You are on page 1of 20

1

Trial Confession in non-custodial setting

People v. Moises-Marcos
Facts: To shed light on a kidnapping incident, appellant was invited by the NBI for questioning. Appellant [a retired First Lieutenant in the Philippine Constabulary &who had studied up to third year in mechanical engineering] was duly informed of his right to remain silent. He was warned that any statement he make may be used against him and that he is entitled to be assisted by a lawyer of his choice. Still, he voluntarily executed a waiver to his right to counsel and a sworn statement on the extent of his participation on the kidnapping incident to an NBI agent. Later, appellant was charged with the crime of kidnapping.During the trial, appellant expressly acknowledged that he voluntarily signed his sworn statement. However, when appellant was found guilty of the crime of kidnapping, he contended that the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible as evidence against him because the same was obtained from him without the assistance of a counsel. He averred that although he waived his right to counsel, this waiver is without legal effect as such was made without the assistance of a lawyer, a requisite which should have been complied with as decided in precedent cases. Issue: Whether or not appellant’s contention is correct. Ruling: No. Evidence; Waiver; Admissions during trial are binding.—The Court is of the view that appellant’s admissions, voluntarily made and confirmed by him in open court during his trial, render worthless the challenge now interposed by him to the admissibility of appellant’s sworn statement ×××. The facts and circumstances attendant in this instance, excludes the case at bar from the scope of the cases [People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 and Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, 121 SCRA 538] which appellant invoked.

Same; Same; Same.—There is no averment nor is there even mention of any such alleged coercion exerted on him when appellant executed his sworn statement, Exhibit E, wherein is described the role he played in the kidnapping of Benedict Gonzales. What appears is that appellant wrote the ransom note while in his residence and without any of his co-accused being present. [People vs. Marcos, 147 SCRA 204(1987)]

People v. Maqueda Facts:
There was a crime. Maqueda was then arrested in Guinyangan, Quezon. He was taken to Calauag, Quezon where he signed a SinumpaangSalaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime. According to SPO3 Molleno, he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before he signed such document. Afterwards he was brought to the Benguet Provincial Jail. While he was under detention, Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail. He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case."Maqueda also admitted his involvement in the commission of the robbery to Prosecutor Zarate and to Salvosa. Issue: Whether or not the SinumpaanSalaysay is admissible as evidence. Held: No.

The SinumpaangSalaysay is inadmissible because it was in clear violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. First, he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Second, he cannot be compelled

2
to be a witness against himself. At the time of the confession, the accused was already facing charges in court. He no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. And yet, despite his knowing fully well that a case had already been filed in court, he still confessed when he did not have to do so.

The contention of the trial court that the accused is not entitled to such rights anymore because the information has been filed and a warrant of arrest has been issued already, is untenable. The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1) of the Bill of Rights are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense." Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Bill of Rights therefore, such extra-judicial admission is inadmissible as evidence. As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa, the trial court admitted their testimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the truth of the admission because such testimony was objected to as hearsay. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation, but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness; and as to the other admission (Salvosa), it was given to a private person therefore admissible.

Note: a distinction between a confession and admission has been made by the SC: Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. Constitutional Law; Bill of Rights; Right to Counsel; Exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof are available at that stage when a person is “under investigation for the commission of an offense.”—The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is “under investigation for the commission of an offense.” The direct and primary source of this Section 12(1) is the second paragraph of Section 20, Article II of the 1973 Constitution which reads: Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. Same; Same; Right against Self-Incrimination; Right against self-incrimination states that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.—The first sentence to which it immediately follows refers to the right against selfincrimination reading: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself” which is now Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The incorporation of the second paragraph of Section 20 in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution was an acceptance of the landmark doctrine laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda vs. Arizona. In that case, the Court explicitly stated that the holding therein “is not an innovation in our jurisprudence, but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other settings.” Same; Same; Right to Counsel; Second paragraph of Section 20, Article III of the 1973 Constitution broadened the application of Miranda by making it applicable to the investigation for the commission of an offense of a person not in custody.—Clearly then, the second paragraph of Section 20 has even broadened the application of Miranda by making it applicable to the investigation for the commission of an offense of a person not in custody. Accordingly, as so formulated, the second paragraph of Section 20 changed the rule adopted in People vs. Jose that the rights of the accused only begin upon arraignment. Same; Same; Same.—Applying the second paragraph of Section 20, this Court laid down this rule in Morales vs. Enrile: 7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means—by telephone if possible— or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No

Same. Article III of the present Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall “enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. in whole or in part. too. From the foregoing. Section 12(2). preferably of his own choice. Section 12(2). by any person on his behalf. Article III of the present Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall “enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. Article III of the present Constitution with the following additional safeguards: (a) the counsel must be competent and independent.”—Then. Same. Same. Same. Same.—The first sentence requires the arresting officer to inform the person to be arrested of the reason for the arrest and show him “the warrant of arrest. Maqueda.3 custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. whether exculpatory or inculpatory.” [People vs. shall be inadmissible in evidence. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. it is clear that the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under the second paragraph of Section 20 are available to a person at any time before arraignment whenever he is investigated for the commission of an offense. Thus. The right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under the second paragraph of Section 20 are available to a person at any time before arraignment whenever he is investigated for the commission of an offense. Same. This paragraph was incorporated into Section 12(1). he must be provided with one. and (c) the rights therein cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.” The underscored phrase simply means that a case had been filed against him in a court of either preliminary or original jurisdiction and that the court had issued the corresponding warrant of arrest. (b) if the party cannot afford the services of such counsel. the right to be heard would be a farce if it did not include the right to counsel. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. 242 SCRA 565(1995)] . if any.

plaintiff. appellant MOISES MARCOS. Ben don't tell this to the authority or to anybody. Appellant is Benito's first cousin and resides just across the street from the Gonzales' residence (TSN.00 from the father of the victim. Caloocan City. pp. 4). p. 1979. 1979. 5).000. The unsuspecting Benedict went with the three (3) men who brought him to an isolated hut situated at Baesa. Bulacan. GUILTY. accused. you will not see him anymore. INSTRUCTION Let your driver alone to bring the money. and hereby sentences him with the penalty of Death: to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P25. pp. just give us P200. 13-18. unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and carry away in a motor vehicle and detain the latter in an isolated hut for two (2) nights and one (1) day.. is to get you Mang Ben. by pointing to Benedict Gonzales @ "Cocoy" to his co-accused and writing a ransom note demanding the amount of P200. reads as follows: Feb. 1979. being the private individuals. February 21. The note in full.. guarded during the day by two of the men (TSN. The evidence for the prosecution as summarized in the appellee's brief tend to establish that. that is. No. 1979. stop on the rear. '79 MR. Elma for accused Marcos. Benedict was detained for two nights and one day. about one (1) kilometer from the North Diversion Road. vs. L-65048 January 9. a former NBI agent.000. The next morning. 19). if you want to see your son alive. 1987 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. (sic).000. cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous simultaneous acts. the above-named accused.4 G. Thereafter. 20.m of the same day. Benedict's father. for the purpose of extorting ransom from Benito Gonzales. July 23. 1979 in Caloocan City. Santiago Toledo. father of Benedict Gonzales @ "Cocoy" did then and there wilfully. as charged in the Information.R. Benedict Gonzales. beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping. July 24. But don't worry about your son.00 as moral damages and exemplary damages. go down. 1979.. CCC-2873 of the defunct Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig. Danilo Castro. Martin de Porres Catholic School in Paombong. MOISES MARCOS Y DE LA ROSA.000. Cesar Gonzales (Benito's brother) who referred them to Atty. on the car with hands up and with lights on inside the car. the men asked Benedict to go with them to the hospital (TSN. together with Danilo Castro. p. in view of the foregoing. Jun alias "John Doe" and "Peter Doe" escaped arrest and for this reason only appellant Moises Marcos was arraigned and tried. if you dislike.00 cash tomorrow night. dated July 24. who in turn advised them to report the kidnapping to the National Bureau of Investigation (TSN.: In Criminal Case No. J.000 and another P25. Tell him to travel the Highway going to N. ALAMPAY. P200. Metro Manila. At about 8:00 o'clock p. Magdangal B. with the dispositive portion thereof reading as follows: WHEREFORE. Benito Gonzales met an accident. CONTRARY TO LAW. July 23. Appellant's co-accused. 1979. Jun alias "John Doe" and "Peter Doe. appellant and Benito went to the house of Engr. Mr. a 9 year old pupil of the St. Ecija see our car with red flag. 51-11). 1979. while on his way home from school was approached by three (3) men on board an owner-type jeep. BEN: Our mission in Paombong. conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another. On the pretext that the boy's father. the court rendered its decision. The Solicitor General for plaintiff. . Benedict's brother found a note (Exhibit A) at the gate of their residence.00 as ransom.00 or your own son? That same night. Benito Gonzales but were able to get only the amount of P20. At said hut. Benito Gonzales. the Court finds the accused MOISES MARCOS.. That accused Moises Marcos y de la Rosa. p." were charged with the crime of kidnapping.000. sought the help of appellant. At about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 20. July 24. said to have been committed as follows: That on or about the 20th day of February.

appellant left purportedly to meet with the kidnappers at the highway going to Nueva Ecija (TSN. appellant offers as his version of the same incident the following. Benito fearful for the life of his son and having no ready cash at the time. 1979. July 23. As planned. appellant. 6-7). appellant's friend. (Appellee's Brief.00. From the NBI.000. pp. July 23. 1979. (TSN. related that on his way to Nueva Ecija. 1979.lwphl@itç That Danilo Castro is his friend while the "John Doe" and "Peter Doe" were the companions of Danilo Castro whom he does not know." (TSN. the persons asked him for the money. and reenacted the incident.5 At the NBI.. pp. 64). 1979. That Danilo Castro gave him the pen to write the ransom note and -although instructed to give the ransom. afterwards. they proceeded to Novaliches. the NBI conducted further investigation . 49 years old.. After the investigation. the NBI indorsed the case to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig. 1979. Benito Gonzales reported the above developments to the NBI Noting some suspicious circumstances in appellant's story.67-68). (Appellant's Brief. pp. appellant and Benito proceeded to the store of Romeo Castro (appellant's friend) in Caloocan City. At about 2:45 o'clock in the early morning of February 22. 76-81).000. 1979. at about 7:00 o'clock p. 1979. Caloocan City where Benedict was detained. together with Danilo Castro. about three (3) minutes later. his two children will be "madisgracia. Nino Paombong. pp. appellant together with Benedict. Quezon City where Benedict was detained (TSN. 57-58).. 70). appellant herein attributes to the trial court its commission of the following assigned errors: I . 5-6)... Hearing of July 24.. who allegedy loaned the amount of P20. On the other hand. Appellant Marcos. government pensionado and residing at Sto. 1979. Appellant also pointed to the NBI agents the isolated hut in Baesa. Hearing of July 24.m. p. hearing of July 24. 78). Hearing of July 24. 1979.The NBI agents questioned not only Benito and Benedict Gonzales but also appellant and Romeo Castro.00 with an apology that said amount was the only money that the family of Benedict could afford. 56-57). purportedly to secure a loan of P20. He volunteered to talk with the kidnappers to reduce the ransom money to P20. Bulacan. Appellant alone talked to Castro inside The latter's store and. 1979. July 23. In seeking the reversal of the decision rendered against him.000." planned and executed the kidnapping of Benedict. February 21. married. Amidst the tearful reunion. That he was told by Danilo Castro that if he will not make the ransom note. p. July 24. p. 1979. appellant Benito proceeded to the office of Engr. arrived at the Gonzales' residence.00 and proposed the raise the amount through a loan from a friend. pp. pp. Cesar Gonzales at Ayala Avenue. (TSN. Bulacan by Danilo Castro to write said letter and after Danilo Castro and his companions have taken the boy (Benito Gonzales) he was instructed to write the ransom letter. readily agreed to appellant's proposal (TSN July 23. From there. 1979. 1979. 1979. Bulacan. Benito was briefed by NBI Supervising Agents Nestor Gonzales and EmeterioManalo as to what course of action to take with the advice that Benito should in the meantime vie for time by negotiating with the kidnappers to reduce the ransom money (TSN. 1979 voluntarily given before NBI Agent Esteban Libit appellant admitted that he. p. proceed to pay the same within the week (TSN. 58-59). appellant allegedly handed them the P20. pp. (TSN. note to his cousin. Rollo. That he was forced or intimidated to write the ransom note because if he will not do so... pp. Thereafter. 54). he placed the ransom note in the gate of his cousin's house.. In his sworn statement (Exhibit E) dated July 10. pp.000. "Jun" and "Peter Doe" (Exhibit G). 10-11). After the usual introductions. "Jun" and alias "Peter Doe.00 ransom money. 1979. On March 5. Benito believing that appellant was able to secure a loan from Castro. when questioned how he was able to get back Benedict. Hearing of July 24. July 23. with guns aimed at appellant. (TSN. Hearing of July 24. he was signalled to stop with a red flag by persons on board a red car. Makati where appellant advised Benito to disregard the NBI original plan. p. of the same day. 5). Metro Manila for the filing of the appropriate information against appellant Danilo Castro. testified as follows: That the father of the victim is his first cousin. appellant and Benito went home to Paombong.. That he wrote the ransom letter (Exhibit A) because he was instructed at the town plaza of Paombong. invited Benito. they (Danilo Castro and companions) will get his children who are studying in Manila (TSN. 6). That he did not report the latter to the authorities because he thinks that he can get his grandson (TSN..

b) UNDER THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 268 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. admitted having voluntarily given his sworn statement. E. sir. 121 SCRA 538 and reiterated in People vs. II ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT APPELLANT MARCOS PARTICIPATED IN THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING WITH RANSOM THE CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DEATH.year-old son of MR. this waiver is without legal effect as such was made without the assistance of a lawyer. the government will appoint one for you. He avers that although he waived his right to counsel. From the case records. Bulacan. are reflected the following: 1. When appellant gave his sworn statement before the NBI agent Esteban Libit on July 10. APPELLANT MARCOS DOES NOT BELONG To THAT TYPE OF KIDNAPPERS WHO DESERVE THE S UPREME PENALTY OF DEATH CONSIDERING THE SMALL AMOUNT INVOLVED AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT (KIDNAPPING) WAS COMMITTED. 3. sir. In other words. You are also entitled to be assisted by a lawyer of your own choice and should you not be able to engage the services of a lawyer. and d) THE DEATH PENALTY CONSTITUTES A CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 21. 1979 he was not then under police custody. we are now making it clear to you that it is your right to give or not give any statement or to answer or not to answer the questions to be propounded to you in this investigation. Q Would you. as we are informing you. that whatever you may say here may be used as evidence against you in any criminal or civil proceedings. 361. to the NBI. ACOSTA AND BRAVO 107 PHIL. You are also entitled to be informed here. sign a waiver of signifying that you have been informed of your constitutional rights and that you are waiving your rights under the same? A Yes. a requisite which should have been complied with as was stressed in the case of Morales vs. Appellant maintains that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible as evidence against him because the same was obtained from him without the assistance of a counsel. are you willing to give a statement without a lawyer helping you? A Yes. you have a perfect right to remain silent. Before we proceed. It is significant to consider that appellant Moises Marcos was duly informed of his right to remain silent. however. sir. The Court in this regard. CONSIDERING THAT: a) THE PARTICIPATION OF APPELLANT MARCOS WAS MERELY THAT OF AN ACCOMPLICE. He was merely invited for questioning so he can shed light on the kidnapping of Benedict. He was even allowed to go home after the investigation.QUESTION This investigation concerns the alleged kid napping of a certain BENEDICT GONZALES y SANTOS. Q In that case. therefore. Exh. b) THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT CONSPIRACY OR THAT APPELLANT MARCOS WAS GUILTY AS CO-PRINCIPAL AND/OR MASTERMIND. c) UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE CASE OF PEOPLE VS. Enrile. BENITO GONZALES of Paombong. an 8. now. Q Would you like to be assisted by a lawyer now? A No more. 135 SCRA 465. He was warned that any statement he make may be used against him and that he is entitled to be assisted by a lawyer of his choice. 4. and c) SAID COURT BASED ITS DECISION ON FACTS AND MATTERS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS. Is this clear to you? ANSWER: Yes. CONSIDERING THAT: a) SAID COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF APPELLANT MARCOS (EXHIBIT E) WHICH WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THE STATEMENT OF ROMEO CASTRO (EXHIBIT C) WHO WAS NOT PRESENTED AS A WITNESS. ARTICLE IV OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION. sir. THE PENALTY IMPOSABLE SHOULD ONLY BE PRISION MAYOR IN ITS MINIMUM AND MEDIUM PERIODS AND A FINE NOT EXCEEDING SEVEN HUNDRED PESOS. Galit. finds that appellant's protestations do not warrant reversal of the appealed judgment. Appellant who is a retired First Lieutenant in the Philippine Constabulary and who had studied up to third year in mechanical engineering. . 2.6 THE CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF PASIG METRO MANILA ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT MARCOS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING WITH RANSOM.

1979. July 10. waiving my rights to remain silent and I am also waiving my rights to be assisted by a lawyer in narrating to the NBI investigators what I know about the kidnapping of BENEDICT GONZALES. appellant expressly acknowledged that he voluntarily signed his sworn statement. MARCOS. your Honor . wherein it described the role he played in the kidnapping of Benedict Gonzales. Exhibit E. Testifying before the trial court. executed by the appellant. there are some signatures in this document (referring to Exhibit E is this your signature? A Yes. There is no averment nor is there even mention of any such alleged coercion exerted on him when appellant executed his sworn statement. Jr.. which appellant invoked. Apart from the extrajudicial statements of the accused.. The declarations of Benito Gonzales. Q You were not coerced by the NBI agents to sign your signature here? A No. What appears is that appellant wrote the ransom note while in his residence and without any of his co-accused being present. Appellant claims that his cooperation was not given voluntarily and therefore he should not be regarded as a principal for even assuming that he participated in the commission of the crime. a ransom letter. 121 SCRA 538. Consequently. separate and independent from the extrajudicial statement Exhibit E. SGD. We cannot give credence to the claim of the appellant that he was coerced into writing the ransom note. dated July 10. The findings and conclusions of the trial court receive fullest support from the evidence adduced by the prosecution aside . father of the kidnapped child indicate the role played by appellant Moises Marcos in obtaining the amount of P20. marked as Exhibit E. his testimony is as follows: xxxxxxxxx Q By the way. Exhibit E. (TSN. the Court is of the view that appellant's admissions.000. July 24. All the above mentioned evidence. Q You gave this voluntarily? A Yes. which was marked as Exhibit "E.. 1979. Appellant submits that he was an unwilling participant in the crime and that he was forced to write the ransom note because of his fear that his children in Manila will be hurt by his co-accused. Manila. your Honor. as his "loloNito" who had taken him from the place of detention in Barrio Baesa and brought him back home to his parents. In his extrajudicial statement.00 in cash which must be delivered the following night to us as a ransom for his son.000. We find no reason to set aside and reject the evidence which the court below had properly appreciated. I remember that I instructed him in that ransom note to ask his driver to drive his car towards the highway going to Nueva Ecija at about midnight. the other evidence submitted by the prosecution include the testimony of Benedict Gonzales.7 In the sworn statement of appellant Moises Marcos. addressed to Mr. Enrile. 65-66). his waiver of his right to counsel is clearly expressed: WAIVER This is to certify that I have been informed of my constitutional rights to remain silent and to be assisted by a lawyer in this investigation. excludes the case at bar from the scope and application of the pronouncements made in the case of People vs. from appellant's admissions made before the trial court. appellant stated: 19. I mean the money. MOISES R. Exhibit E. your Honor. I am. Galit. 1979. I also mentioned in that ransom note that along the . pp. Q What did you do then in your house? A I wrote a letter." In this regard. Ben and telling him to prepare P200. The facts and circumstances attendant in this instance. and confirmed by him in open court during his trial. voluntarily made. The driver must bring with him the ransom money and we will intercept him. this Court should extend faith and credit to the factual findings of the court below that appellant Moises Marcos was an active participant and was even the one who had inspired the commission of the kidnapping of the son of his first cousin. his participation was merely that of an accomplice. are likewise proof establishing beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's guilt. render worthless the challenge now interposed by him to the admissibility of appellant's sworn statement. a nine-year old kidnap victim who attested to and confirmed the fact that it was the accused Moises Marcos.00 supposedly to re-pay the purported loan secured from one Romy Castro and which was to be utilized to pay for the ransom of the kidnapped boy. however. 135 SCRA 465 and Morales. Considering all the foregoing circumstances. vs.

as such is not excessive. by himself.00 from one Romeo Castro which was to be used in paying the ransom and although appellant did not actually obtain that loan. appellant submits that he merely acted as a "go-between" between kidnappers and the victim's father and where there is doubt as to whether one participated as a principal or as an accomplice. He maintains that the death penalty constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. female." that Benito Gonzales. 18 and 1084. is among the richest residents of Paombong. He then brought back the latter to his parents in Paombong. To mitigate somehow his criminal liability. It was appellant who wrote the ransom note and he himself placed said note at the gate of the house of the father of the kidnapped child. The Court agrees with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court that appellant's participation in the said felony was as a principal. The crime committed by appellant and his co-accused is defined and penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. of turning back from his assigned role. was then a minor and that he was kidnapped for the purpose of extorting ransom. disallowed by Section 21.000. 436. The narration of the kidnapping incident by the herein appellant is replete with details which could not possibly be known by anyone else other than those actually and principally involved in the kidnapping and in the execution thereof. In Ex Parte Kemmler. Finally.00 which was intended to serve as reimbursement for the money alleged borrowed and which Benito Gonzales was made to believe was paid for the release of his kidnapped son. unjust or cruel. which provides: Art. father of the kidnapped victim. In People vs. even if none of the circumstances above mentioned were present in the commission of the offense. Bulacan. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. In said case.000. 741 — The penalty complained of neither cruel. Caloocan City. this Court stated. We already held that the death penalty. 136 U. Appellant. almost only as an accomplice (Appellant's Brief. 19-20). the victim.8 highway. 81 Phil. Appellant's change of heart could have been brought about by appellant's realization of the anxiety . as amended by Republic Act Nos. he nevertheless caused the boy's father to agree to re-pay that alleged loan and this the latter did afterwards. Appellant's argument that death is a cruel and unusual punishment does not deserve consideration. appellant contends that the death penalty should not have been imposed on him because the amount of the ransom money involved is small. Bulacan. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other persons. It was appellant who informed his co-accused Danilo Castro and the other persons named only as. or a public officer. the milder form of criminal liability should be favored. or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty. where the kidnapped boy was detained. shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. unjust or excessive. What can be gleaned from a review of the evidence on record is that apparently there was an abrupt and increasing remorse or contrition on the part of the herein appellant after the kidnapping was an accomplished fact but there no longer was any way. It is undisputed that appellant received from Benito Gonzales the amount of P 20. Camano. "John Doe" and "Peter Doe. 115 SCRA 688. the United States Supreme Court said that punishments are cruel when they involved torture or lingering death but the punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution. citing Harden vs. within the meaning of that word in the Constitution. at about midnight he will see a car with a red flag and upon seeing that car he must stop and go down hands up and he must light the inside of the car. There is no question at all that Benedict. went to Baesa. Appellant asks that he be given the benefit of doubt and that he be regarded. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor. x xxxxxxxx 4. Director of Prisons. 267 Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Appellant made it appear that he borrowed money in the amount of P20. It implies there somethig inhuman and barbarous. pp.S. something more than the mere extinguishment of life. It was no less appellant Moises Marcos who pointed out Benedict Gonzales to his other co-accused who later duped said boy into going along with them on the pretext that the boy's father was then in a hospital.

as to the penalty of death imposed on the accused-appellant Moises Marcos which is hereby reduced to Reclusion Perpetua. Appellant obviously did not fully realize the gravity of the crime he and his companions were embarking upon.00 received by them (herein appellant had no share in the ransom paid). Teehankee. Jr. the penalty that should be imposed should be reduced to life imprisonment. Cruz. that if appellant's conviction is sustained. JJ. already regretted his felonious act and thus he voluntarily returned the kidnapped boy to his parents although full payment of the P200.000. is on leave. 1995 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee. under the given circumstances in this case. Yap. In all other respects.000. Thus.. The facts of this case tend to show that the crime in this case was not the result of any deliberate and well formed nefarious conspiracy of a criminal group. 23). he must have even at that time..00 and gave this money to his co-conspirators to appease them (Q. 65-67. Feria. J.lwphl@itç Considering the foregoing circumstances. appellant is not a professional wrong doer (he has not been guilty of any other previous offense). the appropriate penalty that he should suffer must not be the extreme penalty of death.00. No.9 and suffering inflicted on the parents of the child those father is the first cousin of the appellant. to be inappropriate.." (Appellant's Brief. the said judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore. Fernan. . .00 being demanded in the ransom note was not given by the boy's family. then the proper recommendation in his behalf should be made by the prison officials concerned for the further commutation of his prison term. Exh. vs. Paras and Feliciano. the Court is disposed to accept the urging of appellant's counsel de oficio. ". appellant then sold his car for P5. We find the extreme penalty of death imposed on appellant. Gutierrez. p. Sworn Statement of Appellant. WHEREFORE.R. as submitted by appellant's counsel in this case. In the view of the Court.00. concur in the result G. We are inclined to agree with the observations of the appellant's counsel de oficio. It should be therefore reduced to P20.. SO ORDERED. The Court also notes that only P20. Moises Marcos. It was rather a crime clumsily conceived on the spur of the moment.00 was decreed in the decision of the court below. 112983 March 22. It is indicated that when his other co-accused were later grumbling about the small sum of P20.000. being in accordance with the evidence is AFFIRMED but with modification. Narvasa. who went to the National Penitentiary to interview the accused. The vacciliation of appellant is understandable because.000. MelencioHerrera. Appellant has already been detained for almost eight years now and is presently confined at the National Penitentiary awaiting the outcome of our review of the judgment rendered by the trial court. The Court's impression is that when appellant Moises Marcos began to realize the extent of the grief and torment being undergone by the family of Benedict Gonzales (the kidnapped child). In our assessment of the facts of this case and upon considering the conduct and actuations of the herein appellant.. E). the appealed decision. if the record of appellant's behavior while under detention in the National Penitentiary during the years he has been imprisoned is satisfactory and indicative of his worthiness to rejoin the society of law-abiding citizens.000. The indemnity to be paid to the offended party is also reduced to P20.000. concur.000. . CJ.00 was paid by the father of the kidnapped child for ransom but the amount of P25. J.

Sufficient prima facie evidence pointed to Rene Salvamante.250. As to Rene's co-conspirator. as one of the perpetrators of the That illusion was shattered ghastly crime. a consultant of the World Bank. Conspiring. Philippine Currency. Only Richard Malig was arrested On 22 January 1992. that on the occasion and by reason of the said robbery. The motion to drop Malig was granted and warrants for the arrest of accused Salvamante and Maqueda were issued. to . both accused willfully. Teresita Mendoza. at Tagadi. customary labor for the same period of time. 1991.10 HECTOR MAQUEDA @ PUTOL. the.: As against a bustling city life. Province Of Benguet. 5 . did then and there willfully. the prosecution filed an Amended Informations with only Salvamante and Maqueda as the accused. leading to the death of William Horace Barker and inflicting various physical injuries on the former which required medical attendance for a period of more than thirty (30) days and have likewise incapacitated her from the performance of her. the said Teresita and William Horace Barker.it: [An enumeration and description of the articles follow] all having a total value of TWO HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P204. beyond the reach of worldly distractions and trouble when in the early morning of 27 August 91. Upper Tadiangan Municipality of Tuba. chose the peace and quiet of a country home not any near the metropolis of Manila or its environs. he filed an application for bail. it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case. Accused-Appellant. and RENE SAGVAMAIJTE (at large). 4 Maqueda was subsequently arrested on 4 March 1992. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Horace was brutally slain and Teresita badly battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robbery. and on 9 April 1992. and with intent of gain and against the will and consent of the owners thereof. trial proceeded entered a plea of not guilty 6 on 22 April 1992. confederating and mutually aiding one another. belonging to. armed with lead pipes. Britisher Horace William Barker. Since Rene Salvamante continues to elude arrest and has remained at large. the Prosecutor further asked that accused Richard Malig be dropped from the information because further evaluation 3 of the evidence disclosed no sufficient evidence against him. JR. in the. HECTOR MAQUEDA @ PUTOL. and his Filipino wife. prior to the arraignment of Richard Malig. DAVIDE. above-named accused. J. but in the rugged and mountainous terrain of Tuba. Philippines. unlawfully and feloniously repeatedly strike Teresita Barker and William Horace Barker with lead pipes on the different Parts of their body. Perhaps they thought they were in a veritable paradise. Contrary to Law. Benguet. He categorically stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above-entitled case. unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of Spouses TERESITA and WILLIAM HORACE BARKER and with violence against and intimidation of the persons therein ransack the place and take and carry away the following articles." On 22 April 1992.00). sanctity of their own home. the.. Its accusatory portion reads as follows: That on or about the 27th Of August. the prosecution filed a 2 motion to amend the information to implead as co-accused Hector Maqueda alias Putol because the evaluation Of the evidence subsequently submitted established his complicity in the crime. and at the hearing of the motion the following day. the victims·former houseboy. prosecution initially included one Richard Malig y Severino in the information for robbery 1 with homicide and serious physical injuries filed on 19 November 1991 with Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Benguet at La Trinidad. Benguet. Accused.

Benguet. Jr." When the noise stopped. which is only a kilometer away from the house of the Barkers. Norie happened to turn her face and she saw a faircomplexioned. Mike replied that it did not. 27 August 1991. Accused Hector Maqueda took the witness stand and presented SPO1 Aurelio Sagun. the dining room. Tuba·. of that same day.00 for the death of William Horace Barker. Francisco Hernandez. Barker in the amount of P50. Julieta Villanueva.00 representing actual expenses. as washer wont. Teresita Mendoza Barker. 27 August 1991. accused Maqueda as the man she saw then. on the light. At around 6:00 a. a househelp of the Barkers who shared a room with her cousin and fellow househelp. he and Mark noticed that the taller of the two had an amputated left hand and a right hand with a missing thumb and index finger. Salvamante chased her and pulled her back inside the house. leaving behind her husband who was still asleep. went to the lavatory to wash her face. She saw Salvamante and a companion who was a complete stranger to her. prosecutor Daniel Zarate. and after she had recovered. After a few seconds. At the trial. This man was carrying a black bag on his right shoulder Speaking in Tagalog. the taller man asked Mike and Mark whether the road they were following would lead to Naguilian. She rose from her bed and went out of the room. The shouts awakened Teresita Mendoza Barker. Ray Dean Salvosa. While she Was fighting back. Dr. the main doors of their house to see if they had been locked and bolted. After she broke free from Salvamante.m. as culled from the trial court's detailed and meticulous summary thereof. Norie and Julieta heard the sound of water flowing from the toilet and the barking of dogs. Julieta Villanueva. who was awakened by the shouts of Norie. Norie fled towards the garage and shouted for help. She fell to the concrete floor. Suddenly the two rushed towards her and beat her up with lead pipes. and proceeded to the toilet. Five minutes later. She knew Salvamante very well because he and his sister Melanie were the former househelps of the Barkers whom she and Julieta Villanueva had replaced and because Salvamante had acquainted her on her chores.000. she saw Rene Salvamante. Since the door knob turned as if someone was forcing his way into the room. that's enough. The two men bearded it. of 26 August 1991. in his evidence in chief and Myrna MaquedaKatindig as his sour-rebuttal witness. got up. got out of her bed and upon opening the door of her room.m. court found accused Hector P41.681. Jr. She went down the Stairs and proceeded t. Francisco Cabotaje. the trial Maqueda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and serious physical Injuries and sentenced him to Suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuaand to indemnify the victim. the spouses Horace William Barker and Teresita Mendoza Barker repaired to their bedroom after Teresita had checked. Mike again noticed that the taller man had the defects above mentioned because the latter used his right hand with only three fingers to hold on to the bar of the 7 . They saw two men approaching them from a curve. While locked in their room. SPO1 Rodolfo Tabadero. they heard the moans of Mrs.. tall man with a high-bridged nose at Salvamante's side. NorieDacara. P100. Glen Enriquez. . Despite her pleas to get what they want and not to hurt her. Mike Tabayan and Mark Pacio were resting in a waiting shed beside the Asin road at Aguyad. At the trial. When they saw that the door knob was being turned. Teresita M. At 7:00 a. Barker: "That's enough.he went near the door of the garage and because she could not open it. opened the door to the garage." The prosecution presented as its witnesses Mrs. they braced themselves against the door to prevent anyone from entering. is as follows: Between 10:30 and 11:00 pm. that's enough . When she opened the door of the toilet and switched. Mike Tayaban. she pointed to accused Maqueda as Salvamante's companion. La Union. she called Julieta. The version of the prosecution. saw a man clad in maong jacket and short pants with 'his right hand brandishing a lead pipe standing two meters in front of her. they continued to beat her up until she lost consciousness. Barker and the shouts of Mr. She pointed to. she ran to-the garage and hid under the car. (She got scared and immediately closed the door. she held on to it and shouted for help. When the two men reached the shed. a passenger jeepney bound for Baguio City and owned and driven by Ben Lusnong arrived at the waiting shed. of the following day. Salvamante also hit Norie with the lead pipe on her back and at the·back of her right hand. and PolicarpioCambod in its evidence in chief and FredesmindaCastrence and SP03 Armando Molleno on rebuttal. Salvamante suddenly strangled her.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.11 In its decision Promulgated on 31 August 1993.000. Julieta opened the door and they rushed to their room and closed the door. whom she identified at the trial as Maqueda. househelpsNorieDacara and Julieta Villanueva.

The team then left. she would have died by noontime of 27 August 1991 due to bleeding or hemorrhagic shock.00. Dr. Dr. black T-shirt. determined the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock. radio cassette recorder (Exhibit "W-3").' They went around the house and found a lead pipe (Exhibit "AA") at the toilet. She pointed to a person who turned out to be Richard Malig. was sent to the Barker house to secure the premises. Edgar Dalit. and the green hand towel recovered from the Barker house by the Baguio City Police were first brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service at Camp Dangwa. Cabotaje. The wounded Teresita Barker was brought to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center where she was treated and confined for eight days. where it was examined by Dr. bleeding in the left ear. In the Investigation conducted by the Tuba Police. and a green hand towel (Exhibit "DD"). found in it twenty-seven injuries. In the dining room. Norie and Julieta rushed out of the house and ran to the place of Janet Albon to seek help. At the master's bedroom. H. Dr. security guards of the Baguio College Foundation (BCF) arrived. Barker was then discharged from the hospital and upon getting home. Municipal·Health Officer of Tuba. Benguet. her eyesight had not yet improved.. She was in a comatose state. They just stayed near the road. Barker's injuries were caused by a blunt instrument. Hernandez opined that Mrs. was difficult to get in touch with at that time. a black T-shirt (Exhibit "CC")." "O. . and some pieces of jewelry (Exhibit "W-2") were missing. Mrs. Barker discovered that her Canon camera. and she had double vision. who in the meantime was called by Dalit. The aggregate value of the missing items was P204. He noticed footprints at the back of the house. her visual acuity was impaired. She then executed an affidavit on these missing items (Exhibit "X. which could have been caused by a blunt instrument. A team from the Baguio City Police Station. members of the Tuba Police Station arrived at the·Barker house to conduct their investigation. She regained consciousness only after two days. Hernandez found that she sustained multiple lacerations primarily an the left side of the occipital area. Dr. also arrived. of 27 August 1991. Francisco P. Hernandez. Enriquez. which. he saw several pieces of jewelry scattered on the floor and an empty inner cabinet.m. he pointed to Maqueda as the taller man. Barker inside the Barker house and Cambod prepared a sketch (Exhibit "JJ") showing its location. The lead pipes. particularly at the riprap wall. Benguet. came to the hospital bed of Mrs. Upon his request. the remains of Mr. On 3 September 1991. One of the muscles adjoining her eyes was paralyzed. On 1 September 1991. When informed of the investigation. Perfecto Micu found the body of Mr. however. returned to the Barker house.250. Francisco L.m. Cambod prepared a report of his initial investigation (Exhibit "KK"). Benguet. they returned to the Barker's house but did not enter it for fear of what they had seen earlier. The Tuba PNP gave them to Enriquez (Exhibit "V"). He then interviewed the two househelps who provided him with descriptions of the assailants.12 jeepney as he bearded it. a police team from the Tuba Police Station. they saw the Barkers bathed in their own blood. At 9:00 a. tried to determine the items lost during the robbery. Enriquez conducted his own investigation. He also discovered another lead pipe (Exhibit "BB") at the back of the door of the house. Soon after. She requested Glen Enriquez to get back the pieces of jewelry taken by the Tuba PNP (Exhibit "U"). Baguio City. La Trinidad. Mrs. Barker had not yet fully recovered consciousness. and concluded that if her injuries had been left unattended. a security guard of the BCF. he identified through a picture the shorter man as Salvamante. and at the hearing. headed by Police Officer PolicarpioCambod. The attending physician.). and asked her to identify the persons who had assaulted her. like a lead pipe. Benguet. and bruises on the arm. Norie and Julieta gathered bough courage to leave the room where they had earlier barricaded themselves and proceed to the kitchen to get the key to the gate of the garage.m. The body of William Horace Barker was taken to the Baguio Funeral Homes at Naguilian Road. Barker were cremated. of 27 August 1991. and then issued a death certificate (Exhibits "P. At 5:00 p. and which included Dr. Barker. The team conducted an initial investigation only because it found out that the scene of the crime was within the jurisdiction of the Tuba Police Station. leaving behind BCF Security Officer Glen Enriquez and a security guard. Moreover. Hernandez told the members of the team that it was improper for them to conduct it without first consulting him since Mrs. Perfecto Micu of the City Health Department. Jr. After requesting Janet to call the police. showed her pictures of several persons. Dr. and observed that the grass below it was parted as if someone had passed through and created a trail amidst the grass down toward the Asin road of Tuba. of that same day. first saw her at around 11:00 a. and then to the court." and "R"). Enriquez then left after Dalit's arrival.

was the only accused on trial (Exhibit "II"). he informed Maqueda of his rights under the Constitution. Maqueda had been taken to the. Enriquez was able to obtain information from the barangay captain. Maqueda. They alighted somewhere along Albano Street in Baguio City and walked until they reached the Philippine Rabbit Bus station where they boarded a 8 bus for Manila. ordered Glen Enriquez to go to Guinyangan. Upon being informed by Barangay Captain Requeron that the two had not. they already left the place. Barker came down. Calauag. Executive Vice President of the BCF. The Guinyangan Police Station turned over Maqueda to Maj. had been arrested in Guinyangan. who found him the job as caretaker. Block 21 Posadas Bayview Subdivision. Enriquez. On 9 April 1992. went out of the house. Hi. She likewise received treatment at the New York Medical Center (Exhibit "M"). In the meantime. however. After he received an affirmative answer. Proceeded to Guinyangan. Maj. 1991 and he worked continuously there up to August 27. Salvamante hit her with a lead pipe and she screamed. On 29 November 1991. It was revealed that she sustained a damaged artery on her left eye which could cause blindness. Rodolfo Anagaran. walked toward the road where they Saw two persons from whom they asked directions. It was his sister. testimony is summarized by the trial court in this wise: Accused Hector Maqueda denied having anything to do with the crime. caretaker. He did so and according to him. Prosecutor Zarate told Maqueda that he would oppose the motion for bail since he. that he saw Salvamante together with a certain "Putol" in September 1991. Salvamante then brought him to the Barker house and it was only when they were at the vicinity thereof that Salvamante revealed to him that his zeal purpose in going to Baguio City was to rob the Barkers. while he was under detention. Virgilio F. 1991 he was at the polvoron factory owned by MindaCastrense located at Lot 1. On 4 March 1992. Enriquez and Maj. Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail (Exhibit "GG-6"). He stated that O" August 27. directed SP03 Armando Molleno to get Maqueda's statement. BasilioRequeron. Maqueda narrated to Salvosa that Salvamante brought him to Baguio City in order to find a job as a peanut vendor. Sukat. the Barkers were already unconscious on the' floor. Quezon. when they were in the kitchen of the Barker house. Salvamante went upstairs and a few minutes later came down bringing with him a radio cassette and some pieces of jewelry. A. Accused Hector Maqueda put up the defense of denial and alibi. Rendon. one of the househelps was already there. Its commanding officer. He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering·to be a State witness in the above entitled case. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital in New York (Exhibit "L") where she underwent an unsuccessful operation. He was employed as a caretaker Since July 5. 1991." who is none other than accused Hector Maqueda. to coordinate with the police in determining the. but later on agreed to it. Anagaran who then brought Maqueda to the Benguet Provincial Jail. whereabouts of accused Rene Salvamante. Barker underwent a CT Scan at the St. to attack her with the lead pipe provided·him by Salvamante. Ray Dean Salvosa arrived at the Office of Prosecutor Zarate and obtained permission from the latter to talk to Maqueda. Myrna Katindig. Chief of the Tuba Police Station.13 Mrs. he and Salvamante bearded it. Ray Dean Salvosa. and three others went back to Guinyangan to find out whether Salvamante and "Putol" had returned. Maqueda. Barker who had followed his wife downstairs. together with another policeman. Muntinlupa. it was his duty to supervise the employees in the factory and whenever his . Quezon. Barker. Enriquez requested Requeron to notify him immediately once Salvamante or " Putol" returned to Guinyangan. Maqueda further divulged to Salvosa that they then changed clothes. and when a passenger jeepney stopped and they were informed by the two Persons that it was bound for Baguio City. headquarters of the 235th PNP Mobile Force Company at Sta. Anagaran's arrival at Guinyangan. Before Maj. In Guinyangan. Melanie Mendoza. he helped Salvamante in beating up Mr. Metro Manila. Maria. forcing him. it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case. then Mrs. Luke's Hospital in Quezon City. Salvosa then led Maqueda toward the balcony. Maqueda thereafter signed a SinumpaangSalaysay(Exhibit "LL") wherein he narrated his participation in the crime at the Barker house on 27 August 1991. After he felled Mrs. On 21 December 1991. she then sought treatment at the St." Prosecutor Zarate then had a talk with Maqueda regarding such statement and asked him if he was in the company of Salvamante on 27 August 1991 in entering the house of the Barkers. Requeron's daughter called up Enriquez to inform him that Putol. he initially objected to the plan.

Castrence. Quezon. Guinyangan. 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved. 214 SCRA 678).R. Jose Maqueda who resided at Sabangdos. 1992. and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. He knows accused Salvamante as they were childhood playmates.R. 82770. he was in charge of the sales. Pajarit. On March 5. SP03 Molleno declared that he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before Maqueda was investigated and that Maqueda voluntarily and 10 freely gave his SinumpaangSalaysay (Exhibit "LL"). and Julieta Villanueva and thus disregarded their testimonies on this matter. ·testified that she started her business only on 30 August 1991 and thus it was impossible for her to have hired Maqueda on 5 July 1991. Quezon. Tuba. Although the trial court had doubts on the identification of Maqueda by prosecution witnesses Teresita Mendoza Barker. he went home to Gapas. 1992. 213 SCRA 569). the following requisites must be present: 1) there must be more than One circumstance. can we still secure a conviction based on the confession and the proof of corpus delicti as well as on circumstantial evidence? In order to establish the guilt of the accused through circumstantia1 evidence.14 employer was not around. He again saw accused Salvamante after Christmas day on the road beside their (Salvamante) house. On December 20. who was a townmate of his asked him to accompany her home as she was hard up in her work at the factory. G. September 4. He was to be back at work after New Year's Day in 1992. After that occasion. The circumstances shown by the prosecution which tend to show the guilt of the accused are: . October 19. They were able to sell the cassette recorder to Salvamante's aunt. 1991. No. Benguet where he has 9 remained under detention up to the present. Calauag. 1991. Salvamante invited him to go to Calauag. then to the Tuba Police Station. He had no chance to talk to him that day when he saw him and so they just waved to each other. After his Christmas vacation. he was teaching the new employees how to make the seasoning for the polvoron. He was then brought to the Guinyangan municipal jail. Upon alighting from the bus at Guinyangan. There must be an unbroken chain of circamstances which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the defendant to the exclusion of all Others. Hence. he accompanied Rosely home to Guinyangan. Quezon Province as it was his vacation time from his job at the polvoron factory. it decreed a conviction "based on the confession and the proof of corpus delicti" as well as on circumstantial evidence. 1992. having gone to the same elementary school. He was also told that if he would point to accused Salvamante. It stated thus: Since we have discarded the positive identification theory of the prosecution pinpointing accused Maqueda as the culprit. Abuyen. Quezon Province and roam around. No. The prosecution rebutted the testimony of Hector Maqueda by presenting FredesmindaCastience and SP03 Armando Molleno. G. Quezon. he was brought to the Benguet Provincial Jail at La Trinidad. he reported for work although he could not recall what he did that day. On August 26. NorieDacara. He and his 8 co-employees all Sleep inside the factory. One of his co-workers Roselyn Merca. He was supposed to report back for work on March 2. They had their meal and then went to visit accused Maqueda's brother. 1992. the owner of the polvoron factory where Maqueda worked. Salvamante asked Maqueda to accompany him /Salvamante) in selling a cassette recorder which he said came from Baguio City. he saw accused Rene Salvamante. he never saw accused Salvamante again. as the author of the crime ( People vs. When the two accused were at Calauag. Benguet. 1992 but he was not able to as he was arrested by members of the CAGFU at the house of Roselyn Merca when he brought her home. Accused Maqueda knew that Salvamante worked in Baguio as the latter's mother told him about it. He agreed to go as he also wanted to visit his brother. He slept inside the factory that night and on August 27. 77285. he went back to work a thepolvoron factory until February 29. he would be freed and he could also become a state witness: He told them that he could attest to the fact that he accompanied accused Salvamante in selling the cassette recorder. 1991. There he was told to cooperate with the police in arresting Salvamante so he would not stay long in the Province of Benguet.

By his own testimony. The accused's arguments which stress the incredibility of the testimonies of Mrs. Maqueda seasonably appealed to us his conviction. 90637. it the accused in appearing that he is the least guilty along This in effect.15 1. this is a flimsy excuse which cannot Had he not understood what the motion meant. 2.R. His Motion to Grant Bail (Exhibit "HH") contains this statement that he is willing and volunteering to be State witness in the above-entitled case. In his 14-page brief. Barker and the househelps identifying Maqueda are misdirected and misplaced because the trial court had ruled that Mrs. he could have easily asked his sister and brotherin-law what it meant seeing that their signatures up already affixed on the motion. 5. Accused Maqueda knows or is familiar with accused Rene Salvamante as they from the same town. it must not only appear that the accused interposing the same was at some other place but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (People vs.R. Barker to death. This time. His presence within the vicinity of the crime scene right after the incident in the company of accused Salvamante was testified to by Mike Tabayan. As they had to ask for directions from the witness in the Tagalog dialect shows that they were strangers to the place 3. 4. G. . . he pleads that we acquit him because the trial court committed this lone error: . Muntinlupa. As stated in a long Line of cases. The trial court based his . He alleges that Mrs. alibi is at best a weak defense and easy of fabrication (People vs. IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE 12 CRIME CHARGED. Only three pages of the brief. Martinado. This defense easily crumbles down as Tayaban placed accused Maqueda at vicinity of the crime scene. when investigated at the hospital. It is not farfetched then to conclude that accused Maqueda could have easily beat Mr. Metro Manila. October 19. the two housemaids gave a description of Salvamante's companion that fitted Richard Malig. Pugal. 215 SCRA 247). and that when initially investigated. 6. October 29. The accused's defense is alibi. As hereinafter shown. the defense of alibi is unconvincing. Barker. 92020. We find no merit in this appeal. Pointed to Richard Malig as the companion of Rene Salvamante. NorieDacara and Julieta Villanueva. ad the failure of the star witnesses for the Prosecution to identify him. The combination of all these circumstances plus extrajudicial confession produce the needed proof 11 beyond reasonable doubt that indeed accused Maqueda is guilty of the crime. For alibi to be given credence. 1992. were not able to positively identify Magueda. The extrajudicial confession referred to is the SinumpaangSalaysay(Exhibit: "LL") of Maqueda taken by SP02 Molleno immediately after Maqueda was arrested. A physical demonstration to which the accused and his counsel did not offer any objection shows that despite his being handicapped. the only prosecution witness who noticed the defective hands of the accused. supports his extrajudicial confession trade to the police at Although he claims that he did not his signature would lean his as he was just told that release from detention. are devoted to his arguments which are anchored on his alibi that at the time the crime Was committed he was not in Benguet but in Sukat. typed double space. G. Teresita Mendoza Barker and the two housemaids. 214 SCRA 712). his admission to Prosecutor Zarate that he was at the Barker house that fateful morning and his even more damaging admission to Ray Dean Salvosa as to what he actually did can be considered as another circumstance to already bloster the increasing circumstances against the accused. accused Maqueda has established that he Salvamante are close friends to the point that they went out together during the Christmas vacation in 1991 and he even accompanied Salvamante in selling the black radio cassette recorder. accused Maqueda could well and easily grip a lead pipe and strike a cement post with such force that it produced a resounding vibration. 1992. No. No.

It is only an extrajudicial admission. as well as on circumstantial evidence. Section 12(1). 33. there is an acknowledgment of guilt. he still confessed when he did not have to do so. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which read as follows: Sec. (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. direct or implied. Article III of the Constitution providing as follows: Sec. taken during custodial investigation. or of any offense necessarily included therein. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. verbal admissions to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa. And under Section 3 of Rule 133. 26. of facts pertinent to the issue and tending. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. A perusal of the SinumpaangSalaysayfails to convince us that it is an extrajudicial confession. while an admission is a statement by the accused. The trial court went on to state: At the time of the confession. to prove his guilt. which he failed to do and. therefore. of his guilt of the crime charged. Admission of a party. He no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. Confession. Wharton distinguishes a confession from an admission as follows: A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms. Article III of the Constitution. is not applicable. an extrajudicial confession made by the accused is not sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. xxxxxxxxx Sec. despite his knowing fully well that a case had 17 already been filed in court. The trial court admitted the SinumpaangSalaysayof accused Maqueda although it was taken without the assistance of counsel because it was of the opinion that since an information had already benefited in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the court. 15 . in connection with proof of other facts. may be given in evidence against him. And yet. the trial court made a distinction between an extrajudicial confession — the SinumpaangSalaysay— and an extrajudicial admission — the. the former and the latter as clearly shown in Sections 26 and 33. Since voluntariness is presumed. but on the voluntariness of its execution. i. Ayson where this Court elucidated on the rights of a person under custodial investigation and the rights of an accused after a case is filed in court. — The act. and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction and which tends only to establish the 14 ultimate fact of guilt. 12. The term admission is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to 13 commit the offense with which he is charged. He should have focused his attention and arguments on these. the accused was already facing charges in court." It heavily 16 relied on People vs. hence. an admission is something less than a confession.e. In other words. The trial court then held that the admissibility of the SinumpaangSalaysayshould not be tested under the aforequoted Section 12(1). the SinumpaangSalaysay was not. he must be provided with one.16 conviction on his extrajudicial confession and the proof of corpus delicti. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. the police investigation was " no longer within the ambit of a custodial investigation. From its ratiocinations. by a party in a criminal case. In a confession. Maqueda had the burden of proving otherwise. the SinumpaangSalaysaywas admissible against him. Hence. declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. There is a distinction between..

The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights. If. this Court aptly observed: . however.R. 1992. and to be informed of such right . . but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other settings. It said: In any case. 206 SCRA 652)." It went on to state its ruling: Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated. the trial court admitted their testimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the truth of the admission because such testimony was objected to as hearsay. . it would also diminish the said accused's rights under Section 14(2) Article III of the Constitution. 21 Pamaran. it is this: the prosecution may not use statements. Arizona. Article III of the Constitution and his rights after a criminal complaint or information had been filed against him. Prior to any questioning the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent. that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him. we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated. It may be pointed out though that as formulated in the second paragraph of the aforementioned Section 20. whether exculpatory or inculpatory." If this were so. we cannot agree with its sweeping view that after such filing an accused "no longer Has] the right to remain silent End to counsel but he [has] the right to refuge to be a witness and not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. knowingly and intelligently. The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1). In that case. 83027. and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney. No. the word custudial. which was used in Miranda with reference to the investigation. then there would be a hiatus in the criminal justice process where an accused is deprived of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such rights. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed. which is now Section 17. the Court explicitly stated that the holding therein "is not an innovation in our jurisprudence. By custodial interrogation. provided the waiver is made voluntarily. Fule. Such a view would not only give a very restrictive application to Section 12(1). Article II of the 1973 Constitution which reads: Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Article III of the Constitution are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense.17 As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa. In view thereof. it is settled that when testimony is presented to establish not the truth but the tenor of the statement or the fact that such statement was made. 18 February 28. was excluded. unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it." The direct and primary source of this Section 12(1) is the second paragraph of Section 20. the police may not question him. it is not hearsay (People vs. Likewise. The mere fact that he may have answered some question or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted 20 with an attorney and thereafter consents to a questioned. The first sentence to which it immediately follows refers to the right against self-incrimination reading: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. in Galman vs. stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. either retained or appointed. the following measures are required. While we commend the efforts of the trial court to distinguish between the rights of a person under Section 12(1). The incorporation of the second paragraph of Section 20 in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 constitution was an acceptance of the landmark doctrine laid down by the united States 19 Supreme Court in Miranda vs. he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. G.

wrong for the trial court to hold that Section 12(1). he must be provided with one. Jose that the rights of the accused only begin 24 upon arraignment. and (c) the rights therein cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Holgado. he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. he must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail and the arresting officer must make a return of the warrant 25 . as so formulated. in whole or in part. shall be inadmissible in evidence. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. Clearly then. without counsel. It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney. the right to be heard would be a farce if it did not include the right to counsel. Article III of the present Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself 26 and counsel. it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney. then police authorities and other law enforcement agencies would have a heyday in extracting confessions or admissions from accused persons after they had been arrested but before they are arraigned because at such stage the accused persons are supposedly not entitled to the enjoyment of the rights to remain silent and to counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. Note that the first sentence requires the arresting officer to inform the person to be arrested of the reason for the arrest and show him "the warrant of arrest. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. but it is essential that the court should assign one de officio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own." as in fact the sentence opens with the phrase "any person" goes to prove that they did not adopt in toto the entire fabric of the Miranda doctrine. Enrile: 7. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. too. preferably of his own choice. a relative. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. if any. Thus.18 The fact that the framers of our Constitution did not choose to use the term "custodial" by having it inserted between the words "under" and "investigation. this Court laid down this rule in Morales vs. It was. At the time a person is arrested. Accordingly. therefore. Section 12(2)." The underscored phrase simply means that a case had been filed against him in a court of either preliminary or original jurisdiction and that the court had issued the corresponding warrant of arrest. If we follow the theory of the trial court. The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel." In People vs. it is clear that the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under the second paragraph of Section 20 are available to a person at any time before arraignment whenever he is investigated for the commission of an offense. Applying the second paragraph of Section 20. if any. and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. the 23 second paragraph of Section 20 changed the rule adopted in People vs. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. This paragraph was incorporated into Section 12(1). and. Article III of the present Constitution with the following additional safeguards: (a) the counsel must be competent and independent. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. the second paragraph of Section 20 has even broadened the application of Miranda by making it applicable 22 to the investigation for the commission of an offense of a person and in custody. Article III of the Constitution is strictly limited to custodial investigation and that it does not apply to a person against whom a criminal complaint or information has already been filed because after its filing he loses his right to remain silent and to counsel." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. From the foregoing. Then. Once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court and the accused is thereafter arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest. this Court emphatically declared: One of the great principles of justice guaranteed by our Constitution is that "no person shall be-held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law". Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law. particularly in the rules of procedure. by any person on his behalf. (b) if the party cannot afford the services of such counsel. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. and that any statement he might make could be used against him.

that rule applies to oral extrajudicial admissions. The said witness need not repeat verbatim the oral confession. (2) Rene Salvamante. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly. on 4 March 1992. By analogy. Maqueda was not even told of any of his constitutional rights under the said section. NorieDacara.. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation. Such uncounselledSinumpaangSalaysay is wholly inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 3. Article III of the Constitution and the jurisprudence thereon must be faithfully complied with. declaring the rights that exist without governmental grant. the extrajudicial admissions of Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and to Ray Dean Salvosa stand on a different footing. To be added to Maqueda's extrajudicial admission is his Urgent Motion for Bail wherein he explicitly . then Section 12(1). Maqueda's participation in the commission of the crime charged was established beyond moral certainty. Maqueda's admissions to Ray Dean Salvosa. Quezon. who is still at large. People. Barker." 27 . However. (5) He was arrested in Guinyangan. it was given to a private person. he is subjected to such' investigation. it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case. it would be improper for any public officer Or law enforcement agency to investigate him in connection with the commission of the offense for which he is charged. Even if we disregard his extrajudicial admissions to Prosecutor Zarate and Salvosa. The provisions of the Bill of Rights are primarily limitations on government. The statement was also taken in the absence of counsel. (3) He and co-accused Rene Salvamante are friends. Article III of the Constitution. His defense of alibi was futile because by his own admission he was not only at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. and Julieta Villanueva as one of two persons who committed the crime. These are not governed by the exclusionary rules under the Bill of Rights. and since the court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person. the Constitution did not govern the relationships between individuals. They are the fundamental safeguards against aggressions of arbitrary power. but in the general principle that keeps alive in the public mind the doctrine 29 that governmental power is not unlimited. and both left the place sometime in September 1991. and (6) He freely and voluntarily offered to be a state witness stating that "he is the least guilty. as correctly ruled by the trial court. that may not be taken away 28 by government and that government has the duty to protect. are admissible in evidence against the former 32 Under Section 26.stated that "he is willing and volunteering to be a state witness in the above entitled case. or restriction on the power of government found "not in the particular specific types of action prohibited. As disclosed by a reading thereof. it suffices if he gives its substance. who heard the confession. The following circumstances were duly proved in this case: (1) He and a companion were seen a kilometer away from the Barker house an hour after the crime in question was committed there. he also admitted his participation therein. In Aballevs. nevertheless. his guilt was. otherwise competent to testify as a witness. The SinumpaangSalaysayof Maqueda taken by SP02 Molleno after the former's arrest was taken in palpable violation of his rights under Section 12(1). Article III of the Constitution which reads: (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him." In the light of his admissions to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa and his willingness to be a state witness. In laying down the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the 31 people. If. but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness. and as to the other admission. established beyond doubt by circumstantial evidence. (4) He and Rene Salvamante were together in Guinyangan. was positively identified by Mrs. Section 12. is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it.19 to the issuing judge. this Court held that the declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him and any person. a private party. Quezon. 30 or state tyranny and abuse of authority.

he must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. and at the same time inconsistent with any other 33 hypothesis except that of guilty.m. Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance. a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused. consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty. the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed decision Of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court OfBenguet in Criminal Case.. as the guilty person. concur. . 34 Through the unrebutted testimony of Mike Tayaban. Padilla.20 Section 4. the defense of alibi put up by the appellant must fail. WHEREFORE. as jurisprudentially formulated. and facts from which the inferences are derived are (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. it was positively established that Maqueda and a companion were seen at 7:00 a. This conclusion having been reached. thereby belying his. (b) The proven.. Costs against accused-appellant HECTOR MAQUEDA @ PUTOL. the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other. FredismindaCastrence categorically declared that Maqueda started working in her polvoron factory in Sukat only on 7 October 1991. Moreover. We do not hesitate to rule that all the requisites of Section 2. Quiason and Kapunan. The rule is settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper. No. Tuba. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed. Bellosillo. It was not then impossible for Maqueda and his companion to have been at the Barker house at the time the crime was committed.e. of 27 August 1991 at the waiting shed in Aguyad. SO ORDERED.91-CR-1206 is AFFIRMED in toto. JJ. which Maqueda does not controvert in his brief. The trial court correctly rejected such defense. Rule 133 of the Rules of Court are present in this case. Benguet. i. Jr. to the exclusion of all others. Or. the requirements of time and place must be strictly met. a place barely a kilometer away from the house of the Barkers. testimony that he started working on 5 July 1991 and continuously until 27 August 1991. in of the foregoing. Davide.