, and intimidation, which are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section 12, and (2) uncounselled statements, given without the benefit of Miranda warnings, which are the subject of paragraph 1 of the same section. To be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all the questions being propounded to his client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit

PMPD / 11

People vs Berame (July 30, 1976) It was about 6:30 in the evening of April 13, 1966, that an assailant Berame suddenly shot Quirico Maningo, then seated on a chair facing the main door of the sala of his rented house in Rizal Street, Suba District Danao City. His adopted son Danilo Maningo, was seated one meter away from his right side. 3 Several successive shots were fired at Quirico Maningo In a swampy area at the back of the hospital near the cemetery of Danao City, where it was suspected one of the alleged assailants was hiding, they saw footprints and recovered a rubber shoe. Appellant was required at the trial to put it on. It turned out that it corresponded exactly with his right foot. Berame also took flight after the killing and hid himself. Anastacio Montinola, one of the accused who subsequently died, was pursued by the police authorities, when cornered, instead of surrendering, he decdied to shoot it out. He was hit mortally. Defense of alibi. He was in Cebu and Danao City is 32 KM away. He could not be responsible for the killing. Before Montinola died, he admintted that he was one of the killers and that his companions were a certain Doming and one Erning. He made the admission anew at the Southern Islands Hospital where he was further questioned. Moreover, as to the circumstantial evidence, only the application of the res gestae rule to the statement of Montinola was sought to be refuted. No attempt was made to explain the flight of appellant causing the delay in his surrender for about a month and a shoe discovered near the scene of the crime fitting his right foot. The thirteen pages appellant's brief had another glaring deficiency. There was not even a reference to the direct testimony Identifying; appellant as one who fired the fatal shots. That is why, as noted at the outset, there would be no justification for the reversal of the appealed decision. Issue: WON the circumstantial evidence of Montinolas statement should not be considered. Held: It should be considered. There are also other evidence that would identify the accused aside from this statement. As is usually the case in criminal offenses, there was a direct conflict in the evidence submitted by the prosecution and the defense. What is undeniable is that there was testimony coming from a competent and credible eyewitness to the offense, Danilo Maningo, the son of the deceased. He heard the shots being fired and saw who perpetrated the deed. He was only a meter away, right at the scene of the crime.

He had direct and immediate knowledge. He Identified the accused. It was not difficult for him to do so as there was a "big light" at the door of the house. This is a case, therefore. where the trial court, after hearing and observing the witnesses testify, and weighing what was said by them, did choose to believe the prosecution rather than the defense. For such a finding to be overturned, there must be a showing that it did overlook a material fact or circumstance or did misinterpret its significance. where there is an irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of witnesses, the appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court when the evidence of the successful party, considered by itself, is adequate to sustain the judgment appealed from. Rubber shoe left in a swampy area by someone leaving in a hurry the scene of the crime was just the right size. It did fit appellant's right foot. That was demonstrative evidence of the most persuasive kind. So it has been held time and time again. Also, he fled: The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion. Maningo and pointed to appellant as one of his companions. While not amounting to a dying declaration, the lower court considered it as part of the res gestae, and rightly so. That was assigned as error by appellant's counsel in view of the nine hours that had elapsed from the time of the killing before its utterance. That is not enough to take it out of the operation of the principle. People v. Ner 24 All that is required for the admissibility of a given statement as part of the res gestae, is that it be made under the influence of a startling event witnessed by the person who made the declaration before he had time to think and make up a story, or to concoct or contrive a falsehood, or to fabricate an account, and without any undue influence in obtaining it, aside from referring to the event in question or its immediate attending circumstances" Whether specific statements are admissible as part of the res gestae is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, the determination of which is ordinarily conclusive upon appeal, in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. The trial court therefore correctly decided that appellant is guilty of the crime of murder, the offense being qualified by elevosia with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling being offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The appropriate penalty then, as.imposed in the appealed decision, is reclusion perpetua.

PMPD / 12

People vs Bulawin (September 30, 1969)

September 23, 1963 was the barrio fiesta of Barrio Mabatao, Salvador, Lanao del Norte. A political meeting was, on the night of September 22, being held at the fair grounds of the barrio. About 12:30 o'clock in the early morning of September 23, 1963, Ciriaco Jimenez was leisurely walking towards the meeting place. Just as he was about twenty meters therefrom, he was shot. The bullet, found its mark "at the back of his buttocks, two inches below the waistline." About 6:00 o'clock p.m. on the same day, September 23, Ciriaco Jimenez died at the Aurora Provincial Hospital. There were three witnesses: Autor, Sergeant Laurie and Philippine Constabulary Dacalos. Candido Autor. He is supposedly the only eyewitness to the crime. Because of this, his testimony must have to be scrutinized with a sharp judicial eye. The People's proof should be beyond reasonable doubt. But as we read the transcript, that testimony appears to be sufficiently infected with grave doubts. He was urinating 1 fathom away from Bulawin and about 2 fathom away from Jimenez. He said during cross-examniation that he did not see hem before he urinated. Of interest is Autor's declaration that the only person to whom he ever mentioned what he saw 6 was a brother of the victim. And this he did in the morning following the incident. It would seem odd then that the brother of the victim did not inform the authorities about it. The record does not so indicate. No one appeared to have ever thought at that time of taking Autor's statements, certainly very important to this case. For, he was, as already stated, allegedly the sole eyewitness to the crime. In the criminal complaint filed in the MTC, Autor was not mentioned as one of the witnesses. It was even found out that Autor, the supposedly sole witness, was in his home in a nearby barrio as early as June 1964. Sergeant Roberto Laurie, 73rd PC Company. He testified that he saw the victim at the gate of the guardhouse in a truck. With Jimenez were the governor, VG, and some PC soldiers. He asked Jimenez who shot him and he told him it was Bulawin for he clearly saw him even if it was dark.

The value of Laurie's testimony is, indeed, impaired. First, because he did not hesitate in Court to overshoot his mark. One wonders whether he did so to make a weak case look good. Then, it does not strike us as natural that given that opportunity, Sgt. Laurie, or any other constabulary officer for that matter, did not put that statement of the deceased Ciriaco Jimenez into writing, the better to preserve its worth as evidence. Written words speak a uniform language. Oral recollection, in turn, could suffer from the treachery of memory or from coloring. The deceased's statement, it should be remembered, at least forms part of the res gestae. Aniceto Dacalos. He was in the dancing hall when a child came running and reported to the people that somebody was shot. He also asked Jimenez I he was sure that Bulawin shot him and that Jimenez said that he is sure because the light reached the place where he was then.
Like Autor, Dacalos name did not figure in the list of witnesses.

The evidence does not produce in an unprejudiced mind that moral certainty so necessary to bring about conviction in a criminal case. It is in this context that we find ourselves unprepared to send appellant to jail for life, or, for that matter, for a long term of imprisonment. Because, we are not morally convinced. The only reason why Bulawin is a suspect is because he lodged a complaint against Jimenez son for theft of a large cattle against a son of Jimenez among others. Nothing in the record suggests that the testimonies of these two witnesses were taken in writing. The record below at least does not show any such written statements. And these two witnesses with another by the name of Melecio Lomolho supported the alibi offered as a defense by appellant. There is a dearth of autoptic or demonstrative evidence which would positively connect appellant with the crime. Nothing in the record shows that the officers even made any effort to locate the alleged pistol used by appellant. Nor is there evidence that appellant has had one.

PMPD / 13

Nonetheless, where the evidence for the prosecution is weak and betrays lack of concreteness on the question of whether or not defendant is the author of the crime charged, alibi as a defense assumes importance. Not very long ago, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, in People vs. Fraga, L-12005, August 31, 1960, pointed out that "[t]he rule that alibi must be satisfactorily proven was never intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases; otherwise, we will see the absurdity of an accused being put in a more difficult position here the prosecution's evidence is vague and weak than where it is strong."

Note in Berame: There are three requisites for the admission of evidence of res gestae: 1) That the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence 2) That the statements were made beore the declarant had time to contrive or devise 3) That the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. The following had been held to be part o res gestae: y the statement of a child made within an hour after an alleged assault y the testimony of a police officer as to what the victim told him not more than 30 minutes after the coimmission of the alleged crime y the statements of defendants employees made about 30 minutes after an accident y and the declaration of a victim some 5 to 10 mintes after the incident (People vs Ner)

PMPD / 14