You are on page 1of 245

SECTION 12

(1) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOHN GABRIEL GAMBOA, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. 91374 February 25, 1991] GANCAYCO, J.: Essential in the success of the prosecution of an offense is the proof of the identity of the offender. This is usually attained through the testimony of eyewitnesses during, before, or even after the commission of the offense. In the absence of such primary evidence the prosecution generally falls back on such other evidence as the ballistic examination of the murder weapon, a handwriting expert, the extrajudicial confession or similar resources. Otherwise, circumstantial evidence is resorted to which consists in the piercing together of tiny bits of evidence with a view towards ascertaining the accused as the person responsible for the commission of the offense. In the case now before this Court the defendant-appellant John Gabriel Gamboa was charged with the crime of murder together with Miguel Celdran in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. After arraignment but during the trial, the case against Celdran was dismissed. Thereafter, a decision was rendered on August 30, 1989, finding Gamboa guilty of the crime of murder as penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P30,000.00, with costs against him. The fatal weapon, a shotgun, was ordered forfeited in favor of the government. 1 The defendant-appellant interposed this appeal from said judgment alleging that the trial court committed the following errors: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES CRISTINA SOLEDAD, ENRICO ACRE AND MARIO GASCON. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAD BEEN POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED AS THE ASSAILANT OF THE VICTIM RENE IMPAS. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAD CONFESSED TO OR ADMITTED THE KILLING. IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REJECTING THE ALLEGED MURDER WEAPON (EXHIBIT "A") AS INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. V THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXHIBIT "A" WAS THE ACTUAL MURDER WEAPON. VI THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REJECTING THE PARAFFIN TEST RESULTS AS INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. VII THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUIRING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. 2

At around 1:15 o'clock in the morning of August 21, 1988, Cristina Soledad, common-law wife of Rene Impas, was conversing with the latter inside a bedroom in Rene's house located at John Avenue, Cebu City. Suddenly someone kicked open the door and Soledad saw the appellant and Celdran. From a standing position the appellant fired his shotgun at Rene. Rene was hit on the right side of the chest so he slid slightly, his head leaning on the wall the appellant fired a second shot hitting the victim on the abdomen. The victim fell face upward on the bed and died immediately. Soledad shouted for help. Rico Acre, a tenant in the same house, responded. He entered the room as the appellant went out of the house. The former fired a third time. Acre noticed the victim having difficulty in breathing, so he ran out of the house and shouted for help. Mario Gascon, a neighbor, came and together with Acre they lifted the victim and loaded him in the car of the victim's father, police Major Impas, which was parked in front of the house. As Gascon stepped out of his house to extend assistance, he saw the appellant and another person running towards a yellow car. The appellant was still holding the shotgun then. Soledad, together with Acre, Gascon and Maj. Impas, who was living in the house nearest to the victim's house, boarded the latter's car and brought the victim to the Southern Island Hospital, Cebu City. The medico legal report of Dr. Jesus Cerna of the PC-INP, Cebu showed that the victim suffered the following gunshot wounds: Shotgun wounds: (1) ENTRANCE. ovaloid, 2.0 x 1.8 cm., with 5 stray pellets wounds of entrance around, in an area of the chest, right, 5.5 x 5.0 cm., edges inverted, chest right anterior aspect, 6.0 cm. from the anterior median line and 128.0 cm. above right heel; directed backward, downward and medially, involving skin and the underlying soft tissues, into thoracic cavity, lacerating extensively the lungs, upper and lower lobes right extensively and the ascending orta, and finally a plastic wad was embeded and recovered from the upper lobe of right lung and three (3) pellets were recovered from the soft tissue of the back, thoracic region, left, 5.0 cm. from the posterior median line and 127.0 cm. above left heel. (2) ENTRANCE, (pellets wounds) six in numbers, of varying sizes, ranging from 0.6 x 0.5 cm. to 0.5 x 0.4 cm., edges inverted, dispersed in an area of the abdomen, anterior aspect, right, 5.0 x 4.5 cm. 7.5 cm. from the anterior median line and 108.0 cm. above right heel, directed backward, upward and laterally involving skin and the underlying soft tissues, into a thoracic abdominal cavity, lacerating extensively portion of small and large intestine, liver, and finally 4 pellets wound were embeded and recovered from the soft tissues back, left thoracic abdominal region, 10.0 cm. from the posterior median line and 107.0 cm. above left heel, (one existed). (3) ENTRANCE. ovaloid, 9.0 x 3.0 cm. irregular in shape, edges inverted, hand, posterior aspect, right; directed forward, upward, thru and thru. Heart: auricular and venticular chambers, filled with dark-red liquid and clotted blood, with normal myocardium. Gastrointestinal tract and other visceral organs pale. Stomach, empty. Hemothorax, approximately 1500 cm. Hemoperitoneum, approximately 1000 cc. CAUSE OF DEATH: Shot wounds, chest, abdomen and hand, right. 3 Under the first assigned error, the appellant raises the issue relating to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses in that their testimonies are full of inconsistencies which elicit doubt as to their truthfulness.

In the case of Soledad, the latter allegedly testified that the appellant shot the victim twice, while the victim's father testified that he heard three successive shots. There is no inconsistency here. It was established that the appellant shot the victim twice while inside the house and fired the third shot when he was already outside the house. This accounts for the three shots heard by Major Impas. The appellant also stated that Soledad testified on direct examination that when the victim was hit by the first shot his body leaned on the wall but on cross examination, she said that the victim was lying flat on the bed after the first shot. Whether the victim was leaning on the wall or lying down after the first shot is of no material consequence. The fact remains that Soledad saw the appellant shoot the victim twice with a shotgun. Another alleged contradiction is that Soledad said she knew Acre to be a cousin of the victim but Acre himself denied such relationship. Again such inconsistency, if it is indeed an inconsistency at all, is on a minor matter. The appellant states that while Acre testified that at the time of the shooting he could clearly be seen from the victim's room, Soledad never mentioned having seen Acre at or near the door of the victim's room. It is also indicated that while Acre said that appellant made some remarks to him in a loud voice before the shooting, Soledad on the other hand testified that she did not hear any statement from the appellant before the shooting. Suffice it to state that at the time of the shooting, the appellant and Celdran were standing at the door, effectively blocking the view outside the room, hence Soledad did not see Acre. Moreover, at the time Soledad's attention at that moment was focused on her common-law husband who was shot twice and who fell on the bed. She was a witness to a startling occurrence. It is not improbable that because of shock she did not hear any remarks made by the appellant outside the room. The appellant makes much capital of the fact that Acre did not reveal the identity of the appellant to the victim's father when they were together in the car on the way to the hospital. This is understandable considering that Soledad had already revealed the appellant's identity to Major Impas when they boarded the car. There was no need for Acre to give the same information to the victim's father. In the case of Modesto Gascon, it is contended that he could not have seen the appellant running away from the scene of the shooting since even before Gascon went down from his house, the appellant was already running towards the get-away car and so it was allegedly impossible for Gascon to identify the appellant. On cross-examination, Gascon stated that after hearing gunshots he ran out of his house to ascertain where the shots came from. He ran to the corner or to the "second bend" outside the house of the victim's father and he saw the appellant at the "second bend." Gascon ran into the appellant while running to the house of the victim. He was only four to five arms-length away when he saw the appellant, thus his positive identification of the appellant. Another alleged discrepancy is between the version of Major Impas that the appellant and his companion were running towards the car and that of Gascon's testimony that the appellant was back-tracking towards the car. The record discloses that what Major Impas meant to convey was that he saw the appellant and his companion fleeing from the scene of the crime to their get-away car while the description of Gascon that the appellant was "back-tracking" towards the car was a description of how the appellant fled from the victim's house to the car, to make sure that they were not being followed. The alleged contradiction between Gascon's affidavit, 4 wherein he mentioned that he saw the appellant and another person running towards the car, and his testimony on cross-examination that he only saw the appellant, is of no material consequence considering that the appellant has been positively identified as the assailant. Moreover, as it is generally pointed out, an affidavit taken ex-parte almost always cannot be relied upon as oftentimes it is inaccurate. 5 By and large, the Court is not persuaded that the appellant's claim of contradictions and inconsistencies on the part of the prosecution witnesses puts into serious doubt their credibility, Different persons who witnessed an incident from different angles and situations could not be expected to give uniform details of what they saw and heard. Such minor discrepancies and inconsistencies are to be expected because of the human differences in perception. Such contradicting statements are on minor details, as hereinabove discussed, and rather than affect the credibility of the witnesses, the same are badges of candor. Nevertheless, under the second assigned error, the appellant alleges that his identification by the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon considering that they did not immediately inform the police investigators of the identity of the assailant upon their arrival. Although it may be true that the eyewitnesses did not immediately identify the appellant as the assailant to the responding policemen, it is also a matter of fact that Major Impas informed Cpl. Petallar while they were on the way to the Southern Islands Hospital, where the victim was brought, that the assailant is the appellant. 6 The second instance was when Soledad went to the mobile patrol division and revealed to Cpl. Petallar that the appellant was the one who shot her common-law husband. 7

It is quite understandable when the witnesses do not immediately report the identity of the offender after a startling occurrence more especially when they are related to the victim as they just had a traumatic experience. More so as in the case of Major Impas who is the victim's father and Soledad, his common-law wife. Nevertheless, a delay of about a few hours before the identification of the offender by the prosecution witnesses does not thereby affect their credibility. The inadmissibility of the alleged verbal confession of the appellant is raised on the ground that he was maltreated as a result of which he suffered twenty-seven injuries in the form of contusions, lacerations and abrasions. It does not appear, however, that the prosecution proposed to rely on this alleged confession of the appellant, or that the trial court considered the same at all in the resolution of the case. If it were to be considered at all, it would be worthless because of the undeniable fact that the appellant was not only arrested without a warrant and entry into his house was effected without a search warrant, but worse, he was maltreated since his arrest so much so that he suffered multiple injuries. The police investigators responsible for this manhandling should be investigated and held to account. Such involuntary confession cannot help the case of the prosecution. It is a stain in the record of the law enforcement agents who handled the case. Under the fifth assigned error, the appellant questions the admissibility of the shotgun as the alleged murder weapon. He says it was not found in his possession but his house was searched and the shotgun was confiscated without a search warrant. He also alleges that the three (3) empty shells that were submitted for the ballistics examination were not recovered from the scene of the crime and their production is a frameup by the police. Again, the Court observes that the police investigators confiscated the shotgun from the premises of the residence of the appellant without a search warrant. Such violation of the constitutional rights of a person should be investigated and inquired into. Nevertheless, the Court is not persuaded that the police investigators in this case would willingly allow themselves to be instruments to frame the appellant for so serious a crime as murder. It appears that the three empty shells were actually recovered from the vicinity of the scene of the crime. The ballistics examination shows that it was fired from the very shotgun of the appellant. This evidence corroborates the theory of the prosecution, very strongly, that the appellant was the assailant of the victim. Even if the Court disregards the shotgun as having been illegally secured as well as the results of its ballistic examination in relation to the empty shells, still there is adequate evidence in the record to justify a verdict of conviction. Indeed, the Court did not even consider it necessary to inquire into the motive of the appellant in the light of his positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. As to the paraffin test to which the appellant was subjected to he raises the question, under the sixth assigned error, that it was not conducted in the presence of his lawyer. This right is afforded to any person under investigation for the commission of an offense whose confession or admission may not be taken unless he is informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice. 8 His right against self-incrimination is not violated by the taking of the paraffin test of his hands. This constitutional right extends only to testimonial compulsion and not when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined as in this case. 9 Indeed, the paraffin test proved positively that he just recently fired a gun. Again, this kind of evidence buttresses the case of the prosecution. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the sole modification that the indemnity to the heirs of the offended party is increased to P50,000.00, with costs against the appellant. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Chairman of the Philippine National Police for his information and appropriate action on the actuations of the law enforcement agents hereinabove discussed. SO ORDERED.

an octogenarian housekeeper living alone. A). a son of the old woman. When Olmos informed Prevendido that the old woman's things were scattered in the bedroom.(2) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. A piece of wire. She sustained two gaping wounds on the right cheek. A mallet was found on the floor near the victim's body. Lujan an and his men brought Severino to Macaya's house. convicting Severino Duero of robbery with homicide. 7. He asked Doroteo Olmos. In the evening of Sunday. sentencing him to death and ordering him to pay the heirs of Fausta Duero an indemnity of fifteen thousand pesos and the sum of two thousand pesos which he took from her (Criminal Case No. Cabatuan. Alag. He found that money and pieces of jewelry were missing (p. as required by section 20. Tormon concluded that the crime was committed at supper time on the preceding night (p. SEVERINO DUERO. p. Lujan an found that Macaya had nothing to do with the crime. Lujan further testified that Severino said that the money stolen from the old woman was in Severino's house at Sitio Rizal allowed Barrio Banguit. Lujan. two gaping wounds on the neck. The principal evidence of the prosecution is the testimony of Lieutenant Tomas C. Record). the grandson of the old woman.R. Record). Lujan and his men went to Severino's house. Lujan declared that Severino voluntarily confessed to him that he (Severino) committed the robbery with homicide but Severino refused to sign a confession. he requested Olmos to inform his uncle. The gruesome crime was discovered in the afternoon of the following day. No eyewitness testified as to the commission of the offense. to come to the house (p. They did not find the stolen money. There is no doubt as to the corpus delicti or the commission of robbery with homicide. 1979. 1981] AQUINO. Salvador entered the house through the bedroom window and saw his mother's lifeless and bloodied body near the kitchen with a wire coiled around her neck and a scythe stuck in it. Fausta Condino Vda. another gaping wound on the right shoulder and a bruise on the cheek. the barangay captain. Lujan was not the only police officer who heard Severino Duero's confession. L-52016 May 13. which was used to strangle her was tied around her neck (Exh. by Rodolfo Prevendido. Record). was feloniously killed in her house located at Barrio Banguit. Iloilo (Exh. plaintiff-appellee. Regarded as fatal by the examining physician was the wound in the neck which pierced the jugular vein and which was connected with the other wound in the neck and the shoulder wound (14 tsn June 16. the chief of police of Cabatuan. A). 11. 1978). October 24. On noticing that the windows of the old woman's house had not been opened in the morning. 8860). to peep through the bedroom window.: This is an automatic review of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo dated April 17. J. and Cesar Moneva repaired to the scene of the crime. 8. stated in his sworn statement before the mayor that Duero admitted that he took . Patrolmen Tranquilino 0. Article IV of the Constitution. 1976. a member of the arresting team that picked up Duero and brought him at Lujan. Salvador Duero. Patrolman Rolando N. vs. Jr. The police and the rural health physician were notified. Severino implicated Rufino Macaya of Lambunao. de Duero. No. Record). Accused whose death sentence is under automatic review. A scythe was sticking in her neck (Letter "B" in Sketch. he suspected that there was something amiss. [G. From the fact that cooked rice and viands were found on the stove. October 25. Tormon. 4. The issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of robbery with homicide on the basis of his oral confession to the police station commander that he committed that offense but which confession was repudiated by him on the witness stand and which was taken during custodial interrogation when the accused was not informed of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel. Iloilo.

who had plenty of money. Record). Severino explained that Fausta Duero would not even lend him ten pesos or a ganta of rice. Tormon and Hudieras and others were the basis of the criminal complaint for robbery with homicide filed by Lieutenant Lujan an in the municipal court against Severino Duero. took the witness stand to give evidence on the same oral confession allegedly made by Severino to the police. Another prosecution witness. Record). 1976. another member of the arresting team. testified that at about five o'clock in the afternoon of October 24. 9. The next day when Tranquilino learned from Severino that the old woman was killed. 6. . 16. that his companions were Macaya and a certain Junior (whose parents were Severino's godparents) and that it was he (Severino) who induced the commission of the crime (p. Hudieras stated that when he remarked that the best thing to do was to kill the killer of Fausta Duero. 10 and 14. 14. Severino allegedly revealed to Tranquilino that he (Severino) would rob his owaoor grandmother. Record). it occurred to Tranquilino that Severino was responsible for the killing (2-3 tsn March 10. In the course of their conversation. 1976 (the day before the crime was committed). The sworn statements of Alag. Fausta's daughter Maurine repaid to Fausta the sum of one thousand one hundred pesos (which amount Fausta had not yet deposited in the bank). Severino told Hudieras that Fausta Duero was killed by clubbing her with a mallet choking her with a piece of wire and hacking her with a scythe (p. which adjoins Barrio Banguit where the old woman resided. 1978). Fausta was willing to lend Severino one hundred fifty pesos (p. 22. according to Severino. Record). he had to kill Fausta Duero because the old woman recognized him as the intruder (p. Record). a fact known to one Roman Sipaya. Hudieras confirmed his affidavit at the preliminary examination. Fausta Duero. Severino behaved in an unnatural manner and said that Hudieras could testify that he saw daily Severino harvesting palay ("Si 'To boy nga dya. On that occasion. another person named Alag Duero paid to Fausta her debt and Fausta had ten sacks of palay (pp. Buenaventura Hudieras. Patrolman Rufino Tormon. Tormon declared at the preliminary examination that Severino Duero knew that Fausta Duero had money because. Severino Duero admitted sole responsibility for it and confessed that he took three thousand pesos after hitting Fausta Duero on the head with a mallet strangling her with a piece of wire and hacking her with a scythe (p. Record). testified that about six o'clock in the evening of October 24. Record). the station commander. He said that his suspicion was that Severino Duero killed Fausta Duero (p. Jose Montaño. Hudieras' brother-in-law. baryo kapitan dya. Alag clarified that. To reinforce and render credible Lujan's testimony on Duero's oral confession of guilt. he met the accused in Barrio Tabucan which is about two kilometers away from the old woman's house in Barrio Banguit. Alag confirmed his sworn statement at the preliminary examination when the municipal judge interrogated him. They did not testify at the trial most probably because Lujan himself. Tranquilino Duero. 1976. Tranquilino said to Severino: "Are you an Idiot?" In answer. Tormon said that Severino met Fausta at a store in the morning of October 23. Record). 9. the barangay captain of Barrio Pamulogan. Record). Alag further swore that after Macaya denied any participation in the commission of the crime. a second cousin of the accused. refused to lend him fifty pesos (Back of page 9. corroborated in his swam statement Alag's declaration as to Severino Duero's confession. Record). According to Alag Severino said that the robbery with homicide was committed on momentary impulse after Fausta Duero.part in the robbery with homicide. declared in his sworn statement that in the evening of October 26 (two days after the commission of the crime) he was drinking liquor (biti-biti) with Severino Duero in the house of Valentino Pambo. 6. sarang makatestigos nga adlaw-adlaw doon takon nagapanggarab") (p. when he passed by the house of Fausta Duero. according to Severino. he saw Severino Duero near the stairs of the house. Alag said that Severino Duero made his confession in the course of their conversation on the way to the police station and not by reason of a formal investigation (p. 22.

the old woman was killed by striking her with a mallet strangling her with a piece of wire and wounding her with a scythe and that the money taken from the old woman was in a purse ( buon-buon) placed in a bamboo basket (tabungos) (p. testified that at six-thirty in the morning of October 25. Montaño and Tranquilino Duero. 1979). 85-1 as to the right of the accused. Simeon vs. No force. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. the trial court on the basis of such evidence found Severino guilty of robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt. and to be informed of such right. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. threat. Cenizal confirmed his affidavit at the preliminary examination (p. Manguera. confirmed his alibi. . Severino spontaneously revealed to Cenizal that he (Severino) helped his grandmother ( owao. to confer and communicate at anytime with his counsel. During the trial no objection was interposed by the defense to the evidence on Duero's oral confession. his neighbor Adriano Lopez and his friends. And that rule applies squarely to this case (Magtoto vs. Cenizal. The circumstantial evidence summarized above shows that the prosecution had a strong case against Severino Duero in spite of the absence of the testimony of an eyewitness. He was going to watch television in his uncle's house. 1978). Severino recounted to Cenizal that the old woman was struck in the head with a hammer and wounded with a scythe. Isnani L37201-02. March 3. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in evidence. The Solicitor General agrees with the counsel de oficio's contention that Severino's oral confession is inadmissible in evidence by reason of Article IV of the Constitution which provides: 1äwphï1. 17. Indeed. His wife Salvacion. Montaño's house was about one hundred meters away from Fausta's house.) If this case were to be decided under the 1935 Constitution. But we have to decide it under the rule in the 1973 Constitution as to a confession obtained while the confessant is under police custody.ñët SEC. Cenizal's testimony was a confirmation of his affidavit taken on October 30. But the trouble is that at the trial Severino repudiated his alleged oral confession and even claimed that he was maltreated by the police. in giving credence to the testimonies of Lujan. 1976 by a policeman wherein he stated that. Severino Duero's counsel de oficio in this Court contends that the trial court erred in admitting the oral testimony on Severino Duero's oral confession. 1978). 1975. violence. Severino testified that he was in his house when the crime was perpetrated. meaning that "the husband of Fausta Duero (the victim) was the grandfather of Severino Duero" (28 and 37 tsn January 5. Montaño was positive that Severino killed the old woman (6 tsn April 21. Lujan in his rebuttal testimony denied the maltreatment. He was on friendly terms with Severino. according to Severino. who is in police custody. Montaño was just about three meters away from Severino when Montaño passed by him (6 tsn April 21.Severino was calling the old woman. the trial court's judgment of conviction could be affirmed. 1976 or about ten hours after the commission of the crime. Record). the spouses Rufino Macaya and Erlinda Macaya. his confession is inadmissible in evidence. Cenizal had a conversation with Severino Duero. Another prosecution witness.) Inasmuch as the prosecution in this case failed to prove that before Duero made his alleged oral confession he was informed of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel and because there is no proof that he knowingly and intelligently waived those rights. 5. As alibi. Record).) Severino said that the victim was "the wife of my grandfather". the colloquial term for grandmother) who was "held up by the bandit" and that her money amounting to two thousand pesos was taken from her. now revised or expanded in section 20 (See article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. L-37424 and L-38929. regarding the right against self-incrimination (nemo tenetur seipsum accusare). All the foregoing provisions are new except the first sentence. 20. also a resident of Barrio Pamulogan. Montaño had known Severino Duero for about four years. intimidation. in finding that robbery with homicide was committed and in not sustaining Severino's alibi. Villaluz and People vs. 63 SCRA 4. He did not appeal from the trial court's decision. which is the only provision found in section 18 of the Bill of Rights of the 1935 Constitution. The latter used to gather mangoes for him. Wilfredo Cenizal (Senesal).

The mere fact that he may have answered some questions 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 with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned. it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney. . While such request affirmatively secures his right to have one.. 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. but also of the consequences of forgoing it. The new provisions in section 20. if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated. . An individual need not make a pre-interrogation request for a lawyer.. he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. As restated by Chief Justice Warren in the Miranda case. the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny his request on the basis that the individual does not have or cannot afford a retained attorney. and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney.. the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent. Likewise. If. . 436. needs counsel..ñët Prior to any questioning.. If an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of counsel before any interrogation occurs. .ñët For those unaware of the privilege the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it – the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as to its exercise. His acquittal follows as a matter of course. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights. 16 L. The accused who does not know his rights and therefore does not make a request may be the person who most. the warning will show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it. . The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. the following procedure should be adhered to: At the outset. the rest of the prosecution's circumstantial evidence against him is not adequate for his conviction. his failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver. Ed.. such a warning is an absolute pre-requisite in overcome the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere. but also that if lie is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. 2nd 694 ("an earthquake in the world of law enforcement") which specifies the following procedural safeguards for incustody interrogation of accused persons: 1äwphï1. 384 U. . . however. if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation. More important. . Further. .S. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege. the police may not question him. In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system then.After discarding Lujan's testimony on Duero's oral confession. . No effective waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings we here delineate have been given... . 1äwphï1. . knowingly and intelligently. either retained or appointed.. that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him. .. provided the waiver is made voluntarily. Arizona. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution were adopted from the ruling in Miranda vs...

that he has the right to the presence of an attorney. The warnings required and the waiver necessary in accordance with our opinion today are. . If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police. The accused is acquitted. . But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial. The above procedure was not followed by the police in this case. He should be released immediately unless he is being detained for another offense. SO ORDERED. the subsequent procedure is clear. Severino Duero's oral confession is inadmissible in evidence. . . they must respect his decision to remain silent. . the Federal Supreme Court made it clear that what is prohibited is the "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police dominated atmosphere. Hence. An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver. If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken. . it is not permissible "to do a great right by doing a little wrong"..ñët He (the accused) must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent. a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against selfincrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel. resulting in self. in the absence of a fully effective equivalent. the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. the prosecution's other evidence is not sufficient to establish Duero's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Miranda ruling does not mean that the police should stop a person who enters a police station and states that he wishes to confess to a crime." The State's right to prosecute criminals may be a great right but. no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.. . If the individual indicates in any manner. WHEREFORE. At the risk of repetitiousness we reproduce hereunder Chief Justice Warren's summary of the procedural safeguards for persons in police custody where the interrogation is regarded as the commencement already of the trial or adversarly system: 1äwphï1. .. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. as Lord Chancellor Sankey observed.. that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law. It does not affect volunteered statements of guilt by persons not in police custody. and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. and such opportunity afforded him. Without that confession. that he wishes to remain silent.. After such warnings have been given. the death penalty is set aside. In the Miranda case. at anytime prior to or during questioning.Once warnings have been given. ... the interrogation must cease.. prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant. Costs de oficio.incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.

Layuso to suffer the penalty of Death. J. that is by then and there entering the residence of one Cesar C. Guillermo Layuso of the crime of ROBBERY with HOMICIDE and imposing on him the supreme penalty of death.appellee. unlawfully and feloniously take. unlawfully and feloniously attack. and once inside.00 P4. the accused assisted by a counsel-de-oficio.: This is an automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig.810.00 P 4. Contrary to law.00 500. to return to Cesar C. plaintiff.00 1. One (1) set of collector's silver coin worth P2. 1984. in the municipality of Pateros. assault and stab one Lucresia R. Dagsaan with bladed weapons (knives).310. thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wounds which directly caused her death. L-69210 July 5. to indemnify the heirs of Lucresia Dagsaan in the sum of Twelve Thousand (P l2.00. as follows: 1.00 all in the total amount of P 4. steal and carry away the following articles.810. accused-appellant. One (1) plated unisex wrist watch worth 4. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. [G. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE.500. GUILLERMO LAYUSO. did then and there wilfully. .00 1. pleaded "NOT GUILTY.00 500. without having been off-set by any mitigating circumstance. to the damage and prejudice of the owner thereof in the aforementioned amount of P4.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. One (1) Radio Digital Alarm Clock worth 2.00) Pesos. thru which he gained entrance.00 belonging to said Cesar C. to wit: One (1) Radio Digital Alarm Clock valued One (1) JVC brand Portable Radio/Tape recorder cassette valued One Plated Unisex wrist watch value One (1) set of collector's silver coin (CBP) P2. premises considered and it appearing that the commission of the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of dwelling.000. with intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof. Avila. 1981." Trial on the merits ensued and a decision was subsequently rendered on September 12. thru an opening not intended for egress or ingress.810. 5) Upon arraignment on April 22. vs. lack of respect due the victim on account of her sex and that the accused took advantage of his superior strength. the above-named accused. (Rollo.00 500.810.500.(3) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R. JR. did then and there wilfully. 1989] GUTIERREZ. the Court hereby sentences the accused Guillermo M. convicting the accused. That on the said occasion. Avila the things robbed and/or their value. No. Avila. Branch 153. the above-named accused. One (1) JVC Brand Portable Radio/Tape Recorder cassette worth 3. The information reads: that on or about the 14th day of October 1980. P.00 500. Metro Manila..310.

1980. Pateros. 1980. who worked in the construction of Cesar C. somebody entered into the house of Cesar Avila and killed his maid named Lucresia Dagsaan. in the master's bedroom. Avila's house. p. 2. 103. 74-78) The appellant admits he is guilty of homicide but assigns the following errors: 1. Through the testimony of tricyle drivers Lorenzo S. particularly on the carpets. it has been duly established that the accused Guillermo Layuso was one of the carpenters. 1984. Herrera Street and alighted near a basketball court. Angobung.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.00.310. pp. the height of which was demonstrated to be about twenty four inches. who conducted the autopsy. The accused asked Lorenzo Bagang to take him to Rosario but the latter refused because he had to fetch a passenger from the Municipal Hall. stripped of clothes from the waist up. boarded the tricycle. At about noontime of October 14. Bagang and Restituto Castillo. could not be found in the record of the case. After completion of the house. and in the carpet inside the bedroom at the second floor. p. according to this witness. it has been established that the accused Guillermo Layuso. (Rollo. 5) The only issue raised in the case at bar is whether or not the appellant should be convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide instead of the crime of simple homicide. and silver coin collection of P500. This letter although previously marked as Exhibit "A. a radio tape recorder worth Pl. The injuries sustained by Lucresia Dagsaan. they found the following articles or things missing from the house: 'A digital alarm clock worth P2. (Rollo. boarded the latter's (witness) tricycle at P. He was bringing something in a plastic bag. first of Lorenzo Bagang. on the handle of the door knob to the office on the ground floor of the house. near the river. who was described by witness Restituto Castillo as 'sporting a long hair' with 'a high bridged nose' and 'bringing along a plastic bag'. Ruben M. . Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. Both Lorenzo Bagang and Restituto Castillo categorically identified the accused in open court as the person who boarded their respective tricycles on October 14. who was pronounced dead on arrival by the doctors at the Rizal Provincial Hospital. Metro Manila.500. Cesar Avila received a letter from the accused. 35) The facts of the case are summarized by the trial court as follows: From the evidence adduced by prosecution. were established thru the testimony of Dr. The accused disembarked from the tricycle of Lorenzo Bagang at Morcilla Street. in Buting. located at Agujo St. xxx xxx xxx In a follow-up investigation.00. The plastic bag.. The contents of the plastic bag were not seen by these witnesses because it was closed and the accused placed the same between his legs. A kitchen knife was found in the sala and another was found in the kitchen. The accused. the police found out that the culprit is Guillermo Layuso. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT CONVICTING APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF SIMPLE HOMICIDE. with blood on the left shoulder and wound on the hand. The last work done by Guillermo Layuso was the construction of the garage. Upon physical investigation and examination of the house by the police investigators accompanied by Cesar Avila. at the place near the house of Cesar Avila at about noontime of October 14.00. They also found bloodstains in the sala. 1980. in the kitchen. P.00. post mortem examination. a unisex watch worth P500. There were broken bottles in front of the bar and a broken bottle of catsup was also found in the kitchen. Sometime after the incident. Cesar Avila used to hire Guillermo Layuso to do carpentry work in said house. THAT THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE HEREIN APPELLANT FOR A SERIOUS CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE. (Rollo. Neither was the same turned over to the Minutes Clerk when the Prosecuting Fiscal made an oral offer of evidence on April 9. has blood all over it. let the records of the above-entitled case be forwarded to the Supreme Court of the Philippines for review as law and justice shall dictate. Appellee's Brief.

He states that the finding was based on his extra-judicial statement which he claims was extracted through the use of force and intimidation. Avila. the bloodied plastic bag and the testimonies of Cesar Avila and two other disinterested persons. July 20. His narration of the sequence of events is clearly illogical and unconvincing primarily on account of its inconsistency. In the accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession. The appellant admits that the confession was taken in the presence of counsel. 127 SCRA 207 [1984]). Avila's testimony closely interlocks with the appellant's statement on how he took the missing items. therefore. and People v. The extra-judicial confession of the accused discloses that he took the missing items. He states in his appeal that the lawyer should have participated by also asking him questions. In his court testimony. Patog. Villanueva.The accused-appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove that the articles allegedly stolen were in fact in the house of Cesar Avila and it was the appellant who took them.. Moreover. Their testimonies were also corroborated by the testimony of Cesar Avila and by Layuso himself. a certain Atty. the accused may still be convicted if there is enough evidence aside from the confession itself. What is established was the presence of counsel during the taking of the confession. In fact. Whether it is an extra-judicial statement or testimony in open court. should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. In fact. Jr. Layuso admits the killing. (People v. As held in People v. however. identified these as the items which were lost. Nillos. 144 SCRA 429 [1986]. 128 SCRA 488 [1984]. The appeal is hazy on these points. Adones. The lawyer. Dejaresco. he was only complying with his oath as a lawyer to abide by the truth and with the expressed desire of the accused to unburden his conscience of the load it was carrying. The alleged coercion and maltreatment are not sustained by the records. Canete. the allegations are in the form of general conclusions. 144 SCRA 364 [1986]). There was a lawyer present while the statement was being taken. The fact that no one saw the accused take the items is of no consequence. This Court denounces in the strongest terms possible the widespread misconception that the presence of a lawyer under the "right to counsel" provision of the Constitution is intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him. People v. He ran away and boarded two tricycles carrying a plastic bag with items inside it. in turn. The appellant's contention of self-defense must fail. the appellant denied taking anything. p. confessions replete with details only the appellants could have known are presumably voluntary. he states that the counsel was not present during the custodial interrogation which preceded the taking down of his statement. (tsn. The credibility of the appellant suffers when taken against the testimonies of the other witnesses. The attempt to now discredit him has no merit. Ribadajo (142 SCRA 637 [1986]). The testimony of the accused cited by the trial judge in eleven (11) pages of his decision . It is established that there were such articles of value. (People v. Casiano Atuel. There is credible testimony regarding the loss. We rule that the constitutional requirement on assistance of counsel was fulfilled. 23). The appellant merely resorts to denial as to the robbery and a claim of self-defense as to the killing. The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. He also questions the sufficiency of the lawyer's representation. However. he admitted taking the things from Cesar Avila's house. 129 SCRA 576 [1984]). This inconsistency cannot be given credence on account of the uncontradicted testimonies of the two tricycle drivers who saw him bringing a bloodied plastic bag containing items inside. be entitled to full faith and credit (People v. The physical evidence such as the ten stab wounds and three lacerated wounds. Their testimonies should.1981. If the lawyer decided against advising the accused not to admit the crime. the judgment of conviction was not made solely on the basis of the disputed extra-judicial confession. 129 SCRA 451 [1984]. There is no claim or showing that the accused asked for a lawyer from the moment he was apprehended or that he was not informed of his right to counsel from the time that the warning or information should have been given to him or that the alleged earlier questioning was already part of his confession. The appellant did not complain to the Fiscal before whom the oath was administered. even if an extrajudicial confession is disregarded. The narration of the appellant as to how he appropriated for himself the items mentioned as well as the sequence of the struggle could not have been supplied by any of those interviewed by police investigators and neither by the police themselves because it is replete with details known only to the appellant. People v. the purpose is always the ascertainment of truth. There is no evidence on record which would show that Lorenzo Bagang and Restituto Castillo were actuated by improper motives. There is no specific statement as to what constituted the coercion and maltreatment. namely Lorenzo Bagang and Restituto Castillo are all consistent with robbery with homicide.

It is likewise unbelievable that the victim would suddenly stab him when he came near her only to say goodbye. she got mad. We quote: Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where concealment is highly probable. but there was also a very patent display of lack of respect due the victim on account of her sex and the viciousness of the wounds inflicted upon her. And it is even more inexplicable why he would inflict so many multiple wounds on various parts of her body under the circumstances that he alleges.000. To require direct testimony in all cases would result in the acquittal of guilty parties leaving them free to once more wreak havoc on society. 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.00) in consonance with the latest rulings of this Court. 325-336) clearly shows its lack of credibility. 5 of the Rules of Court states that there is sufficiency in circumstantial evidence when: 1) there is more than one circumstance. he met the victim who must have suspected that he had stolen something and that when he went near her to bid her goodbye. Section 19.(Rollo. Assuming that they were sweethearts. The record further shows that not only dwelling aggravated the commission of the crime. In the case of People v. and the struggle ensued. Under the same circumstances. We find the circumstantial evidence attending this case sufficient to warrant a conviction. Sec. In his testimony in court. the victim's alleged violent objections to his trip to Saudi Arabia was correctly held unbelievable. . the objection could not have taken such a violent form as to move the victim to resort to stabbing the appellant to prevent him from leaving. 1988). Granting that the victim objected. Rule 134. she suddenly stabbed him. 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Layuso claims that he and the victim were sweethearts and that after telling her he was going abroad to work. January 15. WHEREFORE. the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty of death is commuted to reclusion perpetua in accordance with the Constitution. On the other hand. The requirements are satisfied in this case. SO ORDERED. he likewise claims in his extrajudicial confession that when he was on his way down. tore his shirt. this Court once more recognized the necessity of resorting to circumstantial evidence. pp. Article III. Pineda and Garcia (157 SCRA 71. The indemnity to the heirs of Lucresia Dagsaan is also increased to THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30. a sweetheart would normally have welcomed the idea for the sake of a better future for both of them.

Metro-Manila. (Rollo. NXG-150-Pil. assault and stab with the said knife one Ricardo Yamson y Malanon. hold-up a passenger jeepney with Plate No. He was stabbed by one of the holduppers and died that same night. on the vital parts of his body. 1985. Apolinario. p. unlawfully and feloniously. with intent of gain and by means of force. October 9. to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforementioned amount of P350.R. plaintiff-appellee. Marikina. Accused and his three other companions divested the passengers of their jewelries. the above-named accused. December 8 and 23. the appellant entered a plea of not guilty (Record. 1985. but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of cause independent of the will of the accused. J. 3). Exhibits B and I. Testimonies of victim driver Cerilo Manzanero. 1985. Marikina. conspiring and confederating together with three (3) John Does whose true name. Marcos Highway. that on the occasion of said robbery. thereby inflicting upon him stab wounds which ordinarily would have caused his death. May 5. Branch CLIX (159) with the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide under the following information: That on or about the 21st day of February. 1986. Philippines. [G. Cerilo Manzanero was driving a jeepney fully loaded with passengers en-route from Cubao. Passenger Ricardo Yamson was likewise seated on the front part of the jeepney in between driver Manzanero and conductor Bales. One was seated on the right side of the jeep. thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of homicide as a consequence. opposite accused. conductor and victim Richard Bales. did. unlawfully and feloniously attack. DAVID LOVERIA y SANTOS.00. stabbing Manzanero with knives at the front and back of his body. one of the passengers. rings and necklaces. Loveria was charged before the Regional Trial Court. Contrary to law. '84. January 6.00.: The accused-appellant David S. watches. November 13. Metro Manila. 1985. then and there willfully. Manzanero had a companion-conductor by the name of Richard Bales who was seated in front of the jeep at the right side. Upon being arraigned on July 3. identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and mutually helping and aiding one another. passenger Betty S. armed with a knife. Metro Manila. a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Hearings of August 14 and 21. 18. His Seiko watch was taken from him. that is. 79138 July 2. Quezon City to Cogeo. He was likewise stabbed by the other companion of accused who he identified as Martin Castaneda but he sustained only slight injury on his finger. poked a knife on the latter's right side of his nape and then pulled him off his seat with the assistance of another companion into the inner rear portion of the jeep.(4) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1986. C and O) Cerilo Manzanero was brought to Sto. at the same time. with intent to kill. 1985. 1990] CORTES. No. in the Municipality of Marikina. vs. Niño Hospital at Marcos Highway and then transferred to Quezon City Medical Center where he was treated by Dr. 1985. thereby inflicting upon him stab wounds which directly caused his death. said accused. did. Accused had three (3) other companions. the two others were seated opposite each other at the rear side of the jeep. accused shouted "hold-up" and Manzanero stopped his jeep. violence and intimidation.) The facts as found by the trial court are as follows: On February 25. at around 7:00 in the evening. Richard Bales y Andres of his Seiko Wrist Watch worth P300. 1986. Bilateral. and one Cerilo Manzanero y Nacion the driver of the said passenger jeepney. p. Bilateral Hemothoax Bilateral Thoracostomy . Accused who was seated right behind Manzanero. While crossing the bridge of Barangay Baranca. 1987. then and there willfully. Patrolmen Jaime Agueda and Bill Ayun (TSN. Penetrating. June 23. due to the timely and able medical attendance rendered to the said Cerilo Manzanero y Nacion which prevented his death. Antonio P. defendant-appellant. Ligot who issued a Medico-Legal Certificate with the following diagnosis: Multiple stab wound antero-posterior chest wall.00 and a colored brown wallet containing P50. 1986. July 15.

000. the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Cirilo Manzanero. and (3) to indemnify Richard Bales the amount of THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P300. they spent P5.700. 6-13. the Court hereby finds accused David Loveria GUILTY of the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code with the aggravating circumstance of having been committed in band. Carmelita Yamson. Mrs.00. 1985.00 (Exhs. without any mitigating circumstance.500. represented by his mother Conchita Yamson. and P2. the trial court found the appellant guilty as charged. 1986). 1987) (Appellants Brief.00. victim's mother. the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30. Hearing of February 3. Manila. After that. Dr. P750.00. mother-in-law of Manzanero presented receipts for medicine expenses in the amount of P2. F.000. TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10.221. the mother-in-law of Manzanero. 1987 reads: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING.000. Hearing of February 3.00 which witness rounded off to P29. Jaime Ganueda. the companion/conductor of Manzanero. When he failed to meet his mother. the driver of the jeepney: Richard Bales. P4. The duration of the seminar was from February 18 to February 22. P12. . The first issue raised by the appellant pertains to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. A and A-1). Mesa. Betty Apolinario.00 as and for moral damages. and P5.) The defense offered by the appellant is summarized by his counsel as follows: The accused David Loveria. the physician who examined Manzanero. 7] From this judgment of conviction.750. and. Dr.80) as indemnity for actual damages. Ligot testified that these injuries would have caused the death of Manzanero were he not treated medically. Mesa.000. hereby imposes upon him to suffer life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua. for transportation expenses.00) as and for exemplary damages: (2) to pay victim Cerilo Manzanero the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY ONE PESOS & 80/100 (P8. The following witnesses were also presented to prove the civil liability arising from the crime: (1) Carmelita Yamson. 1986).000.700.051. Antipolo. payments for the blood in the amount of P470.000. at the loading zone for passenger vehicles bound for Sta. upon permission from their training officer. Pat. pp. he decided to go back to the Communication Foundation for Asia. January 5. Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Antonio Ligot. Testimony of Mrs.00) as an indemnity for Ricardo Yamson's death. the appellant filed the present appeal. the prosecution having established the guilt of (the) accused beyond reasonable doubt. the mother of the victim Ricardo Yamson.80 (Exhs. G and H. he was attending a live-in seminar at the Communication for Asia in Old Sta. he went to the Farmers Market in Cubao to ask money from his mother for transportation fare for the following day. J-1 to J-19.00) as and for actual damages.000.00 as and for exemplary damages. M-1 to M-3) or a grand total of P8.00) for the unrecovered watch. [Trial Court Decision. P5.80. Amada Yaco.00 (TSN. (TSN. 1986).) After trial. for expenses incurred during the preliminary investigation on the Fiscal's office in Marikina.00. M-4 to M-6) doctor's fee of P3. pp. J. 1985. The dispositive portion of the decision dated May 26.000. 1985 where he died of profuse hemmorrhage. K). (TSN. TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10. To prove the culpability of the appellant.(Exhs. 6. Fortunately. hearing of October 21.221. he met his father who gave him money. or a total expenses of P28. Between 8:00 and 8:30 o'clock in the evening of February 21. 1989.000. TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10. of the Marikina Police Station who conducted an investigation of the incident.00 (Exh. formerly residing at Sitio Maagay.300.00 for the hospital bills (Exhs. p.00) as and for moral damages. in relation to Article III. secondary to stab wound at 9:20 in the same evening (Exhs.00.500. Bill Ayun and Pat. testified that for the funeral parlor services. P1. i•t•c-aüsl Carmelita Yamson. he went back to the Communication Foundation for Asia and stayed there the whole evening. for 40 days prayer period. 25 years old. and (2) Amada Yaco. Victim Ricardo Yamson was brought to the Quirino Memorial Hospital at 8:30 in the evening of February 21. for cemetery expenses. 2-3. p. for interment. L and M).00. a passenger of the jeepney. and orders said accused: (1) to pay the compulsory heirs of deceased victim Ricardo Yamson. Rizal and a volunteer worker of the Share and Care for Poor Settlers Pastoral (SCAP for short) declared that on February 18. Metro Manila. (Trial Court Decision. P1.

1985. the passenger immediately behind him. 5). which made him pull the jeepney to a sudden stop. (Witness pointing to the accused David Loveria. 1985 from Cubao to Cogeo. will you be able to identify him?" and you said "Yes. p. 1985. I quote. and stabbed him on the neck (Id. p. The pertinent portion of the cross-examination is quoted as follows: Q — Mrs. Apolinario stated that she saw the appellant David Loveria poke a knife at the driver. The contention is without merit. and took his watch ( Id. The next question." What do you mean by "I think he is the one wearing a white T-shirt"? A — What I have in mind he is the one there that is why I am pointing to him. 13)." (Appellant's Brief. pp. they turned to him and Ricardo Yamson. Witness you also testified last time in answer to the question of the private prosecutor. Bales added that after the four men were finished with Manzanero. p. Crimes are known to have been executed in odd and unusual ways. 1985. the Court is of the considered view that there was nothing strange nor improbable in tile testimony of Manzanero. the seemingly tentative statement just quoted. pp. The motive which impelled the appellant and his companions in pulling Manzanero out of the driver's seat and stabbing him at the inner rear portion of the jeepney is known only to them. June 23. and stab him after taking him to the inner back portion of the jeepney (Id. 18-19. 1985. then there was no need to bring him to the rear portion of the jeepney to accomplish the purpose. According to Manzanero. Yamson was taken to the Quirino Memorial General Hospital but died that same night. August 14. 1985. Manzanero was then taken by the appellant and three other men inside the jeepney. "G" (Autopsy Report)]. pp.i•t•c-aüsl One of the robbers. The other robbers chased Yamson. However. Richard Bales. and together with his companions took him to the rear portion of the jeepney where Manzanero was eventually stabbed and robbed of his wristwatch and earnings. "This person who stabbed the driver if you will see him. Betty S. November 13. there was only one person between her and the appellant ( Id. 5) and seated themselves on the four corners of the jeepney ( Id. 6).. 1985. p. But in the instant case. However. Injured. Apolinario and Bales that after the jeepney stopped. 3-4 & 16). p. Manzanero was able to identify the person who poked the knife at him as the appellant David Loveria because the former managed to turn his face towards the latter (TSN. p. Apolinario.The appellant specifically assails the credibility of Cerilo Manzanero. August 21. August 14. Betty Apolinario and Richard Bales. pp. I am not wrong.. 11). Apolinario also testified that the hold-up men forcibly took valuable from the passengers ( Id. 6). He testified that he saw the appellant stab Manzanero (TSN. The appellant argues that "(i)f indeed the purpose was to stab the jeepney driver. a passenger who was also seated on the front seat beside Bales (Id. Whereupon. p. August 21. the driver because of its improbability. Apolinario's use of the expression "I think" does not necessarily indicate her uncertainty as to the identity of the appellant. it became apparent that she was sure and positive about the identity of the appellant. 6-7). who attempted to flee. pull the latter from the driver's seat. The Court will not speculate as to why the appellant and his companions executed the crime in the manner that they did. contending that she failed to positively identify the appellant because when asked to identify any of the holdup men who may be present in court. The appellant next turns to witness Betty S. p. (TSN. poked a bladed weapon on the right side of his neck (TSN. "F" (Medico-Legal Certificate) and Exh. during the crossexamination of Apolinario. Marikina. injuring his finger. 17). 16-17). a passenger who was seated on the left side of the jeepney testified that the four hold-up men boarded the jeepney in Cubao (TSN. 4-5). 1985. After the stabbing. August 14. whom Bales identified as a certain Martin Castañeda. pp. she stated the following in reference to the appellant:. 8). But neither was it improbable for appellant to have stabbed Manzanero in the manner described by the latter and corroborated by witnesses Apolinario and Bales. October 9. He could be stabbed while seated at the driver's seat. October 9. he heard a person from the back announce a hold-up.. p. p. Manzanero's wristwatch and earnings were taken from him (TSN. 7 ]. Apolinario. or on the extreme left side of the jeepney. "Will you please tell us whether this person is present in this courtroom?" and you said "I think he is the one wearing a white Tshirt.. pulled the latter out of the driver's seat. [Exh. 1985.) . Manzanero rolled down from the jeepney but was able to flee (TSN. p. She was able to remember the appellant because she was the third passenger from the driver's back. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Cerilo Manzanero. who was seated on the front seat corroborated the testimony of Manzanero on almost all its material points. 7). while he was driving his fully loaded passenger jeepney on the evening of February 21. stabbed him. "I think he is the one wearing a white T-shirt" [TSN. It is true that Manzanero could have been stabbed by the appellant while the former was at the driver's seat. and was stabbed several times (TSN. 4).) Q — Are you positive about the identification of the accused David Loveria or could it be also another person? A — No. at the back portion thereof. the appellant poked a knife at Manzanero. In other words. the companion/conductor of Manzanero. 1986. all of whom positively identified the appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime. In fact. when the defense tried to exploit.). sir".

the appellant assails the manner in which he was identified by Manzanero at the headquarters of the 225th Philippine Constabulary (PC) in Cogeo. October 4. these circumstances alone should not destroy their credibility.. No force. 337 (1951). taken ex parte. 1980. especially the transcript of stenographic notes. 12(1). "O"]. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. considering such factors as illiteracy [People v. G. The court must emphasize that the so-called Miranda rights contained in the abovequoted constitutional provisions may be invoked by a person only while he is under custodial investigation [People v. are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony y given in open court [People v. No. IV of the 1973 Constitution. 1985 [Exh. Manzanero was confined at the Quezon City Medical Center from February 21 up to March 2. taken ex parte. and their testimonies in open court. Avanzado. Sato. 1974. Hence. However. "B"). 1985. No. G. March 25. 1981. is almost always incomplete and inaccurate. to be well-founded. 20. 89 Phil. III of the 1987 Constitution provides similar guarantees by stating: Sec.R.R. 1985. p. No. (People v. 104 SCRA 379]. the Court. G. Gonzales. Sec. 1985 [Exh. 1988. Duero. 1985. 52016. 158 SCRA 427). 12(1). 1988. The claims made by the appellant have not impaired the credibility of the prosecution witnesses who positively identified him as one of the perpetrators of the crime. No. "I") that the hold-up men took his money and valuables but on cross-examination. 75390. August 21. May 13. he declared that the holdup men took his wristwatch and the boundary for the day. which was in force at the time the events under review occurred reads: Sec. Manzanero explained his failure to state in the affidavit that certain things were taken from him. Art. finds the trial court's reliance on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses to convict the appellant. threat. L-46161. 73116. intimidation. No. 67785.. September 11. As a final assault on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestions of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that belongs to the subject. Rizal. In fine. It has likewise been held that inconsistencies between the testimonies given during the investigation stage and during the court proceedings may be disregarded without impairing the credibility of the witnesses. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. he had just checked out from the hospital and was still under medication (TSN.R. was due to the fact that he was still recuperating from the wounds inflicted on him. People v. The appellant further claims that Richard Bales did not implicate him in his affidavit but pointed to him on the witness stand. Valdez. The crime was committed on February 21. No person shall be compelled to be witness against himself. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in the evidence. the credibility of the witness [People v. L-47911. In the instant case.R. No. and to be informed of such right.R. August 14. Affidavits. Although Richard Bales executed his affidavit only on May 7. by the fact that at the time of the execution of the affidavit. the appellant notes the delay by the former in reporting the incident.R. 166 SCRA 233]. violence. Art. he must be provided with one. 1988. which has . claiming violation of his constitutional right to counsel. February 29. 1985 (Exh. Rosario. sometimes from want of suggestions and inquiries. L-26647. Antipolo.R. "A"]. while Betty Apolinario remained silent until she was presented in court to testify.To impugn further the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. 58 SCRA 370]. No. 159 SCRA 152]. after a thorough examination of the entire record of the case. 1988. Jr. G. the appellant cites alleged inconsistencies between the sworn statements given separately by Manzanero and Bales to the police on the one hand. February 25. 17). The appellant claims that Manzanero did not mention in his affidavit (Exh. Pacola. G. The rule is well-established that the failure to reveal or disclose at once the identity of the accused does not necessarily affect much less impair. July 27. 20. People v. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. Manzanero reported the matter to the police on March 14. Sec. sometimes from partial suggestions. G. 163 SCRA 602] or inability of the witness to read the language in which the ex parte affidavit was written [People v. on the other hand. L-40727. Finally. G.R. The Court has consistently held that an affidavit. Capinpin.134 SCRA 497). These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. G. Tan. Jr. No. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. it is evident that the lapse of time between the commission of the crime and the filing by Manzanero of a complaint with the police. The initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved in criminal investigations due to fear of reprisal is common and has been judicially declared not to affect credibility (People v. 99 SCRA 697.

No. 76048. the Court held that it was not impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its commission. L-38975. June 27. G. G. i•t•c-aüsl The Court notes the fact that the four men who committed the crime boarded the jeepney in Cubao (TSN. These testimonies. No. Gaddi. the accused filed a motion to acquit or demurrer to evidence on the ground. Lumantas. L-38603. Badilla. "B"]. 56291. as well as those of Richard Bales and Betty Apolinario. he was not entitled to the constitutional guarantee invoked.R. No. not only because it is inherently weak but also because of its easy fabrication [People v. 28 SCRA 764). the appellant was not investigated when Manzanero was in the process of identifying him. Pat. No. The defense of alibi put up by the appellant has not helped him any for it has not destroyed the damaging effects of the evidence for the prosecution. 76711.R. 1980. where the accused claimed that at the time of the killing he was in another barangay two kilometers away from the scene of the crime. G. 23019. For alibi to succeed.R. Ayun the appellant as one of the persons involved in the incident.R. Alcantara. Somera. G. Hence. in Marikina. would be excluded for being inadmissible in evidence. 5). would not be affected. July 17.R. People v.) WHEREFORE. Torres. Courts look upon the defense of alibi with suspicion and always receive it with caution. 1989). Chavez. Rizal in connection with another robbery. 14). taken together with the other evidence on record. (U. for instance. G.R. the accused was arrested for vagrancy and taken to the police station. SO ORDERED. p. he was in Cubao at 8:30 p. the accused filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court. 1989] because he is no longer under custodial investigation. 1988. concerning the right to counsel of a person under custodial investigation finds application in the instant case. People v.R. Ayson. as in the Gamboa case. In the case at bar. G. Ayun. July 7. Antipolo. he cannot claim that his right to counsel was violated because at that stage.R. G. People v.m. 165 SCRA 702. 85215. Lumantas (G. 5 SCRA 157. The ruling enunciated in Gamboa v. In that case. 26807.i•t•c-aüsl In People v.R. the Court concluded that the latter could not. May 31. that he was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel at the time the complainant was in the process of accusing or identifying him for allegedly committing a crime. May 30. December 8. Pigon. 117 SCRA 221. In the case at bar. 16383. 76952. January 6. Salcedo. invoke his right to counsel because he was not under custodial interrogation. G. No.m. No. Having identified the appellant among the detainees. he reported the matter to the Marikina police [See Exh.] Since. G. p. 1988. People v. 168 SCRA 681. G. the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. the Court rules that the required physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime has not been proved for alibi as a sufficient defense to become available to the appellant. Oxiles. Pat. which ruled that the right to counsel of a person under custodial investigation cannot be invoked until such time that the police investigators start questioning. No. in view of the foregoing. 436]. The Court held that in the police line-up conducted in that particular case.S. . interrogating or exacting a confession from the person under investigation. September 26. v. Sabado. People v.m. G.been defined as the "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" [People v. The testimony of Manzanero made in open court positively identifying the appellant. No. it was the complainant who was being investigated and who gave a statement to the police while the accused was not questioned at all. 1989. Cruz. Genoguin. the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused committed the crime (People v. 1985. October 9. September 30. No. among others. While on trial. to 8:00 p. 1986. 56 SCRA 181. 1969. 65589. No.R. The motion having been denied by the trial court. the appellant admitted his presence in Cubao on the night the crime was committed (TSN. 78774. "B" [TSN. [G. 1970.R. L-28355. 1982. 33 SCRA 812. 48 Phil. 95 SCRA 2. Moreover. Cogeo. would be sufficient to sustain the trial court's judgment of conviction.R. December 22. No. And although according to the appellant. February 27. Ayun then took the sworn statement of Manzanero which was presented in court as Exh. while the crime was committed between 7:00 p. May 29. People v. People v. No. No. Manzanero. 587 (1915): People v. 3. "B") where he identified appellant and which was taken by Pat. January 17. 384 U. Arizona. p. Caguioa. 74065. No. March 28. 718 (1926). 1989]. The following day he was placed on a line-up and a female complainant pointed to him as one of the persons who robbed her. 29 Phil. 1974. 1989. only Manzanero's sworn statement (Exh. upon learning that certain hold-up men were being detained at the 225th PC Company. June 30. But even assuming that the process of identification of the appellant by Manzanero at the PC headquarters was attended by constitutional infirmities. 129 SCRA 649: People v.S. 1987.R. Bill Ayun accompanied Manzanero back to the PC headquarters in Antipolo where Manzanero identified to Pat. 9 citing Miranda v. G. went there to check. during the line-up. 1962. these constitutional rights may no longer be claimed by a defendant in a criminal case already pending in court [People v. 162 SCRA 642]. Thus. it must be shown not only that the accused was at some other place but that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the site of the crime at the time of its commission. April 12. Thereafter. 1988.R.

No. Then all of a sudden the accused drew his small bolo (Exhibit A) and stabbed the deceased several times causing her to fall on the floor dead. the conflict is in how the wounds were inflicted — whether with deliberate intent. he was bitten by a snake at the smallest toe of his left foot. As gleaned from the opposing versions set forth above. likewise. We quote hereunder from the appealed decision the versions of both the prosecution and the defense. [G. of November 5. Their locations preclude that a single blow produced all the wounds. In trying to succor the old woman when she fell upon being hit accidentally with the point of the bolo. as set forth therein: EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION At about 10:00 P. While he was opening his snake-bite with a bolo. 1981] DE CASTRO. 1 As the trial court prefaced its decision. When asked why he killed the deceased who was also his grandmother-in-law. After killing the deceased. Then the deceased instructed accused to open his snake-bite with a bolo (Exhibit A) so that the venom can be drained out. the deceased opened the door for him. GREGORIO TAYLARAN alias "Goring" defendantappellant. plaintiff-appellee. the deceased took her medicine paraphernalia (she being a local quack doctor) and started treating the accused. 'because she promised to kill me with a 'barang'. It is. accused proceeded to the house of the son of the deceased for the purpose of killing him and his wife but accused did not accomplish his purpose because the deceased's son refused to left him enter his house.000 and to pay costs. hard to believe that a mere accidental hitting .: Charged with murder ill the Court of First Instance of Bohol. accused lifted his right hand which was holding the bolo upward. he proceeded to the house of his grandmother-in-law. This prompted the deceased to re-light said lamp. Appealing to this Court.M. She banded her body down with her two hands extended towards the floor to light said lamp. The explanation of appellant as to how the wounds other than that located on the right chest was inflicted simply cannot inspire belief. The infliction of more wounds after the first was therefore deliberate and not by mere accident. on November 5. as appellant alleged. Once inside. Bohol for treatment of snake-bite. accused asked for her forgiveness and after that he ran away. Ofremia Sarabosing which was located in barrio Binliw Ubay. or purely by accident. The first wound could possibly have been accidentally inflicted.R. This fact robs the accident theory of appellant of any plausibility. Ubay.(5) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1976 accused went to tend to his carabao. wounds could not have been similarly inflicted if. Upon realizing that the deceased was fatally wounded. hence killed her first. he could not have kept on holding the bolo. on different parts of the body. but the other. At the very time that deceased was bending her body downward. appellant insists on his defense of accidental. (Testimonies of accused himself and Elpidio Mendez).M. accused answered.M. as just pointed out. as instinct would have made him do so. Ofremia Sarabosing was a quack doctor known to cure snake-bites. he accidentally put out the light of the kerosene lamp which was placed on the floor. L-49149 October 23. they did not result from the first blow. On the way. More than one wound was found sustained by the deceased. not deliberate killing. He arrived at deceased's house at about 10:00 P. which version is correct? That the deceased died from wounds inflicted by the appellant is not disputed. vs. The deceased opened the door to let him enter. One single stroke could not have inflicted all of them. It is extremely difficult to accept the accident version of appellant which he purveyed without corroboration. His announced purpose being good. 1976 accused called at the house of deceased Ofremia Atup y Sarabosing located in barrio Binliw. policeman Demetrio Basilad and Juanita Busalla) EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE At about 9:00 P. so that the point of the bolo accidentally hit deceased's right chest penetrating the nipple and resulting in her death. Hence. After that the accused surrendered himself with his bolo to policeman Demetrio Basilad who was then on guard at the municipal hall of Ubay. Once inside he and the deceased stood on the floor facing each other. * J. Bohol for the purpose of submitting himself to the latter for treatment of his snakebite located at this left foot. (Testimonies of Salvador Atup. He would have dropped it instantly. appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P 12.

when he went there directly from the old woman's house. which he gave upon surrendering to Pat. threat. What was testified to is only what appellant told the police why he is surrendering to them. but in the light of the other evidence of the prosecution. That the wounding was with intent to kill is reflected by appellant's statement that he killed the old woman because she had allegedly promised to kill him by "barang" or by witchcraft. The constitutional safeguard invoked can have no application to Juanita's testimony on what appellant told her not in the course of a police investigation. Repeated blows easily negates any claim of wounding by mere accident. would show that he appeared. which is indicative of being a deliberate killer rather than a sorrowful and harmless penitent for a killing he has committed only by accident. Basilad and Juanita Busalla on the inculpatory statement of appellant is legally admissible not because the statement is part of the res gestae. Basilad had no reason to give the killing the graver character than what it really was. therefore. his denial is not convincing. that he was dangerously in an angry mood. would inflict a wound that is so fatal as that sustained on the chest. As already shown. Pat. is part of the testimony of Pat. It was just natural for appellant to explain to the police why he was surrendering. the constitutional safeguards to be informed of his rights to silence and to counsel may not be invoked. if not admitted as such. Basilad. does not affect the sufficiency of the evidence against appellant to entitle him to the acceptance of his claim of accident to exempt him from criminal liability. and full credence must be accorded to him. 26. 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 No force. Appellant has also invoked the provision of Article IV. upon surrendering after the killing. He testified on the number and location of the wounds. daughter of the deceased. May 21. It is hard to see why the aforementioned witnesses testified on the admission of appellant the way they did unless they were prompted only by the truth. The autopsy report. if the report is not itself admissible as independent evidence. As demonstrated earlier. Section 20 of the Constitution in trying to block the admission of his declaration to Pat. Basilad that he killed Ofremia Atup because of her alleged vow to kill him by witchcraft. As the Solicitor General correctly observes on the circumstances of this case: "If however. and therefore not with so much force. he told her that he killed her mother because of witchcraft. Basilad's testimony. as appellant would insist. when appellant was already in jail. be of no avail for appellant to contend that the court a quo erred in admitting appellant's statement he made upon surrendering that he killed the deceased because the latter intended to kill him by witchcraft as part of the res gestae. 1978) may well serve the purpose of the autopsy report. who is not a policeman also testified to appellant telling her when he was already in jail. If appellant had surrendered with an admission of killing the old woman by accident. such evidence is more than adequate to make the mind rest at ease on appellant's guilt as charged. It is not a matter of whether the statement is a part of the res gestae to be admissible. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against himself. It is but natural for one who surrenders to the police to give reason or explanation for his act of surrendering. he voluntarily admits the killing and it was precisely because he surrendered to admit the killing. The fact that he was not allowed to enter the house of Juanita Busalla. . That Dr. The cited provision reads: Section 20. so unduly stressed to show the quality of his report as hearsay. his accident theory of the killing merits not much credibility from the mere fact that more than one wound was inflicted which could not have resulted from just one blow. he had no more problem relative to the solution of the crime. As far as he is concerned. intimidation. as previously pointed out. and his testimony. but for said witnesses having heard appellant made the statement on their own perception. as he must have tried to impress upon the authorities if such was the truth. contending that the safeguards therefor have not been made available to him. tsn. The applicability of the foregoing provision does not seem to contemplate cases like the print where no written confession was sought to be presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial investigation. Juanita Busalla. It would." In any case. As Juanita also testified. Demetrio Basilad at the Municipal Building. corroborating Pat. by his behavior or words. being that of a peace officer with basic knowledge in medico-legal medicine. another witness. that he killed Ofremia Atup because of her promise to kill him by means of witchcraft. It can hardly be said that under such circumstance. Silverio Gaviola who issued the post-mortem examination report failed to testify thereon because he died before he could be called to the stand. The testimony of both Pat. being obviously an impartial witness.with the point of the small bolo. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. the same declaration he supposedly made to Pat. Basilad to testify on what appellant said on this score is thus perfectly proper. For Pat. which is the usual cause for police twisting the truth or other form of excesses when conducting investigations the desire to solve a crime by all means. Appellant of course denies having made the admission. violence. having taken a course therein (p. Sarabosing. the surrendered is already "under investigation within the meaning of the constitutional provision.

so testified. The lower court gave more of it to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. he failed dismally to fulfill. he must have appeared so angry. displaying unmistakable intent to kill then after killing their mother. We find no reason to disturb the lower court's appreciation of the relative credibility of the opposing witnesses. (pp. 2Moreover. As already stated. with costs. as is required of similar defenses as that of self-defense. 30-39. Verily. even without the admission. WHEREFORE. the burden of proving the exempting circumstance he has invoked in his defense calls for clear and convincing evidence. as the daughter Juanita Busalla. 3 This. that he was not allowed by Ofremia's daughter and husband to enter their house when he went there direct from the old woman's house is a strong proof that he did not exhibit the harmless mood of a repentant killer as he should visibly appear to them if the killing was only accidental. Feb. the accident version of appellant is inherently incredible. On the contrary. 1978).At any rate. . 1. the issue is one of credibility. the appealed decision is affirmed. SO ORDERED. tsn. appellant having admitted the killing.

his aunt and uncle respectively. when the body of six -year old Jennifer Domantay was found sprawled amidst a bamboo grove in Guilig. October 18.000. wilfully. vs. Edward Domantay saw that tucked in the left side of accused-appellant‘s waistline was a bayonet without a cover handle. Ronald Bandonill. Ronald Bandonill. filed. 1996. apparently had one too many then. in Poblacion Sur. On October 25.(6) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1996. here in Guilig. Dr. Jennifer had been missing since lunch time. At around 6:30 in the evening of that day. likewise testified. accused-appellant and his two brothers-in-law. SPO4 Carpizo amended the criminal complaint against accused-appellant to rape with homicide. Macaranas recommended an autopsy by a medico-legal expert of the NBI. a minor of 6 years old against her will and consent.00. Pangasinan. Edward Domantay testified that in the morning of October 17. Jaime Caballero and Daudencio Macasaeb. a lthough the vaginal canal easily admitted the little finger with minimal resistance.” accusedappellant. a criminal complaint for murder against accused-appellant before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Malasiqui. at around 4 o‘clock. had a round of drinks in front of the latter‘s house in Guilig. 1996. and they will cry and cry‖). namely. The facts hark back to the afternoon of October 17. Accused -appellant was about two meters ahead of Jennifer. performed an autopsy on the embalmed body of Jennifer. BERNARDINO DOMANTAY. de la Cruz. diad Guilig wala. Edward Domantay said that he was in front of Macasaeb‘s house. The result of his examination of the victim‘s genitalia indicated that the child‘s hymen had been completely lacerated on the right side. Jiezl. medico-legal expert of the NBI. Pangasinan. and Dr. police officers Montemayor. inflicting upon her multiple stab wounds.: This case is here on appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City (Branch 57). She said that. J. 1996. May 11. Jiezl saw accused-appellant and Jennifer Domantay walking towards the bamboo grove of Amparo Domantay where Jennifer‘s body was later found. rolled up his shirt and said: ―No diad Antipolo tan L[i]pa et walay massacre. 1999] MENDOZA. Antonio Espinoza. the rural health physician of Malasiqui. unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Jennifer Domantay. Lorenzo. to Elsa and Jorge Casingal. showed that Jennifer died of multiple organ failure and hypovolemic shock secondary to 38 stab wounds at the back. the above-named accused. Subsequently. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. the prosecution presented seven witnesses. then and there. No. a bayonet. accused-appellant gave money to Edward Domantay and asked him to buy two bottles of gin and a bottle of Sprite. Edward. with lewd design and armed with a bayonnete. she and four other children were playing in front of their house in Guilig. Dr. SPO1 Espinoza and another policeman took accused-appellant to Bayambang and recovered the bayonet from a tricycle belonging to the Casingal spouses.[8] It was not the first time that Edward had seen accused-appellant with the knife as the latter usually carried it with him. He likewise disclosed that at around 3:30 that afternoon. 1996.[6] Edward said he joined the group and sat between Daudencio Macasaeb and accused-appellant. Joselito Mejia. in the afternoon. finding accusedappellant guilty of rape with homicide and sentencing him to death. to the damage and prejudice of her heirs. Ma. he had given the fatal weapon used. 1996. Macaranas. 10. and on the same occasion. [3] On the basis of the post-mortem findings of Dr. Malasiqui. and de Guzman of the Malasiqui Philippine National Police (PNP) picked up accused-appellant at the Malasiqui public market and took him to the police station where accused-appellant. Based on this finding. walay massacren kod dia.R.[7]Edward said that accusedappellant. upon questioning by SPO1 Antonio Espinoza. [5] After the group had consumed several bottles of San Miguel gin. SPO4 Juan Carpizo. [10] .[2] The investigation by the Malasiqui police pointed to accused-appellant Bernardino Domantay. a cousin of the victim‘s grandfather. province of Pangasinan. the Philippine National Police chief investigator at Malasiqui. Celso Manuel. The police officers executed a receipt to evidence the confiscation of the weapon. there were massacres. and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P480. Fe Leticia Macaranas. there will also be a massacre. the following information was filed:[4] That on or about the 17th day of October. At the trial. 130612. as the lone suspect in the gruesome crime. to establish its charge that accused-appellant had raped and killed Jennifer Domantay. Macaranas found no lacerations or signs of inflammation of the outer and inner labia and the vaginal walls of the victim‘s genitalia. unlawfully and feloniously stab with the use of a bayonnete. who. which resulted to her death. Pangasinan. Pangasinan. Bayambang. all surnamed Domantay. in barangay Guilig. Malasiqui. [G. The medical examination conducted the following day by Dr. Dr. 1996. the said accused with intent to kill. The child‘s body bore several stab wounds. The next day. confessed to killing Jennifer Domantay. I will massacre somebody here. the said Jennifer Domantay. @ “JUNIOR OTOT. Noting possible commission of acts of lasciviousness. did then and there. Malasiqui. and to pay the costs. at about 2 o‘clock in the afternoon on October 17. on October 21. Municipality of Malasiqui. The bamboo grove was about 8 to 10 meters from the house of Jiezl Domantay. wilfully. plaintiff-appellee. walay onakis-akis‖ (―In Antipolo and Lipa. tending to some pigeons in his yard. [9] Jiezl Domantay.

―Kung nakikinig ang mga magulang ni Jennifer.[19] On questioning by the court. when accused-appellant implored Mejia to take him to Malasiqui at once.. a relative of the victim. [21] the average depth of which was six inches. Manuel said that it was the first time he had been called to testify regarding an interview he had conducted.Lorenzo Domantay. Mejia told accused-appellant that he was going to take his lunch first. sir. Accusedappellant later changed his mind.‖ That‘s it. a neighboring barangay about half a kilometer from Guilig. And I asked also if he committed the crime and he answered ―yes. Neither was accused-appellant‘s confession reduced in writing. On cross-examination. but the latter pleaded with him. he did not try to find out why accused-appellant appeared to be nervous.[18] There was no lawyer present. 1996. [12] In addition. He described what transpired during the interview thus:[17] PROS.D. [16] On October 23. What was his reaction to your request for an interview? He was willing to state what had happened. therefore. QUINIT: Q A Q A Q A Q A . but the lower co urt allowed it.[22] He opined that the wounds were probably caused by a ―pointed sharp-edged instrument. the NBI medico-legal who conducted an autopsy of the victim on October 25. Accusedappellant appeared restless and worried as he kept looking around. he alighted near the Mormon‘s church. Sometime in October 1996. Dr. However. card and I presented myself as a media practitioner with my tape recorder [in] my hand. standing at the spot in the bamboo grove where Jennifer‘s body was later found. including Malasiqui. Accused-appellant also disclosed the location of the bayonet he used in killing the victim. 1996. ano ang gusto mong iparating?‖. Espinoza admitted that at no time during the course of his questioning was accused-appellant assisted by counsel. why did he commit that alleged crime. the prosecution presented SPO1 Antonio Espinoza and Celso Manuel who testified that. Celso Manuel. for his part. Before he commenced his questioning. QUINIT: Q A Q A You mentioned about accused admitting to you on the commi[ssion] of the crime. what was his purpose. accused-appellant agreed to answer the questions of the investigator even in the absence of counsel and admitted killing the victim. he was about to take his lunch at home in Alacan. Manuel explained that the interview was conducted in the jail. sir. and he said. Mejia. and he used that little girl in his revenge.[20] As in the case of the testimony of SPO1 Espinoza. He covers the third district of Pangasinan. said that. ―Ako nga po‖. ikaw ang pumatay kay Jennifer?‖. 1996. the defense objected to the admission of Manuel‘s testimony. agreed. Lorenzo said that that afternoon. Bandonill. how did you ask him that? I asked him very politely. he apprised accused-appellant of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. as Lorenzo was in a hurry. a tricycle driver. testified that he is a radio reporter of station DWPR. on separate occasions. in English. Mejia noticed that accused-appellant was nervous and afraid. Manuel said he talked to the chief of police and asked permission to interview accused-appellant. sir. it was about the boundary dispute.‖[23] He also noted contusions on the . 1996. [14] On cross-examination. SPO1 Espinoza testified that he investigated accused-appellant after the latter had been brought to the Malasiqui police station in the evening of October 17. on his way to his farm. an uncle of the victim came to Dagupan City and informed the station about Jennifer Domantay‘s case. Before interviewing accused-appellant. ―Kung pinagsisisihan mo ba ang iyong ginawa?‖ ―Opo‖ sabi niya. PROS. about two to three meters away from the police station. an AM station based in Dagupan City. Instead of going to the town proper. That is what he said. and I also asked Junior Otot. How did you introduce yourself to the accused? I showed to Bernardino Domantay alias ―Junior Otot‖ my I. An uncle of the victim was with him and the nearest policemen present were about two to three meters from him. 1996. including those who were in the radio room.[13] According to SPO1 Espinoza. outside Malasiqui..[15] Espinoza‘s testimony was admitted by the trial court over the objection of the defense. ―kung gusto nilang makamtan ang hustisya ay tatanggapin ko‖. in the afternoon of October 17. saying they will not be gone for long.[11] Prosecution witness Joselito Mejia. ―Ibig mo bang sabihin Jun..‖ Bernardino Domantay. Manuel went to Malasiqui to interview accusedappellant who was then detained in the municipal jail. corroborated Jiezl‘s testimony that accused -appellant had gone to Amparo Domantay‘s bamboo grove in the afternoon of October 17. which was later translated into Pangasinense. testified that Jennifer Domantay died as a result of the numerous stab wounds she sustained on her back. he saw accused-appellant about 30 meters away. What are those matters which you brought out in that interview with the accused Bernardino Domantay alias ―Junior Otot‖? I asked him what was his purpose for human interest‘s sake as a reporter. The [l]ast part of my interview. More or less what have you asked him on that particular matter? I asked ―Junior Otot. accused-appellant had confessed to the brutal killing of Jennifer Domantay. Did you introduce yourself as a media practitioner? Yes.

He also claimed that it was he whom Macasaeb had requested to buy some more liquor. consisting of circumstantial evidence. . If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. In this appeal. however. B. He added that the genital area showed signs of inflammation. for which reason he gave money to Edward Domantay so that the latter could get two bottles of gin. he was bathing his pigs outside the house of his brother-in-law Daudencio Macasaeb in Guilig. But he said he did not know that Jennifer Domantay was following him. just outside of the town proper of Malasiqui to meet his brother. He denied having owned to the killing of Jennifer Domantay to SPO1 Espinoza. accused-appellant proceeded to town and reported for work. the Court hereby finds the accused. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT..00). The tricycle was driven by Joselito Mejia. §12 of the Constitution in part provides: (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. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the total amount of Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P480. [26] He denied Edward Domantay‘s claim that he (accused-appellant) had raised his shirt to show a bayonet tucked in his waistline and that he had said he would massacre someone in Guilig. the trial court found accused-appellant guilty as charged. at about 2 o‘clock in the afternoon. First. Bernardino Domantay @ ―Junior Otot‖ guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the crime of Rape with Homicide defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation and as amended by Republic Act No. He said that at around 1 o‘clock in the afternoon of October 17. [29] As already stated.000. and E) offered by the pro secution. he must be provided with one. III.[33] Art. the remaining proof of his alleged guilt.forehead. §12(1) of the Constitution and that. Malasiqui.[25] Pacifico Bulatao. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION[S] MADE BY THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT. he went to Alacan passing on the trail beside the bamboo grove of Amparo Domantay. accused-appellant alleges that:[32] I. Accused -appellant claimed. a bottle of Sprite. but he denied that he ever admitted anything to the former. is inadequate to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. SO ORDERED. that he did not join in the drinking and that it was Edward Domantay. As his brother did not come. 7659 and accordingly. [31] and to pay the costs. neck. the photographer who took the pictures of the scene of the crime and of the victim after t he latter‘s body was brought to her parents‘ house. Accused-appellant contends that his alleged confessions to SPO1 Antonio Espinoza and Celso Manuel are inadmissible in evidence because they had been obtained in violation of Art. He denied he had a grudge against the victim‘s parents because of a boundary dispute. He testified he is an uncle of Jennifer Domantay (he and her grandfather are cousins) and that he worked as a janitor at the Malasiqui Municipal Hall. he was picked up by three policemen and brought to the Malasiqui police station where he was interrogated by SPO1 Espinoza regarding the killing of Jennifer Domantay.. he took a tricycle to Malasiqui. III. He said he alighted near the Mormon church. Dr. he admitted that he had been interviewed by the latter. in light of all the foregoing. and breast bone of the victim. and a certain Jaime Caballero who joined the party. The dispositive portion of its decision reads: [30] WHEREFORE. Bandonill said he found that the laceration on the right side of the hymen was caused within 24 hours of her death. He confirmed that Daudencio was then having drinks in front of his (Macasaeb‘s) house. while he was in the Malasiqui public market. The defense then presented accused-appellant as its lone witness.[28] With respect to his extrajudicial confession to Celso Manuel. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence. Pangasinan. [24] As for the results of the genital examination of the victim. with these vital pieces of evidence excluded. whom the prosecution had presented as witness. .[27] Accused-appellant also confirmed that. identified and authenticated the five pictures (Exhibits A.. II. D. Accused-appellant denied the allegations against him. He further confirmed that in Alacan. 1996. C. the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection. and a pack of cigarettes. That night.

A. the interview was conducted on October 23. Accused-appellant was interviewed while he was inside his cell. his purpose was to elicit incriminating information from accusedappellant. As already stated. illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegal obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. being. III. According to this rule. [42] We are not persuaded. he said he was willing to accept the consequences of his act. Accused-appellant claims. 6 days after accused-appellant had already confessed to the killing to the police. SPO1 Espinoza‘s testimony on the alleged confessi on of accusedappellant should have been excluded by the trial court. According to Celso Manuel. But though he waived the assistance of counsel. and (4) it must be in writing. however. Celso Manuel admitted that there were indeed some police officers around because about two to three meters from the jail were the police station and the radio room. that is. and further informed [him] that all he will say will be reduced into writing and will be used the same in the proceedings of the case. Accused-appellant‘s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. He was. In People v. however. 7438 has extended the constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been ―invited‖ for questioning. the media are known to take an opposite stance against the government by exposing official wrongdoings. ―when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect. Alicando:[39] . The interviewer stayed outside the cell and the only person besides him was an uncle of the victim. the waiver is invalid and his confession is inadmissible. For this reason. In holding the confession admissible. but it is equally inadmissible. it must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary.This provision applies to the stage of custodial investigation. namely. Andan. Accusedappellant could have refused to be interviewed. this Court said:[41] [A]ppellant‘s [oral] confessions to the newsmen are not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. He answered questions freely and spontaneously. . in the brutal slaying of Jennifer Domantay. there is no showing that the radio reporter was acting for the police or that the interview was conducted under circumstances where it is apparent that accused-appellant confessed to the killing out of fear. that he has the right to a competent lawyer of his own choice and if he can not afford [a counsel] then he will be provided with one. despite the fact that the accused gave his answers without the assistance of counsel. he agreed. . 1996. that the atmosphere in the jail when he was interviewed was ―tense and intimidating‖ and was similar to that which prevails in a custodial investigation. . the ―fruit of the poisonous tree. prior to the interrogation conducted to him. that he has the right to remain silent. (3) it must be express. In addition. Indeed. and he revealed also the weapon used [and] where he gave [it] to. the fact of death of Jennifer Domantay. whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree‖ is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence. in fact the only one. once the primary source (the ―tree‖) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained. In the case at bar. Even assuming that he was. . (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. but he told me that he will cooperate even in the absence of his counsel. the circumstantial evidence furnished by the other prosecution witnesses dovetails in material points with his . that accused-appellant‘s confession to the radio reporter. The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. §12(1) of the Constitution applied to him. it has not been shown that. but instead. as it were. Celso Manuel.‖ As explained in People v.‖[34] R. the waiver was neither put in writing nor made in the presence of counsel. SPO1 Espinoza narrated what transpired during accused-appellant‘s interrogation:[38] [I] interrogated Bernardino Domantay. any secondary or derivative evidence (the ―fruit‖) derived from it is also inadmissible.[35] Decisions[36] of this Court hold that for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible. [37] he was already a suspect. Stated otherwise. To the contrary.[40]the accused in a rape with homicide case confessed to the crime during interviews with the media. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State. Accused-appellant contends that ―it is . The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and its agents. is admissible. 1996. already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed in Art. Although he testified that he had interviewed inmates before. that he admitted to me that he killed Jennifer Domantay. No. when accused-appellant was brought to the Malasiqui police station in the evening of October 17.[43] We do not think the presence of the police officers exerted any undue pressure or influence on accused-appellant and coerced him into giving his confession. I informed him of his constitutional right as follows. We agree with the Solicitor General. not altogether improbable for the police investigators to ask the police reporter (Manuel) to try to elicit some incriminating information from the accused. there is no evidence to show that Celso was a police beat reporter. in conducting the interview in question. So is the bayonet inadmissible in evidence.‖ [44] This is pure conjecture. therefore.

Later. Art. Lorenzo is a relative of accused-appellant.confession. she was only 10 years old. 1996. on the other hand.[47] It is clear then that she could not have put up much of a defense against accused-appellant‘s assault. not sufficient ground for conviction. These witnesses.‖[50] In this case. the physical evidence supports a finding of abuse of superior strength: accused-appellant had a weapon. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. did not testify concerning what they saw at exactly the same time. while the victim was not shown to have had any. followed by the victim. Bandonill noted a five by two inch (5‖ x 2‖) contusion on the left side of the victim‘s forehead. 335. not falling within the provisions of Article 246 [parricide] shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article [murder]. Lorenzo said he had seen accused -appellant near the bamboo grove ―at around‖ that time. Lorenzo said he saw accused-appellant standing near the bamboo grove at about the same time. in part provides: ART. . For the foregoing reasons. having heard any commotion. He described accused-appellant as nervous and worried. Dr. There could have been a difference in time. . lungs and liver. Dr. Jiezl. Extrajudicial confession.[51] Second. Bandonill testified that any of the major wounds on the victim‘s back could have caused her death as they penetrated her heart. ¾ An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. §4. There is no reason he would testify falsely against the latter. But we think the lower court erred in finding that the killing was committed with cruelty. ¾ Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances. was six years old at the time of the killing. [48] The trial court appears to have been led to this conclusion by the number of wounds inflicted on the victim. Indeed. Art. however little it was. [49] ―The test . followed by the victim. In fact. 2. Evidence necessary in treason cases. at around 2 o‘clock in the afternoon on October 17. The killing was committed with the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Accused-appellant could have covered the young child‘s mouth to prevent her from making any sound. She was a child of small build. When and how rape is committed. these witnesses confirmed what each had said each one saw. shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal. there were 38 stab wounds. 1996. Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides: §3. He was seen walking toward the bamboo grove. or on confession in open court. the Court is convinced of accused-appellant‘s guilt with respect to the killing of the child. is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim‘s suffering thus . [46] The blow could have rendered her unconscious. is also surnamed Domantay and could also be related to accused-appellant and has not been shown to have any reason to testify falsely against accused-appellant. Accused-appellant also contends that the testimony of Jiezl Domantay contradicts that of Lorenzo Domantay because while Jiezl said she had seen accused-appellant walking towards the bamboo grove. kidney and in testines. . which he said could have been caused by a hard blunt instrument or by impact as her head hit the ground. Accused-appellant argues that it was improbable for a brutal killing to have been committed without the children who were playing about eight to ten meters from Amparo Domantay‘s grove. however. The record shows that the victim. [45] The contention has no merit. and all the knife wounds are located at the back of Jennifer ‘s body. But the number of wounds is not a test for determining whether there was cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. By using force or intimidation. no sufficient evidence to hold accused-appellant guilty of raping Jennifer Domantay. Far from contradicting each other. between the time Jiezl saw accused-appellant and the victim walking and the time Lorenzo saw accused-appellant near the place where the victim‘s body was later found. Jennifer Domantay. . he was seen standing near the bamboo grove where the child‘s body was found. 46‖ in height. and . where the crime took place. shall not be sufficient ground for conviction. There is no reason to doubt the claim of these witnesses. thus precluding her from shouting or crying. What is striking about their testimonies is that while Jiezl said she saw accused-appellant going toward the bamboo grove followed by the victim ―at around‖ 2 o‘clock in the afternoon on October 17. the latter being a fully grown man of 29 years. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. What they told the court was what they had seen ―at around‖ 2 o‘clock in the afternoon. At the time of the incident. There is. however. It is clear that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of homicide. as amended. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. ¾ No person charged with treason shall be convicted unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act. there is no such proof of cruelty. 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Any person who. 1. there must be proof that the victim was made to agonize before the [the accused] rendered the blow which snuffed out [her] life.

standing alone. . sir when I say hard rigid instrument it should not be sharp pointed and sharp rigid. But this laceration may also have been caused by other factors other the human male organ. a physician‘s finding that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does not prove rape. . REMARKS: 1) Findings at the genital area indicate the probability of penetration of that area by a hard. sir could show. ATTY. F. This Genital Examination showed a complete laceration of the right side of the hymen.. How about if the penetration was done by a finger. it is enough if there was even the slightest contact of the male sex organ with the labia of the victim‘s genitalia. and if the finger is large then it is possible your honor. Bandonill himself admitted this.. . sir. only carnal knowledge had to be proved to establish rape. if you look at my report there is a remark and it says there. not a laceration. it depends on the size of the finger that penetrat[es] the organ. Now. your Honor. sir. As the victim here was six years old. a medical certificate or the testimony of the physician is presented not to prove that the victim was raped but to show that the latter had lost her virginity. Thus. VALDEZ: Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A . It is only when this is corroborated by other evidence proving carnal knowledge that rape may be deemed to have been established. fully erect and hard then it is possible. by direct or indirect evidence. he testified:[62] PROS. Hymenal laceration is not necessary to prove rape.[57] [56] This conclusion is based on the medically accepted fact that a hymenal tear may be caused by objects other than the male sex organ[58] or may arise from other causes. rigid instrument. QUINIT: Q A Q A . showed a complete laceration of the right side of the hymen. because a dagger would have made at its in cision . what might have caused the complete laceration of the right side of the hymen. But he also said when questioned by the defense that the lacerations could have been caused by something blunt other than the male organ. My question is other than the human male organ? Possible. was it the same as the human organ? Well. is it not? No. of such contact. sir.. Do you consider a bolo a bl[u]nt instrument.[61] When asked by the private prosecutor whether the lacerations of the hymen could have been caused by the insertion of a male organ he said this was possible. findings at the genital area indicated the probability of penetration of that area by a hard rigid instrument. The surrounding genital area shows signs of inflamation. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. ....3. is that correct? A hard bl[u]nt instrument. sir. sir..[55] neither does its presence prove its commission. I won‘t say that this would have been caused by a dagger.. sir. finding at the genital area indicates the probability of penetration of that area by a hard rigid instrument. Dr. Consequently. this may have also been caused by a dagger used in the killing of Jennifer Domantay is that correct? Well. Could it have been caused by a human organ? If the human male organ is erect. its possible.[59] Dr. And if there is a complete erection by a human organ is this possible that the laceration can only be on the right side of the hymen? Yes. this may have been possibly caused by a dagger.[60] He opined that the laceration had been inflicted within 24 hours of the victim‘s death and that the inflammation was due to a trauma in that area. Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with a woman. or a dagger? The dagger is a sharp rigid but it is not a bl[u]nt instrument. Ulili. COURT: Q A Q A Q A You mentioned that the hymen was lacerated on the right side? Yes.[53] However. In your remarks. [52] For this purpose. your Honor. there must be proof. if the finger is small it could the superficial laceration. As held in People v. it should be a hard bl[u]nt instrument. He testified that the right side of the victim‘s hymen had been completely lacerated while the surrounding genital area showed signs of inflammation. Ronald Bandonill‘s report on the genital examination he had performed on the deceased reads:[54] GENITAL EXAMINATION. doctor? Well..

00. . . 2199 of the Civil Code provides that a party may recover actual or compensatory damages only for such loss as he has duly proved. In those instances. [63] In People v. Jaime Domantay. the award of actual damages should be reduced to P12. thus causing the lacerations in the hymen. Gajardo that the fresh laceration had been produced by sexual intercourse is corroborated by the testimony given by complainant Elizabeth that when she rushed upstairs upon hearing her daughter suddenly cry out. .00.00. there is no sufficient proof that it was accused-appellant who had raped her. The trial court ordered accused-appellant to pay the heirs of Jennifer Domantay the amount of P30. in the case at bar.00. . Again.[64] for instance.P25.[67] neck. Robles[75] and People v. [73] Third. the victim‘s shorts would not have been stained so extensively.000. there is no circumstance from which it might reasonably be inferred that he abused her.00 and the moral damages atP50. Maybe he raped the girl.00 is deemed appropriate. P50. the prosecution was able to present other tell-tale signs of rape such as the location and description of the victim‘s clothings. regardless of when the stab wo unds were inflicted. [72] This must be because she was wearing this piece of clothing when the stab wounds were inflicted or immediately thereafter. 2230 of the Civil Code provides for the payment of exemplary damages when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstance. only P12. the position of the body when found and the like. extending from the back shoulder down to the lower back area from the left to the right. that there was spermatozoa in the girl‘ s vaginal canal.430.000.00 as actual damages. thus allowing the blood to seep into her shorts to such an extent. e. all the stab wounds (except for a minor cut in the lower left leg) had their entry points at the back running from the upper left shoulder to the lower right buttocks. To be sure. Macalino.. Although it is not unnatural to find contusions on the posterior side.[76] the indemnity should be fixed at P50. It is noteworthy that the deceased was fully clothed in blue shorts and white shirt when her body was brought to her parent‘s house immediately after it was found. as exemplary damages. there is no circumstantial evidence from which to infer that accused-appellant sexually abused the victim.000. In addition.000. .000. In describing the stab wounds on the body of the victim. [70] It is unquestionably different when. pulled up the victim‘s shorts and undergarments after the alleged rape. otherwise. Art. both the rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt.Q A How about two fingers? Possible.000. The only circumstance from which such inference might be made is that accused-appellant was seen with the victim walking toward the place where the girl‘s body was found.[68] and anterior portion[69] of her body. especially her undergarments. Of this amount. he must have. and ORDERING him to pay the heirs of Jennifer Domantay the amounts of P50. (Emphasis in the original) In contrast. He did not confess to having raped the victim.000.000. the Court affirmed a conviction for the rape of a two year-old child on the basis of circumstantial evidence:[65] The Court notes that the testimony or medical opinion of Dr.00. However. Art. As accused-appellant would naturally have to pull down the girl‘s lower garments in order to consummate the rape. Considering the relative physical positions of the accused and the victim in crimes of rape.000. he testified:[66] [A]fter examining the body I took note that there were several stab wounds . that he was zipping up his pants. Maybe he did not. Bandonill militates against the finding of rape. there is a huge bloodstain in the back portion of her shorts. as maximum. as in this case.000.00. as minimum. as indemnity. Indeed. this Court has sustained a number of convictions for rape with homicide based on purely circumstantial evidence.g.00. as actual damages. the heirs of Jennifer Domantay are entitled to recover exemplary damages in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. the very autopsy report of Dr. to 20 years of reclusion temporal.[71] Furthermore. and the costs. Therefore. the usual location of the external bodily injuries of the victim is on the face.[77] WHEREFORE. SO ORDERED. these were all found at the back area sir . this is contrary to ordinary human experience. however. In the special complex crime of rape with homicide. An amount of P25. Otherwise. the judgment of the trial court is SET ASIDE and another one is rendered FINDING accused-appellant guilty of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and sentencing him to a prison term of 12 years of prision mayor. she found appellant Macalino beside the child buttoning his own pants and that she found some sticky fluid on the child’s buttocks and some blood on her private part. Maybe he simply inserted a blunt object into her organ.00 was supported by a receipt. these are usually caused by the downward pressure on the victim‘s body during the sexual assault. Mengote. then. the list of expenses produced by the victim‘s father. only totaled P28. as moral damages. sir. Even assuming that Jennifer had been raped. From the foregoing.[74] In accordance with our rulings in People v. we cannot find that accused-appellant also committed rape. and P12.

[2] Appellant. Cpl.00. with evident premeditation and treachery. assault and stab with the said weapon said Freddie Saavedra. threats and intimidation. Delfa. he informed the latter that he was a suspect. plaintiff-appellee. did then and there wilfully. In the course of such inquiry. Santos. During their conversation.m. where the latter is a third year high school student. 1998] ROMERO. When the latter failed to return that evening. vs. he admitted that he did not inform appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel. accused-appellant. No. Province of Quezon. the above-named accused. he had no warrant for his arrest.000. Quezon. nor did he reduce the supposed confession to writing. Carlos. Rolando Alandy invited appellant in connection with the instant case and with respect to two other robbery cases reported in Lucena City.m. Forthwith. to inform her that he will drive both accused to Barangay Maligaya. 1988. and taking advantage of their superior strength and in pursuance of their conspiracy. relying on the information that an abandoned sidecar of a tricycle was sighted at Barangay Malinao.000. thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple stab wounds on the different parts of his body. as early as 4:30 o‘clock a. Muntinlupa for a sum of P4. together with the sidecar. of December 6. the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Numeriano Aguilar and Pat. 1989. violence. unlawfully and feloniously take. In the belief that they were merely conversing inside the police station. and that on the occasion of said robbery and by reason thereof. to the Atimonan Police Station for safekeeping. [G. at about 7:00 o‘clock p. along the Maharlika Highway at Barangay Tinandog. be admissible in evidence against him? Accused-appellant Herson Tan. the said accused. Moreover. Lt. however. he accompanied the latter to Manila on board the said motorcycl e and they approached Antonio . not only in the instant case. 117321. HERSON TAN y VERZO. Teves voluntarily surrendered it to the police who turned it over. Quezon Province.. He recounted that sometime in December 1988.R. steal and carry away from one Freddie Saavedra.: May the confession of an accused. February 11. With the help of appellant as a guide. but also in two other robbery cases allegedly committed in Lucena City.(7) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The relevant facts established by the prosecution are as follows: On December 5. he averred that they sold the motorcycle to a certain Danny Teves of Barrio Summit. Contrary to law. unlawfully and feloniously attack. under an information [1] dated February 8. Subsequently. Branch 62. a Honda TMX motorcycle with a sidecar bearing Plate No. Lt. testified that when he invited appellant to their headquarters. In the course thereof. given before a police investigator upon invitation and without the benefit of counsel. J. did then and there wilfully. with intent to gain. Lucena Philippine National Police (PNP) led by Lt. alleged that he had no participation in the offense charged and contended that his only involvement in the matter was the referral of accused Amido to Teves. on cross-examination. Carlos Santos proceeded to the scene of the crime and recovered a blue sidecar which they brought back with them to their headquarters. belonging to the said Freddie Saavedra. After admitting that it was purchased from both the accused and upon failure to present any document evidencing the purported sale. along with Lito Amido. that Freddie was seen alive. Meanwhile. which reads as follows: ―That on or about the 5th day of December 1988. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.00) Philippine currency. armed with bladed and pointed weapons. were charged with the crime of highway robbery with murder before the Regional Trial Court. appellant allegedly gave an explicit account of what actually transpired in the case at bar. DW 9961 valued at THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30. tricycle driver Freddie Saavedra went to see his wife. to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforesaid amount. at Our Lady of Angels Academy in Atimonan. with intent to kill. Municipality of Atimonan.‖ On arraignment. which directly caused his death. by means of force. It was the last time. the Lucena PNP immediately dispatched a team to retrieve the same. Upon proof shown that it was indeed registered under Amido‘s name. they proceeded to the said place and found him sprawled on the ground with fourteen stab wounds in different parts of his body. on the other hand. Delfa. conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other. 1988 inquired on his whereabouts from relatives and friends. He narrated that he and coaccused Amido were responsible for the loss of the motorcycle and the consequent death of Saavedra. Amido sought him at his house and told him that the motorcycle he was riding on was being offered for sale. Philippines. of Gumaca. a certain Arnel Villarama revealed that the lifeless body of her husband was discovered on the diversion road at Barangay Malinao in Atimonan.

1994. and must be made in the presence and with the assistance of counsel. some seven kilometers from the town. busy assisting in the renovation of his mother‘s house. he was at Barangay Malusak. the trial court convicted appellant. however . be ―voluntary. the duty to explain those rights to the accused but also that there must correspondingly be a meaningful communication to and understanding thereof by the accused. ‗custodial investigation‘ shall include the practice of issuing an ‗invitation‘ to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed . in People v. the dispositive portion of which reads: ―WHEREFORE.00 as his commission. The rules on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect. it must. He allegedly received P150. In a decision dated April 21. Provincial Jail. is hereby ordered to release from custody the person of said Lito Amido. and (4) it must be in writing.‖ Republic Act No. without prejudice to the liability of the ‗inviting‘ officer for any violation of law.[10] it was ruled therein that any .[6] Furthermore. SO ORDERED. therefore.00). reenforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of persons under custodial investigation. he must be provided with one. thereafter. Javar. The latter. paragraphs (1) and (3) of the Constitution provides: ―x x x xxx xxx Sec. It is well-settled that the Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence against the confessant. Article III.‖[3] Appellant assails the finding of conviction despite failure of the prosecution to positively identify him as the culprit of the crime and to present clear and convincing circumstantial evidence that would overcome his innocence. the suspect is taken into custody.000. Amido presented alibi as his defense. knowing and intelligent.[8] While the Constitution sanctions the waiver of the right to counsel. a pertinent provision[5] of which reads: ―As used in this Act.‖ Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. Atimonan on the day in question. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. a confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary. as a requisite function of the investigating officer. he could not have participated in the gruesome death of the latter. this Court finds Herson Tan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Highway Robbery with Murder and hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA. 1992. unless he is being detained thereat for some other lawful cause. 12. Lito Amido is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges against him and the Provincial Warden of Quezon.‖ [9] To reiterate. In light of the above facts and circumstances. Due to insufficiency of evidence. He is further ordered to indemnify the family of the deceased in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30.Carandang. (3) it must be express. 7438 (R. and the police carries out a process of interrogations that tends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate. No. the appealed decision is set aside and appellant acquitted on the ground that his constitutional rights were violated. brought them to a certain Perlita Aguilar and Danilo Teves with whom the sale was finally consummated.[4] approved on May 15. A mere perfunctory reading by the constable of such rights to the accused would thus not suffice. He narrated that the victim was his friend and. not only does the fundamental law impose. [7] Under the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence.A. premised in the foregoing considerations. Section 12. He alleged that although a tricycle driver by occupation. 7438). xxx xxx xxx (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall b e inadmissible against him. (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. Lucena City. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

when you brought Herson Tan to the Headquarters. Costs de oficio. in whole or in part. the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Gumaca. . thus: ―Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Now. even if the same be initiated by mere invitation. There were two (2) cases which were investigated on Herson Tan. is that what happened in this case? Yes. sir. is it not? Yes.statement obtained in violation of the constitution. Appellant HERSON TAN y VERZO is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged and his immediate release from confinement is hereby ordered. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. sir. ―This Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative and prosecutory powers of government. WHEREFORE. so in addition to the Atimonan case. Santos on cross-examination. did you inform him of his constitutional right not to testify against himself because he is a suspect in these two (2) cases? No. And it just happened that without applying third degree to him he gave you that information? Yes. The records of this case do not indicate that appellant was assisted by counsel when he made such waiver. sir. regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. however. shall be inadmissible in evidence. Considering the circumstances attendant in the conduct of appellant‘s investigation which fell short of compliance with constitutional safeguards. it becomes inadmissible in evidence. Did you notify him of his constitutional right to counsel before you propounded questions to him? No. The constitutional rights of appellant. sir. And you happened to have Herson Tan in your list as suspect in both cases because Herson was previously incarcerated at Lucena City Jail in connection with a certain case. SO ORDERED. and he was also suspect to the robbery case which was investigated at Lucena Police Station. you invited him in your headquarters. Before propounding question or information you sought to elicit from him. particularly the right to remain silent and to counsel. because we are asking question only to him. of said crime. you also took Herson Tan to your custody in connection with another case that happened in Lucena? Yes. did you tell him that he is one of the suspects in the robbery slain (sic) that took place in Atimonan on December 5. Now. because we were just conversing. he allegedly admitted his participation in the crime. Just for curiosity sake. 1988? Yes. in view of the foregoing. a finding evident from the testimony of Lt.[11] (Underscoring supplied) The evidence for the prosecution shows that when appellant was invited for questioning at the police headquarters. unless there is any other lawful cause for continued detention. if it was made without the assistance of counsel.‖[12] What remains of the evidence for the prosecution is inadequate to warrant a conviction. are impregnable from the moment he is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed. Quezon (Branch 62) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. sir. we are constrained to acquit the appellant. This will not suffice to convict him. sir. Even if the confession contains a grain of truth. sir.

m. in the amount of P500. 1996 as draw date (Exh... Zamboanga del Sur where she was in Grade II. Ireneo Geoca sent his other daughter Girlie Geoca to look for the victim.00 as actual damages. Geoca. Geoca. another picture (Exh. Altamera was likewise informed by Lilia Bartido. namely. [4] Altamera and his party. Jave Tamac. good luck.a P1. Accused-appellant was accompanied by Federico Hermoso. five sweepstakes tickets bearing No. and two coins. father of the victim Glery P. and a Certification issued by Dr. Barangay Captain Sonny Boy Altamera organized a search team composed of barangay tanods and other civilians. G). Naciansino Hermoso. F). according to the witness. At about 9:30 a. a small picture (Exh. Province of Zamboanga del Sur. of that day as they passed by her house. E). was arraigned during which the information was read to him in the Cebuano dialect which he confirmed to have understood. D). five sweepstakes tickets. 1988.On their way to look for Glery. H). 1996 at about 9:30 o‘clock in the evening at Barangay Little Baguio. Card No. Atilano A. 2000] Per Curiam: For review is the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court. accused-appellant‘s SSS identification card. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 18046043.A. Ocampos (Exh. Glery P. alias ―Allan. Naciansino Hermoso and his group went to the house of Altamera bringing with them a man‘s wallet. J). vs. 130590.m. take care. God Bless You‖.‖ guilty of rape with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death with all the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to indemnify the heirs of the victim. a picture of accused-appellant‘s younger sister (Exh. the said Glery Geoca died as a re sult of personal violence inflicted upon her by the accused. RANILLO PONCE HERMOSO alias “ALLAN.000.[3] In response. about 10 meters away from the house. therefore. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. of June 2. When the victim failed to be home at 7:00 p. of June 3. his Community Tax Certificate No. the birth certificate of the victim Glery P. finding accused-appellant Ranillo Ponce Hermoso. unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one Glery Geoca. The prosecution also offered the following object and documentary evidence. Sonny Boy Altamera. proceeded to the house of accused-appellant where he met Federico Hermoso. Pagadian City. a photocopy of his SSS personal record. and Dr. Atilano A.R.00 coin and a P0. [G. He later found accused-appellant under a tree. Then the case was tried. I)‘ a picture of his younger brother named Benjie (Exh. pictures of accused-appellant‘s younger brother and sister. October 18.m. Geoca (Exh. A) of accused-appellant containing his personal identification. father of the accused-appellant. No. ―Act contrary to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.m. He then entered a plea of not guilty. Ocampos. N and its sub-markings) on the postmortem examination conducted on the victim.D.10 coin. to wit: the wallet (Exh. 1996.[6] Naciansino turned over the . Ernesto Pardillo. L) . became worried as his daughter had not come home from the Little Baguio Elementary School in Imelda. and his Community Tax Certificate No. accused-appellant was taken by Altamera to his house. 1996. accused-appellant. Joveniano Pansacala. Altamera informed the elder Hermoso that Glery was missing and that she was last seen with his son. Ireneo Geoca. 7659. the above-named accused by means of force and intimidation. The wallet contained. The prosecution evidence shows the following: At about 6:00 p. good health. a picture of Miss Limpac (Exh. Republic of the Philippines. and two coins (Exh. that she saw accused-appellant handing some candies to the victim at about 6:00 p. The amended information[2] against accused-appellant alleged ¾ ―That on June 2. did then and there wilfully. Branch 19. P750. seven (7) years of age. father of the victim. No. 18046043 (Exh. a minor.00 as exemplary damages. 0462677-7 (Exh. niece of Naciansino Hermoso. Chief of Hospital I of the Alicia District Hospital in Alicia. The prosecution presented six witnesses. with submarkings) showing her date of birth as September 12. such as Social Security System I. Altamera was allowed inside the house but he did not find accused-appellant. against the latter‘s will and on said occasion and by reason of the rape. Altamera and his party met Josephine Gonzales who told them that she saw the victim in the company of accused-appellant at about 5:30 p. Zamboanga del Sur.”accusedappellant. and some neighbors.[5] At about 12:30 a. K). Josephine Gonzales. Ireneo Geoca. which Naciansino said he found on a grassy area in Barangay Little Baguio. of that day. andP500. The two were walking toward the house of one Helen Dabasol.m. C).(8) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. among other things. with the consent of his family. plaintiff-appellee. a group pictur e (Exh. with a dedication at the back of the picture reading ―Love. 1996.m. 236458 with April 21.000. B). who owned a nearby store.‖ On September 11. Ireneo Geoca sought the help of the barangay officials and his neighbors. He was informed by the trial court of the names of the five prosecution witnesses and their respective addresses. Accused-appellant denied knowledge of the whereabouts of the missing girl.00 as moral damages. assisted by counsel. M. a photocopy of his SSS personal record (Exh. Municipality of Imelda.000.

Jr. Prosecutor Edilberto Absin appeared for the state in collaboration with private prosecutor Atty. but accused insisted on his desire to change his plea of Not Guilty to one of Guilty. he went to the extent of telling the accused that it is possible that the Court may render the penalty of death. the trial court denied accused-appellant‘s demurrer to evidence for lack of merit. Accused-appellant was thereafter turned over to the police. who conducted an autopsy on the body on June 3. Atty. When asked by the Court whether he has explained to the accused of the seriousness of the crime he is charged. the antecedent cause was rape and the underlying cause was asphyxia by strangulation. Manifested that the accused has intimated to him on his desire to change his plea of Not Guilty to one of GUILTY. Pablito Pielago. this Court hereby finds accused RANILO PONCE HERMOSO alias ―Allan‖ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE WITH HOMICIDE. Jr. temporofrontal area.‖[11] The defense then informed the court that it was not presenting any evidence. Marcial Empleo. extending to the zygomztic area. for which reason the case was considered submitted for decision. forearm right = Abrasion 1 centimeter diameter 5th finger. ―WHEREFORE. including the probability that he would be sentenced to death should he be found guilty. accused-appellant filed a demurrer to which the prosecution filed a reply. On March 17. with such desire of the accused to change his plea from Not Guilty to one of Guilty. 1997. In fact. with all the accessory penalties prescribed . of that day. ―SO ORDERED.[10] After the prosecution had offered its testimonial and documentary evidence. Pablito Pielago.. Pablito Pielago. The victim sustained contusions and multiple hematoma and was thereafter choked to death. He opined that the hymenal laceration could have been caused by pressure or trauma such as sexual intercourse. but he still insisted on his desire to admit his guilt. neck = Circular hematoma 2x3 in diameter. and sentences him to the ultimate penalty of DEATH. appeared as counsel de oficio for the accused. Jr. which is about 200 meters away from where the wallet was discovered.. A team led by Joveniano Pansacala found the body of the victim at about 1:00 a. ―With such manifestation of Atty. entroitus. 1996. upon instructions of the mayor. informed the trial court that he had prepared for trial but accused-appellant insisted on changing his plea even after being told of the consequences of pleading guilty to the charge. In the meantime. linear abrasions multiple. let him be arraigned anew. level of the 10th posterior rib = Linear abrasion 6 inches in length running oblique lumbo-sacral area. the public prosecutor and the private prosecutor. according to Atty.wallet and its contents to Barangay Captain Altamera. Dr. hematoma 8 inches in length.‖ Defense counsel Atty.[7] Per her Certificate of Death. laceration vaginal canal right‖[9] Dr. Atty. Pablito Pielago. multiple abrasions of buccal mucosa upper and lower lips = Multiple abrasions 1x1 in diameter. accused-appellant admitted raping and killing Glery P. the dispositive portion of which reads: ―WHEREFORE. the defense manifested in open court that accused-appellant was changing his plea from ―not guilty‖ to ―guilty. abrasions inner canthi. which he confirmed to have known and understood. Geoca and pointed out the place where the body of the victim could be found. left = Linear abrasion 1 inch postero-lateral. lateral arm left. 1997. bilateral. right = Hematoma 1x 1 in diameter middle anterior shin. The body showed signs that Glery had been subjected to violence and raped.[8] the cause of Glery P. semi-circular. bilateral. On June 10. average. while Atty. Jr. in the presence of his counsel. Upon seeing his wallet. the trial court rendered its decision. 1 inch in width. Accordingly. found the following: ―= Multiple punctuate hematoma temporal right. the trial court issued an order on the same day stating: ―When the above-entitled case was called for continuation of trial for the purpose of presenting evidence of accused Ranillo Ponce Hermoso alias Allan. Ocampos testified that the body was in a state of rigor mortis when he examined it. and in open court. Geoca‘s death was card io-respiratory failure. Atilano A. Pielago. the Court called on the accused and asked him through the interpreter in Cebuano d ialect. Pielago. left. Ocampos. confirmed to the Court that he has explained in detail to the accused on the seriousness of the charge he is facing. 1997. posterior =Massive hematoma 4 inches in diameter level of the 10th thoracic vertebrae =Hematoma labia minora right upper quadrant = Laceration. face left.m. mammary glands = Massive hematoma 3x3 in diameter. circular. the body of the victim was examined.. ruptured hymen = Hematoma cervix left. dorsum = Multiple abrasion lateral and medial aspect upper extending right = Hematoma massive vulva and mons pubis = Hematoma moderate 2 in number anterior thigh. On January 9. on his desire to change his plea of Not Guilty to one of Guilty. In open court. accused voluntarily admitted his guilt of the charge filed against him in this case.

and Ireneo Geoca are hearsay evidence and do not prove his guilt. Dr.The trial judge must erase such mistaken impressions.‖[12] Pursuant to Rule 122. educational attainment and socio-economic status of the accused may reveal insights for a . making accused-appellant‘s plea of guilt of record.00 as moral damages and P500. To be sure. Bello. For more often than not. He argues that his confession is inadmissible in evidence because it was given without counsel while he was under custodial investigation by Barangay Captain Sonny Boy Altamera. when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. 1997. Accused-appellant alleges that Naciansino sought revenge towards accused-appellant‘s father by testifying against accused-appellant. There was no affidavit presented nor statement made in court to show why accused-appellant changed his plea from ―Not guilty‖ to ―guilty. based on the evidence of the prosecution. and (2) whether the accused understood fully the consequences of his plea. the Court arraigned him anew by reading the Information in Cebuano dialect. 429 (1996)). Atilano A.000. This is contrary to Rule 116.. [13] To constitute a searching inquiry. an accused pleads guilty upon bad advice or because he hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter penalty. 1999) He must be completely convinced that the guilty plea made by the accused was not made under duress or promise of reward. ―SO ORDERED. making him re-enact it. in view of the foregoing. the accused is truly guilty by requiring the accused to narrate the events leading to the crime.by law.‖[17] In the case of People vs. P750. Accused-appellant also denies the testimony of Naciansino Hermoso who claimed to have found the wallet belonging to accused-appellant while looking for Glery P. since the age.[18] we explained the importance of the trial court conducting a searching inquiry. October 13. [16] and the order. section 3 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure which makes it the duty of the court. Accused-appellant claims that Naciansino had a grudge against accused-appellant‘s father because the latter had been occupying and cultivating the agricultural land of their parents to the exclusion of Naciansino. Accused-appellant alleges that the testimonies of Joveniano Pansacala. changing in effect his original plea of Not Guilty. a perusal of the records show that the trial court accepted accused-appellant‘s plea of guilty to a capital offense without making a searching inquiry to determine whether he understood the consequences of his plea.‖The records merely contain an order. This last order states: ―Accused Ranillo Ponce Hermoso alias Allan having manifested in court duly assisted by his counsel to change his plea of Not Guilty to one of Guilty. 1997. a mere warning that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is insufficient. The judge must ask the accused the manner the latter was arrested or detained. and whether he was assisted by counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations. and (3) ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. he contends that while Josephine Gonzales said she saw the victim and accused-appellant and other children pass by her house as they went towards the house of her neighbor Helen Rabasol. dated March 17. the questioning must focus on (1) the voluntariness of the plea. [15] allowing accused-appellant to be arraigned anew. and the Court hav ing been satisfied on the voluntariness of the change of plea of Guilty from one of Not Guilty by accused Ranillo Ponce Hermoso. the Certificate of Arraignment. thus: ―The warnings given by the trial court in this case fall short of the requirement that it must make a searching inquiry to de termine whether accused-appellant understood fully the import of his guilty plea.[14] The judge must be convinced that in pleading guilty. ―No pronouncement as to costs. ―SO ORDERED. Jr. 1997. Pablito Pielago. Geoca.000. Naciansino Hermoso and accused-appellant‘s father are brothers. and in open court.Reiterating the grounds for his demurrer to the evidence. G. These contentions are without merit. Accused-appellant maintains that. duly assisted by Atty. dated March 17. the case was elevated to this Court for automatic review in view of the imposition of the death penalty on accused-appellant. As has been said. likewise dated March 17.R. (People v. Nadera. section 10 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Furthermore. his guilt has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt.00 as exemplary damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Accused-appellant avers that the wallet does not constitute direct evidence to link him to the crime. 326 Phil. the defense counsel should also be asked whether he conferred with the accused and completely explained to him the meaning and the consequences of a plea of guilt. Nos. 130411-14. consider the above-entitled case as deemed submitted for decision.00 as actual damages. Ocampos. his counsel de oficio. accused entered the plea of Guilty. to undertake the following: (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused‘s comprehensio n of the consequences thereof. ―WHEREFORE. (2) require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability. and orders him to pay the heirs of Glery Geoca the sum of P500. In addition. Estomaca. (People v. there was no testimony showing that he was the perpetrator of the crime. the records show that the trial court did not observe these safeguards to ensure that the plea of guilty is not improvidently made. or asking him to supply missing details.000. In the present case.

―(2) No torture. the evidence necessarily must be circumstantial. Independently of his plea. there is sufficient evidence showing that accused-appellant indeed committed the crime with which is charged. In the absence of eyewitnesses to the crime. of June 3. Geoca by Josephine Gonzales and Lilia Bartido between 5:30 to 6:00 p. We held that constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous . violence. paragraph (1). (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if (a) there is more than one circumstance. It had begun to focus on the guilt of accused-appellant so much so that he was no longer allowed to leave. It will be recalled that accused-appellant had been pointed to by Josephine Gonzales and Lilia Bartido as the person Glery P. Geoca was with shortly before the latter disappeared. the barangay captain and his men looked for him in his house and. absent any showing that these questions were put to accused-appellant.[21] In this case. Secret detention places. Atilano A. Article III. Ocampos at 6:30 p. a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been undertaken by the trial court. as a result of which accused-appellant dropped his wallet. facts and circumstances consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence constitute evidence which. The investigation had thus ceased to be a general exploratory investigation of an unsolved crime. First. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. preferably of his own choice. that his confession before Barangay Captain Altamera is inadmissible. section 4 of the Rules on Evidence. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. in weight and probative force. supra)In this case.‖ The question in this case is whether the confession given to the barangay captain was made while accused-appellant was under custodial interrogation. When they finally found him. At that point. Accordingly.proper verdict in the case. The grass in the place where the accused-appellant‘s wallet was found had been trampled upon ―as if there was a fight of pigs (maora ug gibugno-an ug baboy). he must be provided with one.m. there is circumstantial evidence pointing to accused-appellant as the author of the crime of rape with homicide. although accused-appellant‘s plea of guilty was improvidently made. A wallet belonging to accused-appellant and containing the latter‘s identification cards and other personal effects was found near the scene of the crime. Accused-appellant confessed to Barangay Captain Sonny Boy Altamera that he had raped and killed the victim. Accused-appellant contends. The body of the victim was found at about 1:00 a. 1996 showed hematoma and abrasions on different parts of the victim‘s body indicating that she had been strangled and lacerations on her hymen indicat ing that she had been sexually abused. there is no need to remand the case to the lower court for the reception of evidence in view of the fact that there exists other evidence on which accused-appellant‘s conviction may be based. Estomaca. however. (People v. 1996 at the exact location pointed by accused-appellant. and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 4.m. took him to the barangay captain‘s house where they continued questioning him. In such a case. they interrogated him in his house and. a case of rape with homicide poses difficulty of proving by direct evidence the culpability of the accused because the victim can no longer testify. ―(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. The postmortem examination conducted by Dr. solitary. 3. This case therefore comes within the purview of Article III. 2. of June 3. There.[22] the confession of the accused which he gave to the municipal mayor was held to be admissible in evidence because it was shown that the mayor was a confidant of the accused and he did not act as a law enforcement officer when he heard the confession of the accused. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. incommunicado. when they did not find him there. section 12.‖ suggesting that a struggle took place between the accused -appellant and the victim. intimidation or any other means which vitiate th e free will shall be used against him.[19] Under Rule 133. force. Accused-appellant was seen with the victim Glery P. to wit: 1. In People vs. may surpass even direct evidence in its effect upon the court. threat. accused-appellant broke down and confessed to the crime. 5. 1996. of June 2. failing to get anything from him. the trial court must ask questions concerning them. Andan. It is distinguishable from cases in which we found the confession to have been given under circumstances not constituting custodial interrogation. section 12 of the Constitution provides: ―(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to rema in silent and to have competent and independent counsel.m. they continued their search until they found him under a tree. Second. Naciansino produced a man‘s wallet containing the personal effe cts of accused-appellant.‖ However. [20] As has been said.

amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code. the award of P500. The case at bar is a far cry from these cases. we ruled that the confession made by the accused was admissible because the inquiry had not yet reached a stage wherein the police considered the accused as a particular suspect. immediately when Altamera was presented as a witness for the prosecution or when specific questions concerning the confession were asked.000. a homicide is committed.[25] Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive. that his tour of duty was from 7:00 p. section 12. He in fact was even the one who informed the search team of the exact location where the body of the victim could be found.000. 7659. unless some circumstances of weight and substance.00 as exemplary damages. particularly Barangay Captain Altamera and his men. No. the father of accused-appellant was the ―kumpadre‖ of Altamera. there being no aggravating circumstances which attended the commission of the crime. but when told that someone saw him shoot the victim. upon finality of this decision. was charged with murder. the penalty shall be death. Then a police investigator asked him point-blank why he shot the victim.m. the Court is constrained to apply the same regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the crime in accordance with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.[29] the indemnity for the death of the victim Glery P. In another case. let the records of this case be forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of pardoning power. Upon the request of the policemen to see the firearm.00 as actual damages. Marra. paragraphs (1) and (3) of the Constitution.00. People vs. At first the accused denied the accusation. although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions in People vs.000. The police were just looking into a number of possibilities. as amended by R. The revolver had five bullets and one spent shell.00. alias ―Allan.000. of the preceding day to 6:00 a. SO ORDERED. On the other hand. Pagadian City finding accused-appellant Ranillo Ponce Hermoso. proceeded to the scene of the crime together with three other officers. A policeman. Echegaray[28] that R.000. the decision of the Regional Trial Court. [27] Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. is unconstitutional. of March 7. having been merely informed that the suspect was wearing what could be a security guard‘s uniform.A. accused-appellant is deemed to have waived his right to object to the inadmissibility of Altamera‘s testimony. have been ignored or misunderstood. 7659. As the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witness on the stand.[23] the accused. he was in a vantage position to assess his demeanor and determine whether or not he was telling the truth. nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed. section 36. . he told the policemen that he was the security guard pointed to by a witness.000.statement not elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admit having committed the crime. In that case. he admitted having done so although he claimed he had acted in self-defense. that he was on duty at around 2:30 a. [24] Third. No. Finally. The policemen smelled gunpowder from the barrel of the gun.00 as moral damages must be reduced to P50.m. it appears that the defense failed to object. when by reason or on the occasion of the rape of a woman under 12 years of age. and P500. In fact.A. Geoca should be P100. Being a single indivisible penalty an the only penalty prescribed by law for the crime of rape with homicide. he answered in the affirmative.000.000. Geoca in the amount of P100. When they asked whether he was the security guard of the restaurant. and that the firearm issued to him was in his house. he took them to his house and showed them a . who received a report of a shooting incident. the trial court awarded the heirs of the victim P500. No. However.A.00 as moral damages.[31] WHEREFORE. The purpose of the award is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for the injuries to their feelings. It is not necessary that an eyewitness should testify on having seen the accused committing the crime or seeing him under circumstances indicating that he committed the crime in order to hold the accused liable under his own confession. Having failed to do so. which could change the result of the case. of the following day.m. After answering several questions. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. In accordance with our current rulings. As accused-appellant‘s confession was made without the assistance of counsel. They asked accused when he last fired the gun but the latter denied he ever did so.38 caliber revolver which he took from inside an aparador. It is noteworthy that accused-appellant‘s confession is corroborated by the corpus delicti.‖ guilty of rape with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim Glery P. They found the accused in a restaurant. 7659. These awards are excessive.00 as civil indemnity and P50. With respect to the civil liability of accused-appellant. their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. as required by Rule 132. insofar as it prescribed the penalty of death. Branch 19.00 as moral damages. the award of P750.[26] The trial judge‘s evaluation of the testimony of witnesses is generally accorded not only the highest degree of respect but also finality.000. had any ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant. also in line with recent cases. 1992 when the victim was shot.[30] Moral damages are awarded to the heirs of the victim in a criminal proceeding by reason of the death of the victim as a consequence of the rape without the need for pleading or proving the basis thereof. P750. provides that. Nor was it shown that the prosecution witnesses.00 for exemplary damages must be disallowed. a security guard of the ―Linda‘s Ihaw-Ihaw‖ restaurant. In accordance with Section 25 of R. Four (4) Members of the Court. we hold that it is inadmissible in evidence under Article III.

vs. 11. Rolando Aguilar and Orlando Ortega) were brought to Assistant Fiscal Eduardo Manalaysay where they swore to the truthfulness of their confessions (Exhibits 1. tsn. Patrolman Leopoldo Simangan conducted the investigation of the five accused. K and L. On December 23. 1983). 1990] PADILLA. as part of his assignment to monitor the drug pushing activities of the bystanders in the said area (pp. p. 1 guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 11. the police investigators conducted a reenactment of the crime at the place of the incident (pp-20-21. Ibid). RAFAEL ZARAGOSA y DE LA CRUZ and EDUARDO PALENCIA y GALLO. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Dr. 6. Ibid).(9) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. but nonetheless all the accused willingly participated in the re-enactment (p. plaintiff-appellee. Sept. Rivera which is located at the Women's Club Street. 13. Pictures of the re-enactment then were taken (Exhibits N to N24. Ibid).11-12. ORLANDO ORTEGA y MALINIA. 15. 6. 8-9. pp. finding them and their co-accused Henry Jungco y Santiago. No. he informed again the accused of their constitutional rights. Ibid). 1983. 24. Sept. Cruz and a People's Journal Reporter Bernie Razon and hundreds of other people surrounding the vicinity (p. At that time all the accused were at the store drinking beer near the drugstore owned by Dr. L. Daniel B. tsn. pp. and P50. J. After their statements were taken down they (Rafael Zaragosa. J. he was standing in front of the drugstore of Dr. Henry Jungco. while the four accused were inside the drugstore (p. K and L.00 as actual damages. they (Pat. Sept. 6. Malabon. HENRY JUNGCO y SANTIAGO. by way of lost earnings. Ibid).000. tsn. Orlando Ortega y Malinia. Rivera (p. after the accused were duly apprised of their constitutional rights by Pat. except Henry Jungco who invoked his right to remain silent (p. Ibid). J. Dante Buenaventura and members of the Anti-Organized Task Force) proceeded to arrest Henry Jungco and Orlando Ortega in their residence at Tambak. 1983). pp. Metro Manila conducting a surveillance on the group of accused Rafael Zaragoza.: This is an appeal interposed by the accused Rafael Zaragosa y De la Cruz and Eduardo Palencia y Gallo from the judgment * rendered in Criminal Case No. 1981. Ibid). Dante Buenaventura who arrived at the scene together with Patrolman Leopoldo Simangan (p. jointly and severally. Eduardo Palencia and Orlando . and ROLANDO AGUILAR y SOMBRA. At the Malabon Police Station. record). Rivera (p. the accused finished their beer and then proceeded to the drugstore of Dr. 14. pp. p. Present at time were the Mayor of Malabon Maynardo Espiritu. at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Ibid). 35. 1983). tsn. are as follows: On December 20. P30. Orlando Ortega. they executed and signed their respective sworn statements (Exhibits I. 8-17. Eduardo Palencia. and Rolando Aguilar y Sombra. Regalado. Rolando Aguilar and Eduardo Palencia.R. In said investigation. 6. Aug. He hurriedly went to the scene and found the dead body of Dr. records. according to the Solicitor General. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. and to pay the costs. Ibid. tsn. defendants. tsn. The incriminatory facts of the case. Thereupon. Malabon. Ibid). 6-7. Later. 12-19. Lutgarda Rivera. EDUARDO PALENCIA y GALLO. Sgt.Ibid). 6. pp. Ortega and Palencia admitted having stabbed the victim several times on the body with the use of an icepick and having ransacked the cash register of the drugstore and that they thereafter fled away (Exhibits I. he asked the sidewalk vendors that gathered around the drugstore if they have seen persons that came out from the store of Dr. 23.000. On the other hand. Ibid). When they reached the drugstore.00. Ibid). tsn. Before Regalado started the re-enactment. as death indemnity. tsn. in the amounts of P30.00. One of the sidewalk vendors said that he saw five male persons hurriedly left the drugstore of the deceased (p. Rivera prostrate on the floor (ibid). with the accessory penalties provided for by law. 1219. tsn. Rolando Aguilar was left in front of the drugstore standing. As depicted in the pictures of the re-enactment. 7-9. Patrolman Eddie Regalado of the Northern Police District was in Women's Club Street. 17280 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. Henry Jungco. tsn. accused Rafael Zaragosa and Eduardo Palencia were apprehended inside Hulo Market. accused Henry Jungco. Lutgarda Rivera (pp. at around 4:35 o'clock in the afternoon. 11. 21. [G. Malabon (pp. Immediately. 23. 1983). In a short while a person came to him (Regalado) and told him that there was a killing committed in the drugstore of Dr. Ibid).000. 11. Aug. One of them was holding a wrapped newspaper more or less twelve (12) inches long and one (1) inch in diameter (p. Regalado then left the place and went to the nearby police outpost to take a rest (p. Deputy Station Commander Julio Duenas. 13. Ibid. 8-10. Patrolman Eddie Regalado then relayed the information he gathered from the sidewalk vendor to Sgt. 12. Sept. while Rolando Aguilar was arrested the following day by members of the other elements of the Malabon Police Force (pp. RAFAEL ZARAGOZA y DE IA CRUZ. Lt. 7. Navotas. Station Commander Alfredo Cruz. Rivera (p. All the while that Regalado was watching the accused. Simangan. 1981. tsn. 6-9. defendantsappellants. Ibid). 1983). 78531 June 22. 22-30. tsn. 9. 17. tsn.

pp. he and Zaragoza were picked up by the police. Ibid). tsn. the son of the deceased. tsn. 6 Then. Ibid). Rivera. declared that he arrived at the Hulo Market at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 20 December 1981. many bottles of medicines and boxes were scattered on the floor. He latter complained to the National Police Commission. 26. The victim. According to his findings. he was brought to a salt bed ("asinan") at Tonsuya where he was maltreated by the policemen and made to affix his thumbprint on a document the contents of which he did not know.00 for the funeral expenses. Then. through Pat. After going over the record of the case. that they spent P5. 2 The appellants denied having committed the crime charged. Eduardo Palencia. Dr. drinking until about 10:00 o'clock of the same morning. He explained that he made such statement because he was given money by Atty. After about thirty (30) minutes.000-00 for the wake and P10. 3 but he does not know what happened to his complaint. 26. 26-27. he noticed that the shelves were forced opened. 30. In the course of the argument. that upon reaching the place.000. Then Jungco and Ortega pulled down the body of the victim (Exh.20. that inside the drugstore. According to the appellant Rafael Zaragoza. therefore. Ibid).000. Counsel further asserts that the pictures of the re-enactment were taken in a manner contrary to law and are. however.Ortega Went to the drugstore of the victim Dr. Atty. Sept. Ibid). performed the post mortem examination on the cadaver of Dr. and intimidation. He was brought inside a bodega in Niugan. Seeing what happened. 6-7. inadmissible.00. 13-16. N-14 to N-17. Lutgarda Rivera (Exhibit E. N-23. Jungco grabbed the icepick and dagger from the hands of Palencia and Ortega and without any hesitation stabbed the victim three times with the use of an icepick (Exhs. he was in the Hulo Market in Malabon on 20 December 1981. and spent his time playing the jukebox. p. that he saw the dead body of his mother covered with a white blanket being carried by persons working with the International Funeral Homes. He admitted that he had also executed a statement 4 wherein he stated that he was not maltreated by the policemen. on the following day. tsn. we are convinced that the extra-judicial confessions in question are inadmissible in evidence. and stayed thereat with his co-accused. that his mother was earning Pl. that their drugstore had an average net income of P300.000. 9 Counsel for the appellants. threats. Alberto M. p. Palencia then entered the store and likewise stabbed the victim with an icepick (Exh. that the wounds on the aorta and upper and lower lobes of the left lung were fatal. Rivera. According to appellant Zaragosa. tsn. July 12. 1983). contends that the said extra-judicial confessions are inadmissible in evidence because they were extracted from the appellants during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel and after the appellants had been subjected to different forms of maltreatment. while the others went to Cubao. 13.Ibid). He was also laid on a wooden bed with his head hanging and his feet tied to the bed an distilled water (for dry batteries) was poured over his mouth. He arrived at the said market at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of the said day after selling fish. particularly. Malabon. N-1 2. 5 The appellant. A heated argument then ensued between Ortega and the victim (pp. the victim sustained eleven (11) stabbed wounds caused by a sharp pointed instrument such as an icepick. 5-13. On December 21. they went back to the market place where they read "komiks" at a store in the corner of said market until 3:30 o'clock when they parted. N-19. when . policemen came and arrested him in connection with the death of Dr. Navotas. 28. while Palencia proceeded to ransack the cash register of the victim and take the money found therein (Exh. p. p. Ibid). for his part. where he was maltreated and made to sign a document the contents of which he did not know. 1981. Quezon City.00 a day (pp. 21 December 1981. Malabon. We went home to Tanza. 13. the son of the victim. that the wounds sustained at the anterior chest wall of the victim indicate that the assailant was in front of the victim when the said wounds were inflicted on her body (pp. N-13.00 per month as a professor in the College of Medicine of the University of Santo Tomas. Gungon. until 2:30 o'clock of the same afternoon when he went to the Chinese restaurant at the back of the factory of Rufina Patis and drank beer with his co-accused. that immediately he went hurriedly to their drugstore together with his father. Ibid). the trial court relied principally upon the extrajudicial confessions executed by them on 21 December 1981. NBI Supervising Medico-Legal Officer. Lutgarda Rivera to buy cough syrup (Exhibit N. while he was inside the said market eating "mami". Ibid). refused to sell them Ornacol cough syrup (p. tsn. he saw hundreds of people around the door of the drugstore. testified that before 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon of December 20. tsn. p. the son of the owner of the adjoining establishment adjacent to the drugstore of her mother came to their house and informed him that something bad happened to his mother. 29. in the morning of the following day. Reyes. 1981. in this appeal. He also complained but he does not know what happened to his complaint. 7 In finding the appellants guilty of the crime with which they were charged. 8 and the pictures taken during the re-enactment of the crime. 1983). when he went home to Tangos. Ortega pulled out an improvised dagger and stabbed the victim hitting her on the body (Exh. that the store lost cash money in the sum of P2. Roberto Rivera. 27. Ibid). the same having been executed by the appellants during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel.

T: Sabihin mo sa akin ngayon kung tutoo ngang kasama ka sa pagnanakaw at pagpatay. Ang ginawa namin ay nagpunta kami sa palengke. the acceptance by co-accused Henry Jungco. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. tapos naisipan naming balikan si doktora. a relative. Ang dating may dala ng ice pick noong nasa may botika na kami ay Eding Hula. Orlando Ortega and Rolando Aguilar of their sentence proves. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means--by telephone if possibleor by letter or messenger. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. therefore. are inadmissible in evidence since the re-enactment was based upon the defendants' inadmissible extra-judicial confessions. Rivera. as follows: 23. 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. and that any statement he might make could be used against him. Gungon. We also find that the pictures taken during the re-enactment of the crime. SO ORDERED. Tapos. S: Iyon nga po ang pagkakamali ko dahil nasa labas lang po ako ng botika. Rivera. during the trial. Zaragosa's admission is further supported by the testimonies of the appellant Eduardo Palencia and co-accused Orlando Ortega. with proportionate costs. were the culprits and are guilty therefor. that he was paid for it by Atty. 15 While admittedly no prosecution witness testified to have actually seen the appellants and their co-accused in the act or robbing the drug store and killing the owner thereof. Lutgarda Rivera. at about the time the crime was committed. Naghati-hati na kami. Rivera and Pat. he saw the dead body of his mother and that the shelves of the drug store were forcibly opened and bottles and boxes containing medicine scattered on the floor. in the case of Morales vs. He claims. and which We reiterate: 7. in a sworn statement executed on 14 July 1982. Zaragosa's admission is supported by the physical facts of the case and the testimonies of Pat. 12 the appellant Rafael Zaragoza admitted that he and his co-accused were responsible for the robbery and the death of Dr. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. nahuli na kaming lahat. sa may harapan ng botika ni Dra. Lutgarda Rivera and later leave the place hurriedly. Gungon. . May dalang kutsilyo si Lando. tapos nagbigay ako ng katorse pesos kay LANDO pambili ng Corex D. magka kasama po kami nina Butch (referring to HENRY JUNGCO). T: Ano ang inamin mo? S: Inamin ko na kasama ako sa pagnanakaw at pagpatay kay Dra. and of Atty. at Eding Hula (referring to Eduardo Palencia). akot at si Labo. si Butch naman po ay ice pick ang dala. the circumstantial evidence is consistent with each other. shall be inadmissible in evidence. 24. Ako ppo ay nagbantay nalang sa labas. Rafael Zaragosa. His sworn statement reads. the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. tapos. 14 The trial court. in part. or by any person on his behalf. and no other. Ponce Enrile. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. The prevailing rule is still that laid down in People vs. and Rolando Aguilar that they were together in the afternoon of 20 December 1981. Rivera.the confessants manifested the waiver of their right to counsel. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. dumating na si Lando at may dala siyang dalawang boteng siento bente bawat isa nang Corex. such that the appellants and their co-accused. the son of the victim. T: Isalaysay mo nga sa akin ang tunay na pangyayari? S: Ganito po iyon. Hindi na ako sumunod sa kanila sa palengke. This Court. umalis na rin ako. At the time a person is arrested. Nang lumabas na iyong tatlo na tumatakbo. 13 but this was denied by Atty. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. not only their guilt but also that of their companions. laid down the correct procedure for peace officers to follow when making an arrest and in conducting a custodial investigation. Pictures re-enacting a crime which are based on an inadmissible confession are themselves inadmissible. si Lando (Referring to Orlando Ortega). Hindi pumasok sa loob. did not commit an error in finding the appellants guilty of the crime with which they were charged. however. Besides. si Lando na po ang bahala doon sa kulang. 11 However. Tapos nga noon. in whole or in part. the herein appellants Rafael Zaragosa and Eduardo Palencia. dalawa kami. Eddie Regalado that he saw the appellants and their co-accused enter the drug store of Dr. pero nakita kong kinuha iyon ni Butch bago sila pumasok sa loob ng botika. 16 WHEREFORE. if any. nagkuwentuhan kami sa palengke. si Labo (referring to Rolando Aguilar). Galit 10 as follows: 10. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. Roberto Rivera that upon his arrival at the drug store. 25. who gave him the money through Pat. Bumibili po kami ng Corex D pero ayaw kaming pagbilhan. confirmed his execution of the said sworn statement. Naghanap siya ng mabilhan. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished.

The same reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx The undersigned First Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses ANACLETO Q. Acquitted. on May 28.(10) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. (hack) and stab wounds which caused his instantaneous death. Romulo Villarojo. personally signed by them with the assistance of counsel. 1976 charging all four accused with the murder of Discredit Bagon. abolishing the death penalty and commuting death penalties already imposed to reclusion perpetua 4 we.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court to Zamboanga Del Norte sitting in Dipolog City. 7 xxx xxx xxx The four accused entered Identical "not guilty" pleas. vs. with intent to kill by means of treachery and evident premeditation. Leonardo Cademas. as principals by direct participation. direct or indirect. CONTRARY TO LAW. No mitigating circumstance has been shown to offset the two (2) aggravating circumstances. But said offense was attended by the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and nighttime.R. and for a consideration of a price or reward. assault. ACQUITTED. The three (3) accused conspired and confederated with one another to successfully achieve their ghastly. with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation and the generic aggravating circumstances of superior strength. Treachery and evident premeditation are qualifying circumstances in this case of MURDER. In compliance with our resolution. filed a statement informing us that they desire to continue with this case as an appealed case. 1The case was certified to this Court on January 19. 2 we exercised exclusive appellate jurisdiction. the three accused-appellants. on May 14. the dispositive portion whereof reads as follows: FOREGOING CONSIDERED. Zamboanga del Norte. LEONARDO CADEMAS and DOMINADOR SORELA to execute the conspiracy and who. hack and stab one DISCREDIT BAGON. consprising and confederating with one another and acting upon the direction and instruction of ANACLETO Q. was acquitted). nighttime and in consideration of a price or reward. 3 With the promulgation of the 1987 Charter. thereby inflicting upon him multiple inc. [G. 6 This appeal stemmed from an information dated November 11.accused-appellants. 1987. OLVIS who mastermind the bizarre plot and directly induced ROMULO VILLAROJO. the Court hereby renders . as principal by inducement. of the crime of murder.. After trial. and Dominador Sorela (the accused first-named. as he hereby is. stating whether or not they wished to continue with the case as an appealed case. LEONARDO CADEMAS. unlawfully and feloniously attack. No. and on the part of accused ANACLETO Q. ROMULO VILLAROJO. 5 We have since observed this procedure with respect to all pending capital cases. certainty establishing their authorship of the crime is irreversibly positive. OLVIS. then and there willfully. there being no evidence. under the Constitution then in force. 71092 September 30. LEONARDO CADEMAS and DOMINADOR SORELA. 1987] SARMIENTO. whether testimonial. and DOMINADOR SORELA. the court a quo rendered the decision under appeal. did. 1985 following the death sentences imposed on each of the three accused-appellants. On the part of the three (3) remaining accused ROMULO VILLAROJO. ROMULO VILLAROJO. issued a death penalty abolition resolution requiring the three accused-appellants to file a statement. armed with boloes and a hunting knife. evil ends. the degree of moral. that tend to establish his complicity in this case. LEONARDO CADEMAS and DOMINADOR SORELA. OLVIS. OLVIS. SR. in title Municipality of Polanco. 1987. over which. documentary or physical evidence. plaintiff-appellee. said accused has to be. committed as follows: That in the evening on or about the 7th day of September 1975. within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. J. Their guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. the above-named accused. ANACLETO Q. as a consequence of which. Anacleto Olvis.

Apparently unconvinced. There. Exhibit "X". Captain Encabo's men chanced upon an unnamed volunteer. September 10. 1975. hacking him at several parts of the body until he. Again the proceedings were recorded by the camera of a photographer. to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH. to report their brother. 1975. but her efforts were in vain. Encabo then instructed one of his patrolmen to pick up Sorela. the police of Polanco knew that they had a murder case in their hands. It was then that Villarojo allegedly attacked Bagon with a bolo. morbidly. "M". They were met by Romulo Villarojo and Leonardo Cademas. Patrolman Dionisio Capito directed Sorela to lead them to the grounds where Discredit Bagon was supposed to have been buried. Sorela fled. the team headed off to Sitio Sebaca to question possible witnesses. its "L".judgment sentencing the accused ROMULO VILLAROJO. Catalina Bagon. Moments later. in Zamboanga del Norte. The body was transported to the Polanco municipal hand the following day.) But it was only later on that the body itself was uncovered from the sack that had concealed it. running into thick cogon grasses where he suffered facial and bodily scratches. "K". SO ORDERED. (Exhibits "I". Bagon had been in fact missing since two days before. Deosdedit Bagon. another photograph. and. on his way home to Sitio Sebaca where they resided. . Alfredo and Estrella Bagon. It does not appear from the records how the three were able to have the deceased join them. in the evening of September 7.) Thereupon. The "ceremonies" continued in the parish church of the Polanco. and "N"). 1975. The station commander. Sorela's co-accused herein and likewise friends of the deceased. The exhumation. Sorela bore several scratches on his face. "VIP. received their report. She did three probable places. Captain Encabo had Sorela take them to the ricefield where he sustained his injuries. apparently after having done the victim in. one of the accused herein. who informed them that Deosdedit Bagon was last seen together with Dominador Sorela. Captain Ruperto Encabo. a friend of his. the suspects. It was laid on the altar. in what would apparently crack the case for the police. (Exhibits "T". brother and sister. numbering about thirty. six of which were determined to be fatal. admitted having participated in the killing of the missing Bagon. "J". Sorela allegedly confessed having been with Deosdedit Bagon. On September 9. decomposing cadaver of Bagon lay in a shallow grave. According to him. portrays Villarojo in the act of concealing the murder weapon behind a banana tree. 1976 in Sitio Sebaca after some marketing. The actual exhumation of the body of the victim was witnessed by Polanco policemen and Civilian Home Defense Forces volunteers. shows the appellant Villarojo in the posture of raising a bolo as if to strike another. while Solero and Cademas look on. Sorela illegally broke down. in full public view. (Exhibits "R"." a photograph. "S". But it was Villarojo who escorted them to a watery spot somewhere in the ricefields. The necropsy report prepared by the provincial health officer disclosed that the deceased suffered twelve stab and hack wounds. widow of the deceased. LEONARDO CADEMAS. where the sack-covered. was dead. Exhibit "Y. as well as the transfer of Bagon's cadaver. In the re-enactment. who led them to a secluded place in the ricefields. By then. It was displayed. Together with Sorela. 8 We come to the facts. But half way there. the three accused herein. they were turned over to the custody of Captain Encabo. demonstrated how the victim was boloed to death. The police soon picked up Villarojo and Cademas. It was Captain Encabo himself who led a search party to mount an inquiry. neck and arms when the police found him. The police thereafter made the three re-enact the crime. "U". As a matter of police procedure. and DOMINADOR SORELA. He was last seen by his wife in the afternoon of September 7. arrived at the local Integrated National Police station of Barrio Polanco. in front of the building where Mrs. and her four children viewed it. where the body of the victim was transferred. he sustained those wounds while clearing his ricefield. it was readied for autopsy. missing. were captured by the lens of a photographer. Bagon.

been in Cebu City. As earlier stated Olvis was acquitted. that he was not questioned by the police after the killing. 1975. finally. again before the Philippine Constabulary and the police of Polanco. They insisted on their innocence. Initial findings of investigators disclosed that the threesome of Solero.00 each. The second were made before the Polanco police. In their confessions of September 18. The court repudiated claims that Olvis had motives to do away with the deceased arising from alleged attempts on his (Olvis') part to eject the deceased from his landholding (the deceased having been a tenant of his). overall. furthermore. On September 18. specifically. was in fact informed by the Philippine Constabulary that he was a "wanted" man. Villarojo. and denied the admissibility thereof insofar as far as he was concerned. The first confessions were taken on September 9. and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney. the three executed five separate written confessions each. and upon complaint by her of harassment against her father by his supposed political enemies. as any extrajudicial confession confronting us. It rejected claims of witnesses that the three accused-appellants would carry out Olvis' alleged order to kill Bagon upon an offer of a reward when in fact no money changed hands. we are left with the murder cases against the three accused-appellants. the three accused-appellants' extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible in evidence. a nylon rope with which the dead body was tied. sworn before agents of the National Bureau of Investigation. It relied. to the remark). the shovel used to inter the victim's remains. who allegedly promised them a reward of P3.. that it was the deceased who had sought to kill him. absolving Olvis of any liability. the three accused reiterated the same confessions before the National Bureau of Investigation Dipolog City sub-office. According to the court. who had earlier brought a physical injuries suit against the former. and Cademas executed Discredit Bagon on orders of Anacleto Olvis. and Anacleto Olvis on the other. September 21. The murder of Deosdedit Bagon was witnessed by no other person. there can be no questioning.00 each. Adaro daughter of Olvis. Prior to any questioning.The investigation yielded several effects of the offense: a twenty-inch long bolo. Decierdo. we laid down the rule with respect to extrajudicial confessions: xxx xxx xxx . The acused Romulo Villarojo averred. the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent. 1975. Likewise. The accused-appellants subsequently repudiated their alleged confessions in open court alleging threats by the Polanco investigators of physical harm if they refused to "cooperate" in the solution of the case. he assented. may waive effectuation of indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking. "to which said accused (Olvis) meekly complied" 9 (that is. for a reward of P3. the court a quo rendered separate verdicts on the three accused on the one hand. 1975. two days after the murder. 1975 in the local Philippine Constabulary headquarters. 1975 by Mrs. based on the recorded evidence. We hold that. It was on May 7. It observed. 1975. Diolinda O. The fundamental issue then is whether or not these statements. 1975. they executed two confessions more. can stand up in court. that he had a "clean bill of health" 10 in connection with the murder case. that case having been dismissed. The police of Polanco had but the three accused-appellants' statements to support its claiming. and September 25. It was satisfied. We note that the three were transported to the Dipolog City NBI sub-office following a request on September 10. In acquitting Olvis. It likewise noted that Olvis had. the case in fact having reached the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform. however. this was inconsistent with a guilty mind. 1975. while the three were all sentenced to die for the crime of murder. notwithstanding efforts by the three herein accused-appellants to implicate him.000. for which he acted in self-defense. 1975. 1987 that we promulgated People v. 1975 and September 25. on the retraction of the accused themselves. With the acquittal of Olvis. then Polanco municipal mayor. September 14. and who. ambiguously. It dismissed insinuations that his children had a score to settle with the victim. In their confessions of September 9.. that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him. upon arriving in Dipolog City.11 In that decision. Based on these subsequent statements.000. The defendant. the said accused a gain pointed to the then accused Anacleto Olvis as principal by inducement. the trial court rejected the three accused's earlier confessions pointing to him as the mastermind. they categorically denied Olvis' involvement in the knowing. On September 21. While in custody. if the individual is alone . and the sack itself. either retained or appointed. They likewise alleged that they were instructed by the Polanco police investigators to implicate Anacieto Olvis in the case.

but also that ff. at any time prior to or during questioning. they must respect his decision to remain silent . the accused-appellants were not assisted by counsel when they "waived" their rights to counsel. 'involuntary. While such request affirmatively secures his right to have one. 1975. that he wishes to remain silent.and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated. the lack of counsel "makes [those] statement[s]. He cannot therefore be said to have been acting on behalf of the accused-appellants when he lent his presence at the confession proceedings. and 21. No effective waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings we here delineate have been given. are you wining to accept the legal assistance of Atty. If the individual indicates in any manner. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to policy. he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. 15 applies with like force here: . the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny his request on the basis that the individual does not have or cannot afford a retained attorney . it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney. the confessions in the case at bar suffer from a Constitutional infirmity. Navarro was the accused-appellants' counsel of choice (specifically. 14 the same nonetheless call for a similar rejection. . NAVARRO to handle your case. For those unaware of the privilege. but also of the consequences of foregoing it . . technically. As we said in Decierdo. the warning will show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it . Galit. Navarro was summoned by the NBI. . If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken. the warning is needed simply to make them aware of — the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as to its exercise. . 197 5. Duero. .. Department of Justice. What we said in People v. in contemplation of law. if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation." 13 With reset to the confessions of September 18. 12 xxx xxx xxx Like the Decierdo confessions. the subsequent procedure is clear. . the appellant Romulo Villarojo who admitted therein having been the bolo-wielder). There is nothing there that would show that Atty. a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incriminate tion and his right to retained or appointed counsel . he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him . such a warning is an absolute pre-requisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere Further. . while it is stated therein that this Office had just requested the services of Atty. NARVARO VELAR NAVARRO of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office. Dipolog District Office. The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and WW be used against the individual in court. . his failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege. The accused who does not know his rights and therefore does not make a request may be the person who most needs Counsel If an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of counsel before any interrogation occurs. 14. In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system then. More important. In their supposed statements dated September 9. . . . .' even if it were otherwise voluntary. Once warnings have been given.. the interrogation impose cease. it is clear therefrom that Atty. the police may not question him The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has converted with an attorney and thereafter consent to be questioned. On the contrary. we added: xxx xxx xxx At the outset. xxx xxx xxx In People v. An individual need not make a pre-interrogation request for a lawyer.

" 20 This was the lesson learned from the ancient days of the inquisition in which accusation was equivalent to guilt. Here.No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. 29 We indeed doubt whether Sorela's admissions. But the accused-appellants were denied their right to counsel not once. the Charter prevailing at the time of the proceedings below. to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction. the accused is not merely required to exhibit some physical characteristics. 16 We cast aside. . Indeed. incompetent evidence. It is not a prerequisite therefore that he be provided with the guiding hand of counsel. the accused does not speak his guilt. whether testimonial or passive. It is under such circumstances that the Constitution holds a strict application. Essentially. What is to be borne in mind is that Sorela was himself under custody. under the circumstances. he should have been provided with counsel. he is made to admit criminal responsibility against his will. Accordingly. we hold that all evidence based on such a re-enactment to be in violation of the Constitution and hence. 18 but this has since been extended to any evidence "communicative in nature" 19 acquired under circumstances of duress. 25 or requiring him to take part in a police lineup in certain cases. 31 In such a case. for the same reason. It should be furthermore observed that the three accused-appellants were in police custody when they took part in the re-enactment in question. and only after they had gone to court on an application for habeas corpus. 1975. Pressure which operates to overbear his will disable him from making a free and rational choice. We refer to the forced re-enactment of the crime the three accused were made to perform shortly after their apprehension. 21 Thus. 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. the three accused-appellants had languished in jail for one year and two months before the information was filed. that would amount to disclosure of incriminatory facts is covered by the inhibition of the Constitution. 22 or compelling him to expectorate morphine from his mouth 23 or making her submit to a pregnancy test 24 or a footprinting test. we are puzzled why they. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the dead 16 trainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. had to be made to suffer preventive imprisonment for quite an enormous length of time. an act. 17 This constitutional privilege has been defined as a protection against testimonial compulsion. the confessions of September 25. but twice. Court of Appeals 30 tells us: Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use of violence. by any person on his behalf. it may be the product of unintentional statements. we cannot accept the trial judge's finding that he acted "with unexpected spontaneity" 27 when he allegedly "spilled the beans 28 before the law enforcers on September 9. parenthetically. the accused. This includes requiring the accused to submit to a test to extract virus from his body. were truly his voluntary statements Chavez v.incrimination. As for the accused Dominador Sorela. 1975. For if the authorities truly had a case in their hands. It is a police procedure just as condemnable as an uncounselled confession. or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be sufficient. the right is meant to "avoid and prohibit positively the repetition and recurrence of the certainly inhuman procedure of competing a person. But a forced re-enactment is quite another thing. The 1973 Constitution. So is moral coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling lips of the defendant. in a criminal or any other case. by and large. By custodial interrogation. says: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. from mechanical acts the accused is made to execute not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation." In each case. like uncounselled and coerced confessions come within the ban against self. Any statement he might have made thereafter is therefore subject to the Constitutional guaranty. This should be distinguished. Forced re-enactments.

is. quite disconcerting." the request to transfer Olvis' case to the jurisdiction of the National Bureau of Investigation for reinvestigation. for it is not within our power to overturn acquittals. however. to fourteen years. make a turn-about there leaves us even more disturbed. For one. While we do not challenge the verdict by acquittal rendered in favor of Olvis. To the mind of. 1984. to the parish church. but why the three appellants should. for another. Olvis was never invited for the usual questioning. upon witnessing his cadaver-wrapped in a sack and all — although it was supposedly the first time that they saw his remains after two days of frantic search. I hack[ed] him. and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum. eight months. the three accused-appellants while under NBI custody." 37 He completely absolved his co-accused Dominador Sorela and Leonardo Cademas from any liability. It leaves us with an uncomfortable impression that each scene was an act in some contrived tragedy. He pulled out a hunting knife in order to stab me and in order also to defend my body.000. in an instant. rather than self-defense. the accused Romulo Villarojo admitted hacking the victim to death with a bolo. No special pronouncement as to costs. and one day ofreclusion temporal. again. more so his widow and children. sufficient proof to warrant the appreciation of the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. To us. 33 Moreover. 1975 that Discredit Bagon's remains were unwrapped. The accused-appellants Leonardo Cademas and Dominador Sorela are ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. It should be noted that the three appellants had initially implicated Olvis as the mastermind. In the absence of any other proof. at the expense of the present three accused. Villarojo's admission inflicting the fatal wounds upon the deceased is binding on him. this Court. judgment is hereby rendered modifying the Decision dated November 30. This indicates a serious intent to kill. however. the disposition of the case was characterized by unusual grandstanding. and "R". 39 In finding that Villarojo did take the life of the victim. In his counter-affidavit. Still. than meets the eye.defense. statements we reject for the reasons earlier discussed. appreciate superior strength or nocturnity. happily for Olvis. 32 Exhibits "K". 36 marked as Exhibit "44-A" for the defense. we are not prepared to hand down a judgment of acquittal upon all the three accused-appellants. Hence. 35 the three herein accused. 38 But it is still our business to see whether his The records will disclose that the deceased suffered twelve assorted wounds caused by a sharp instrument. He stressed. . "M". "N". These qualifying circumstances were considered by the court a quo on the basis of the extrajudicial statements executed by the accused. He is furthermore ordered to indemnify the heirs of Discredit Bagon in the sum of P30. Villarojo should be liable for plain homicide. We likewise find the authorities' haste in securing the accused Anacleto Olvis' acquittal. that he did so in self. It was in fact only on September 10.What is more. by themselves. "L". for reasons as yet unclear to us. while the deceased's corpse lay in the foreground. there is more to Exhibit "20. as maximum. The assault severed his right hand and left his head almost separated from his body. As it happened. 34 what is our concern is the apparent design to use three ill-lettered peasants. there are striking aspects in the case that we find distressing. the victim was transferred to the municipal hand building and then subsequently. Yet. there was no trace of grief upon the faces of the deceased's bereaved relatives. retracted their earlier statements indicting him as a co-conspirator. defense can stand scrutiny. depict the deceased's relatives in fixed poses. at the parish church at that. The accused-appellant Romulo Villarojo is found guilty of homicide. the severity and number of wounds sustained by the deceased are not. we cannot. WHEREFORE. as fall guys in an evident network of political intrigue. for a photographing session — unusual procedure — when the perfunctory police procedure should have been to bring the corpse to the health officer for autopsy. Why the NBI should intervene in the case when the Polanco police had apparently "solved" it. as if pursuant to a script or as part of some eerie ceremony. suspicious enough.00. in the first place.

to annul and set aside the order dated 23 October 1980 of the Court of First Instance of Manila. in issuing the assailed order. he was arrested for vagrancy. an information for robbery was filed against the petitioner. petitioner was told to sit down in front of her. On 13 August 1980. 47622.(11) CRISTOPHER GAMBOA. the Court issued a temporary restraining order "effective as of this date and continuing until otherwise ordered by the court". Thereafter. denies the same. with prayer for a temporary restraining order.R. Manila. petitioner was arraigned. petitioner was brought to Precinct 2. the respondent court issued the following order (assailed in the petition at bar) denying the Motion to Acquit: For resolution is a motion to acquit the accused based on the grounds that the constitutional rights of the said accused. the instant petition. the instant petition is one for certiorari. committed by the respondent judge in issuing the questioned order dated 23 October 1980. JUDGE of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Accused. To begin with. by Patrolman Arturo Palencia. He insists that said order. Br. Cristopher Gamboa y Gonzales. 1 Petitioner contends that the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. 2 We find no merit in the contentions of petitioner. by counsel. The hearing of this case for the purpose of presenting the evidence for the accused is hereby set on November 28. While the complainant was being interrogated by the police investigator. [G." After the Identification. On 23 July 1979. therefore. instead of presenting his defense. Bernal pointed to petitioner and said. have been violated. at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. The following day. during the lineup of five (5) detainees. petitioner filed said Motion predicated on the ground that the conduct of the line-up. Plaintiff vs. the other detainees were brought back to their cell but petitioner was ordered to stay on. . petitioner. 1988] PADILLA. manifested in open court that he was filing a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer to Evidence. where he was booked for vagrancy and then detained therein together with several others.: Petition for certiorari and prohibition. the Court finds the said motion to be without merit and. the prosecution formally offered its evidence and then rested its case. Petitioner alleges that: On 19 July 1979. including petitioner. amounting to lack of jurisdiction. No. L-56291 June 27. entitled "People of the Philippines. XXIX. "that one is a companion. complainant Erlinda B. After considering the allegations and arguments in support of the said motion in relation to the evidence presented. and in the absence of. hearings were held. to counsel and to due process. On 22 August 1979. without notice to. Branch XXIX. is null and void for being violative of his rights to counsel and to due process. in denying his Motion To Acquit. his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. respondent. without a warrant of arrest. alleging grave abuse of discretion." and to restrain the respondent court from proceeding with the trial of the aforementioned case. J. 20 July 1979. Hence. On 23 October 1980. petitioner. Thereafter. HON. On 3 March 1981. On 14 July 1980. On 2 April 1980. in Criminal Case No. 1980. ALFREDO CRUZ. at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning. vs.

that for certiorari to lie. hence. or by anyone in his behalf. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. hence. intimidation. and to be informed of such right. and required him to present his evidence. IV of the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. (2) No torture. 3 To warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Thus. like ours. engaged by the person arrested. solitary. in several cases. he was not yet entitled to counsel.It is basic. or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Illinois of the United States Federal Supreme Court. there must be a capricious. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. Accordingly. by the Solicitor General. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. every person is entitled to the full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Art. Since petitioner in the course of his Identification in the police line-up had not yet been held to answer for a criminal offense. Section 12 (1. at that stage. the police line-up (at least. it was held that when the process had not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory as when police investigation does not elicit a confession the accused may not yet avail of the services of his lawyer (Escobedo v. in this case) was not part of the custodial inquest. The respondent court considered petitioner's arguments as well as the prosecution's evidence against him. In fact. however. The same guarantee. while the right may be waived. and that. reads: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. 20. the waiver shall not be valid unless made in writing and in the presence of counsel. or to act at all. arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power. force. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. threat. for the commission of an offense. therefore. he was. excess thereof. i. The police could not have violated petitioner's right to counsel and due process as the confrontation between the State and him had not begun. 1964). The rights to counsel and to due process of law are indeed two (2) of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. not deprived of his right to be assisted by counsel because the accusatory process had not yet set in. 2 & 3). not interrogated at all as he was not facing a criminal charge. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. or by any person in his behalf. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation. 378 US 478. Article III thereof provides: Sec. is included in the 1987 Constitution. exact a confession to be used against him. to counsel. 5 As aptly observed. The police line-up is not a part of the custodial inquest. Any person under investigation must. 4 This is not the situation in the case at bar. They leave no room for equivocation. For it was not he but the complainant who . prejudice or personal hostility. In a democratic society. The above-cited provisions of the Constitution are clear. or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. the police did not. incommunicado. therefore. threat. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself. be assisted by counsel. in contemplation of law. violence. Sec. whether it be the 1973 or 1987 Constitution.e. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation. he had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. Far from what he professes. On the right to counsel. Secret detention places. this Court has consistently held that no custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel. The Solicitor General states: When petitioner was Identified by the complainant at the police line-up. or the abuse must be so patent as to amount to an evasion of positive duty. 12 (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. he must be provided with one. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. At such point or stage. petitioner was not yet entitled. the very antithesis of judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions. No force. as when power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion. or abuse of discretion must be so gross or grave. however. although worded in a different manner. intimidation. violence. He was. the alleged lack of jurisdiction. at such stage. among other things. when he was Identified in the police line-up by complainant he did not give any statement to the police.

was being investigated at that time. He "was ordered to sit down in front of the complainant while the latter was being investigated" (par. 3.03, Petition). Petitioner's right to counsel had not accrued. 6 Even under the constitutional guarantees obtaining in the United States, petitioner would have no cause for claiming a violation of his rights to counsel and due process. In Kirby vs. Illinois, 7 the facts of the case and the votes of the Justices therein are summarized as fellows: After arresting the petitioner and a companion and bringing them to a police station, police officers learned that certain items found in their possession had been stolen in a recent robbery. The robbery victim was brought to the police station and immediately Identified the petitioner and his companion as the robbers. No attorney was present when the Identification was made, and neither the petitioner nor his companion had asked for legal assistance or had been advised of any right to the presence of counsel. Several weeks later, the petitioner and his companion were indicted for the robbery. At trial in an Illinois state court, the robbery victim testified that he had seen the petitioner and his companion at the police station, and he pointed them out in the courtroom and Identified them as the robbers. The petitioner and his companion were convicted, and the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the petitioner's conviction, holding that the constitutional rule requiring the exclusion of evidence derived from outof-court Identification procedures conducted in the absence of counsel did not apply to pre-indictment Identifications (121 III App 2d 323, 257 NEE 2d 589). On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court, although not agreeing on an opinion, affirmed. In an opinion by STEWART, J., announcing the judgment of the court and expressing the view of four members of the court, it was held that the constitutional right to counsel did not attach until judicial criminal proceedings were initiated, and that the exclusionary rule relating to out-of-court Identifications in the absence of counsel did not apply to Identification testimony based upon a police station show-up which took place before the accused had been indicted or otherwise formally charged with any criminal offense. BURGER, Ch. J., concurring, joined in the plurality opinion and expressed his agreement that the right to counsel did not attach until criminal charges were formally made against an accused. POWELL, J., concurred in the result on the ground that the exclusionary rule should not be extended. BRENNAN J., joined by DOUGHLAS and MARSHALL, JJ., dissented on the grounds that although Supreme Court decisions establishing the exclusionary rule happened to involve post-indictment Identifications, the rationale behind the rule was equally applicable to the present case. WHITE, J., dissented on the grounds that Supreme Court decisions establishing the exclusionary rule governed the present case. 8 Mr. Justice Stewart, expressing his view and that of three other members 9 of the Court, said: In a line of constitutional cases in this Court stemming back to the Court's landmark opinion in Powell v. Alabama, 287 US 45, 77 L Ed 158, 53 S Ct 55, 84 ALR 527, it has been firmly established that a person's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel attaches only at or after the time that adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against him. See Powell v. Alabama, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 US 458, 82 L Ed 1461, 58 S Ct 1019, 146 ALR 357; Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 US 52, 7 L Ed 2d 114, 82 S Ct 157; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335, 9 L Ed 2d 799, 83 S Ct 792, 93 ALR 2d 733; White v. Maryland, 373 US 59, 10 L Ed 2d 193, 83 S Ct 1050; Messiah v. United States, 377 US 201, 12 L Ed 246, 84 S Ct 1199; United States v. Wade, 388 US 218, 18 L Ed 2d 1149, 87 S Ct 1926; Gilbert v. California, 388 US 263, 18 L Ed 2d 1178, 87 S Ct 1951; Coleman v. Alabama, 399 US 1, 26 L Ed 2d 387, 90 S Ct. 1999. This is not to say that a defendant in a criminal case has a constitutional right to counsel only at the trial itself. The Powell case makes clear that the right attaches at the time of arraignment and the Court has recently held that it exists also at the time of a preliminary hearing. Coleman v. Alabama,supra. But the point is that, while members of the court have differed as to existence of the right to counsel in the contexts of some of the above cases, all of those cases have involved points of time at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings — whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. (Emphasis supplied). 10

As may be observed, the 1973 and 1987 Philippine Constitutions go farther and beyond the guarantee of the right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For while, under the latter, the right to counsel "attaches only at or after the time that adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against him (the accused)," under the 1973 and 1987 Philippine Constitutions, the right to counsel attaches at the start of investigation against a respondent and, therefore, even before adversary judicial proceedings against the accused have begun. Given the clear constitutional intent in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, to extend to those under police investigation the right to counsel, this occasion may be better than any to remind police investigators that, while the Court finds no real need to afford a suspect the services of counsel during a police line-up, the moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. On the right to due process, the Court finds that petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this substantive and constitutional right, as he was duly represented by a member of the Bar. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense; only that he chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. What due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. 11 The case at bar is far from this situation. In any event, certiorari and prohibition are not the proper remedies against an order denying a Motion To Acquit. Section 1, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides that, upon arraignment, the defendant shall immediately either move to quash the complaint or information or plead thereto, or do both and that, if the defendant moves to quash, without pleading, and the motion is withdrawn or overruled, he should immediately plead, which means that trial must proceed. If, after trial on the merits, judgment is rendered adversely to the movant (in the motion to quash), he can appeal the judgment and raise the same defenses or objections (earlier raised in his motion to quash) which would then be subject to review by the appellate court. An order denying a Motion to Acquit (like an order denying a motion to quash) is interlocutory and not a final order. It is, therefore, not appealable. Neither can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Such order of denial may only be reviewed, in the ordinary course of law, by an appeal from the judgment, after trial. As stated in Collins vs. Wolfe, 12 and reiterated in Mill vs. Yatco, 13 the accused, after the denial of his motion to quash, should have proceeded with the trial of the case in the court below, and if final judgment is rendered against him, he could then appeal, and, upon such appeal, present the questions which he sought to be decided by the appellate court in a petition for certiorari. In Acharon vs. Purisima, 14 the procedure was well defined, thus:
Moreover, when the motion to quash filed by Acharon to nullify the criminal cases filed against him was denied by the Municipal Court of General Santos his remedy was not to file a petition for certiorari but to go to trial without prejudice on his part to reiterate the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if, after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. This is the procedure that he should have followed as authorized by law and precedents. Instead, he took the usual step of filing a writ of certiorari before the Court of First Instance which in our opinion is unwarranted it being contrary to the usual course of law. 15

Conformably with the above rulings, whether or not petitioner was, afforded his rights to counsel and to due process is a question which he could raise, as a defense or objection, upon the trial on the merits, and, if that defense or objection should fail, he could still raise the same on appeal. On the other hand, if a defendant does not move to quash the complaint or information before he pleads, he shall be taken to have waived all objections which are grounds for a motion to quash, except where the complaint or information does not charge an offense, or the court is without jurisdiction of the same. 16 Here, petitioner filed a Motion To Acquit only after the prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its case. Since the exceptions, above-stated, are not applicable, petitioner is deemed to have waived objections which are grounds for a motion to quash. Besides, the grounds relied upon by petitioner in his Motion to Acquit are not among the grounds provided in Sec. 2, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court for quashing a complaint or information. Consequently, the lower court did not err in denying petitioner's Motion to Acquit. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued on 3 March 1981 is LIFTED. The instant case is remanded to the respondent court for further proceedings to afford the petitioner-accused the opportunity to present evidence on his behalf. This decision is immediately executory. With costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

(12) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PACITO ORDOÑO Y NEGRANZA alias ASING and APOLONIO MEDINA Y NOSUELO alias POLING, accused-appellants. [G.R. No. 132154. June 29, 2000] DECISION PER CURIAM: COURTS are confronted, repeatedly, with the difficult task of scrutinizing the sufficiency of extrajudicial confessions as basis for convicting the accused. The drive to apprehend the culprits at any cost, particularly in crimes characterized by brutality and savagery, not too infrequently tempts law enforcement agencies to take unwarranted shortcuts and disregard constitutional and legal constraints that are intended to ensure that only the guilty are punished. In the delicate process of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, courts play a crucial role in assuring that the evidence gathered by government agents scrupulously meets the exacting constitutional standards which if not met impose a strict exclusionary rule, i.e., "any confession or admission obtained in violation of Art. II, Sec. 12 (1), shall be inadmissible in evidence." This case is on automatic review of the 11 December 1997 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 34, Balaoan, La Union, in Crim. Case No. 2415 finding both accused Pacito Ordoño y Negranza alias Asing and Apolonio Medina y Nosuelo alias Poling guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide and imposing upon each of them two (2) separate death penalties. The records show that on 5 August 1994 the decomposing body of a young girl was found among the bushes near a bridge in Barangay Poblacion, Santol, La Union. The girl was later identified as Shirley Victore, fifteen (15) years old, a resident of Barangay Guesset, Poblacion, Santol, La Union, who three (3) days before was reported missing. Post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Arturo Llavore, a medico-legal officer of the NBI, revealed that the victim was raped and strangled to death. Unidentified sources pointed to Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina as the authors of the crime. Acting on this lead, the police thereupon invited the two (2) suspects and brought them to the police station for questioning. However, for lack of evidence then directly linking them to the crime, they were allowed to go home. On 10 August 1994 the accused Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina returned to the police station one after another and acknowledged that they had indeed committed the crime. Acting on their admission, the police immediately conducted an investigation and put their confessions in writing. The investigators however could not at once get the services of a lawyer to assist the two (2) accused in the course of the investigation because there were no practicing lawyers in the Municipality of Santol, a remote town of the Province of La Union. Be that as it may, the statements of the two (2) accused where nevertheless taken. But before doing so, both accused were apprised in their own dialect of their constitutional right to remain silent and to be assisted by a competent counsel of their choice. Upon their acquiescence and assurance that they understood their rights and did not require the services of counsel, the investigation was conducted with the Parish Priest, the Municipal Mayor, the Chief of Police and other police officers of Santol, La Union, in attendance to listen to and witness the giving of the voluntary statements of the two (2) suspects who admitted their participation in the crime. The first to confess was Apolonio Medina who in addition to the Parish Priest, the Mayor, the Chief of Police and the other police officers was also accompanied by his wife and mother. Apolonio Medina narrated that in the morning of 2 August 1994 while he was walking towards the house of Pacito Ordoño in Sitio Buacao, Poblacion, Santol, La Union, he noticed a young woman walking towards the school at the Poblacion. Upon reaching Sitio Buacao, he saw Pacito Ordoño standing along the road. When the woman reached him he suddenly grabbed her, held her tightly and covered her mouth with his right hand. As Medina neared them, Ordoño turned to him and said, "Come and help me, I am feeling uneasy." Although Medina claimed he was surprised at the request, he nonetheless went to Ordoño, helped him hold the legs of the young woman including her bag and umbrella and together they carried her to the bushes where they laid her down. Medina held her legs as requested while Ordoño continued to cover her mouth with his hand and boxing her many times on the head. When she was already weak and weary Ordoño knelt near her, raised her skirt and lowered her panty down to her knees. Medina continued to remove her panty as Ordoño removed his short pants, then his briefs. Ordoño then raped her, boxed her head continuously, with Medina continuously pinning her legs down and boxing those legs every time she struggled. After Ordoño had satiated himself Medina took his turn in raping the same victim with Ordoño holding her legs. After they were through, Medina left to watch out for intruders while Ordoño tied a vine around the girl's neck, hanged her on a tree that ended her life. Then, they went back to the road and parted ways.

After Medina said his piece, his wife and mother suddenly burst into tears. He then affixed his signature on his statement and so did his wife, followed by all the other witnesses who listened to his confession. Pacito Ordoño narrated his story in the afternoon. According to him, in the morning of 2 August 1994 he was on his way to Sitio Guesset, Barangay Manggaan, Santol, La Union, when he saw a girl followed by Apolonio Medina. When the girl was near him he immediately grabbed her and covered her mouth. Medina drew near, held her two legs, bag and umbrella and together they carried her into the thicket. After laying her down Ordoño boxed her breasts and face while Medina boxed her legs. When she became weak Ordoño raised her skirt and lowered her panty while Medina completely, removed it. Ordoño then removed his pants and walker briefs, went on top of Shirley and as Medina spread her legs Ordoño immediately inserted his penis into her vagina. After ejaculating Ordoño turned to Medina for him to take his turn in raping the girl. Ordoño was now holding her legs. At the end of his narration Ordoño affixed his thumbmark on his statement in lieu of his signature as he did not know how to write. Thereafter, Apolonio Medina and Pacito Ordoño were detained at the Santol police station. News about the apprehension and detention of the culprits of the rape-slay of Shirley Victore soon spread that Roland Almoite, leading radio announcer of radio station DZNL, visited and interviewed them. In the interview which was duly tape-recorded both accused admitted again their complicity in the crime and narrated individually the events surrounding their commission thereof. According to Medina, his remorse in having committed the crime was so great but his repentance came too late. [1] He and Ordoño hoped that the parents of Shirley Victore would forgive them.[2] Upon conclusion of the interview, Roland Almoite immediately went to radio station DZNL and played the taped interview on the air. The same interview was played again on the air the following morning and was heard by thousands of listeners. A couple of days later, the police brought the two (2) accused to the office of the PAO lawyer in Balaoan, La Union, for assistance and counseling. In a closed-door session, PAO lawyer Oscar B. Corpuz apprised each of the accused of his constitutional rights and, even though their confessions were already written in their dialect, explained to them each of the questions and answers taken during the investigation. He likewise advised them to ponder the consequences of their confessions, leading them to defer the affixing of their second signature/ thumbmark thereon. After a week or so, the two (2) separately went back to Atty. Corpuz and informed him of their willingness to affix their signatures and thumbmarks for the second time in their respective confessions. Once again Atty. Corpuz apprised the two (2) accused of their constitutional rights, explained the contents of their respective statements, and finally, accompanied them to Judge Fabian M. Bautista, MTC judge of Balaoan, La Union, who further apprised the two (2) accused of their constitutional rights and asked them if they had been coerced into signing their confessions. They assured Judge Bautista that their statements had been given freely and voluntarily. Upon such assurance that they had not been coerced into giving and signing their confessions, Judge Bautista finally asked the accused Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina to affix their signatures/ thumbmarks on their respective confessions, and to subscribe the same before him. Atty. Corpuz then signed their statements as their assisting counsel, followed by a few members of the MTC staff who witnessed the signing. On arraignment, in a complete turnabout, the two (2) accused pleaded not guilty. In his defense, Pacito Ordoño testified that on 5 August 1994, while he was cooking at home, the police arrived and invited him to the headquarters for questioning. The police asked him his whereabouts on 2 August 1994 and he answered that he worked in the farm of Barangay Captain Valentin Oriente. According to Ordoño, the questioning took one (1) hour with the police boxing him several times on his stomach and on his side. They even inserted the barrel of a gun into his mouth in an effort to draw out answers from him. This being fruitless, he was placed in jail and released only the following morning, 6 August 1994. Three (3) days later, or on 9 August 1994, the police once again invited him to the headquarters where he was told that he was responsible for the rape and death of Shirley Victore. Accused Pacito Ordoño insisted on his innocence and maintained that he was working with a certain barangay captain; nonetheless, he was detained. Later that night the police took him out from jail and brought him to the room of investigator SPO4 Alfredo A. Ominga where he was hit with the butt of an armalite and forced to admit to the rape and slay of Shirley Victore. On 10 August 1994 SPO4 Alfredo A. Ominga took a typewriter and asked questions from him for one (1) hour without a lawyer assisting him nor a priest witnessing the investigation. A barrel of a gun was placed inside his mouth forcing him to admit the commission of the crime and to affix his thumbmark on the document. He was also brought to the office of the PAO lawyer twice but did not affix his thumbmark on any document because he could not understand its contents. A radio announcer visited him inside his cell for an interview but he declined to answer his questions. He only answered the radio announcer during his fourth visit when SPO4 Alfredo A. Ominga threatened to hit him if he did not admit to the commission of the crime. As to Apolonio Medina, he heard from the police that he was also detained but maintained that he (Ordoño) did not know Apolonio. For his part, Apolonio Medina testified that on 5 August 1994 while he was pasturing his carabaos at Barangay Guesset, in Santol, La Union, the police came and invited him for questioning. They asked him where he was on 2 August 1994 and he replied that he was

carrying bananas for his aunt Resurreccion. The interrogation lasted for about an hour with neither a lawyer assisting him nor a relative being present, after which he was placed in jail. Later, he was brought out and taken to a hut near the headquarters where he was boxed, kicked and hit with a nightstick. He lost consciousness and recovered only after he was brought back to his cell. That same night he was returned to the hut outside the police headquarters where he was again boxed. On 8 August 1994, with his legs tied to the ceiling beam, he was hanged upside down. His breast was hit with the butt of a gun which was fired near his ear. A barrel of a gun was inserted into his mouth. He was threatened that he would be salvaged if he did not admit to killing the victim. He was forced to sign a statement but could not recall its date of execution. He was brought to the office of the PAO lawyer twice but he did not sign the document. The investigator warned him that if he did not sign he would be buried in the pit which he himself dug. On his third visit to the office of the PAO lawyer he signed the document. He could not remember having gone to the office of the MTC Judge of Balaoan; La Union. He was interviewed by a radio announcer and was instructed by the investigator to narrate those that were in his statement. He admitted he knew Pacito Ordoño. He showed his bruises to his mother when the latter visited him in jail, prompting the latter to request medical treatment for her son but the request was denied. On 11 December 1997 the trial court adjudged accused Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina guilty of the crime of rape with homicide attended with conspiracy, and imposed upon each of them two (2) death penalties on the basis of their extrajudicial confessions. The accused are now before us assailing their conviction on the ground that constitutional infirmities attended the execution of their extrajudicial confessions, i.e., mainly the lack of counsel to assist them during custodial investigation thereby making their confessions inadmissible in evidence. Under the Constitution[3] and the rules laid down pursuant to law[4] and jurisprudence,[5] a confession to be admissible in evidence must satisfy four (4) fundamental requirements: (a) the confession must be voluntary; (b) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (c) the confession must be express; and, (d) the confession must be in writing.[6] Among all these requirements none is accorded the greatest respect than an accused's right to counsel to adequately protect him in his ignorance and shield him from the otherwise condemning nature of a custodial investigation. The person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of the offense. [7] Hence, if there is no counsel at the start of the custodial investigation any statement elicited from the accused is inadmissible in evidence against him. This exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion, physical and psychological, is forcefully apparent. [8] In the instant case, custodial investigation began when the accused Ordoño and Medina voluntarily went to the Santol Police Station to confess and the investigating officer started asking questions to elicit information and/or confession from them. At such point, the right of the accused to counsel automatically attached to them. Concededly, after informing the accused of their rights the police sought to provide them with counsel. However, none could be furnished them due to the non-availability of practicing lawyers in Santol, La Union, and the remoteness of the town to the next adjoining town of Balaoan, La Union, where practicing lawyers could be found. At that stage, the police should have already desisted from continuing with the interrogation but they persisted and gained the consent of the accused to proceed with the investigation. To the credit of the police, they requested the presence of the Parish Priest and the Municipal Mayor of Santol as well as the relatives of the accused to obviate the possibility of coercion, and to witness the voluntary execution by the accused of their statements before the police. Nonetheless, this did not cure in any way the absence of a lawyer during the investigation. In providing that during the taking of an extrajudicial confession the accused's parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by the accused may be present, RA 7438 does not propose that they appear in the alternative or as a substitute for counsel without any condition or clause. It is explicitly stated therein that before the above-mentioned persons can appear two (2) conditions must be met: (a) counsel of the accused must be absent, and, (b) a valid waiver must be executed. RA 7438 does not therefore unconditionally and unreservedly eliminate the necessity of counsel but underscores its importance by requiring that a substitution of counsel with the above-mentioned persons be made with caution and with the essential safeguards. Hence, in the absence of such valid waiver, the Parish Priest of Santol, the Municipal Mayor, the relatives of the accused, the Chief of Police and other police officers of the municipality could not stand in lieu of counsel's presence. The apparent consent of the two (2) accused in continuing with the investigation was of no moment as a waiver to be effective must be made in writing and with the assistance of counsel.[9] Consequently, any admission obtained from the two (2) accused emanating from such uncounselled interrogation would be inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding. Securing the assistance of the PAO lawyer five (5) to eight (8) days later does not remedy this omission either. Although there was a showing that the PAO lawyer made a thorough explanation of the rights of the accused, enlightened them on the possible repercussions of their admissions, and even gave them time to deliberate upon them, this aid and valuable advice given by counsel still

. sir. according to the new Philippine Constitution.. par.Yes. IV. Pacito Ordoño. The standards utilized by police authorities to assure the constitutional rights of the accused in the instant case therefore fell short of the standards demanded by the Constitution and the law. read PRELIMINARY Mr..And. likewise did not make their admissions an informed one..... the PAO lawyer and other witnesses.Yes. thus leading us to conclude that the advice was given perfunctorily and belonged to the stereotyped class . I am informing you that you have the right to remain silent to all questions asked of you.. do you want that we continue wit the investigation even without a lawyer of your own choice to represent you? A:.. It could not cure the absence of counsel during the custodial investigation when the extrajudicial statements were being taken.... 20.... it is doubtful if they were able to grasp the significance of the information being conveyed. of the Bill of Rights... And you are also herein reminded that all statements you give may be used for or against you in any Philippine court as evidence and it is herein likewise reminded that you have the right to secure the services of a lawyer of your own choice to represent you in this investigation.. I inform you that you are being investigated of an offense but before we proceed with this investigation.. Q:. sir. understanding on the part of the accused is sacrificed and the unconstrained giving up of a right becomes impaired.. without any lies whatsoever? A:. sir because all that I will state are the truth.Do you want that we will continue with this investigation after having been appraised of all your rights? A:.. are not met. And you are likewise reminded that all statements you give may be used for or against you in any Philippine court and you have a right to have a lawyer of your own choice to represent you in this investigation. If advice is given casually and tritely as to be useless..came several days too late. in the presence and with the signing of the MTC judge. Q:.Yes.Yes. Sec. sir. Art. (1)..Yes. I tell you that you have the right to remain silent under the new Constitution of the Philippines. It could have no palliative effect. so that when they allegedly admitted authorship of the crime after questioning. do you want that we continue with the investigation? A:....[10] The second affixation of the signatures/ thumbmarks of the accused on their confessions a few days after their closed-door meeting with the PAO lawyer.a long question by the investigator informing the appellant of his right followed by a monosyllabic answer . Q:. ..Are you now prepared to give your voluntary statement consisting only the truth. the police informed the accused of their rights to remain silent and to counsel in a dialect understood by them. It should further be recalled that the accused were not effectively informed of their constitutional rights when they were arrested. [11] If the lawyer's role is diminished to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a prepared document albeit an indication therein that there was compliance with the constitutional rights of the accused. sir.. but despite the accused's apparent showing of comprehension. III. do you understand this? ANSWER . translated into English. sir because all that I will state will only be the truth.Do you want that we continue with this investigation even without a lawyer to represent you? A:. Q:. Q:. the requisite standards guaranteed by Art. The advice proffered by the investigating officer to Ordoño starkly resembles that given to Medina... sir.. do you understand all these? A:.After having known all your rights.Yes. nothing but the truth? A.Yes... Q:.[12] The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer gives an advice in a cursory manner as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. Pertinent portions of the extrajudicial confessions of Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina.Yes.which this Court has condemned for being unsatisfactory. their admissions were obtained in violation of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination under Sec... As testified to. Admissions obtained during custodial investigation without the benefit of counsel although reduced into writing and later signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution. 12... I am informing you that you are being investigated of an offense but before we continue. Apolonio Medina..Are you now prepared to give your voluntary statement consisting only the truth. sir x x x x PRELIMINARY Mr..

the voices therein were the voices of the two (2) accused. [16] The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. to admit the authenticity of the taped interview. right. [14] However. Art.. Under the circumstances. and.[13] With the extrajudicial confession of the accused rendered inadmissible in evidence. the defense never submitted evidence to prove otherwise. etc.[22] and. we are left with the interview taken by DZNL radio announcer Roland Almoite as evidence. the participation of the police authorities was only to allow Roland Almoite to conduct an interview. Art. they answered in the negative. as in fact he was not. At most. They confirm that certain rights of the individual exist without need of any governmental grant. not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. statements made by herein accused to a radio announcer should likewise be held admissible. not by the police or any other investigating officer.. [20] that accused Pacito Ordoño boxed the face of the victim to make her weak[21] was proved by the testimony of the NBI Medico-Legal Officer that there was blackening on the face of the victim due to hematoma caused by violence or boxing on her face. if there was any. and in a language the subject fairly understands. The interview was not in the nature of an investigation as the response of the accused was made in answer to questions asked by the radio reporter. We have held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. when they were brought before the PAO lawyer they likewise did not make any such claims but instead chose to ponder over the lawyer's advice and deferred the signing of their confessions. III. Art. 12. The admissions of the accused before the radio announcer and duly tape-recorded are further bolstered and substantiated by the findings of the NBI Medico-Legal Officer as reflected in the Autopsy Report/Post Mortem Findings. The accused cannot therefore . as Roland Almoite testified. the interrogator must also explain the effect of such provision in practical terms.[15] By analogy. it was not altered. they did not talk to him as a law enforcement officer.g.[24] As to the assertion of the accused that they were tortured and subjected to inhuman treatment. we find such allegations baseless. as was the lower court. rights that may not be taken away by government. 12. The taped interview was offered to form part of the testimony of witness Roland Almoite to whom the admissions were made and to prove through electronic device the voluntary admissions by the two (2) accused that they raped and killed Shirley Victore. A review of the contents of the tape as included in Roland Almoite's testimony reveals that the interview was conducted free from any influence or intimidation from police officers and was done willingly by the accused. no police authority ordered or forced the accused to talk to the radio announcer. they could have told the radio announcer outright of the abuses they were subjected to before signing their confessions. e. The defense objected to its acceptance on the ground that its integrity had not been preserved as the tape could easily have been spliced and tampered with." It is not enough for the interrogator to merely enumerate to the person under investigation his rights as provided in Sec. The narration of the accused Apolonio Medina that Asing boxed the victim. [17] It governs the relationship between the individual and the State. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. Lastly. when the latter asked them whether they voluntarily signed the same and whether coercion was used in extracting their confessions. are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused to admit something false. Sections 12.To be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates "the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. hence their uncounselled confession to him did not violate their constitutional rights. pars. Despite allegations to the contrary. of the Constitution do not cover the verbal confessions of the two (2) accused to the radio announcer. First. [18] Governmental power is not unlimited and the Bill of Rights lays down these limitations to protect the individual against aggression and unwarranted interference by any department of government and its agencies. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and its agents. that accused Pacito Ordoño hanged the victim on a tree by tying a vine around her neck. it was the original copy of the taped interview. The rights enumerated under Sec. of the Constitution. we are inclined. [19] was proved by the Autopsy Report stating that the victim suffered contusions on the leg. middle third. III. rights that government has the duty to protect. III. however. The taped interview likewise revealed that the accused voluntarily admitted to the rape-slay and even expressed remorse for having perpetrated the crime. [23] was proved by the finding of a depressed mark involving the anterior and lateral portions of the neck. When the accused talked to the radio announcer. Second. they had the chance to tell the MTC judge about the fatal defect of their confessions. The accused were given several opportunities to decry the maltreatment they allegedly suffered in the hands of the police but at no time did they complain about it. who was struggling as she was being raped. what the person under interrogation may or may not do. (1) and (3). there was no showing that they were within hearing distance nor within the vicinity where the interview was being conducted. lateral aspect. While it may be expected that police officers were around since the interview was held in the police station.

the testimony of the mother of the accused Apolonio Medina alleging that the police refused treatment for her son despite his critical condition becomes a fabrication.. proof of an actual planning of the perpetration of the crime is not a condition precedent. Capt. Oriente testified that Pacito Ordoño did not work with him on 2 August 1994. but they did not. not for the defense. the accused invoked alibi. The lack of prior design or plan to rape and kill the victim prior to the commission of the crime does not negate conspiracy. As found by the lower court. [25] Considering that the doctor was a witness for the defense. a mere figment of the imagination. sir x x x x Q:. it is evident that the accused helped each other in carrying out their beastly acts. [31] Other than their lame assertions that they were with the above-mentioned persons.[28] However..[29] The defense of alibi is always considered with suspicion and received with caution.. Well.. how many questions did you ask? A:.. it must be convincing.did they make such complaints. unschooled and illiterate. From the foregoing. that is why I looked to see what was really painful. Ordoño testified that at the time of the incident he was at work in the place of Barangay Captain Valentin Oriente.. not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable. The taped interview as played in open court clearly revealed thus (STATEMENT OF ACCUSED APOLONIO MEDINA) INTERPRETER: When I was walking there already about to be near him. he saw him on the bridge at Sitio Guesset. FISCAL TECAN: We will continue. their defense must fall. such allegations deserve no credit as alibi becomes worthless when it is established mainly by the accused themselves.[32] Since the accused failed to convince the Court otherwise. sir.. With this.. while "aunt Resurreccion" was not presented at all. on the contrary. as usual I regained my composure and so I finally went to help him. especially since they were in the same town where the crime happened..They did not answer me.. Valentin Oriente was presented as a witness for the prosecution. what did you actually tell them? A:. sir. [26] To further exculpate themselves. he was already holding the woman and said. all on her own... Q:.. it was surprising that she never mentioned about any maltreatment. [30] Quite interestingly. her tale of buying an antibiotic for her son. They could have easily asked the doctor for immediate treatment if indeed they were physically harmed. Bgy. "What part of your body are (sic) painful?" Q:.Now. enough to preclude any doubt about the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locuscriminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident.None. For alibi to Prosper.. sir.. come and help me because I was (sic) not feeling well. .What did they answer? A:. This puts their claim of maltreatment into serious doubt. She even inquired into their physical well-being but they did not tell her of any pain or injury.[27] while Medina claimed that he went to carry bananas for a certain aunt Resurreccion. you said that you talked with the prisoners... seventy-three (73) years of age.x x x x You noticed any injury on their bodies? A:.. is hard to believe since she is already an elderly woman.. did you notice any injury? A:..during their detention and when they were in the presence of persons who could have helped them . For conspiracy to exist. But later on. Q:.Only that.. Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina. She saw not a single scratch on the bodies of the accused.None... Your Honor. without the prescription of a doctor... The doctor who physically examined them further disproved their assertions when she testified thus FISCAL TECAN: Q:... "What do you feel on your body?" and I also said. sir. the accused failed to substantiate their defense and to give details on what transpired that fateful day.. Bgy. but also because it can easily be fabricated. I was shocked of what I saw.I said. Capt.More or less... It is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution.After you have observed the prisoners. sir.on a later date make assertions that they were maltreated when at no time .

we left for home. Vizcarra[37] where the four (4) accused were charged with rape with homicide. herein accused Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina should be held liable for the special complex crime of rape with homicide on two (2) counts as defined and penalized in Art.. Justice Barredo in his separate opinion interposed that in accordance with the doctrine laid down in the Jayme Jose case. And Asing did what he wanted. in People v. sir..crime of multiple rape with homicide on four (4) counts and as a consequence thereof sentenced each of them to four (4) death penalties.[41] In . In 1991. sir..She was practically unconscious... three (3) death penalties should have been imposed on each of the accused... the Court declared each of them guilty of three (3) crimes of rape with homicide and sentenced each of them to three (3) penalties of reclusion perpetua.And after you were through.." In 1971. In 1996. After that.INTERPRETER: And then we laid her down among the bushes then Asing boxed her because she was struggling. Diño[38] where the three (3) accused took turns in ravishing the victim and thereafter killed her... the penalty shall be death.00 if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory laws. the overwhelming evidence as to the nature and the number of crimes committed. was she still conscious? A:. But since four (4) successive offenses were charged and proved.Who was the first one to rape or use her? A:.. In People v. and imposed upon each of the accused four (4) death penalties in view of the existence of conspiracy..But Apolonio Medina was already there as your companion? A:. The four (4) death penalties for each of the appellants were explained to be ordained by the fact that conspiracy had been established beyond reasonable doubt.000. Jose[35] this Court convicted the four (4) accused with forcible abduction with rape. in People v..He was there already. sir. in People v. Q:.. Yutila[36] this Court affirmed the judgment of the court a quo declaring each of the three (3) accused guilty of the special complex crime of rape with homicide and sentenced each of them to suffer a single penalty of death. Q:. And when I arrived at their place.. each of the accused shall be liable for the other's acts as well. [34] The modifying circumstance of conspiracy being present. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659. The penalty in fact should have been death but with its proscription in the 1987 Constitution the penalty imposed was reduced to reclusion perpetua. the Court held that only one of them should be held liable for the crime of rape with homicide and all the rest for simple rape. And then he asked me to take my turn and then I went outside to look and see if there are (sic) people and then Asing went to get a vine.. sir. fully justified the imposition of four (4) death penalties. Flores[39] a registered nurse was successively raped by four (4) men and then killed. sir.. a homicide is committed.. and three (3) counts of simple rape. Q:. The trial court convicted each of them with the special complex. This Court affirmed the decision of the lower court with the modification that the accused should instead suffer four (4) penalties of reclusion perpetua by reason of the constitutional proscription on the imposition of the death penalty. In 1988. However.[33] xxx (STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PACITO ORDOÑO) Q:. what did you do.. He was the one who held her legs. sir. each of the accused was imposed four (4) death sentences for four (4) separate and distinct crimes of rape. Laray[40] this Court convicted two (2) of the accused charged therein with multiple rape and sentenced each of them to suffer two (2) counts of reclusion perpetua because of the existence of conspiracy. Your Honor. The existence of conspiracy among them. sir. In 1981.We tied her neck and hanged her on a tree... Accordingly. And after that. as well as the attendance of the aggravating circumstances.What did you do then? A:. We have held that the indemnification of the victim shall be in the amount of P100.. sir. in People v. he was already tieing (sic). in People v.. sir. Apolonio Medina.. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "when by reason or on the occasion of the rape.Me.

they submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.00 as moral damages must be awarded to the victim without need of proof nor even pleading the basis thereof. the 11 December 1997 Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court-Branch 34. Costs against both accused.000.00 for moral damages for both counts of rape. SO ORDERED. 83 of the Revised Penal Code.00 as civil indemnity and P100. .addition.000. this Court has likewise ruled that in crimes of rape the amount of P50. nevertheless.000. WHEREFORE. Balaoan. is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the two (2) accused PACITO ORDONO y NEGRANZA alias ASING and APOLONIO MEDINA y NOSUELO alias POLING are held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of rape with homicide on two (2) counts and are sentenced each to two (2) DEATH PENALTIES. [42] Four (4) Justices of the Court however continue to maintain the unconstitutionality of RA 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. upon finality of this Decision. 25 of RA 7659 amending Art. La Union. let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for the possible exercise of his pardoning power. Each of the accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of Shirley Victore in the amount of P200. In consonance with Sec.

(13) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TITO ZUELA y MORANDARTE, MAXIMO VELARDE y DE LOS REYES, and NELSON GARCIA y TEMPORAS, accused-appellants. [G.R. No. 112177. January 28, 2000] PARDO, J.: The case is an appeal of accused Maximo Velarde y de los Reyes, Nelson Garcia y Temporas and Tito Zuela y Morandarte from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Camarines Sur, Libmanan, Branch 24, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua, and to pay jointly and severally the amount of one hundred thousand (P100,000.00) pesos to the heirs of Maria Abendaño and John Abendaño, and fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos to the heirs of Hegino Hernandez, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. [2] On July 29, 1985, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Julian C. Ocampo III filed with the Regional Trial Court, Libmanan, Camarines Sur an information charging accused Maximo Velarde y de los Reyes, Nelson Garcia y Temporas and Tito Zuela y Morandarte with "robbery with triple homicide" committed as follows: "That in the evening of April 27, 1985 in Camagong, Cabusao, Camarines Sur, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually aiding each other, with intent to gain, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with violence and intimidation gainst [sic] persons, that is by shooting and stabbing one Hegino Hernandez, Sr., Maria S. Abendaño and John-John Abendaño, thereby inflicting upon them mortal injuries that caused their instantaneous death, take, rob and carry away the following personal properties belonging to the said Maria Abendaño, to wit: Sjä cj (1) Cash money. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .P21,000.00 (2) one gold ring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .P 750.00 (3) one Seiko wrist watch. . . . . . . . . . . . . P 1,250.00 ………………………………………….--------------................................... P23,000.00 "That as a consequence of the felonious act of the accused, the heirs of the deceased suffered damages in the amount of P25,000.00 each, representing indemnity for death, loss of earning capacity and moral damages. "CONTRARY TO LAW."[3] On June 1, 1985, Maximo Velarde was arrested at Magallanes, Sorsogon, while accused Nelson Garcia and Tito Zuela were arrested at Cabusao, Camarines Sur on June 4, 1985 and June 9, 1985, respectively. On March 26, 1987, all three accused, were arraigned with the assistance of their counsel, and pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial ensued. The evidence established the following facts: Maria Abendaño was engaged in business. She had a store, operated a passenger jeepney and engaged in the buy and sale of palay. Her house cum store was beside that of her sister Romualda Algarin‘s house, by the roadside in Barcelonita, Cabusao, Camarines Sur. Romualda also had a store. Accused Nelson Garcia was Maria‘s store helper. Accused Tito Zuela alias "Anting" helped Romualda in he r store during palay season. The other accused Maximo Velarde was known to Romualda because she met him at a birthday party held at Maria‘s house on April 19, 1985. The three accused were friends. On April 27, 1985, Maria made three (3) deliveries of palay on board her jeepney, driven by Hegino Hernandez, Jr., to the ricemill of Gerardo Benitez in San Juan, Libmanan, Camarines Sur. Every delivery costs seven thousand (P7,000.00) pesos. The three deliveries were made at 9:00 in the morning, 2:00 in the afternoon and 7:30 in the evening.[4] ScÓ jj

Between 6:30 and 7:00 in the evening of that day, from a distance of five (5) arms length, Romualda saw the three (3) accused board the jeepney of Maria, bound for San Juan, Libmanan, Camarines Sur. Because the jeepney was filled with palay, they merely held on the railing of the jeepney.[5] There were other passengers namely, Pablo Abendaño and Roberto Echiaca. [6] Gerardo Atienza, the buyer of palay, saw Maximo inside the jeepney during the second and third delivery of palay to his ricemill.[7] For each delivery, Gerardo paid Maria the amount of seven thousand (P7,000.00) pesos. The following morning, the bodies of Hegino Hernandez, Maria and John-John Abendaño were found in rigor mortis condition at New Poblacion, Cabusao, Camarines Sur.[8] Dr. Restituto Sampilo, municipal health officer of Cabusao, found Maria in a reclining position on the front seat of the jeepney. John was in a semi-kneeling position, facing his mother with both hands clasping her left hand. Hegino was at the steering wheel with his body, from the abdomen up, resting on the side of the vehicle and his head outside of it. [9] A bullet that exited from Hegino‘s left eyebrow caused the wound near his right ear.[10] Maria had a horizontal stab wound at the front part of her neck just above the xyphoid process. [11] Her seven (7) year old son, John, had a three (3) inch slashed horizontal wound at the front base of the neck, a two (2) inch wound on the left upper arm and two (2) stab wounds on the lateral side of the neck at the junction of the right shoulder.[12] Hegino had a small wound with slightly depressed edges, about an inch from the highest tip of the right ear, a wound with everted and lacerated edges above the middle part of the left eyebrow, and seven (7) stab wounds at the back. [13] Though there were no eyewitnesses, the prosecution established how the crime was committed with the testimony of Romualda Algarin, which was in turn based on the extrajudicial admission given by Maximo Velarde to Romualda when she visited the latter at the Camaligan municipal jail on June 6, 1985. Maximo, Tito and Nelson conceived the plan to hold-up Maria while drinking in front of Romualda‘s store because Maximo needed money for his fare to Manila. When the palay-laden jeepney of Maria left for Libmanan, Camarines Sur Maximo, Tito and Nelson boarded it. They alighted at sitio Cagumpis, Camagong, Cabusao, Camarines Sur to attend a wedding. [14] Maximo was supposed to board the jeepney on its way back to Barcelonita, while the other two (2) accused, Tito and Nelson would wait along the road at the crossing of New Poblacion and Camagong, Camarines Sur to board the jeepney and hold-up Maria. Everything went according to plan. Nelson and Tito hailed the jeepney at the crossing of Cabusao, Camarines Sur. Upon reaching an uninhabited place, Tito alias "Anting" told Velarde: " Oragui na ngaya ang driver."[15] Maximo poked a gun at the driver and shot him. He also shot Maria at the neck when the latter shouted.[16] Esmmis Nelson and Tito alighted from the jeepney. Nelson went to the left front side of the jeepney, while Tito approached the right front side of the jeepney, in the process stepping on the sleeping John-John who was then awakened. The boy stood up and said, "You will see I will tell my father that you killed my mother." [17] To avoid being identified by the boy, Tito told Maximo " Oragui na ini."[18] Maximo took hold of the boy‘s hair and slashed his neck. Tito took Maria‘s money and divided it, each accused receiving about seven thousand (P7,000.00) pesos from the loot. Tito and Nelson went back to Barcelonita, Cabusao, Camarines Sur. Maximo proceeded to Manila. On June 1, 1985, Lt. Ernesto J. Idian, Station Commander, Cabusao Police Station, Cabusao, Camarines Sur assisted by two (2) other policemen, arrested Maximo in Magallanes, Sorsogon. Though no warrant of arrest had been issued, Maximo was immediately brought to the Camaligan police station in Camaligan, Camarines Sur where he was investigated and asked to give a written statement in the presence of Atty. Jose Ocampo from the Citizen‘s Legal Assistance Office (CLAO), Naga City. [19] On June 4, and 9, 1985, Tito and Nelson were taken into police custody without a warrant. They underwent custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel because no lawyer could be found in Cabusao, Camarines Sur. On the last page of each accused‘s confession appeared a statement, in their own handwriting, to the effect that they volunta rily gave their statements and that no one coerced or promised them anything to admit responsibility for the crime.

Maximo, Nelson and Tito signed their individual statements before Judge Lore R. Valencia Bagalacsa, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Libmanan, Camarines Sur on three (3) different dates. [20] She followed the same procedure and line of questioning, using the local dialect, in ascertaining the voluntariness of the three (3) accused‘s confessions. She ordered Lt. Idian and his comp anions to leave her and the accused inside the chamber.[21] Satisfied that they were properly apprised of their rights and that they voluntarily executed their statements, she had them sign their individual extrajudicial statements. Antonio Abendaño, the husband of Maria, was working at Saudi Arabia when his family was killed. He came to know about the tragic death of his wife and son through an overseas call from his brother Renato Abendaño. When he learned about it, he became unconscious. He arrived in the Philippines five (5) days after. [22]He knew Nelson Garcia because he was the son of his cousin. He was also familiar with Tito Zuela, but he did not know Maximo Velarde. He spent twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos for the funeral of his wife and son. He gave one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos financial assistance to the family of their driver, Hegino.[23] Es-mso On the other hand, Maximo, Tito and Nelson interposed common defenses: (1) denial and (2) that they were tortured and forced to make a confession. In addition, Tito and Nelson claimed they were not assisted by counsel when their confessions were taken, while Maximo alleged the defense of alibi saying that he did not leave Magallanes, Sorsogon anytime in 1985. On June 1, 1985, five (5) persons, led by Lt. Idian, went to the house of Maximo Velarde in Magallanes, Sorsogon to fetch him because his parents wanted him at Cabusao, Camarines Sur as his brother Benito Velarde died. He was shown the picture of the cadaver of his brother. Maximo went with the group of Lt. Idian on board a red car and traveled to Naga City, arriving there between 7:00 and 8:00 in the evening. In a dark place before reaching Naga City, the driver stopped the vehicle to urinate. Before the driver could return, Maximo felt a hard object hit his head and he passed out. When he regained consciousness, he was already handcuffed. Pointing a gun at him, Lt. Idian told him that he had two choices, either to die or sign the statement they prepared because his brother had wronged them. He was warned not to tell anyone that he was mauled. Thereafter, they proceeded to the Camaligan municipal jail. Two days later or on June 3, 1985, Maximo was brought out of the jail and ushered into a small room where he saw three persons, namely Lt. Idian, Atty. Jose Ocampo from CLAO, Naga City and Pat. Gonsalo Refe, a police investigator from Cabusao, Camarines Sur. Atty. Ocampo read to him the contents of a prepared statement, which in substance mentioned that some people died and that he was responsible for their death. Maximo refused to sign. Atty. Ocampo stepped out of the room, followed by Lt. Idian and he overheard that he would be made to sign the statement in Atty. Ocampo‘s office in Naga City. Atty. Ocampo then left and Lt . Idian returned to the room. Upon Lt. Idian‘s return to the smaller room, he kicked Maximo in the stomach and poked a gun at him. Consumed by fear, Maximo promised that he would sign the prepared statement. He was then handed a piece of paper and ordered to copy its contents on the prepared statement. Found on page 5 of his extrajudicial confession was this statement, in his own handwriting: Ms-esm "Opo binasa ko po ang apedabeth na ito na may 5# pahina na pawang totoo at sasareling kagustohan at walang nantakot o nangako."[24] On June 4, 1985, Maximo again signed the statement before Judge Lore R. Valencia Bagalacsa, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Libmanan, Camarines Sur. From the time accused Maximo was arrested, he was never released. Maximo denied that he saw and talked to Romualda on June 6, 1985 at the Camaligan municipal jail because he had been detained at the Libmanan municipal jail since June 4, 1985. For his part, Nelson Garcia denied any knowledge of the crime. On June 4, 1985, the group of Pat. Gonsalo Refe went to his house and invited him to the office of Lt. Idian. He was brought to the Camaligan Police Station. Upon their arrival, Lt. Idian talked to him and tried to convince him to confess to the killing of the Abendaños. Because Nelson refused, Lt. Idian brought him upstairs and mauled him. He was transferred to Naga City jail, where he was detained for two (2) hours. Thereafter, he was brought to the Cabusao Police Station where Pat. Rodolfo O. Cariño subjected him to another investigation. Because of his continued refusal to confess, he was mauled again, this time by Pat. Cariño. To avoid further injury to his person, on June 5, 1985, Nelson Garcia was forced to sign the prepared statement. He was neither informed of its contents nor assisted by counsel. He was handed a piece of paper, the contents of which he was ordered to copy, in his own handwriting, and in substance was similar to what Maximo was ordered to copy as his own extrajudicial statement. He was brought to the office of Judge Bagalacsa that same afternoon so that he could sign his extrajudicial statement.

From the time he was invited to the office of Lt. Idian, Nelson was never released from police custody. He was first detained at the Libmanan municipal jail, and later on transferred to the Tinangis Penal Farm in Pili, Camarines Sur. Though he suffered physically from the beatings he got from the policemen, he was never permitted to see a doctor. His relatives were not able to visit or talk to him because the policemen prohibited visitors.[25] Like Nelson, Tito alias "Anting," denied participation in the crime. On July 9, 1985, Pat. Refe invited him to the office of Lt. Idian in Cabusao, Camarines Sur. Upon arrival at the police station, he was investigated about his knowledge of the crime. Failing to elicit any information from him, he was brought to Libmanan jail where he spent the night. E-xsm The following day, Tito was again brought to Cabusao Police Station and presented to Lt. Idian. In Lt. Idian‘s office, he was investigated about his involvement in the crime. When he could not provide any answer, he was made to board the police jeep, to be brought back to the Libmanan jail. Along the way, the police jeep stopped and Pat. Cabrera got off and kicked Tito who fell to the ground. He heard a gunshot and was shown the piece of paper that he was ordered to sign before Judge Bagalacsa. He was threatened with death should he refuse to sign the prepared statement. Out of fear for his life, Tito promised to sign. Thereafter, they boarded the police jeep and proceeded to the office of Judge Bagalacsa in Libmanan, Camarines Sur. Upon arrival at the office of Judge Bagalacsa, he was ordered to sign the statement without the assistance of counsel and without being informed of its contents. Thereafter, he was brought to Libmanan municipal jail and later to Tinangis Penal Farm. Like his coaccused, he was never released from police custody from the time of arrest. On August 26, 1993, the trial court promulgated its decision convicting the three (3) accused of robbery with homicide, the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, after a careful and serious evaluation of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, the Court is morally convinced beyond reasonable doubt, that the three (3) accused Maximo Velarde, Tito Zuela and Nelson Garcia had committed the crime of Robbery with Homicide and, therefore, sentences them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay jointly and severally an indemnity in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS for the Heirs of Maria Abendaño and John Abendaño and FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for the Heirs of Hegino Hernandez, without imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. "SO ORDERED. "GIVEN this 26th day of July, 1993 at Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Philippines. "(Sgd.) ……….."Presiding Judge"[26] SALVADOR G. CAJOT

On the same day, all three (3) accused filed a notice of appeal with the trial court. In their appeal, accused-appellants claim that the trial court erred in: (1) relying on Maximo Velarde‘s extra-judicial confession notwithstanding the violation of his constitutional rights; Ky-le (2) giving full faith and credit to Romualda Algarin‘s testimony; an d (3) finding all three (3) accused guilty as charged despite the prosecution‘s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Considering that there were no eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime, the extra-judicial confessions of the three (3) accused play a pivotal role in the determination of their culpability. The Court is duty-bound, therefore, to resolve the issue of whether or not the extra-judicial confessions were executed in accordance with the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, in light of the fact that the crime took place in 1985.

Ocampo was not present during the entire duration that accused Maximo was subjected to custodial investigation as could be inferred from the testimony of Pat. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. Calr-ky Nevertheless. threat. Rodolfo Cariño. but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. Section 20. Camarines Sur. In other words. unless he waives the right."[29] There was no evidence that Maximo executed a waiver of his right to counsel. Contrary to the ruling of the trial court. is that what you want to tell this court. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. the Court could not be lenient in this case. "the moment there is a move or even urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time. what did you do with the statement of Velarde? Ky-calr A: It was presented to Atty. A: We went to Naga with Lt. Q: Do you want to tell me that inspite of the fact that he was present when the confession was made you still present the statement to Atty. Q: Do you mean to tell me now that after the confession was made. Idian and Velarde. or any other means. It was in Camaligan that CLAO lawyer Ocampo was summoned to assist appellant Maximo in the execution of his written confession. Atty. is that correct? A: Yes he went ahead to Naga. from said suspect. he should then and there be assisted by counsel. Immediately thereafter."[31] The respective sworn statements of appellants Tito and Nelson were likewise inadmissible in evidence because they were executed without the assistance of counsel. Despite the fact that the reason for the absence of lawyer during the custodial investigation was the scarcity of lawyers in the area. which vitiates the free will. the confession was left to you and after the confession was brought to his office at the CLAO Office in Naga." [28] Lt." [27] The right to counsel attaches the moment an investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information on the crime from the suspected offender. Such declaration to a . His statement was reduced in writing when they were in Camaligan. the defect in the confessions of Tito and Nelson was not cured by their signing the extrajudicial statements before Judge Bagalacsa. No force. the arresting peace officers investigated appellant Maximo. Ocampo? A: In order to let him sign the statement. Q: And where did Atty. to wit: "Q: And after taking the statement of Velarde. Ocampo was already at Naga when the statement of Velarde was presented to him for signature. Q: But it remains a fact that Atty.that is. shall be used against him. and to be informed of such right. Accused -appellant Maximo repeated the contents of his sworn statement to Romualda Algarin who.[30] "An uncounselled extra-judicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel . in turn. The absence or scarcity of lawyers in any given place is not a valid reason for defying the constitutional mandate on counseled confessions. Ocampo. we are constrained to rule that Maximo Velarde‘s extra-judicial statement is inadmissible in evidence. intimidation. It is at this point that the law requires the assistance of counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting forced or coerced admissions or confessions from the person undergoing interrogation. the infirmity of accused-appellants‘ sworn statements did not leave a void in the prosecution‘s case.The pertinent provision of the 1973 Constitution provides: "Article IV. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. related these in court. In light of these facts. Ocampo sign the confession of Velarde? A: It was sign [sic] at Naga because he went ahead. Idian‘s team apprehended appellant Maximo in Magallanes. violence.is inadmissible in evidence. in writing and in the presence of counsel . So rsogon on June 1. 1985 when no warrant had been issued for his arrest.

What is important is that the witness is able to state the substance of the conversation or declaration. taken with circumstances duly established by the prosecution. as against him. of facts pertinent to the issue and tending. his uncounselled confession did not violate his constitutional rights. accused-appellant Maximo attempted to discredit Romualda's credibility as a witness when he swore that he could not have been in Camaligan on June 6. such testimony. she was impelled by no other reason than to tell the truth. it is not necessary that the witness should be able to fix accurately the date of the conversation in which the admission was made. Romualda‘s testimony on the substance of accused-appellant Maximo‘s admission standing alone. By analogy.private person is admissible in evidence against accused-appellant Maximo pursuant to Rule 130. but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. otherwise competent to testify as a witness. The rule that an extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused because the latter has no opportunity to cross-examine the confessant and therefore. the Court said that "when the accused talked with the mayor as confidant and not as a law enforcement officer. direct or implied. stands unscathed. 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 ultimate fact of guilt. he was detained at the Libmanan jail. They could have questioned its veracity by presenting evidence in support of their defenses of denial and alibi so they could put to test Romualda‘s credibility.[35]The trial court correctly disregarded this self-serving uncorroborated assertion. of his guilt of the crime charged.)[33] Me-sm And in the recent case of People vs." Of course. declaring the rights that exist without governmental grant. [38] is not applicable here. are admissible in evidence against the former under Section 26." The trial court. People (183 SCRA 196 [1990])." (Underscoring supplied. . declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation. therefore. is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it." [39] Appellants Tito and Nelson were afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witness Romualda on accused-appellant Maximo‘s declaration. In Aballe vs. not a confession. point unerringly to accused-appellants‘ culpability. which the trial court correctly considered as credible. Section 26 of the Rules of Court stating that the "act. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. [37] S-l-x Romualda‘s testimony on accused-appellant Maximo‘s admission sealed not only the latter‘s fate but also that of appellants Tito and Nelson. Romualda‘s testimony. However.[32] we held: "However. it was given to a private person. The said witness need not repeat verbatim the oral confession. In Andan. In other words.[36] She might have been mistaken as to the date when she talked with accused-appellant Maximo while he was detained considering the more than threeyear gap between June 1985 and September to October 1988 when Romualda testified. who heard the confession. 1985 until some three weeks later. However. not elicited through questioning by the authorities. The defense failed to attribute any ill-motive on the part of Romualda for testifying on accused-appellant Maximo‘s admission and therefore the presumption that in so testifying. the confession is hearsay. correctly gave evidentiary value to Romualda‘s testimony. to prove his guilt. but in the general principle that keeps alive in the public mind the doctrine that governmental power is not unlimited. 1985 because since June 4. a private party. "Accordingly. or state tyranny and abuse of authority. In laying down the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the people. Maqueda‘s admissions to Ray Dean Salvosa. stands. Relationship per se is not proof of prejudice. while an admission is a statement by the accused. and as to the other admission. Wharton distinguished these terms as follows: "A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms.‘ They are the fundamental safeguards against aggressions of arbitrary power. an admission is something less than a confession. that may not be taken away by government and that government has the duty to protect. in connection with proof of other facts. may not be the basis for conviction of the appellants. These are not governed by the exclusionary rules under the Bill of Rights. the Constitution did not govern the relationships between individuals. Having failed to do so. These circumstances are: (1) accused -appellants and the victims were all residents of Barcelonita. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement. that rule applies to oral extrajudicial admission. by a party in a criminal case. In People vs. it suffices if he gives its substance. Maqueda. but in connection with Maq ueda‘s plea to be utilized as a state witness. The provisions of the Bill of Rights are primarily limitations on government. What is involved here is an admission. the extrajudicial admissions of Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and to Ray Dean Salvosa stand on a different footing. or restrictions on the power of the government found ‗not in particular specific types of action prohibited. Andan[34] the Court reiterated the doctrine enunciated in the Maqueda case. The fact that she is related to two of the victims did not render her testimony incredible. 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.

As this Court once said: "Accused-appellant argues that had he participated in the crime.[45] There is no evidence that any of the accused-appellants desisted from the malevolent intent of the others to kill the victims during the robbery. robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way that robbery with multiple killings would be." [43] Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of accused-appellants before.Cabusao. [48] Neither is the nature of the offense altered by the number of killings in connection with the robbery. lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that accused-appellants were the culprits in the robbery with homicide. The heinousness of the crime they committed notwithstanding. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is used in its generic sense.[49] The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. [40] Under the law. Others may escape or flee – which circumstance is strongly indicative of guilt. which indicate a joint purpose. the imposition of the death penalty was proscribed. robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. his natural reaction would have been to flee. No. (5) Atienza saw accused-appellant Maximo riding in Maria‘s jeepney after the last delivery. which. accused-appellants Tito and Nelson no longer went to the store of Romualda. Sc-slx These circumstances form an unbroken chain. By the presence of two aggravating circumstances. Each culprit behaves differently in externalizing and manifesting his guilt. 7659. This would preclude an anomalous situation where. from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense. a small barangay where everyone knew everybody.[41] These requisites were present in this case. Camarines Sur. [51] However. while others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a semblance of normalcy. Treachery was not alleged in the information but the suddenness of the assault upon Hegino and Maria from behind was proven beyond reasonable doubt. their decision to stay in Barcelonita did not mean that they were not equally guilty as accused-appellant Maximo. [47]Spped The crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. No.A. they shall equally bear the responsibility for the resulting crime. The trial court correctly considered the crime as robbery with homicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as charged in the information. (2) accused-appellants Tito and Nelson helped in the stores of the sisters Maria and Romualda a week before the incident. during and after the commission of the crime. As such. do not negate their guilt. namely. and (8) accused-appellant Maximo fled to Manila. the Court has held: "After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislative history of R.A. 7659 which "has already expr essly converted reclusion perpetuainto a divisible penalty" and on account of the decision in People vs. As regards accused-appellant Maximo. circumstantial evidence is sufficient basis for conviction as long as: (1) there is more than one circumstance. It must be stressed that the Lucas ruling has been reconsidered and. by themselves. Lucas. careful not to arouse suspicion in the community. (6) after the commission of the crime. even if the manner by which he was attacked was not shown. (3) Romualda saw the three accused-appellants as they boarded Maria‘s jeepney during its last palay delivery to Libmanan.[42] With respect to accusedappellants Tito and Nelson. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years. We do not agree. with accused-appellant Maximo going to Manila and accused-appellants Tito and Nelson staying in Barcelonita. The Solicitor General‘s plea for modification of the penalty in accordance with Republic Act No. (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved. (4) Gerardo Atienza saw accused-appellant Maximo with Maria‘s group during the jeepney‘s second delivery of palay.[44] Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery. considering that when this case happened. embracing not only the act which results in death but also all other acts producing anything short of death.[50] Under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.[46] As regards seven-year-old John. unless there is proof that they tried to prevent the crime. Accused-appellants‘ diverse courses of action after the commission of t he crime. there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty.[52] is untenable. Treachery exists when an adult person illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his death. treachery may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. the Court concludes that although Section 17 of the R. (7) accused-appellants never attended the wake of the victims. accused-appellants may not be deprived of such favorable factor in their case. his flight to Manila and to Magallanes. the proper imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua. the proper penalty should be death in view of Article 63 (1) of the same Code. concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty." [53] . treachery and multiplicity of slain victims. Sorsogon with no plausible explanation therefor is a clear indication of guilt. and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. accordingly. As such. all those who took part as principals in the conspiracy are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing. treachery may be deemed to have attended his killing.

the Court sentences each of the accused-appellants solidarily to pay the additional amounts of forty three thousand (P43.00) pesos to the heirs of Maria Abendaño and John Abendaño and fifty thousand (P50.00) pesos as reimbursement of damages to the heirs of Maria Abendaño. ring and wristwatch and the expenses amounting to twenty thousand (P20.000.000. Jr.00) pesos as exemplary damages to the heirs of each of the three (3) victims. Maximo Velarde y de los Reyes. In addition.[54] The heirs are entitled to those amounts as reparation of the damage caused by accused-appellants. They shall also be liable for exemplary damages in view of the presence of two aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.000.000. The Court renders judgment finding accused-appellants Tito Zuela y Morandarte. the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the decision of the trial court. SO ORDERED. and sentences each of them to reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties and to pay civil indemnity of one hundred thousand (P100. and fifty thousand (P50. . and Nelson Garcia y Temporas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. defined and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.The trial court failed to award the heirs of Maria Abendaño the amount of twenty three thousand (P23.[55] Josp-ped WHEREFORE.00) pesos in reimbursement of the stolen cash.00) pesos to the heirs of Hegino Hernandez. which were duly proved.000.00) pesos for her wake and that of her son. With costs.000.

Dagupan City. accused-appellant. Branch 43. Din and his wife then brought Tandoc to the Villaflor Hospital. positively identified appellant as the triggerman in the killing of Nelson Tandoc. chasing two persons running towards M.M. attended by the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. their three opponents ran away in a westward direction. they noticed that the men with whom they just had a fight were running towards them.00 as moral damages. There was a fluorescent bulb installed at the front of the hotel which enabled Din to identify the assailant. No. he and his friend. Paul Doe and Tom Doe were charged with the crime of murder for the fatal shooting of one Nelson Tandoc on March 7. on March 7. at that time. After a series of questions. They demanded an explanation from the man but they were not given any. shoot Tandoc with a revolver. "Tol. Din was surprised when Tandoc unexpectedly slapped one of the two men. 1992. 108494 September 20. of a . The victim was taken to the emergency room but he expired an hour later. plaintiff-appellee. del Pilar Street. 1992. P100. He was further ordered to pay the heirs of Nelson Tandoc the sums of P50. SAMUEL MARRA y ZARATE. 8 Tandoc and Din then decided to walk back to the hotel.M. 12 They approached the man and inquired whether he was the security guard of "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw. 1994] REGALADO. They proceeded to the hospital where Din informed them that he could recognize the man who killed Tandoc and that the killer was. Having decided to go home. an amended information was filed wherein Allan Tan." The latter tried to chase appellant and his companions but he failed to catch up with them. of March 7. were conversing with each other in front of Lucky Hotel located at M. P50. 4 hence trial proceeded with regard to herein accused-appellant Samuel Marra alone. which was owned by the witness' father and of which he was the administrator. 10 At about 3:45 A. The man eating was not in a security guard's uniform. alias "Allan Yao. PAUL DOE and TOM DOE. H. Din saw four to five men scamper away from the scene. Samuel Marra y Zarate. they learned that he was Samuel Marra. they were informed by the wife of Jimmy Din that the victim had been brought to the Villaflor Hospital. Infuriated." which the latter answered in the affirmative. vs. He further added that the man was wearing a polo shirt of a security guard's uniform. He noticed a man pass by on the opposite side of the street. They entered a room and waited until they felt that the situation had normalized. that his tour of duty was from 7:00 P. Asked where that particular guard might be. 9 Aware of his injury. 2 A warrant of arrest was thereafter issued against Allan Tan 3 but the same was returned unserved. When they were about to enter the place. 1 On June 4. Jimmy Din. [G. Tandoc told Din. Peter Doe. two men arrived and one of them inquired what was going on. Nelson Tandoc. He proceeded to the crime scene along with SPO4 Orlando Garcia. Dagupan City. who at that time was wearing a security guard's uniform. wearing the polo shirt of a security guard's uniform. alias "Allan Yao. accused.00 as death indemnity. SPO3 Reynaldo de Vera of the Dagupan City Police Station received a report about a shooting incident at the annex building of the Lucky Hotel. Sensing danger. with Tandoc clashing with the two men while Din exchanged blows with the man who made the dirty finger sign. appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on May 15. Tandoc was shot in the middle of the chest and he fell down." was indicated as an accused instead of John Doe. they ran inside the annex building of the hotel and immediately secured the lock of the sliding outer door. All of a sudden. Then. Tandoc opened the sliding door. 11 They decided to proceed to an eatery called "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw. and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. he pointed to a man eating inside the eatery nearby. Upon their arrival about five minutes later. 1992.: In an information filed before the Regional Trial Court. Duly assisted by counsel. 5 After trial on the merits. 1992 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The man made a dirty sign with his finger and Din informed Tandoc thereof. they followed the man until the latter stopped in front of the Dunkin' Donuts store at the corner of Arellano and Fernandez streets." Seeing the security guard of a nearby bus company. 7 At that instant. The man repeated his offensive act and called them by waving his hands. After ten to fifteen minutes.(14) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1992. judgment was rendered by the court below on October 8." PETER DOE.H.000. 1992. and the costs. thinking that the men were no longer in the vicinity. Din saw Appellant.000. del Pilar Street. SPO3 Mauricio Flores and SPO3 Noli de Castro.000.00 as actual damages. The guard said that he saw the guard of "Linda's IhawIhaw. I was shot. After the fisticuffs. they left the room. J. John Doe. 6 The prosecution's eyewitness. Tandoc informed him that they were just demanding an explanation from the man. SAMUEL MARRA y ZARATE. Din recounted that at around 2:00 A. ALLAN TAN.R. A brawl ensued. they inquired from him if he knew of any unusual incident that happened in the vicinity.M." together with some companions.

Under the circumstances by which he allegedly witnessed the shooting. he chased the victim and Din. testified on the funeral.875. De Vera also found out that Marra had not firearm license. he was approached by four policemen who inquired if he was a security guard. he said that he did so in self-defense. De Vera went to Villaflor Hospital from where he fetched Din and brought him to the police station. St. the following day. how could be identify clearly an assailant at the distance of 45 meters?" 20 Appellant's counsel is only partly correct. burial and other expenses incurred by the family. the Court is not disposed to reverse the judgment of the lower court. testified that he conducted an autopsy on a certain Nelson Tandoc. P2. At around four o'clock down of the following day. had a spring hinge which makes it possible for the door to close by itself. Marra also admitted that prior to the incident. Assistant City Health Officer of Dagupan City. During the investigation. 1992. Marra took a . However. having conveniently failed to mention other vital parts of Din's testimony.38 caliber revolver from inside an aparador and handed it to De Vera. he was brought to the city hall where he was detained. he naturally turned around to look at the men who were running after them and who were at that time in front of the Balingit Trading store which was well-lighted. Said door. he reported for duty at seven o'clock that evening as was his usual practice. When he answered that it was at his residence. 21 It logically follows that they were the same persons who were waiting for them when they later came out of the hotel. 17 Understandably. He proceeded to the Five Star Bus Terminal which was adjacent to "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw. He declared that they paid Funeraria Quiogue P25. There. P3. at about 5:00 A. An impartial review of said testimony readily reveals that Din was indeed in a position to know the identity of the assailant. 14 Meanwhile. the cashier of said eatery. Tomas G. De Vera also found five live bullets and one spent shell. Abruptly. Eternal Garden. we do not agree with appellant that the door blocked the view of Din. that he was still on duty at around 2:30 in the morning of March 7. he had never met Jimmy Din nor does he know of any cause why Din would harbor any ill feelings against him. In assailing the decision of the court below.00. Jimmy Din was also not familiar with the accused. P350. 15 Dr.800. thereby allowing Din sufficient opportunity to have an unobstructed view of the scene outside. 19 After a careful scrutiny of the records and an objective evaluation of the evidence. Smelling gunpowder from the barrel of the gun.00 for its services.00 for the rent of the tent during the burial.000. they all went to his house to look for it." He saw Neneng. the decision of the latter being amply supported by the established facts and fully sustained by the applicable law. However. . Villaflor Hospital. was not able to identify the assailant in a definite and believable manner. at that time the spring hinge had been weakened by long and constant use such that it would take some time for it to close the door. he went home to change his clothes. appellant gave a different version of the incident. Prior to the incident.00 for food and drinks during the wake. and that the firearm issued to him was in his house. and together they ordered arroz caldo. firing at the victim only once.. He found a gunshot wound on the victim with the point of entry of the left side of the anterior chest wall and the point of exit at the lower left portion of the right shoulder. De Vera asked Marra when he last fired the gun but the latter denied ever having done so. The officers then took Marra to the police station where he was detained. and that they spent P2. After he handed over the firearm to the policemen. Firstly. he insisted that when he handed the gun to the policeman. they proceeded to Marra's residence at Interior Nueva Street. stepfather of the victim.300. Cornel. the defense argues that "Jimmy Din . there were five live bullets." It goes on to state further that " Jimmy Din was inside the hotel when Nelson Tandoc was shot and his vision was o(b)structed by the door. During the chase.preceding day to 6:00 A. He answered in the affirmative. and he was familiar with their identities because of their previous encounter.M. Later. . On March 6. John Memorial Cathedral. partly made of plywood.00 for the video tape expenses and P11. 1992. He was also asked about his sidearm. and not four live bullets and one empty shell as claimed by the prosecution. persistent efforts on the part of the policemen to thereafter locate said bladed weapon proved futile.M. 13 When they arrived. 18 Under cross-examination. Marra declared in court that he used to work as a security guard at "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw" from seven o'clock in the evening to six o'clock in the morning of the following day. 16 Prosecutor Gregorio Gaerlan. De Vera asked him point-blank why he shot Tandoc. Din knew for a fact that the persons he and Tandoc fought with near the Dunkin' Donuts store were the same men who chased them while they were on their way back to the hotel because he was able to take a good look at them.00 for the confinement of Tandoc. Marra at first denied the accusation but when informed that someone saw him do it. Din definitely identified Marra as the assailant.00 for the interment fee and P150. Secondly.000. Tandoc allegedly had a samurai sword with him at the time of the incident. Upon their request to see the firearm. 22 .

they sought information from a security guard of a nearby bus terminal. May 25. Marra admitted the act although he alleged it was done in self-defense. No. enabled him to clearly see what really happened. 26 The trial Court.M. he decided to go home to change clothes. of March 7. 24 In the case at bar. .J. they all went to Marra's residence to get the same. but in such a case it must be given in substance. 29 [now Sec. this Court held: . the law provides that the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. . (Italics supplied. 129 SCRA 431). . or of any offense necessarily included therein may be given in evidence against him and. whose testimony we shall repeat here for easy reference. this admission may be considered as part of the res gestae. as earlier discussed. which proximity. De Vera narrated the sequence of events that happened after he and his companions went to the crime scene to conduct an investigation. The police inquiry had not yet reached a level wherein they considered him as a particular suspect. 23 Lastly. After receiving said firearm. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged may be given in evidence against him (Sec. 33]. No written confession was sought to be presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial investigation. (23 C. 1984.n. G. Din was at the left side of Tandoc and about four to five meters away from the assailant. In addition. appellant was not under custodial investigation when he made the admission. therefore.s. Nevertheless. De Vera asked appellant why he killed Tandoc but Marra initially denied any participation in the killing. He said that on ending his tour of duty at 4:00 A. is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate. but given in an ordinary manner. . Padilla was a spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning. any person. . albeit with an exculpatory explanation. cited in People vs. the place was brightly illuminated by a 20-watt fluorescent bulb installed on the outside wall in front of the hotel. . We believe that he was not so situated. the suspect is taken into custody. The rule is that. It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect. Such physical conditions would undeniably afford a clear view from inside the hotel of the immediate area outside and in front of the same where the incident took place. 6-9) is competent evidence against him. the case against appellant has been duly established by the other evidence of the prosecution. They were just probing into a number of possibilities. He thus readily perceived the actual shooting at the time when Tandoc pushed the door open. who heard the confession. Reynaldo de Vera. De Vera. appellant expressly admitted that he shot Tandoc. Din was quite near the victim and appellant. he was not in a blue uniform whereas Din testified that the person who shot Tandoc was wearing the polo shirt of a security guard's uniform. . persistently arguing for an acquittal. . This is a puerile argument since appellant himself removed any lingering doubts on this point. de Vera assumes a dominant dimension because it totally destroys the defense of denial cum alibi subsequently raised by appellant. the defense points out that when the police officers saw Marra. This testimony of De Vera as to the confession of Marra is of significant weight. As we held in People vs. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim. The prosecution presented another vital witness in the person of Sgt. otherwise competent as a witness." The critical inquiry then is whether or not Marra was under custodial investigation when he admitted the killing but invoked self-defense. after which he went to "Linda's . in certain circumstances. October 17. he could have refused to answer questions from the very start when the policemen requested that they all go to his residence. Custodial investigation involves any 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 . Said security guard pointed them to Marra. .) In any event. when confronted with the fact that somebody saw him do it. Indeed." Accordingly. It may in a sense be also regarded as part of the res gestae. In his answers to Sgt. Padilla that "he had shot a tourist" and that the gun he had used in shooting the victim was in his bar which he wanted surrendered to the Chief of Police (t. Marra was only about three meters away therefrom. In capsulized form. 1985.R. At that precise moment. but the admissibility thereof shall also be passed upon. Section 12(1). Dy. pp. Dy: 25 "What was told by the accused to Pat. cannot be held to have erred in holding that compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial investigation is not applicable in the instant case. who at that time was eating in a carinderianearby. Rule 130). Having received information that a man in a security guard's uniform was involved in the incident. This admission of Marra is in complete contrast to the statements he later made in open court. Tawat. 196. having been merely informed that the suspect was wearing what could be a security guard's uniform. the testimony of Sgt. the oral confession made by the accused to Pat.S. However. 1992. even without his admission. . There was no coercion whatsoever to compel him to make such a statement.Thirdly. In a similar situation involved in the aforecited case ofPeople vs.. Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that "(a)ny 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. 62871. Informed by Marra that his gun was at his residence.

Ihaw-Ihaw" to eat. while we agree that the crime committed by appellant was murder qualified by treachery. at the time the police officers saw him. Marra was still in his security guard's uniform. whether or not such aggravating circumstance should be appreciated. 27 At any rate. SO ORDERED. This explains why. The shooting had taken place earlier at around 2:00 A. No evidence was presented by the prosecution to show that nocturnity was specially sought by appellant or taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to ensure his immunity from capture. However. the penalty to be imposed on appellant would not be affected considering the proscription against the imposition of the death penalty at the time when the offense in the instant case was committed. we reject the finding that the same was aggravated by nighttime. At that time. he was already in civilian clothes. WHEREFORE. . the judgment of the court a quo finding accused-appellant Samuel Marra y Zarate guilty of the crime of murder and imposing upon him the penalty and civil liabilities therein stated is hereby AFFIRMED.M. being then on duty.

Rodriquez. among which were exhibits "A". No. 1990. BALAJADIA. the Court RESOLVES the same as follows: Exhibits A. of the Prosecution and considering the "JOINT OBJECTIONS TO FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE" dated August 19. against Rosita C. "S". but the same was denied by the respondent court in its Resolution[9] dated September 27. Said exhibits were offered as part of the testimony of Auditor Rugayan. 85) the exhibits "off-court" was admitted by the accused through counsel. to the damage and prejudice of the Government in the aforesaid sum. RODRIGUEZ. ENRIQUEZ. misappropriate. JOSE S. Contrary to law. and his co-accused in Criminal Case No. 1993. 2000] DE LEON.. and HON. Pada. and Salvador C. Torres and Sebastian with regard to the admission of said exhibits dated September 10.290. being then the Senior Clerk in the Postage Stamps Section. 1993 which denied the motion for reconsideration of the said Resolution. and embezzle and convert to their personal use and benefit the amount of SIX HUNDRED FORTY NINE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY and 05/100 PESOS (P649. all of the Postal Services Office. the three accused. vs. the prosecution rested its case [5]and formally offered its evidence on July 6. 1993. Sebastian. Dissatisfied. and C are admitted. Torres. GARCHITORENA. First Division which admitted the sworn statements of petitioner Salvador Sebastian. TERESITA B. while in the performance of their official functions. Sr. "T". Philippines. admitted said evidence. and conspiring and confederating with one another. JR. and previously marked as exhibits "Q". 1993. 1445). . On August 19. took place before the Deputy Clerk of Court of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan. 1993. seeking to annul the Resolution[2] dated August 24.[7] The Sandiganbayan in its Minute Resolution[8] dated August 24. on September 13. On July 28. HON. Teresita B. 1993. Rosita C. the marking of the documents to be testified on by the lone prosecution witness.[6] Among those offered as evidence were the sworn statements made by all the accused. respondents. they being certified true copies of official documents. and the Resolution dated September 27. October 18. Philippine Currency. the above-named accused. thus: Acting upon the "FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE" dated July 5. It reads: That on or about the period comprised between January 1989 and June 21. 1993 of the Sandiganbayan. misapply. jointly filed a Motion for Reconsideration. SEBASTIAN. committing the offense in relation to their office. petitioner. ATIENZA (SANDIGANBAYAN-First Division). taking advantage of their position. No. Special Prosecution Officer III Teresita Diaz-Baldoz filed with the Sandiganbayan an Information for the crime of Malversation of Public Funds[3]. as defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Lourdes A. 1993 is denied. including that of petitioner. 1993. It ruled that: Considering that under the Order of this Court dated April 22. [G. being then the Regional Postage Stamps Custodian. LOURDES A. Exhibits D up to U and U-1 inclusive of submarkings are admitted as part of the testimony of Lilibeth Rugayan as examining auditor under the State Auditing Code (P. ROSITA C. Upon the completion of the testimony of Auditor Rugayan.D. TORRES. all public officers. feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence. 1993. Zamboanga City. 114028. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. "R". J.R. Region IX. RACHEL V. FRANCIS E. 1992. being then a Utility Man in the Postage Stamps Section. out of the postage stamps in the custody of accused Rosita C. in the City of Zamboanga. 1993. the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the accused Pada. Pada.. SR. B. NARCISO T.05). being then a Senior Clerk in the Mail Delivery Section and SALVADOR C.: Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65[1] in conjunction with Rule XIX of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan. all the accused (including petitioner) filed their "Joint Objections to Formal Offer of Evidence" on the principal ground that the sworn statements were "hearsay" evidence.(15) SALVADOR SEBASTIAN. Enriquez and Salvador C. HON. "B" and "C". and as such is accountable for the custody of the postage stamps received and issued by her by reason of the duties of her office. Rachel V. who conducted the audit examination. Auditor Lilibeth Rugayan of the Commission on Audit. 1993 (p. Rachel V. and "U-1" for the prosecution. did then and there wilfully. Pada. Sebastian entered separate pleas of "Not Guilty" on October 13. The marking of the exhibits was with the conformity of all of the accused and their respective counsel. PADA. unlawfully.[4] On April 22. 17904 as evidence for the prosecution. of accused. "U". being then a Letter Carrier. Torres. 1992.

conclusions and recommendations". [13] Such a formal offer is necessary because it is the duty of the judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment only upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. and evidence marked. Thus. It has been held that any evidence which a party desiring to submit for the consideration of the court must be formally offered by him. the right to remain silent and the right to waive these rights in the presence of counsel. subject to confirmation this afternoon. inquiries. Saavedra. Petitioner contends that he and his co-accused were never presented as witnesses. . the fact remains that under existing laws. It is merely an administrative investigation. the facts stipulated. In view of this. Chief Postal Service Officer." Custodial investigation has been defined as any 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. It is also the contention of petitioner that he never admitted the said sworn statements during the pre-trial conference. 1993 ruled that: By agreement of the parties. is clearly hearsay evidence. confirmation and other techniques.[14] The fact-finding investigation relative to the missing postage stamps at the Postage Stock Section of Zamboanga City conducted by a Enrique G. judgments. Exevea [16] that the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees. We disagree. Entrenched is the rule that the rights provided in Section 12. Petitioner in his supplemental pleading claims to have been deprived of his constitutional rights under Sections 12 and 17. In any event. and no duty rests on such a body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel. if intended to establish the truth of the fact asserted in the statement.[12]The record does not show that petitioner and his co-accused objected to the above-mentioned Order. The main purpose of a pre-trial is to expedite the trial. this petition. Thus.D. the direct examination will be waived and the cross-examination by the accused will take place primarily to dispute the statement above-mentioned. the sub-marking of the documents to be testified to by Auditor Lilibeth Rugayan has been completed and only the other sub-markings will take place during the proceedings. observation. which are derived from his own perceptions. 1993 of the respondent court. Petitioner alleges that nothing in his sworn statement shows compliance with the constitutional provisions on the right to counsel. sufficient competent evidential matter to afford himself a reasonable basis for his opinions. any evidence presented during the pre-trial conference cannot be considered by the court if not formally offered. the rule explicitly provides that a witness can testify only on those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. This Order of the Sandiganbayan reciting the actions taken. Petitioner argues that the said issue should be resolved in the negative on the ground that the subject sworn statements are hearsay evidence. hearsay evidence is inadmissible. As stated in the Resolution dated August 24. irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent's capacity to represent himself. that is. Additionally. the sworn statements executed by the petitioner and co-accused were offered not to prove the truth or falsity of the facts stated therein but only to prove that such written statements were actually made and executed. otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code provides that "the auditor shall obtain through inspections.[11] In the present case.Title II.Hence. While an investigation conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding. Exhibits "D" up to "U" and "U-1" were admitted only as part of the testimony of Lilibeth Rugayan as Examining Auditor. they were not given the opportunity to identify and authenticate their respective sworn statements and that Auditor Rugayan had no personal knowledge of the contents thereof. a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel. The only issue to be resolved in the present petition is whether or not the sworn statements of petitioner and his co-accused are admissible in evidence "as part of the testimony of the prosecution witness". 1445. is not a custodial investigation. binds the parties and limits the trial to matters not disposed of and shall control the course of the action during the trial. As a general rule. unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice.[10] However. and that "marking" is different from "admission". Chapter I. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Article III of the Constitution may be invoked only when a person is under "custodial investigation" or is "in custody investigation.[15] It has been held in the case of Lumiqued v. that he agreed merely to the "marking" of the said sworn statements as exhibits of the prosecution. with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service. the parties have informally agreed that all the documents marked today are deemed authenticated except for the alleged responses of the various postmasters as to the request for confirmation which the accused dispute both as to their authenticity as well as to their accuracy assuming that they are authentic. Section 55 of P. while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person. it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement. the respondent court in its Order dated April 22. thus.

including petitioner. Jr. x x x x x x WHEREFORE.He argues that in its first Resolution dated March 18. they are interlocutory in nature and from which no appeal lies. This Court has consistently refrained from interfering with the exercise by the Ombudsman of his constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory power. Lourdes Enriquez and Salvador Sebastian. for purposes of prosecution. for Malversation of Public Funds. as described therein. the undersigned respectfully recommends the prosecution of Rosita Pada. 1992. a petition for review on certiorari is a mode of appeal from judgments or final orders or resolutions and limited to questions of law. and the exclusion for liability of Florecita Doromal. it is not for this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before his Office. stating that: Thus. Petitioner's choice of remedy therefore is clearly an error." Hence. it would be more expedient to indict all the respondents for Malversation and let them explain in court the actual extent of their individual accountability. SO ORDERED. beholden to no one. premises considered. Special Prosecution Officer Teresita Daiz-Baldos recommended the prosecution of the four other accused. petitioner now questions the disposition of the Ombudsman as merely engaging in a fishing expedition in this case. Pada only. Rachel Torres. Such initiative and independence are inherent in the Ombudsman who. [17] Lastly. . However.Petitioner. However. is one filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. in its subsequent resolution dated July 28. under Rule 45. Otherwise stated. the Court noted that the petition. The resolutions of the Sandiganbayan herein sought to be reviewed or set aside are not in any sense judgments or final orders or resolutions. 1992 of the Office of the Ombudsman. the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public service. Teresita Rodriguez. Graft Investigation Officer Rodolfo Rojas. likewise contends that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in filing the Information for malversation against him. recommended the filing of an Information for Malversation of Public Funds against Rosita C. WHEREFORE.

) Through an Amended Information. Jaime Mabingnay. 29 of the Revised Penal Code provided with the conditions enumerated thereon have been complied with. 17). in Caloocan City. went to the cabinet outside the room. 28. a man suddenly barged into the house of Marites by destroying the kitchen door and removing the lawanit wall thereof.R. Then the man placed masking tape on her mouth and ordered her to bring out her money and jewelry. 1990.00 and if unable to do so. to pay said victim the corresponding prices of these articles as shown above. took cash amounting to P1. unlawfully and feloniously take. otherwise she would be killed. April 5. 1990. April 26. 1989. assaulted and stabbed one ARNEL CERICOS Y MICIANO with the same weapon. a lady's . tsn. 7.: Accused-appellant. To the left of the house is the bedroom where the three were asleep. finding him guilty of the crime of Robbery with Rape. Amparo Subdivision. Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 224 Malambing St. the inculpatory facts are as follows: Marites Nas Atienza.00. Rollo. following the entry of a not guilty plea. was sleeping on a sofa. there is a stairway leading to a store. and lewd designs. Panfilo Cabiles. and then attacked.00 as consequential damages.000. J. 1989. The place was illuminated by the light coming from a 25watt electrical bulb which was outside the room's window (tsn. The house has an area of about 29 square meters.00 and wristwatch (Channel) worth P800. 1990. she was asleep with her 1 1/2-year old daughter. with the use of a deadly weapon. a housewife whose husband was abroad. while carrying her baby.. She was told not to shout. pp. 20-24. thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries. was charged as follows: That on or about the 5th day of November 1989. was residing at No. Marites. the above-quoted verdict was rendered. 8. accused-appellant. 6. the instant appeal. a Seiko watch worth P1. (pp.00 and one gold ring worth P500.500. cash money worth P1. Hence. accused-appellant. Rollo. to indemnify the victim Luzviminda Aquino in the amount of P30. p. 86-87. thus enabling him to reach the lock inside. At around 1:15 o'clock on the morning of November 5.00 in cash and to pay the costs.000. together with the additional accused. March 5. 112035 January 16. rob. As deduced from the prosecution's evidence which came primarily from the testimony of Marites Nas Atienza and Luzviminda Aquino.(16) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.00.000. 4. 1998] MELO.500. alias Nonoy. [G. whereas accused-appellant was arraigned on both original and amended informations. Approximately two steps away from her bed. the above-named accused by means of force and violence. this Court finds the accused Panfilo Cabiles aliasNonoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape as charged and hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Art.00. The accused shall be entitled to the full period of his preventive imprisonment. Erica Dianne Atienza. pp. Kalookan City). did then and there willfully. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING. After trial. and carry away one (1) gold ring worth P500. tsn. vs.500. Luzviminda Aquino.00. one (1) ladies seiko watch worth P1. to the latter's damage and prejudice. No. SO ORDERED. 6. conspiring together and mutually helping one another. and by reason or on occasion of said robbery. In the kitchen. one (1) bracelet worth P500. Marites' housemaid. 10.) Accused-appellant's co-accused. On the eve of November 5. 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The main door is located at the kitchen. (p. to reimburse Marites Nas Atienza the amount of P1. seeks the reversal of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region (Branch 124. Said accused is also ordered to return to Marites Nas Atienza the stolen Seiko Wrist watch worth P1. was neither apprehended nor arraigned. At the point of the knife. pursuant to Art.00 belonging to one Marites Nas Atienza. The man suddenly poked a 6-inch kitchen knife on the right side of Marites' neck.00. plaintiff-appellee. with intent of gain. This awakened her.000. PANFILO CABILES alias "NONOY". inside her room at her house. had carnal knowledge of one LUZVIMINDA AQUINO Y AREVALO. as follows: WHEREFORE. Kalookan City.

. accidentally hitting with her right foot the knife thus causing her injury. March 5. Luna Hospital in Quezon City at about 4 o'clock that morning (tsn. 25). at 9 o'clock that morning. Emmanuel Quedding noted that Cericos sustained four stab wounds of different sizes. at about 1:40 o'clock in the afternoon. Outside the factory edifice. Thereafter. The man then told her. April 5. Upon being awakened. she did not discount the possibility that sexual intercourse also took place on November 5. the victim's death. he was permitted to leave the hospital at about 1 o'clock that afternoon (tsn. two stab wounds on his left arm. Luzviminda. with scab formation and peripheral edema at the medine melcolus. 1989 without any injury at the genital area. pp. April 26. April 26. When she was about to shout. and some arteries and consequently. The man then went to the store which was only about 4 to 5 steps away from Marites' bed. 1989. p. Luzviminda likewise later identified the man as accused-appellant. pp. and a ring worth P500. the most serious of which was the lacerated wound on the interior chest which required Cericos to be placed under observation for 8 to 12 hours. Luzviminda subjected herself to a physical examination conducted by Dr. He poked the knife on Luzviminda's right side and despite the latter's resistance. pp. and gave them to the man. 16-17. Marites decided to bring him to the V. . tsn. upon seeing Cericos. Luzviminda was awakened by the crying of Marites' baby. Resultantly. he took a bottle of beer from the refrigerator and began drinking. pp. 16. accused-appellant succeeded in tying her hands at the front with the use of a piece of shoestring (tsn. Manuel Rodriguez of the Kalookan City Police Station. All the while." Meanwhile. 1990. 18). from whom she asked for help. 11-14. . 1990. Marites brought him to a physician. The man also placed masking tape on Luzviminda's mouth. Thereafter. 10. for treatment. could result in the laceration of the lung. 19-22). For her part. pp. When Cericos entered the room. Dr. 13-14. Later.wristwatch with the trademark "Chanel" (also referred to in the records as "Channel") worth P850. 40. pp. she rushed back to her house to administer first aid to him. While carrying her child. When Cerico's complaints continued. March 5. tsn. Javier. accused-appellant. p. they chased each other outside the house.5 cm. 34-35. went to the Kalookan Police Department and reported what happened to her. While on top of Luzviminda and continuously doing the sexual act. 1990. he started removing Luzviminda's pants and underwear while still holding the knife with his right hand. Meanwhile Luzviminda put on her pants and ran toward Cericos' house (tsn. Consequently. 34. 1990. Luzviminda struggled and kicked. 31). 1990. 4-5. April 5. 8-10). April 26. She was witnessing Luzviminda being raped by the man. Carmelita Belgica. 10. 1990. Ceriro's house was approximately twelve steps away from Marites' house. 1990. the man poked the knife on her left side. Corporal Luciano Cañeda and Pcf. pp.00. 44). 1990. 27. Marites sat on the bed. January 10. 1990. Marites later identified the man as accused-appellant. March 5. they went back inside the bedroom and Marites sat on her bed. went to a sash factory warehouse at the Marivic Compound. 1990. Quedding found that the wounds. pp. When he was about to consume the beer. he succeeded in inserting his sexual organ into Luzviminda's private parts after forcibly lying on top of her. 15. March 5. 11-12. pp. April 5. 12). upon referral by the chief of the Northern Police District. causing her an injury. 1990. He ransacked the same in search for more valuables. Meanwhile. 27). Pcf. if deep enough. along with Romeo Nas. 9-10. Kalookan City. a medico-legal officer. tsn. However. he forcibly held both of her arms in front of her. 7-8. pp. the man stood up right away and stabbed Cericos four times. Notwithstanding her struggle to hide her hands at her back. as she sat on her bed in extreme fear. 1990. On November 6. Marites tried to escape by asking permission to prepare milk for her baby (tsn. After advising Cericos not to work for about one week or more. heart. 3-6. Afterwards. Afterwards. pp. 1990. Arnel Cericos. trembling with fear.00. Belgica expounded that although the physical examination results manifested that the occurrence of sexual intercourse three months before could have caused the laceration. on November 8. 1989. 10-11. The man then rolled down his short pants to his thighs. Attending physician Dr. he tapped Luzviminda's thigh. Afterwards. Consequently. a bracelet worth P500. 30. the man was still on top of Luzviminda. Cericos sustained a stab wound on his chest. right side . "Huwag kang sisigaw kundi papatayin kita. 36. pp. Dr. tsn. 40." Her genital examination results showed an old healed laceration indicative of sexual intercourse possibly occurring three months before the date of examination. they saw accused-appellant sleeping on a bench. tsn. While the man continued to hold the knife. tsn. Cericos then complained of difficulty in breathing. and a stab wound on his right arm. April 5. as it "cannot be consulted medically because the opening is wide enough" (tsn. 1990. still cuddling her baby (tsn. Dr. he returned to the room and sat beside Luzviminda (tsn. measuring 3. one Col. March 5. as she cuddled her baby. Marites was able to run to the house of her neighbor. Kalookan City. Marites was still cuddling her daughter. March 5. 42. pp." Upon hearing those words. 1990. Belgica found on Luzviminda's right foot "a laceration. Romeo Nas saw that accused-appellant was wearing a bracelet which the former recognized as the bracelet taken from Marites. healing. Marites decided to hide at Ceriro's house. brother of Marites. 18-19. tsn. 38. told the three men that the other things he took from Marites were inside a plastic bag at the factory building. 19. April 5. the man uttered: "Isusunod ko ang Ate mo pagkatapos ko sa iyo.00. 6-9. When Marites learned that Cericos was injured.

We shall first discuss the procedural matters and circumstances surrounding the charge. . that accused-appellant's robbed and raped Luzviminda. The trial court likewise noted accused-appellant's confession before Marites and in the presence of Amy Maliwanag. owner of the woodcarving factory watched over by accused-appellant. It found that his identity was well established. he testified that he was lying on a bench at the Marivic Compound when three men in civilian clothes arrived. 1989 as he was designated by the owner of the place to watch over the premises (tsn. 1990. 30. However. tsn. 1989 at around 1 o'clock in the afternoon. p. Samar. as charged in the Amended Information. Accused-appellant's version of the event was corroborated by: (a) his wife Soledad Cabiles who testified that she slept with accusedappellant at Marivic Subdivision in the evening of November 4. 6-9). He. as the one who asked him to commit the crime. 4-6). (3) that the bracelet and the "Chanel" watch and even the "improbable" shoestring were the products of a poisonous tree. He did not read it and was just forced to sign it. The trial court found no merit in accused-appellant's defense. 1989. 1990. sleeping with his wife. accused-appellant testified that on November 5. was allegedly committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery. which. who testified that accused-appellant and his wife were allowed to sleep within the factory premises. at 1:30 o'clock in the morning. 1989. As regards the crime of serious physical injuries. He was not assisted by counsel during that time (tsn. 25). (b) Conrado Bacoy. also said that accused-appellant's captors did not have a warrant when they made the arrest. accused-appellant took pity on Marites' child. he was wearing a bracelet which was said to be owned by Marites. 1989. pp. Accused-appellant argues as his sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. relied and banked on denial and alibi. August 23. and that Jaime Mabingnay instructed him to do so. As regards his sworn statement containing a confession to the commission of the crime. (2) that a shoestring was found inside the plastic bag which accused-appellant stated as his own when he led the arresting officers to the factory compound at Marivic.Rodriguez went inside the building to get the plastic bag and it was found to contain a woman's undershirt. April 10. and to kill her. 263 of the Revised Penal Code. Marites saw accused-appellant at the Kalookan City Police Station. and a wristwatch with the brand name "Chanel" which was the one taken from Marites (tsn. Accused-appellant denied even having gone to Amparo Village. He said the same thing about Luzviminda (tsn. he said he was forced by the policemen at the station to execute the same. Sr. and which was later sold to him. August 23. a light blue shirt. He said he only saw the contents of the bag when he was under detention at the Kalookan City Jail. 4-5. and (4) that his identification based on his built and voice is not an effective one. pp. the trial court likewise observed that: (1) at the time of accused-appellant's arrest. and (c) Melchor Mabini who aside from supporting accused-appellant's alibi. We affirm the trial court's decision. at about 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon. He had been residing at the Marivic compound starting October 30. he was at Marivic Subdivision. 16. April 10. Accused-appellant. He denied that a plastic bag with stolen contents was recovered from him by his captors. the same having been pledged to him by his cousin Elizabeth Abantao when he was still at Wright. Marites' brother-in-law. 7-8. and (3) that said shoestring was the one used by accused-appellant in tying Luzviminda's hands before she was raped. Kalookan City. 1989. to wit: (1) that the medico-legal officer said several times that the sexual intercourse occurred three months before the incident complained of. 1990. a council woman of Amparo Subdivision and Linda Pilahan. 1990. pp. admitted that a "Chanel" lady's watch was recovered from him at the time of the arrest but insisted that he owns the watch. 1990. 1989. not having been the fruits of a lawful warrantless arrest. He did not know the reason for his arrest. He said that the first time he ever saw Marites was at the Kalookan City Police Station on November 9. 4). Baesa. Mabingnay was said to have promised to help accused-appellant to get a job abroad and to help the latter financially. 14. The following day. based on the testimony of Marites and Luzviminda who were adjudged as credible witnesses. 33-36). From the testimony of said witnesses. pp. before the crime took place (tsn. the trial court found that the evidence is insufficient to prove the commission of the same or any of the physical injuries penalized in Subdivision 1 of Art.. (2) that verbal admissions are inadmissible against the accused. The latter admitted his guilt and pointed to Jaime Mabingnay. however. He denied having raped Luzviminda Aquino. As to accused-appellant's arrest which took place on November 8. March 5. 11. to cause the blindness of Marites. Regarding the day of the incidence. He stresses the following arguments. Kalookan City. August 23. on the other hand. p. 1990. Marites further recalled that she saw accused-appellant at Mabingnay's house on November 5. November 9.

A perusal of the testimony of both witnesses convinces us even more that there is no strong and cogent reason to disregard the trial court's findings. to wit: (1) the confession must be voluntary. such irregularity was only raised during trial. 240 SCRA 541 [1995]). As regards the evidentiary weight of accused-appellant's sworn statement wherein he confessed to the crime charged. corroborated by defense witness Melchor Mabini. p. 240 SCRA 254 [1995]. Jr. 241 SCRA 709 [1995]). Moran. And it is much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid information had been filed and the accused arraigned and trial commenced and completed and a judgment of conviction rendered against him (People vs. Cajambab.R. he was wearing a bracelet (Exh. 251 SCRA 626 [1995]. Lopez. Even if the confession of an accused speaks the truth. Andan (G. Accused-appellant testified that he was forced to execute the sworn statement containing his confession (tsn. 9). Verily. In regard to this delay. accused-appellant's verbal confession before Marites Nas Atienza is. this Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea. p. In any event. We agree that the identity of accused-appellant was sufficiently established through the following circumstances: 1. 241 SCRA 442 [1995]). March 5.Accused-appellant. April 26. March 3. (People vs. we are swayed by Marites' spontaneous and straightforward testimony on how she recognized the culprit. Manzano. Cabintoy. When said accused talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer. contends that his arrest was an alleged warrantless one. and (4) the confession must be in writing. 1997) where we ruled that the accused's verbal confession made in a private meeting with the municipal mayor. 245 SCRA 95 [1995]. Gamiao. such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused (People vs. 240 SCRA 643 [1995]. Although this assertion is uncorroborated. Marites Nas Atienza. 1990. An admission made without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation is inadmissible in evidence. Deniega. we laid down the four fundamental requirements needed for admissibility of a confession. People vs. "F") which Marites recognized as the one she surrendered to accused-appellant during the robbery on November 5. p. 245 SCRA 421 [1995]). in writing and in the presence of counsel — is inadmissible in evidence (People vs. to wit: . the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error. 240 SCRA 482 [1995]). It was illuminated by a lighted electric bulb outside the jalousie window of said room (tsn. spontaneously. but on the trial court's assessment of the evidence presented before it. (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. In this light. People vs. is admissible in evidence since it is not covered by the requirements of Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. otherwise the objection is deemed waived (People v. p. In People vs. 24). Two witnesses (Marites Nas Atienza and Corporal Luciano Cañeda) testified that at the time of accused-appellant's arrest. not elicited through questioning by the authorities. the victims of robbery and rape. 240 SCRA 191 [1995]. we rule against the validity of the written confession but uphold the admissibility of the verbal confession. April 5. Agustin. (3) the confession must be express. Rivera. 1989 (tsn. Ramos. Llanaresas. No. We find no reason to disturb the trial court's finding as to the credibility of prosecution witnesses Marites Nas Atienza and Luzviminda Aquino. People vs. respectively. August 23. we agree with the prosecution's contention that accused-appellant's conviction was deduced not on the basis of his admission of guilt. fully and voluntarily done. 35). The victims could have easily noticed the physical features of their assailant. 248 SCRA 239 [1995]). However. People vs. who was later identified as accused-appellant. it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given (People vs.. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement. if it was made without the assistance of counsel. and his verbal confession made before robbery victim. accused-appellant's free will and volition in signing his confession will not cure the defect that it was made without assistance of counsel. 116437. In contrast. 1990. 248 SCRA 629 [1995]). however. his uncounselled confession did not violate his constitutional rights. The room where the crime was committed covered a very small area of 29 square meters (tsn. 17). admissible in evidence. 2. The case in point is People vs. 1990. but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admitted having committed the crime — as in the case at bar. 1990. Cascalla. The time-tested jurisprudence is that the findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses enjoy a badge of respect for the reason that trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify (People vs. An uncounselled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel — that is.

were my basis. About six (6) steps away from our house. Because I have seen him once and I heard his voice when he went to the house of my brother-in-law. Q When he greeted your sister Imelda Nas. aside from that admission he made.Q Now. I am referring to Panfilo Cabiles? A Yes. Marites' identification of accused-appellant is corroborated by Luzviminda's identification of accused-appellant as her rapist. his built and his voice are the basis for her knowing accused Panfilo Cabiles. COURT: Witness may answer. sir. especially his voice. his height. FISCAL SISON: If she has other basis. CHAVEZ: We object to the question on the basis of. sir. . what was your basis in saying that it was the accused who was the one who poked a kitchen knife on you? A His height. your Honor. 1989. tell us how far is that house of Jaime Mabingnay to your house? A. sir. first. Q Have you heard what he said? A No. in saying that he was the person who poked the knife on me. what were they doing then inside the house of Jaime Mabingnay? A They were having a drinking spree in the sala of the house of Jaime Mabingnay which is just in front of the door of my house. he is one of the accused in this case? A Yes. COURT: Witness may answer. Q Before last week of October. second. sir. Q And up to what time did you see him inside the house of Jaime Mabingnay? A I saw him there for about an hour and I don't know whether or not he slept there. what time was that? A Around 8:00 o'clock in the evening. FISCAL SISON: Q So that at the time in October. have you seen him? ATTY. WITNESS (A): His voice and his built. sir. FISCAL SISON: Q When you said Jaime Mabingnay. She was standing at the door of Jaime's house and I was behind her. ILAGAN: I object. Aside from that admission. because there is no basis and after the witness answered that the only sign she knows of the accused is when at the police headquarters he admitted before De Leon to have allegedly sexually played on her. your Honor. sir. his built. Q Where was your sister at that time? A. sir. that was the first time you saw the accused in this case. Jaime Mabingnay. your Honor. Q When you saw them drinking. where was he? A He was there sitting at the sala while he was drinking with Jaime Mabingnay. sir. WITNESS: A. the Fiscal interpreting in Tagalog gives an advance sign for an answer to the witness. But I heard his voice when he greeted my sister Imelda Nas. there is no basis. as follows: Q. CHAVEZ: The question has already been answered. your Honor. what other basis have you to say that the accused was that person if there is still any? ATTY. on the last week of October. Q Now. Q. And when you heard the voice of Panfilo Cabiles. Q What is so particular in his voice that you know that it was the voice of the accused in this case? ATTY. so I object.

He was facing my direction. Hence. The trial court correctly cited the evidentiary presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act (Sec. we ruled that where the accused offers no satisfactory explanation as to the fact of his possession of stolen properties. 2. Luzviminda's testimony is corroborated by that of Marites who herself witnessed the rape (tsn. Q: So this person you said was facing in your direction was between you and your Ate Marites. (People vs. "G") which Marites likewise recognized as another of the objects taken by accused-appellant during the robbery. p. Sanchez. sir. as it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. 3[7]. 240 SCRA 531 [1995]). sir. it was found that the hymenal lacerations took place three months before the date of examination. People vs. In order to justify an acquittal based on this defense. Luzviminda testified that she was raped by accused-appellant. the rape could have been so slight as to leave no traces upon examination. Lastly. Q: And that person that you saw standing was facing his back to you. Rivera. when he had sexual intercourse with you that was you said at about 1:15 in the morning. April 26. 246 SCRA 646 [1995]. Luzviminda identified said shoestring as that which was used on her to effect the crime of rape.) 3. Too. for complete penetration of the female organ is not necessary to constitute rape (People vs. 1990. 1990. 1989. 247 SCRA 519 [1995]). Rule 131. People vs. March 5. Delovino. all that accused-appellant could offer as defense was denial which is a weak defense. (tsn. No young Filipina would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless that is the truth. pp. correct? A: No. The defense of denial. 250 SCRA 14 [1995]). Macario. how come you were able to see the built of the accused at that time? A: Because the light coming inside thru the jalousie window illuminates the inside of the room. Delovino. 1990. that upon physical examination of the rape victim. Revised Rules of Evidence). the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically . Aside from the bracelet. The following circumstances are significant: 1. 242 SCRA 26 [1995]). it is of no moment that there is a finding that sexual intercourse occurred three months earlier than November 5. such evidence would abundantly incriminate him and proves that he took them with animus lucrandi. we likewise make the practical observation that "Chanel" is not an ordinary watch brand. sir. 34. Aside from the fact that his testimony is not corroborated. sir. to rule out his commission of the crime of rape.FISCAL SISON (Q): You mentioned about his built. 16-17) Q: What awakened you? A: Because the baby of Ate Tes was crying and that awakened me. the arresting officers found a "Chanel" lady's wristwatch (Exh. Accused-appellant's assertion that said watch is his own is not persuasive. is inherently weak and easily fabricated. Namayon. 16). accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi must fail considering that he was positively identified by Marites and Luzviminda as the author of the crime. p. is that what you want us to understand? A: Yes. Accused-appellant strongly relies on the finding of NBI Medico-Legal Officer. and when I opened my eyes I saw that there was somebody standing. The shoestring that was found inside the plastic bag is also an indication of accused-appellant's commission of the crime of rape. like denial. 3. April 26. In the case at bench. Newman (163 SCRA 496 [1988]). is considered self-serving evidence undeserving of any weight in law (People vs. It would be too much of a coincidence that a watch of the same not very ordinary brand as that involved in the robbery subject hereof was pledged to accused-appellant. Soan. (tsn. 243 SCRA 622). if uncorroborated by clear and convincing proof. Any prior sexual intercourse which could have resulted in hymenal laceration is irrelevant in rape cases for virginity is not an element of rape (People vs. In People vs. We have consistently ruled that alibi. The mere penetration of the penis by entry thereof into the labia majora of the female organ suffices to warrant a conviction for rape (People vs. supra. Carmelita Belgica. We are not persuaded.

In the case at bench.00 to P50. People vs. People vs.000. 1997. He was allegedly with his wife (tsn. p. Pontilar. But did Mabini watch over the couple the whole night? It is not impossible for accused-appellant to sleep at the Marivic Compound on the night of November 4. July 11. G. The distance between Quezon City and Kalookan City is not significant.R. et. finding the conviction of accused-appellant justified by the evidence on record. 104865.. WHEREFORE. . during the night of the incident.00 in line with recent jurisprudence. 105292. We affirm the awards concerning the amounts corresponding to the value of the items stolen.R. 4). No. we increase the indemnity in favor of rape victim Luzviminda Aquino from P30. Quezon City.000. Sumbillo. including the P1. the same having been established through the testimony of Marites Nas Atienza. Anent the award of consequential damages. G. Defense witness Melchor Mabini even attested that the couple spent the night at the compound on the eve of November 5.00 awarded for costs. SO ORDERED. accused-appellant admitted being at Marivic Compound at Baesa. No. Gamiao. the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification above-stated. 1989 and surreptitiously leave the premises at midnight to get to Kalookan City. 1989.000. supra).impossible for him to have been at the crime scene during its commission (People vs. 1997. 1990. August 23. al. April 18.

where they stayed for a few days. an emboldened Gerry Galgarin. slew Dennis Aquino in the presence of a lady whose love they once shared. On a busy street in Puerto Princesa City in the evening of 16 October 1991. they stopped at the ABS-CBN television station where accused Galgarin was interviewed by reporters. vs. Gerry asserted that on 14 October 1991 he was in Antipolo to help his common-law wife Maria Marasigan give birth to their first born. and proceeded to Manila where they separated. stunned by the unexpected attack. He stayed with her until the 16th of October when she was discharged from the Pedragoza Maternity Clinic. [7] . Early in the evening of the following day. 2001] BELLOSILLO. He was immediately taken into temporary custody by the Antipolo Police. On 19 November 1992. with him heading for Antipolo. [2] The testimony of Clara Agagas was corroborated by Anita Leong. she admitted that when she registered the child‘s birth on 13 December 1993 or more than two (2) years after the delivery. was waiting. J. As Dennis staggered for safety. Dennis struggled and succeeded momentarily to free himself from his attacker. Gerry Galgarin was arrested through the combined efforts of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces at a house in Sitio Sto.: YIELDING to man‘s brutish instinct for revenge. She was crying because she said her Kuya Dennis had been shot and stabbed. She recognized Edward and Gerry because the street was sufficiently lighted. Soon enough she heard Josephine knocking at their door. shot Dennis. Meanwhile. supported the alibi of accused-appellant. the midwife who delivered his son. Langging gave them money for their fare for Manila. who testified that accused-appellant was fetched by a neighbor from the restaurant in the early afternoon of 14 October with the news that his wife was having labor pains. after attacking Aquino. a barhouse owned by him. On their way to the airport. [4] For his part. However. cause of death was "cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock secondary to a stab wound which penetrated the heart. His interview was shown over the ABS-CBN evening news program TV Patrol. They took the boat for Batangas. she instructed her two (2) young daughters to duck for cover while she anxiously waited for her seven (7)-year old daughter Josephine who was out of the house for an errand for her.(17) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Palawan. with the aid of Gerry Galgarin alias Toto. accused-appellant. suddenly and without warning lunged at Dennis and stabbed him repeatedly on the chest. when Galgarin suddenly approached them and without any prior warning stabbed Dennis. his co-workers at the Kainan sa Kubo Sing Along Restaurant. Josephine Goh-Cruz. he was fetched from the Antipolo Police Station by PO3 Gaudencio Manlavi and PO3 Edwin Magbanua of the Palawan police force to be taken to Palawan and be tried accordingly. Galgarin appealed for Edward to give himself up to the authorities. EDWARD ENDINO (at large) and GERRY GALGARIN aliasTOTO. the two (2) assailants fled in the direction of the airport. But a few minutes later she heard a Instinctively. a spurned lover who harbored ill-feelings towards her and Dennis. The case against accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin was established through the testimony of Clara Agagas who said that she was with the victim Dennis Aquino standing outside the Soundlab Recording Studio. wounded and bleeding."[6] His story was also confirmed by Dolores Arciaga and Maria Tomenio. No. sought refuge inside the Elohim Store where he collapsed on the floor.[3] Josephine confirmed her mother‘s testimony and even said that she had seen Gerry Galgarin stab her Kuya Dennis and she could remember Gerry very well because of the mole below his nose. they left for Roxas. Niño. GERRY GALGARIN alias TOTO. accused. where his sister Langging who is Edward's mother. [5] Clarita Florentino Pedragoza. but Edward. next-door neighbor of Dennis. Dennis dashed towards the nearby Midtown Sales but his escape was foiled when from out of nowhere Edward Endino appeared and fired at Dennis. She instructed them to proceed to the Soundlab Recording Studioas Dennis might still be there. as both accused remained at large. However. According to the autopsy report of Dr.R. uncle of accused Edward Endino. February 20. 133026. According to Galgarin. He was grasping for breath and near death. Clara with the help of some onlookers took him to the hospital but Dennis expired even before he could receive medical attention. plaintiff-appellee. the trial court issued on 26 December 1991 an order putting the case in the archives without prejudice to its reinstatement upon their apprehension." [1] On 18 October 1991. Dennis tried to run away. Dennis‘ girlfriend Clara Agagas who was with him. pleaded to Galgarin to stop. Antipolo. Video footages of the interview were taken showing Galgarin admitting his guilt while pointing to his nephew Edward Endino as the gunman. Edward Endino. Dennis. Rizal. an Information for the murder of Dennis Aquino was filed against Edward Endino and accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin and warrants were issued for their arrest. accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin disclaimed having taking part in the slaying of Dennis. [G. she in formed the civil registrar that the child‘s father was " unknown. who testified that a little past six o‘clock in the evening of 16 October 1991 Gerry Galgarin together with a companion went to her house looking for Dennis.

There is no showing that the interview of accused was coerced or against his will. The alibi of Galgarin was likewise rejected since there was no convincing evidence to support his allegation that he was not at the locus criminis on the evening of 16 October 1991. Josephine Leong‘s identification of accused-appellant was given in a very categorical and spontaneous manner. there is basis to accept the truth of his statements therein. Additionally.12. a complete stranger to them. accused. Her confidence as to the attacker‘s identity was clearly shown by her vivid recollection of him having a mole below his nose. may attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on television. Indeed. could not be relied upon inasmuch as he himself admitted that they could not be sure of their passengers‗ real identities.725. A word of counsel then to lower courts: we should never presume that all media confessions described as voluntary have been freely given. However.[11] Philippine Airlines Load Controller of the Puerto Princesa City. is not persuasive. III. his bare denial proves futile and unavailing. and that Edward Endino had shot him (Aquino). The testimonies of accused-appellant‘s co-workers that he was in Antipolo on 14 October 1991 did not fortify his defense either since these witnesses did not categorically state that they saw him in Antipolo in the evening of 16 October 1991. he was ordered to indemnify the heirs of Dennis Aquino P50. The court gave credence to the arresting officers‘ assertion that it was even accused-appellant who pleaded with them that he be allowed to air his appeal on national television for Edward to surrender. Detection of coerced confessions is admittedly a difficult and arduous task for the courts to make. Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. The interview was recorded on video and it showed accused-appellant unburdening his guilt willingly. He asserted that the videotaped confession was constitutionally infirmed and inadmissible under the exclusionary rule provided in Sec.00 as compensatory damages and P72.35 as actual damages. With accused-appellant having been positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as the one who stabbed Dennis. particularly in cases such as this where it is essential to make sharp judgments in determining whether a confession was given under coercive physical or psychological atmosphere. Gerry Galgarin assails the trial court for rejec ting his alibi and admitting his videotaped confession as evidence against him. accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin was convicted of murder qualified by treachery[9] and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Moreover. the police. . Besides. we find such admission proper. would have been symphatetic with him. Corroborating further accused-appellant‘s guilt. Art. Accordingly. This type of confession always remains suspect and therefore should be thoroughly examined and scrutinized. H). but was impelled by her desire to seek justice for Dennis. which is correct. hence. We have a sworn duty to be vigilant and protective of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. in all likelihood. if there was no truth to their assertion. For in all probability. Such a situation would be detrimental to the guaranteed rights of the accused and thus imperil our criminal justice system. with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners. openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen. and his attempt at jailbreak[12] revealing a guilty conscience. in his TV interview (Exh. The argument that accused-appellant could not be at the scene of the crime on 16 October 1991 as he was in Antipolo assisting his wife who was giving birth on the 14th of that month. he could have easily sought succor from the newsmen who. of the Constitution.. [8] The trial court however admitted the video footages on the strength of the testimony of the police officers that no force or compulsion was exerted on accused-appellant and upon a finding that his confession was made before a group of newsmen that could have dissipated any semblance of hostility towards him. As the trial court stated in its Decision[13]Furthermore. that the name of "Gerry Galgarin" did not appear on their passenger manifest for the 16 October 1991 Manila-Puerto Princesa flight.Accused-appellant disowned the confession which he made over TV Patrol and claimed that it was induced by the threats of the arresting police officers. [10] In his Appellant‘s Brief. Apropos the court a quo’s admission of accused-appellant‘s videotaped confession. Hence. The testimony of Cornelio Tejero Jr. the line between proper and invalid police techniques and conduct is a difficult one to draw. and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several cases. his persistent effort to evade the clutches of the law. were his immediate flight after the slaying. Alibi is a weak defense. because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a medium for admitting one‘s guilt. it is inconceivable for Josephine and Anita to implicate accused-appellant. her naming of accused-appellant as her boyfriend‘s assailant was not done out of spite. As for Clara. We agree. It requires persistence and determination in separating polluted confessions from untainted ones. probably with intense incriminating effect. We do not suggest that videotaped confessions given before media men by an accused with the knowledge of and in the presence of police officers are impermissible. The case against his nephew and co-accused Edward Endino remained in the archives without prejudice to its reinstatement as soon as he could be arrested. if he had indeed been forced into confessing.000.[14] it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions. freely admitted that he had stabbed Dennis Aquino.

Doubtless. [15] WHEREFORE. the question that next presents itself is whether the trial court correctly denominated the crime as murder qualified by treachery. and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Dennis Aquino in the amount of P50. SO ORDERED. Costs against accused-appellant.000.With all the evidence tightly ringed around accused-appellant. the crime committed is one of murder considering that the victim was stabbed while he was simply standing on the pavement with his girlfriend waiting for a ride.35 as actual damages. sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. certainly qualifies the killing to murder.000. The suddenness of the assault on an unsuspecting victim. . blissfully oblivious of the accused's criminal design. is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is further ordered to compensate the decedent‘s heirs P50.00 as moral damages for their emotional and mental anguish. the Decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellant GERRY GALGARIN alias Toto guilty of Murder qualified by Treachery.725.00 as compensatory damages andP72. without the slightest provocation from him who had no opportunity to parry the attack.

defendant-appellant. steal and carry away from the person of said Natividad Fernando. temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos. unlawfully. the herein accused was brought to the NBI where he was investigated by a team headed by NBI Agent Carlos Flores. Mrs. JR. Montalban. Francisco Galit. But the practice persists. His will had to be broken. however. Accordingly. police authorities of Montalban picked up the herein accused. in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused. 2. such instances constitute the exception rather than the general rule. as a result of seven (7) wounds inflicted upon different parts of her body by a blunt instrument. 4 But the following day. So they continued to maltreat and beat him. So the investigating officers began to maul him and to torture him physically. the offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period. But no it did not. Natividad Fernando. he was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide. something drastic had to be done. and the total amount of the loss is P10. with intent to kill. 235. in Crim. J: 1. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 1985] CONCEPCION. on suspicion of the murder. Still the prisoner insisted on his innocence. intimidation and violence upon the person of one Natividad Fernando while in her dwelling. 1977. [G.R. The record shows that in the morning of August 23. the case was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further investigation in view of the alleged limited facilities of the Montalban police station. It happened in the Philippines. committed as follows: That on or about the 23rd day of August 1977 in the municipality of Montalban. He admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and he signed the confession they prepared. in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused. cash money of an undetermined amount. 6. L-51770 March 20. Cabrera. The prisoner could not take any more. The Revised Penal Code punishes the maltreatment of prisoners as follows: ART. Obviously. thereby causing damage and prejudice to the latter in an undetermined amount. 1977. to no avail. No. then and there wilfully. and feloniously take. September 8. or to obtain some information from the prisoner. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. In this case before Us. with intent of gain and by means of force. Maltreatment of prisoners. If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession. 1 has consistently and strongly condemned the practice of maltreating prisoners to extort confessions from them as a grave and unforgivable violation of human rights.. whose true Identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and three of them mutually helping and aiding one another. There was no evidence to link him to the crime. CCC-VII-2589 of said court. 5 As a result. steal and carry away the said cash money in pursuance of their conspiracy and for the purpose of insuring the success of their criminal act. Rizal. unlawfully. he posed for pictures as directed by his investigators. that by reason or on the occasion of said robbery. A confession was absolutely necessary. shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall over do himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge. and for purpose of enabling them (accused) to take. a widow. assault and stab with a dagger said Natividad Fernando on the different parts of her body. 3. This Court in a long line of decisions over the years. 'They covered his face with a rag and pushed his face into a toilet bowl full of human waste. The prisoner was arrested for killing the victim oil the occasion of a robbery. His body could no longer endure the pain inflicted on him and the indignities he had to suffer. province of Rizal. This incident could have happened in a Russian gulag or in Hitler's Germany. He consistently maintained his innocence. which directly caused her death. in an information filed before the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig. by the imposition of punishments in a cruel and humiliating manner. did. 1977. 5. against his will. He implicated Juling Dulay and Pabling Dulay as his companions in the crime. then and there wilfully. Rizal. September 9. and feloniously attack. His will had been broken. was found dead in the bedroom of her house located at Barrio Geronimo. vs. On the following day. Fortunately. 4. He had been detained and interrogated almost continuously for five days. thereby inflicting multiple injuries on the head and extremities. Rizal. FRANCISCO GALIT. plaintiff-appellee. Francisco Galit voluntarily executed a Salaysay admitting participation in the commission of the crime. Rizal.00 including valuables and cash. Later.000. the latest being the case of People vs. did. 3 NBI Agent Flores conducted a preliminary interview of the suspect who allegedly gave evasive answers to his questions. an ordinary construction worker (pion) living in Marikina. 2 More than two weeks thereafter. conspiring and confederating together with Juling Doe and Pabling Doe. Case No. purporting it to be a reenactment.(18) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Before Us for mandatory review is the death sentence imposed upon the accused Francisco Galit by the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig. belonging to said Natividad Fernando. the above-named accused. Philippines. . A confession must be obtained.

especially the aparador and filing cabinets. that the three accused walked towards the river bank where they divided the loot that they got from the room of the victim. Juling Dulay destroyed the screen of the door of the victim. 'E-1' and 'E-2'). Juling Dulay and Pabling. that it was Juling Dulay who first entered the house through the hole that they made. it was gathered that in the early morning of August 23. that upon entering the room of the victim. that it was further agreed among them to enter the premises of the victim's house at the back yard by climbing over the fence. Hence. and that after receiving their shares of the loot. where they found some money. 9. Prosecution witness Florentino Valentino testified that he heard accused Francisco Galit and his wife having an argument in connection with the robbery and killing of the victim. that they entered the said premises through the back wall of the house. He claimed that he was in his house in Marikina. It appears that on August 18. are as follows: From the evidence adduced in this case. widow. 8. that when he returned home at about 4:00 o'clock in the morning from the police station of Marikina. the three agreed to rob Natividad Fernando. to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P110. the three accused decided to kill first the victim. Natividad Fernando. that at about 12:00 o'clock that night. Rizal. and in their conversation. when the crime was committed in Montalban. accused Galit and two others. accused Francisco Galit and his two companions. that while entering the premises of said house. that he heard that the . Rizal. began hacking the victim. After a review of the records. and to pay the costs. that after the victim was killed. immediately after the accused had terminated the presentation of his evidence. Rizal. the trial judge dictated his decision on the case in open court. Rizal. Rizal.00. As a result of the killing. and on August 11. finding the accused guilty as charged and sentencing him to suffer the death penalty. that their respective shares amount to P70. as found by the trial court. was robbed and then hacked to death by the accused and two others in her (victim's) own residence at Montalban. which he picked up and used it to destroy the back portion of the wall of the house. the three accused began searching the room for valuables. Rizal. 1977.00 for each of them. namely. the findings of the trial court relative to the acts attributed to the accused are not supported by competent evidence. Natividad Fernando. 1978. The accused. upon the other hand. He also assailed the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession extracted from him through torture.000. Natividad Fernando. force and intimidation as described earlier. The incriminatory facts of the case. lying near the piggery compound. that the three conspirators took a jeepney for Montalban and upon passing the Montalban Municipal Building. as the three could not find anything valuable inside the first room that they entered. that after killing and robbing the victim. a 70-year old woman named Natividad Fernando. 1977. Natividad Fernando. met at the place where they formerly saw each other in Mariquina. in the twilight of her life. 'E'. suffered no less than seven stab wounds. In fact. on August 23. and accused Galit heard a moaning sound from the victim. they stopped and they waited at the side of the road until the hour of midnight. 1977 when the three were able to gain entrance into the house of the victim. the present recourse. Witness Valentino further testified that on August 22. that he further stated that he overheard accused Galit saying that he and his other two companions robbed and killed Natividad Fernando. which was adjoining that of accused Francisco Galit. the accused and his wife were quarreling ( nagtatalo). the three repaired to the premises of the victim. that when the three accused left the room of the victim.Trial was held. Natividad Fernando. who was then sleeping. 7. that once inside the premises. which was through the back portion of the wall. he overheard accused Galit and his wife quarreling about the intention of accused Galit to leave their residence immediately. followed by the accused Galit and next to him was "Pabling". Florentino Valentino merely testified that he and the accused were living together in one house in Marikina. they brought with them some papers and pictures which they threw outside. that they helped each other in opening the iron cabinet inside the room of the victim. denied participation in the commission of the crime. as evidenced by the MedicoLegal Necropsy Report (Exhs. 1977. 1977. When witness Florentino Valentino was in his room. The principal prosecution witness. the three accused left and went home. Juling Dulay and a certain "Pabling" accidentally met each other at Marikina. 'C' and 'C-2'). at around 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon. There was massive cerebral hemorrhage and the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage. We find that the evidence presented by the prosecution does not support a conviction. who was then holding the bolo. using the same way by which they gained entrance. that Juling Dulay. because the mother of his wife is the wife of the accused. the three accused went out of the premises of the house. as per their previous agreement. Juling Dulay saw a bolo. and without the benefit of counsel. and the pictures taken of the deceased victim (Exhs. with the sole aim of looking for cash money and other valuables. before searching the room for valuables. Rizal. the victim. that it was already early dawn of August 23. they will search every room.

It behooves Us therefore to give it a close scrutiny. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. accused was not permitted to communicate with his lawyer. na anuman ang inyong sasabihin sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay maaaring laban sa inyo sa anumang usapin na maaaring ilahad sa anumang hukuman o tribunal dito sa Pilipinas. no state witnesses. 17. and another one entered ACQUITTING the accused Francisco Galit of the crime charged. SO ORDERED. 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. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Minister of Justice for whatever action he may deem proper to take against the investigating officers. Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances surrounding the taking of any confession. TANONG: Ipinagbibigay-alam ko sa inyo ang inyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng SaligangBatas ng Pilipinas na kung inyong nanaisin ay maaaring hindi kayo magbigay ng isang salaysay. This Court. 6 10. These constitute gross violations of his rights. Rizal. that he saw the accused carrying a bag containing about two handfuls ( dakot) of coins which he had taken from Aling Nene. There were no eyewitnesses. Where there is any doubt as to its voluntariness. Ngayon at alam mo na ang mga ito nakahanda ka bang magbigay ng isang kusang-loob na salaysay sa pagtatanong na ito? SAGOT: Opo. Such a long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights under the Constitution and our laws. especially where the prisoner claims having been maltreated into giving one. that the wife of the accused was imploring him not to leave. 13. and which We reiterate: 7. 12. by any person on his behalf. Montalban policemen went to their house and arrested the accused. na sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay maaaring katulungin mo ang isang manananggol at kung sakaling hindi mo kayang bayaran ang isang manananggol ay maaaring bigyan ka ng isa ng NBI. a relative. Moreover. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. as it is hereby.accused was leaving the house because he and his companions had robbed "Aling Nene". With costs de oficio. his sisters and other relatives did not know that he had been brought to the NBI for investigation and it was only about two weeks after he had executed the salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. SET ASIDE. Ponce Enrile. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. but the latter was insistent. at the time of his arrest. 16. WHEREFORE. the owner of a poultry farm and piggery in Montalban. if any. he went to the Montalban police the next day and reported to the police chief about what he had heard. no property recovered from the accused. in whole or in part. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. the same must be rejected in toto. again accused was not assisted by counsel of his choice. and not even fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime. and that a week later. Accused is from Samar and there is no showing that he understands Tagalog. in the case of Morales vs. shall be inadmissible in evidence. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. In fact. 11. the judgment appealed from should be. At the supposed reenactment. a relative. 7 laid down the correct procedure for peace officers to follow when making an arrest and in conducting a custodial investigation. The statement begins as follows: I. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. His statement does not even contain any waiver of right to counsel and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by one. The alleged confession and the pictures of the supposed re-enactment are inadmissible as evidence because they were obtained in a manner contrary to law. Let him be released from custody immediately unless held on other charges. . The only evidence against the accused is his alleged confession. At the time a person is arrested. and that any statement he might make could be used against him. Instead there should be several short and clear questions and every right explained in simple words in a dialect or language known to the person under investigation. that upon learning of what the accused had done. 15. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. 14. na hindi rin kayo maaaring pilitin o saktan at pangakuan upang magbigay ng naturang salaysay. or a friend.

Philippines. trial on the merits ensued. carrying a large white nylon sack (Exhibit "B"). the . the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. Shortly thereafter. Bostick told appellant that he will pay for the marijuana after it has been weighed in his hotel.00 which the latter borrowed from him on July 1.00). Clayton told him to wait for his visitor from whom he would get the money to pay his debt . with Emateo acting as interpreter. among others. the court finds the accused. in violation of the afore-cited provision of law. On the way back to his hotel in Baguio City. as well as a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20.00 as the price per kilo of the marijuana. His earlier motion to admit bail was deferred and later denied.. this appeal. in the City of Baguio. Bostick activated the beeper which signalled the NBI team following them that the transaction had taken place. 1990] BIDIN.R. vs.000. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. the trial judge rendered the assailed decision ( Rollo. on August 1. Upon arraignment. They were followed by an NBI surveillance team. unlawfully and feloniously attempt to sell to another ten (10) kilos. Air Force at Clark Air Base. an information for violation of RA 6425. A civilian informer named Clayton Emateo was to aid Bostick by introducing him to appellant. Hence. 19-36) sentencing appellant. otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. saying that he needed it to replace the money he took from his wife which he lost in gambling. without any authority of law. as amended. was filed against appellant alleging: xxx xxx xxx That on or about the lst day of August. [G. for P800. 1985. arranged a "buy-bust" operation against appellant who was a suspected narcotics dealer. J.00 per kilo. 1986. 1985. DOMINGO BAGANO Y SALI-EN. At Irisan appellant left Bostick and Emateo in the car. in Criminal Case No. Appellant denies any knowledge anent the ownership and sale of marijuana to Bostick and in support thereof. 6425. Bostick and Emateo proceeded to the residence of the latter in Baguio City to meet appellant who was there waiting. 1985. Upon reaching their destination. a special agent of the U. are as follows: On August 1. At around 2:45 in the afternoon of the same day. Clayton was at his residence when he saw him on August 1. Domingo Bagano y Sali-en. Appellant agreed. IV. Bostick opened the trunk of the car and appellant placed the sack inside. negotiations for the purchase of ten (10) kilos of marijuana began between Bostick and appellant. he went to the house of Clayton Emateo. 2472-R. otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.000. 1985. plaintiff-appellee. 1985. on this latter date Clayton went to him and pleaded for the loan. of dried marijuana leaves. to collect the amount of P4. pp. and hereby imposes on him the penalty of life imprisonment. The facts. The NBI team then blocked Bostick's car and arrested appellant and Emateo. Bostick.S. Atty. Based on the foregoing. Bostick and appellant finally agreed on P800. at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. SO ORDERED. The ten (10) kilos of marijuana are ordered forfeited in favor of the government which shall be transmitted to the Dangerous Drugs Board. the above-named accused. through NBI Sub-office Baguio. as presented by the Solicitor General. Bostick opened the sack and saw several packages containing marijuana. accused appellant. to reclusion perpetua. He went back to them after about fifteen minutes. Baguio City. Br. They were all the time being trailed by the NBI team. Benguet.(19) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. as custodian. The group then proceeded to appellant's house at Irisan. No. The plan was for Bostick to pose as buyer. more or less. convicting the accused/appellant of violation of Republic Act No. located along Bonifacio St. 77777 February 5. Thereafter. Emateo introduced appellant and an unnamed friend to Bostick. a dangerous drug. for proper disposition. he declared that: (H)e farms at Irisan. where he kept the marijuana. On August 9. appellant pleaded not guilty. did then and there willfully.: Before Us on appeal is a decision * of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio. Lolito Utitco of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Baguio City and Steven F.

xxx xxx xxx Q: Who started the conversation? A: I started through the informant translating what I was saying to Domingo . 1985. he went to get the bag and placed it in the car of the American . Rollo. WHO OWNS THE MARIJUANA IN QUESTION. Bostick testified that he was provided counterfeit money by the NBI which was combined with his own US $200. appellant would only sell to a foreigner. to whom was it directed? A: It was directed to Mr. 29. 49-50) It is the contention of the prosecution that appellant was apprehended as a result of a "buy-bust" operation which was conducted on the strength of an information supplied by a certain Clayton Emateo. Immediately. What was the participation of Clayton? A: He was speaking for me because I wasn't sure Domingo understood what I was saying because of the language. 2. THE APPELLANT HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OR DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE ALLEGED MARIJUANA SALE. 16).M. EVEN BOSTICK LIKE WISE REFERRED TO THE SACK AS "BAG" MANY TIMES IN HIS TESTIMONY. Emphasis supplied). Utitco. p. Upon arrival at Emateo's residence. I told him that I wanted to purchase ten (10) kilos of marijuana. As to how the "buybust" transaction was initiated may be gleaned from the following testimony of Bostick: FISCAL CARBONELL: Q: What was the plan then? A: The plan that I was to go with the informer to the informant's residence and meet with the suepct (suspect) who is supposedly waiting there for us and I was to try and arrange for the purchase of marijuana. Rollo. the NBI Chief of Baguio City. 1985 WHEN IN FACT. two cars stopped and one of the passengers (NBI agent) came out. THE CIVILIAN INFORMANT WHO INTERPRETED THEIR CONVERSATION WAS NEVER PRESENTED TO TESTIFY. 12. while they were maneuvering the car towards Baguio. Clayton sent him to get the bag because he did not want to get wet . they rode in the car of the American and he was told by Clayton that they were proceeding to Irisan to get the bag which Clayton would give to the American as a gift. as Steven. Q: But you said Clayton participated. Atty. IN NOT HOLDING AS HEARSAY THE ALLEGED CONVERSATION BETWEEN BOSTICK AND APPELLANT WHEN IN FACT. Q: Is it your testimony that your statement was translated into the dialect by Clayton to Domingo ? A: Yes. Q: And this statement of yours to the effect that you wanted to buy ten (10) kilos of marijuana. sought assistance from the Clark Air Base which in turn sent Steven Bostick for the purpose. 4. Bostick was introduced by Emateo to appellant and a certain Arman Perez. THE CIVILIAN INFORMER. preferably an American. It is alleged that according to the informer. IN APPRECIATING THE "BAG" AND NOT SACK AGAINST APPELLANT THAT WHICH CLAYTON OWNED AND DEPOSITED IN THE QUARTER OF THE APPELLANT AT IRISAN THAT 10:00 A. appellant contends that the lower court erred: 1. IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DEFENSE OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS CLAYTON. Q: What did you say to your informant which was translated to Domingo? A: Due to the prior arrangement or agreement that we had. 11. Clayton asked him to ride with them again. sir. pp. OF AUGUST 1. CLAYTON EMATEO. (Decision. The "buy-bust" operation involved Bostick and Emateo to proceed to the latter's residence and therein meet with the suspect for the purchase of marijuana.American visitor arrived. pp. p. Acting as the "poseur" buyer. In this appeal. brought out his gun and pointed it at him. p. (Appellant's Brief. 3. COURT: Q: What dialect was that: Do you know? . after the introduction. Domingo. IN FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT AGREED TO SELL TEN (10) KILOS OF MARIJUANA TO STEVEN BOSTICK WHEN IN FACT. and he was introduced to him in English.00 converted to pesos because appellant only accepts payment in local currency (TSN. November 7.

although present when it was made.000. Domingo to the effect that you wanted to purchase marijuana. do you know if Domingo made any answer? A: I was told by the informant that there will be no problem. The impropriety of introducing the testimony of Bostick is plainly evident. xxx xxx xxx FISCAL CARBONELL: Q: What again was that answer which Domingo said or uttered? A: I was told by Clayton that ten (10) kilos would be no problem . Utitco. Utitco reasoned: FISCAL CARBONELL: Q: Now.1985. 14 [21). 1935]) Indeed.. is there any possibility for you to bring before this court this Clayton who was your informer? A: I do not think that is possible for the following reasons. we do not know where he is staying and third. ATTY. "where a witness is offered testify to the statements of another person. ed. xxx xxx xxx Q: Now.00) pesos per kilo ." (F.A: No. who quoted the price? A: I was told it will cost one thousand (P1. when your statement was translated by Clayton to Mr. I have no knowledge. a confession cannot be received in evidence by the testimony of a witness who. Atty. As such. which I didn't agree. 269 [1907]). spoken in a language not understood by him. What the prosecution should have done was to present Emateo himself to testify on what actually transpired between appellant and Bostick and thereafter be cross-examined. xxx xxx xxx FISCAL CARBONELL: Q: Now. Wharton Evidence in Criminal Cases 697-698 [11th ed. (TSN. November 7. Art. Bostick never understood the Kankanai dialect spoken by appellant and Emateo and is therefore not qualified to testify against appellant in the imputation of the crime charged. WAGANG: I object to that. Chu Chio. learned its purport through an interpreter (US v. Italics supplied) Evident from the foregoing is the fact that Bostick's testimonies. Sec. such witness is not qualified. 8 Phil. With the exception of that portion of Bostick's testimony that he saw the accused-appellant carry the sackful of marijuana. In an attempt to circumvent said right. but translated for him by an interpreter. That would be hearsay. as principal witness for the prosecution. the court a quo chose to ignore appellant's constitutional right to meet the witnesses face to face (Constitution. we do not keep in constant contact with this informer. because he does not speak from personal knowledge. Thus. sir. it was again interpreted to you by Clayton. 17-20. First. second. we do not usually expose our informants in public. All that he can know as to the testimony which is in fact given in such a case is from the interpretation thereof which is given by another person. they are pure hearsay. Bostick testified not on his personal knowledge regarding the alleged ownership thereof and the appellant's purported offer to sell the same. Q: So. are mere translations and/or interpretations of what the appellant supposedly said in the dialect to and interpreted by informant Emateo. pp. Q: And who said that? A: It was told to me by Clayton because I don't understand the language on which they talked. prosecution witness Atty. The ten kilos was ready. Yet.. COURT: Q: Did they speak in English or in another dialect? A: They spoke in the dialect. III. He only comes to the office when there is work to do. A: Yes. As a .

the identity of the informant was known to the appellant all the time and when immediately thereafter the appellant was apprehended and arrested by the police officers and the informant was not similarly taken into custody. Appellant's limb and liberty at stake. 82737. The right of cross-examination is a substantial right. to wit: Thus. 1989). pp. inadmissible in evidence. but is direct and material to the defense of appellant who claims innocence of the offense imputed against him and is entitled to have the former take the witness stand (Appellant's Brief. may be dispensed with (People v. Perodica. 84960. In People v. 73006. who could have been a very vital corroborating witness to their testimonies and thus strenghthen the position of the prosecution. stamped a note of disapproval on the prosecution's refusal to present the supposed informant whose identity has already been known. pp. No. Asio. Extra. 22). No. whatever reason the prosecution may have had in shielding the informant vanished and ceased to exist by the time his identity was made public in the course of the trial by the prosecution witnesses themselves. 59 F. TSN. Prosecution maintained that to expose the identity and to bring this informer to court as witness would pose grave danger to the life of such informer.E. 1985. .E. Utitco discarded all what a prudent and thinking man would have taken in order to establish the veracity of a story of one virtually unknown to him. placed under surveillance (See People v. considering appellant's disclaimer of ownership of the prohibited drug. Butler. Cerelegia. 160 SCRA 533 [1988]. the informer (Emateo) was arrested together with appellant by the NBI team after the latter had blocked Bostick's car. (TSN. Ale. v. I have never seen him again. 60. In the instant case. in acquitting the accused-appellant. Jr. Appellant should have been. said privilege cannot be invoked given the factual setting that led to the incarceration of accused-appellant. No. What danger did the prosecution fear. p.R. 2d 390 [1932]). (Emphasis supplied) Non-presentation of an informer is a privilege that has its own inherent limitation —that of fairness in the administration of criminal justice. v. G. the only logical conclusion is that the appellant right then and there found out that he was the victim of an entrapment and that the informant was in collusion with the police authorities. September 29. 10) Atty.E. citing News Publishing Co. why was he arrested? Nonetheless. therefore. 85 [1930]) Emateo's testimony is not merely corroborative and cumulative and hence. People v. p. the Court stated: The witnesses for the prosecution refused to divulge the identity of said informer. Richards v.R. and extends to all matters within the knowledge of the witness. 1989). (Emphasis supplied) In an earlier case of People v. Rollo. the disclosure of which is material to the controversy. United States. 72 SCRA 199 (1976]. People v. (Crosby v. The Court is not unaware of the policy behind non-disclosure of an informant's identity and would generally uphold the exercise of such privilege as the circumstances may warrant.R. the preservation of which is essential to a proper administration of justice. et al. For one thing. 22 S. People v. November 8. Rojo (G. July 5.. when the identity of said informer and his involvement in the entrapment of appellant was already made known to the appellant during the alleged exchange of the marijuana stuff and money. at the least. the identity and even the address of the supposed informant are already known to appellant. Harpe 155 S. 1989). In point of fact. December 4. There is. the informant's failure to take the witness stand to confirm the correctness of his interpretations not only rendered the testimonies of Bostick as hearsay and therefore. He is the best witness to establish the charge against the appellant who denies the charge (citing Pp. or is essential to a proper disposition of the case. where the disclosure of an informer's Identity is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused. the privilege must give way (Wilson v. but also deprived appellant of his right to cross-examine him (Appellant's Brief. Capulong. [1986] where the accused was likewise acquitted). Caboverde (160 SCRA 550 [1988]) where the prosecution refused to identify the informer. 147 SCRA 538 [1987]. 145 SCRA 50. the Court. however. Thus. no reason why the prosecution could not and did not present the informant as a prosecution witness.matter of fact since this operation was accomplished. p. Utitco's revelation that he knew nothing of his supposed informant's background is rather disturbing. 1985. 59. G.. 282 [1985]. 11-12. 11-12. he was an active participant of the crime charged and is in fact the person whom appellant insists is the owner of the prohibited merchandise. pp. If indeed Emateo is an informer and not the owner of the prohibited drug. State 82 S.60). As pointed out by the appellant. 2d 38 [1954]. More. Rollo. September 1.

2d 627 [19471). appellant would not have been entitled to have his identity disclosed but the person whom Grady called an informer was something more. On the contrary. Thus: Where the disclosure of an informer's identity. the trial court may require disclosure and. the identity of whom the US Government claims to be confidential.S. According to him. pp. or is essential to a fair determination of a cause. provides the distinction between one who played the part of a mere informer and a decoy.Trial courts must always bear in mind that the right to meet the accuser and to have him examined is a fundamental right. especially so in instances where the party sought to be presented and examined possesses vital information essential to the defense in vindicating the accused's plea of innocence. In these situations. while the identity of the informer is disclosed. III) so mandates and they cannot do otherwise. He was the person to whom appellant was said to have sold and dispensed the opium described in the indictment. March 20. The Solicitor General. The case of Sorrentino v. 7-8. or of the contents of his communication. pp. contends that appellant's disclaimer of having no knowledge about the sale of marijuana is not worthy of credence. 1986. (163 F. Information as to this person's identity was therefore material to appellant's defense. He played a substantial part in the act complained of and is in fact claimed by the appellant as the real owner of the subject marijuana. if the Government withholds the information. In the case at bar. 1986. March 20. . Objections as regards questions seeking to ascertain his identity were sustained by the trial court on the ground that it will violate the privilege of withholding the identity of informers. . Clayton Emateo brought that bag earlier that morning of the same day . where did this bag come from? A: He. pp. 125). is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused. was never contradicted by the prosecution. We disagree. the privilege must give way. Q: Where did you bring that bag'? A: I went to get the bag and loaded the bag on the car of that American. U. As no subpoena appears to have been issued by the prosecution to the said informer.1986) On cross-examination: FISCAL CARBONELL: . xxx xxx xxx Q: And what happened when you reached Irisan? A: When we reached Irisan it was raining. March 31. he did more than that. 8 & 14). WAGANG: Q: You made mention of a gift of bag which Clayton will give as a gift to that American. may obtain the evidence necessary for the prosecution of the offender. Such violation of appellant's fundamental right calls for the reversal of his conviction. the prosecution failed to present him as a witness on the dubious assertion that his whereabouts are unknown. acting independently. United States. An informer is one who communicates knowledge of someone having committed or about to commit a crime to the proper authorities who by themselves. The constitution (Section 14 [2]. Art. nevertheless. There. . Rollo. (Appellee's Brief. 353 US 53. dismiss the action (Roviaro v. p. Appellant's denial of the ownership of marijuana and his testimony that he took the sack the contents of which turned out to be marijuana from the place where Emateo previously deposited it because he was only requested by Emateo to do so (TSN. the defendant was charged for an illegal sale of opium in favor of a person. however. p. Q: And were you able to get that bag left? A: Clayton sent me to get the bag because that time it was raining and they did not want to be wet . it was held that: If the person whom Grady called an informer had been an informer and nothing more. Emateo's non-production as a witness could have been excused had he merely played the part of a true informer. 7. the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced (Section 5 [e]. In reversing the trial court. Thus: ATTY. 7-8. 1 L ed 2d 639 [1957]). (TSN. Rule 131) arises. the best proof is the fact that appellant delivered a sackful of marijuana to Bostick and that the sale by appellant of marijuana to Bostick is shown by evidence independent of Clayton Emateo's testimony.

Q: Now. Appellant's signature appearing on the sack and individual bundles containing marijuana do not signify. the same has been obtained in violation of his right as a person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense and is therefore inadmissible (Constitution. Furthermore. sir. pp. March 31. TSN. 8. the prosecution failed to so establish the guilt of herein appellant. 1985 Clayton Imateo came to your residence driving his taxicab and brought the bag to your residence? A: Yes. June 22. pp. pp.Q: Is it your testimony that in the morning of August 1.000. It defies credulity that in a carefully orchestrated "buy-bust" operation such as in the case at bar. was there really an attempt to sell on the part of appellant of a merchandise he does not even own? It is a cardinal rule in this jurisdiction that in order to merit conviction. 11. March 31. . p. WHEREFORE. that appellant even acknowledged ownership of the seized marijuana by identifying them and affixing his signature on the back and on each and every parcel inside it ( sic) (Appellee's Brief. 9-15) was there any indication that appellant did acknowledge ownership of the prohibited merchandise. 12 [1]. (TSN. it appearing that appellant was not informed of his right to counsel at the time he affixed his signature. Witness that Clayton just sent you to fetch the bag from a place which is about ten minutes walk from the place where the vehicle was parked when in fact he was the one who has a debt of gratitude to you because of the P4. G. Neither is there any reason for us to believe. is that correct? A: Yes. pp. And there is the question of money involved. because when I saw him (h)e was well-dressed and he was wearing leather shoes. 83809. p. 1986. the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of evidence presented by the defense. sir. no money changed hands between the alleged buyer and seller. 1985 he just deposited the bag at your residence without conversing to you? A: He told me that he has no money at that time by(u)t he had to wait for his visitor whom he will give that bag and from whom he will get money to pay me. 1985. p. the same turned out to be not really necessary it appearing that appellant never even got hold of it. 18 & 22). III. An accused must always be deemed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Sec. 8. including that of Bostick's. March 31.00 you lent him? A: Yes. I was sent by Clayton to go to our quarters to get the bag because it was raining . (TSN. p. xxx xxx xxx Q: Is it your testimony that when Clayton Imateo came (to) your residence at Irisan in the morning of August 1. anent appellant's delivery of the sack/bag of marijuana cannot. is it your testimony Mr. [3]). It may then be asked. 1986) xxx xxx xxx Q: Now. you alighted from the vehicle. Sariol. much less evidence. Aurellado relied upon by the prosecution (Appellee's Brief. SO ORDERED. 14-15. p. No. 1986. In the instant case. the challenged judgment is REVERSED and appellant is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. 126. November 8. March 20. Rollo. Appellant testified that he affixed his signature because he was asked and forced to do so (TSN. immediately after the American parked his vehicle. guilt for they are mere procedural steps normally undertaken after effecting arrest (People v. Emphasis supplied) The prosecution witnesses' bare assertions. by itself. 1989). indicate ownership nor even illegal possession as contemplated by law under the circumstances in the absence of any other evidence. much less saw the same. 8-9. While the prosecution took time to prepare counterfeit money to the extent that Bostick even shelled out his own.R. as advanced by the Solicitor General. Nowhere in the cited testimony of Atty. Art. Q: You readily acceeded to that order for you to go and get the bag from your quarters? A: Yes. 126). 1986. Rollo.

Corpuz took them with his right hand and at the same time he grabbed the accused with his other hand. pleaded not guilty to the charge.n. The appellant also put his initials "C. the appellant. 8758968-SCC. in Criminal Case No. P20 would fetch ten (10) cigarette sticks of hand-rolled marijuana at P2. as amended (Possession or Use of Prohibited Drug).s. They boarded the jeep and returned to the police station..n. 13. 5'5" in height. Corpuz and the confidential informant approached the appellant. Then. who was seated by the gutter about six (6) meters away from them. The accused went inside the wooden house. deliver or give away to another ten (10) handrolled sticks of marijuana cigarettes.L.. 1988). A-1 and A-2) tucked in his waist.C. It was established during the trial that in early November. 88589 April 16. [G. 1987 in the City of Manila. The policeman and the informer impressed upon the accused that they were in dire need of marijuana. 1988. They were all in civilian clothes. Pat. police operatives of the Drug Enforcement Unit.s. Philippines. Manila." on each stick (December 18. while Pat. Sta. In light of these reports. vs. Manila. Ruiz frisked Linsangan and retrieved the marked ten-peso bills (Exhs. Manila. h'wag kang pumalag!" Pat. not being authorized by law to sell. No. The accused emerged shortly and handed over to Pat. Eleazar Lahom. Pat. Ruiz prepared a letter-request to the NBI for the laboratory examination of the ten suspected marijuana sticks.000 plus costs.: This is an appeal from the decision dated April 26. Branch XLIX. t. As Patrolman Corpuz and the confidential informant walked together. and to pay a fine of P20. December 16. assisted by counsel de parte. 1987. CARLITO LINSANGAN y DIAZ. Corpuz and the informer waited outside. 15. 3 of the Western Police District were informed that there was rampant drug using and pushing on Dinalupihan Street. 1987). Pat. 1987. Patrolmen Tomasito Corpuz and Jesus Saulog were designated as team members (pp. He was wearing blue-and-green shorts and a sando (undershirt). doing surveillance and arrest operations. IV of Republic Act 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Law).. Manila. 1987. Jan. Lahom and Saulog remained in the jeep while Pat. Corpuz asked the informant where the suspect was and the informer pointed to the appellant. The informer told the appellant: "Kukuha ako. J. Pfc. sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties of the law. Pat. as amended. Police Station No. Rollo. which is a prohibited drug. Pat.s.) Upon arraignment on November 27. and of ordinary build. The accused took the P20 from Pat. The informer took to his heels (pp. charged: That on or about November 13. (p. Under questioning by the police operatives. The accused tried to resist but was overpowered. t. 1-35. did then and there wilfully and unlawfully sell. They walked toward a wooden house with a wooden fence and a store on the left side. After briefing by the teamleader. plaintiff-appellee.R. the said accused. 1978 and assigned to the Drug Enforcement Unit since October. saying: "Pulis ito. 1987. the police operatives conducted a "test-buy" operation on Rizal Avenue. They parked the jeep on Dinalupihan Street near Pampanga Street in Tondo. give away to another or distribute any prohibited drug. 1987. The information dated November 13. Corpuz ten (10) cigarette sticks of handrolled marijuana. they proceeded to Dinalupihan.00 per stick. They arrested a person for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act 6425. Corpuz and tucked it in his front waist. . 1987 at Dinalupihan St. Corpuz who had marked them with his initials "T. He asked the appellant to sign his name on the two P10 bills. to effect the arrest of the notorious drug pusher. 1-19. who rose and walked toward them. using an owner-type jeep driver by Pat.). t. Pat. On November 13. Art. would also get P10 worth. Corpuz wore a pair of maong shorts and a white t-shirt placed over his shoulders. a member of the WPD since October 1. Police Lieutenant Manuel Caeg and the other members of the unit organized a "buy-bust" operation on November 13. Patrolman Roberto Ruiz. Cruz. accused-appellant. before the group left the office for the area of operation. Ruiz saw the signal and rushed over to them. Ruiz stood beside the jeep to watch the transaction. Tondo. the person informed them that he bought marijuana at Dinalupihan Street in Tondo. The pusher was described to them as a boy of about 20 years. seemingly waiting for someone. Lahom. He allegedly sold marijuana to anybody. Five (5) days before the appointed date." The informer asked? "Magkano?" The informer told the accused that he would buy P10 worth of marijuana while his "compadre" (referring to Patrolman Tomasito Corpuz). was designated as the team leader. deliver. 1987 at 10 o'clock in the morning. 1991] GRIÑO-AQUINO. regardless of age ("walang gulang").n. they conversed about the suspect. The informer raised his hand as a signal to the appellant. two (2) ten-peso bills were given to Pat." He gave one of the marked bills to the informer. of the Regional Trial Court. Tondo. Pat.(20) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. finding the accused guilty of the crime of Violation of Section 4 of Article II in relation to Section 21.

The ten (10) handrolled cigarette sticks were referred to the NBI's forensic chemist.000. to arrest someone. Lahom. Ruiz investigated the appellant. Ruiz received the NBI report on the examination. alias Rey Galunggong. Corpuz in the presence of Pat. his uncle helped them financially. his uncle. 3. They asked the appellant. She found them positive for marijuana. Pfc. but he did not allow them to board his tricycle. commander of the arresting officers. judgment is hereby rendered finding the Accused CARLITO LINSANGAN Y DIAZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of violation of Section 4 of Republic Act 6425. to remain silent. . Carina Javier. Corpuz. he prepared the booking sheet and arrest report. not to proceed with the case. The upper floor was occupied by his mother's brother. who is engaged in the second-hand tire business.m. Linsangan denied the charge. and to pay a fine of P20. and that their testimonies were fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies. to let the accused go. The appeal has no merit. Caldito. Geosito Diaz.Before Pat. who is allegedly a compadre of Major Yangquiling. He lived with his widowed mother. Just when the appellant was being apprised of his constitutional rights. (pp.m. Manila. Ruiz and Corpuz. Zone 19. Nevertheless. and to pay the costs. attesting to his good moral character. and referral letter to the Fiscal's Office. the trial court found him guilty of the charge of drug pushing. he was in the vendor's stand of his neighbor Emeterio Balboa. which he was driving that night. which the defense failed to do (People vs. He admitted that he had witnessed some men in Dinalupihan engaged in drinking sprees and smoking marijuana. the affidavit of arrest. Linsangan's uncle offered P500 to Pat. Corpuz. for examination. they violated his constitutional right to counsel. The appellant presented a Certification from his Barangay Chairman. frisked him and took him away. to 12:00 p. The Accused shall be entitled to the full period of his detention at the City Jail provided that he agreed in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail. He was requested by the barangay chairman. they involve minor details which do not affect the over-all picture of the case. in not holding that when the policemen required him to initial the P10-bills. shift. 32-33. he earned his living by driving a tricycle on a 5 p. 206. with all the accessory penalties of the law. who was standing about one-and-a-half-arms-length away if he was Carlito Linsangan. 1987. Tondo. The dispositive part of its decision reads: WHEREFORE. The appellant alleged that the police officers fabricated the charge against him for in the last week of September. 2. and when the appellant said "yes. who handed ten sticks of hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes to Pat. 1987. and the barangay chairman arrived. Ruiz. were motivated by ill-feelings against the appellant. The court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses is entitled to great respect unless and until they are clearly shown to be arbitrary. for fear of being involved in the case. According to Pat. two persons alighted from an ownertype jeep parked near his store. 182 SCRA 554).) The accused appealed to this Court alleging that the lower court erred: 1. crime report. Appellant's neighbor Emeterio Balboa testified that at around 10:30 a. He alleged that at around 10:30 in the morning of November 13. Rollo. in not finding that it was the informer and not the accused. as amended and hereby sentences him to the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. 1987. a neighbor. Patrolmen Corpuz and Ruiz tried to board his tricycle. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Although some inconsistencies were noted by the appellant in the affidavit of arrest prepared by Pat. Erlinda. The ten (10) cigarette sticks of handrolled marijuana ( Exhibits "F-2" to "F-11") subject matter of this case are hereby confiscated in favor of the government. Crisanto Guansing of Brgy.m. on November 13. and 4. in not finding that the prosecution witnesses. Although once in a while. As soon as Pat." they introduced themselves as policemen. he booked the appellant for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law and filed the case with the fiscal's office. in not holding that the marked money was planted evidence. on Dinalupihan Street to buy his breakfast. and not to incriminate himself while under custodial investigation. for he had just awakened. on the ground floor of a two-storey house on the alley at 1284 Dinalupihan Street.

Although he was not assisted by counsel when he initialed the P10-bills that the police found tucked in his waist. but on the fact that the trial court believed the testimony of the policemen that they arrested him while he was actually engaged in selling marijuana cigarettes to a member of the arresting party. . the subject of the prosecution was his act of selling marijuana a cigarettes (People vs.00 with costs de oficio. 175 SCRA 47. People vs. 176 SCRA 762. The Court is unable to imagine that a lowly tricycle driver would have the temerity to defy a pair of armed policemen by refusing to give them a ride in his tricycle to pursue a law violator. The trial court gave more credence to their categorical declarations than to the appellant's denials (People vs. Pamaran. 145 SCRA 614). Carlito Linsangan y Diaz. The judgment of the trial court in Criminal Case No. That is as it should be for as law enforcers. 145 SCRA 50). which shall be life imprisonment and a fine of P20. Layuso. Tan. the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit. Ale. The appellant was not denied due process during the custodial investigation. Their task of apprehending persons engaged in the deadly drug trade is difficult enough without legal and procedural technicalities to make it doubly so.000. 160 SCRA 457). WHEREFORE.The alleged motive of the policemen for fabricating the charge against him and planting marked money on his person is not credible. 87-58968-SCC is hereby affirmed except the penalty imposed on the accused. de Jesus. 145 SCRA 521. People vs. Mejia vs. SO ORDERED. Macuto. they are presumed to have performed their official duties in a regular manner (People vs. his right against self-incrimination was not violated for his possession of the marked bills did not constitute a crime. His conviction was not based on the presence of his initials on the P10-bills.

who also owned a store fronting the compound. accused-appellant. February 1. pp. She asked why he looked so worried but he did not answer. Ma. around 7:30. he saw Ma. 5-10). committed no less upon a child. appellant showed up at Norgina Rivera's store to buy lugaw.m. "Meantime. "Later. pp. 33). Burdened with the supreme penalty of death.9-11). September 27. 1995. September 20. "With the help of the Valenzuela Police. T. "On June 25. rape is an ignominious crime for which necessity is neither an excuse nor does there exist any other rational justification other than lust. Metro Manila. pp. appellant was always around washing his clothes. 1995. the facts narrating the horrible experience and the tragic demise of a young and innocent child in the bloody hands of appellant. September 27. p. 4165 Dian Street. saw Ma. She used to pass by Isip's house on her way to school and play inside the compound yard. 1995. Roberto Suni. On the following day. went to his in-law's house between 6 to 7 o'clock p. His task was to take care of Isip's house which was under construction adjacent to her old residence situated inside a compound at No. printed blue blouse. 1999] PER CURIAM: A violation of the dignity. as such facts are ably supported by evidence on record: [1] * "Appellant Larry Mahinay started working as houseboy with Maria Isip on November 20. Victoria Chan. Victoria. appellant. a certain Boy found the dead body of Ma. purity and privacy of a child who is still innocent and unexposed to the ways of worldly pleasures is a harrowing experience that destroys not only her future but of the youth population as well. the lifeless body of Ma.m. She last saw her daughter wearing a pair of white shorts. a yellow hair ribbon. 12-14). catching maya birds together with other children. The unfinished house was about 8 meters away from Rivera's store (TSN. are considered the hope of the fatherland. 20-22). 1995. "On the other hand. On his way to his in-law's house. Suni met appellant along Dian Street. 3-7. September 18. Sgt. 13). Eduardo and Elvira Chan (TSN. September 6. Ramos. plaintiff-appellee. 4-8. dirty white panty. August 23..m. Inside the compound yard was a septic tank (TSN. Sgt. Valenzuela . was Isip's neighbor in Dian Street. pp. 14-17). "The victim.. who at the salad age of a few days past 12 years. His hair was disarrayed. 1995. has yet to knock on the portals of womanhood. Norgina Rivera. Boy immediately reported what he saw to the victim's parents. 1995. was missing. Victoria standing in front of the gate of the unfinished house (TSN. September 6. August 22. 122485. also a resident of Dian Street. de Leon. at 2 o'clock in the morning. to call his office regarding changes on the trip of President Fidel V. September 6. While they were playing. [G. at 8 o'clock a. 1995. That same evening. The Court quotes with approval from the People's Brief.(21) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. pp. 1995. Victoria on that same day three to four times catching birds inside Isip's unfinished house around 4 o'clock in the afternoon. "Meanwhile. "That same morning. Results of the autopsy revealed the following findings: . But those who lust ought not to lust. the Court is confronted by another tragic desecration of human dignity. No. and met her untimely death as a result of the "intrinsically evil act" of non-consensual sex called rape. white lady sando and blue rubber slippers (TSN. Once again. Appellant alighted at the top of the bridge of the North Expressway and had thereafter disappeared (TSN. appellant joined Gregorio Rivera in a drinking spree. 1995. vs. Norgina Rivera informed appellant that there was none left of it. Her face bore bruises. pp. between 8 to 9 o'clock p. 22. She notice that appellant appeared to be uneasy and in deep thought. LARRY MAHINAY Y AMPARADO. 14-17). September 18. The house of his in-laws was near the house of Isip. pp. left Gregorio Rivera and asked permission from Isip to go out with his friends (TSN. 1995. Around 10 o'clock in the morning. 29-31. 1995.R. Gen. pp. Isip's sister-in-law. located 10 meters away from the unfinished house (TSN. September 6. pp. 12 years old. 1995. who was already drunk. Ma. But he stayed and slept in an apartment also owned by Isip. Victoria inside the septic tank. 17. he was drunk and was walking in a dazed manner. 9-11). Victoria was retrieved from the septic tank. at 9 o'clock in the evening. "Isip testified that appellant failed to show up for supper that night. pp. 1995. Then he left and walked back to the compound (TSN. who in the teachings of our national hero. 1993. Elvira Chan noticed that her daughter. She was wearing a printed blouse without underwear. appellant boarded a passenger jeepney driven by Fernando Trinidad at the talipapa. June 26. brown belt. 4-9.

did then and there wilfully. September 6.5 cm.5 x 1. intraclavicular area. pp. forehead. middle third. pp. REMARKS: Hymen: tall. 11.0 cm. age 12 years old.5 x 1. 13-21). 3. 1995. Contusions. Victoria. 1995. when appellant came face to face with the victim's mother and aunt. Traumatic Head Injury. Contused-abrasions on the forehead. Record.5 cm.0 cm. subpleural petechial hemorrhages. Stomach.0 cm. SPO1 Arsenio Nacis and SPO1 Arnold Alabastro were informed by Isip that her houseboy. a leather wallet. pp. 1995. Hemorrhage. The owner of the factory confirmed to them that appellant used to work at the factory but she did not know his present whereabouts. forearms.0 x 2.0 cm. 21-25). lips and nailbeds. Also found in the yard. 1. "SPO1 Nacis and SPO1 Alabastro were also informed that a townmate of appellant was working in a pancit factory at Barangay Reparo. choke and strangle said MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO as a result of which. Caloocan City (TSN. 126) "Back in the compound.0 x 6. They also found inside another room a pair of blue slippers which Isip identified as that of Appellant. upper 33rd. "A police report was subsequently prepared including a referral slip addressed to the office of the Valenzuela Prosecutor.0 cm. left iliac area.0 cm. 1995. August 18. Hemorrhage.0 cm. was missing. the above-named accused. Anterior aspect. right. right antero-lateral aspect. Ibaan.0 x 5. 3. Ma.0 cm. 10-13. dorsal aspect. thick with complete lacerations at 4:00 and 8:00 o'clock position corresponding to the face of a watch edges congested with blood clots. right anterior aspect. left. Also.0 cm. left. SPO1 Virgilio Villano retrieved the victim's underwear from the septic tank (TSN. lateral aspect. Other visceral organs. 4. CAUSE OF DEATH . They proceeded to said place. and left antero-lower 3rd . On July 7. middle third. lateral aspect. According to her. angle of the left eye. At the second floor of the house under construction. thighs. left. 3-8. Caloocan City. August 23. by means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO. "The policemen returned to the scene of the crime. subscapular area. said victim died. dorsal aspect 2. p. 1995. 6.0 x 8. he would normally return on the same day or early morning of the following day (TSN.5 x 1. August 14. antero-lateral aspect. informed them that appellant could possibly be found on 8th Street. 12. subepicardial.0 cm.0 cm. 5.0 x 4. August 18. lateral mallcolum. a brown belt and a yellow hair ribbon which was identified by Elvira Chan to belong to her daughter. 3-8.. pp. 1995. Tracheo-bronchial tree. left 7. right.2 x 4. Appellant's townmate. 0." Thus.Cyanosis.0 cm. congested. Hematoma. interstitial. a pair of dirty long pants and a pliers positively identified by Isip as appellant's belongings.0 x 1. on the other hand. supra pubic area.Asphyxia by Manual Strangulation. neck. 1995.8 x 0. that on the occasion of said sexual assault. 13. August 14. 4. 1995. "After a series of follow-up operations. and left 6. right 4. left fronto-parietal area. "Contrary to law. He was brought to Valenzuela Police Station. These items were brought to the police station (TSN.0 x 5.5 cm.5 x 3. lower 3rd 5. Restituto Viernes. left. The next day. (TSN. 14-17). posterior aspect. underneath nailmarks. Batangas.0 x 2. 7. 4.0 cm.. and scalp. appellant Larry Mahinay. 4. 5. on July 10. foot.0 x 3.0 cm. hand. with the assistance of Atty.0 x 10. he confided to them that he was not alone in raping and killing the victim. left. 2. lower rd. He pointed to Zaldy and Boyet as his coconspirators (TSN.5 x 7. pp. thigh right. 1995. 8-9).0 x 5. unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have sexual intercourse with said MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO against her will and without her consent. 5.00 x 4. posterior aspect. it was unlikely for appellant to just disappear from the apartment since whenever he would go out. 9.0 cm. neck. August 14.5 cm. 1.9 cm.0 x 3. arm. and left.0 cm.2 x 1. scapular area. appellant was finally arrested in Barangay Obario Matala. pp. 2. right. elbows. left jaw. August 23. left. posterior aspect.5 cm.0 cm. appellant was charged with rape with homicide in an Information which reads: [2] "That on or about the 26th day of June 1995 in Valenzuela.0 cm. Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused. left. congested."[3] . p. pp. left. they retrieved from one of the rooms a pair of dirty white short pants.0 x 3. 1995. lumbar area. knee.5 x 2. 6-11-27). contain 1/4 rice and other food particles. appellant executed an extra-judicial confession wherein he narrated in detail how he raped and killed the victim. subdural. three armslength away from the septic tank were an underwear.5 x 3. Grace Park. Contributory.

burial and wake of the victim. After giving the bottle of gin to Zaldy and Boyet. The proven circumstances of this case when juxtaposed with appellant‘s proffered excuse are sufficient to sustain his conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The police officers allegedly bro ught him to a big house somewhere in Manila. Around 10 o‘clock p.000.‖ [7] For life. In his testimony summarized by the trial court. T. finding accused Larry Mahinay y Amparado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. appellant. he was asked by Zaldy and Boyet to assist them in bringing the dead body downstairs. on Dian Street. around 9:30 a. October 16."[4] Upon automatic review by the court en banc pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). once taken is like virginity. As appellant stood up. a co -worker. appellant and Zaldy met Boyet. Zaldy pointed to him a knife. After trial. sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay a total of P73. He also asked for a cash advance of P300.00 to the victim's heirs.m. Norgina Rivera informed him that there was none left of it. After consuming three cases of red horse beer. pp. and 3. The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision states: "WHEREFORE. Around 6 o‘clock p. October 16. Later. Then. 1995. pp. In order therefore. 1995. Zaldy. "SO ORDERED. appellant heard the police officer‘s plan to salvage him if he would not admit that he was the one who raped and killed the victim. he executed an extra-judicial confession. He claimed that he was assisted by Atty. they went out and bought another bottle of gin from a nearby store. 2.m. ―Subsequently.‖[6] This being a death penalty case. Metro Manila... 4-5). refused to follow. he asked permission from Isip to go out with his friends to see a movie. While they were at the store. he decided to sleep at the second floor of Isip‘s unfinished house. It was already 9 o‘clock in the evening. Batangas. he is hereby sentenced to death by electricution (sic). . the Court exercises the greatest circumspection in the review thereof since ―there can be no stake higher and no penalty more severe x x x than the termination of a human life. appellant offered his version of what transpired as follows: ―(T)hat on June 25. as the records are not shy. 9-11). d e Leon. pp. that appellant‘s guilty mind be satisfied. They consumed one case of red horse beer. Thereupon. He obliged and helped dump the body into the septic tank. appellant passed by Norgina Rivera‘s store to buy lugaw. Gregorio Rivera is the brother of Maria Isip. Zaldy and Boyet arrived ca rrying a cadaver. he joined Gregorio Rivera and a certain Totoy in a drinking spree. They finished drinking gin around 8 o‘clock p. He. Scared. Zaldy and Boyet directed him to rape the dead body of the child or they would kill him. He is likewise condemned to indemnify the heirs of the victim. appellant left (TSN. [5] appellant insists that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution against him is insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ―At 2 o‘clock in the afternoon. But because it was already closed. October 16. which once defiled can never be restored. He left the store and proceeded to Isip‘s apartment. "Let the complete records of the case be immediately forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court for the automatic review in accordance to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No. There. 1995. they would kill him. 6-7). 4-13). The two placed the body inside the room where appellant was sleeping. the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. After consuming the bottle of gin. he was summoned by Isip to clean the jee pney.000. October 16. for him to verify. ―On his way home.to which he pleaded not guilty. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 7659.00 and to pay the further sum of P23. Victoria Chan the amount of P50. the lower court rendered a decision convicting appellant of the crime charged. At 4 o ‘clock the following morning. instead of going out with his friend.[9] conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence provided that the following requisites concur: 1. opted to rejoin Gregorio Rivera and Totoy for an other drinking session. appellant‘s employer. fetched him at Gregorio Rivera‘s house. 1995. He finished cleaning the jeepney at 12 o‘clock noon. However.000. there is more than one circumstance. Gen. Ma. he left the compound and proceeded first to Navotas and later to Batangas (TSN. appellant was apprehended by the police officers in Ibaan. 1995.00 for the funeral. the Court states the reasons wh y. Then he had lunch and took a bath.m. Valenzuela. They went to Zaldy‘s house and bought a bottle of gin. notwithstanding the absence of any direct evidence relative to the commission of the crime for which he was prosecuted. pp. Restituto Viernes only when he was forced to sign the extra-judicial confession (TSN.m. as amended. Absence of direct proof does not necessarily absolve him from any liability because under the Rules on evidence [8] and pursuant to settled jurisprudence.00 (TSN. Zaldy and Boyet warned him that should they ever see him again.

owner of the unfinished big house where victim‘s body was found inside the septic tank. he met accused Larry Mahinay walking on the road leading to his in-law‘s residence which is about 50 to 75 meters away to the unfinished big house of Maria Isip. Traumatic Head injury Contributory substantiate. coersed or was promised of reward or leniency. a passenger jeepney driver plying the route Karuhatan-Ugong and vice versa which include Diam St. 150 SCRA 311). 1993. ―SIXTH – Accused Larry Mahinay during the custodial investigation and after having been informed of his constitutional rights with the assistance of Atty. testified that on June 25. Retubado. Metro Manila. owner of the unfinished big house where the crime happened and the septic tank where the body of Maria Victoria Chan was found in the morning of June 26. consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty. Restituto Viernes and as testified by said Atty. Valenzuela. hinawakan ko siya sa kamay tapos tinulak ko siya. and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. categorically. nakatulog na siya tapos ni-rape ko na siya. Consistent with the testimony of the accused that he pushed the victim and the latter‘s head hit the table and the victim lost consciousness.[11] In the case at bench..Simply put. That the accused did not reply to her queries why he looked worried but went inside the compound. constitute evidence which. Suni. People vs.” ―There is no clear proof of maltreatment and/or tortured in giving the statement. all circumstances must be consistent with each other. 1969. 1995 between 6:00 and 7:00 in the evening. Said confession of accused Larry Mahinay given with the assistance of Atty. in weight and probative force. He did not even informed the Inquest Prosecutor when he sworn to the truth of his statement on July 8. 1995. That the accused appeared uneasy and s eems to be thinking deeply. These circumstantial evidence are as follows: ―FIRST – Prosecution witness Norgina Rivera. 1988 162 SCRA 276. This is a clear indication that the victim was raped and killed in the said premises. Restituto Viernes is believed to have been freely and voluntarily given. The post mortem findings shows that the cause of death Asphyxia by manual strangulation. 58585 January 20. “Pagpasok niya sa kuwarto. ―There is no showing that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (sic) fabricated or there was any reason for them to t estify falsely against the accused. 1995 that he was forced. should be given full faith and credit. That he signed the statement given by the accused. 1995 at 2:00 early morning and alighted on top of the overpass of the North Expressway. That in the morning of June 25. delos Santos L-3398 May 29. may surpass even direct evidence in its effect upon the court. ―FOURTH – Prosecution witness Fernando Trinidad. That she noticed the accused‘s hair was disarranged. a Sunday. [10]Facts and circumstances consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. Ali L-18512 October 30. There were no medical certificate submitted by the accused to sustain his claim that he was mauled by the police officers. accused Larry Mahinay was in her store located in front portion of the compound of her sister-in-law Maria Isip where the unfinished big house is situated buying rice noodle (lugaw). That after finishing some work she asked him to do accused Larry Mahinay left. The absence of any evidence as to the existence of improper motive sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive exists and that the testimonies of the witnesses. ―SECOND – Prosecution witness Sgt. Larry Mahinay asked permission from her to leave. 1995. the trial court gave credence to several circumstantial evidence. . 1995. pinpointed the accused Larry Mahinay as one of the passengers who boarded his passenger jeepney on June 26. T. testified that accused Larry Mahinay is her houseboy since November 20. 1984. Ayon na. categorically testified that at about 9:00 in the evening on June 25. That accused did not complain to the proper authorities of any maltreatment on his person (People vs. Gen. tapos tumama iyong ulo niya sa mesa. That he also saw victim Maria Victoria Chan standing at the gate of the unfinished big house of Maria Isip between 8:00 and 9:00 in the same evening. ―FIFTH – Personal belongings of the victim was found in the unfinished big house of Maria Isip where accused Larry Mahinay slept on the night of the incident. on his way to his in-law‘s house. which upon thorough review of the Court is more than enough to prove appellant‘s guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. therefore. The Court noted that a lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office Atty. de Leon. Roberto G. Lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office is expected to be watchful and vigilant to notice any irregularity in the manner of the investigation and the physical conditions of the accused. That his confession abound with details know only to him. That it is customary on the part of Larry Mahinay to return in the afternoon of the same day or sometimes in the next morning. 29 SCRA 756). That accused Larry Mahinay did not return until he was arrested in Batangas on July 7. 284. Viernes he informed and explained to the accused his constitutional rights and was present all throughout the giving of the testimony. Restituto Viernes of the Public Attorney‘s Office voluntarily gave his statement admitting th e commission of the crime. ―THIRD – Prosecution witness Maria Isip. (People vs. for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction. sister-in-law of Maria Isip. drunk and walking in sigsaging manner. 1995 is located.

A. though innocent. the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. a high ranking police officer or the lady reporter who interviewed him. the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution. Maganto. why will Boyet and Zaldy still brought the cadaver upstairs only to be disposed/dumped later in the septic tank located in the ground floor. 2).‖ [12] Guided by the three principles in the review of rape cases.There being no evidence presented to show that said confession were obtained as a result of violence. 1979)‖ ―EIGHT – If the accused did not commit the crime and was only forced to disposed/dumpted the body of the victim in the septic tank. Tiongson 6 SCRA 431. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous. threat or promise of reward or leniency nor that the investigating officer could have been motivated to concoct the facts narrated in said affidavit.) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.) By using force or intimidation. Tuazon 6 SCRA 249. the two ordered him to have sex with the dead body but he refused. ―We have no test to the truth of human testimony except it‘s conformity to aver k nowledge observation and experience. That he slept in the said unfinished house only that night of June 25. correct and freely or voluntarily given. the foregoing circumstantial evidence clearly establishes the felony of rape with homicide defined and penalized under Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code. . 7659. torture. Boyet and Zaldy can easily disposed and dumped the body in the septic tank by themselves. Baluran 52 SCRA 71. Pilones. he could have apprise Col. 1. The Court is at a loss how would Zaldy and Boyet knew he (Larry Mahinay) was in the second floor of the unfinished house. People v. Pingol 35 SCRA 73. People v. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons. ―It is likewise strange that the dead body of the child was taken to the room where accused Larry Mahinay was sleeping only to force the latter to have sex with the dead body of the child. (People vs. and 3). 1995. 1995 because the apartment where he was staying was already closed. This is unbelievable and unnatural. (People vs. 2. (Tsn pp8-9 October 16. 16.) ―SEVENTH – Accused Larry Mahinay testified in open Court that he was not able to enter the apartment where he is sleeping because it was already closed and he proceeded to the second floor of the unfinished house and slept. People v. maltreatment. A person‘s silence therefore. where only two persons are usually involved. His failure and omission to reveal the same is unnatural. Accused Larry Mahinay is staying in the apartment and not in the unfinished house. He left the crime scene on the early morning after the incident and did not return until he was arrested in Batangas on July 7. intimidation. That the two asked him to assist them in dumping the dead body of the victim in the septic tank downstairs. An accusation for rape can be made with facility. to disprove. as amended by Section 11. 1995). 1978). Santos L-385 Nov.) When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape. it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused. ―NINTH – The circumstance of flight of the accused strongly indicate his consciousness of guilt. which provides: ―When and how rape is committed – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. ―Furthermore. if the child is already dead when brought by Zaldy and Boyet in the room at the second floor of the unfinished house where accused Larry Mahinay was sleeping. particularly when it is persistent will justify an inference that he is not innocent. He said while sleeping Zaldy and Boyet arrived carrying the cadaver of the victim and dumped it inside his room. That at the point of a knife. the confession of the accused is held to be true. L-32754-5 July 21. The evidence of the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. (People v. R. An innocent person will at once naturally and emphatically repel an accusation of crime as a matter of preservation and self-defense and as a precaution against prejudicing himself. and 3. to wit: [13] 1).

the penalty shall be death. Subject evidence were part of evidences recovered at the crime scene).[14] At the time of the commission of this heinous act. is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent. The gravamen of the offense of rape.) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape. any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. (pointing to a dirty white short placed atop this inves tigator‘s table. Witness? A: I am very sure of that. T: Kailan ito at anong oras nangyari? . ―20. This is shown from the testimony of the medical doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the child‘s body: Q: And after that what other parts of the victim did you examine? A: Then I examined the genitalia of the victim. 8353). or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. [15] although under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (R. 6. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. ―16.) When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old. Mr.) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease. proof of force and consent becomes immaterial [18] not only because force is not an element of statutory rape. violence. may be prosecuted even without a complaint filed by the offended party.) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent.) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities. Conviction will therefore lie. T: Ano ba ang inyong ininom bakit ka nasobrahan ng lasing? S: Red Horse po at saka GIN. Based on the evidence on record. T: Bakit mo naman ni rape yung batang babae? S: Eh nasobrahan ako ng lasing. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. sexual intercourse with the victim was adequately proven. But if the woman is 12 years of age or over at the time she was violated. the victim has become insane. the laceration was caused by the penetration of a male organ? A: Adult male organ. rape has since been re-classified as a crime against persons under Articles 266-A and 266-B. guardian. Ayon na. ―18. ascendant. ―15. parent. Q: So. a homicide is committed. 8353. nakakatulog na siya tapos ni rape ko na siya.When by reason or on the occasion of the rape. prior to R. When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. ―17. 3. 5. yung malaking bahay na ginagawa. not only the first element of sexual intercourse must be proven but also the other element that the perpetrator‘s evil acts with the offended party was done through force. intimidation or threat needs to be established. tapos dumating yung batang babae. 4. step-parent. ―19. provided sexual intercourse is be proven. Q: Now.A. and thus. T: Ano ang suot nung batang babae na sinasabi mo? S: Itong short na ito. Hindi ko na alam ang ginagawa ko. 7. Q: And what did you find out after you examined the genitalia of the victim? A: The hymen was tall-thick with complete laceration at 4:00 o‘clock and 8:00 o‘clock position and that the edges were conges ted.[20] Besides. Tapos tumama yung ulo niya sa mesa. Pag-pasok niya sa kuwarto hinawakan ko siya sa kamay tapos tinulak ko siya.) When the rape is committed in full view of the husband. T: Ano ang nangyari ng mga sandali o oras na iyon? S: Natutulog po ako sa itaas ng bahay ni ATE MARIA. the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Both elements are present in this case.[16] (Under the new law. 2.) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency. the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation. Q: You are very sure of that. sir. No.[19] but the absence of a free consent is presumed when the woman is below such age.A. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape. the penalty shall be death. appellant himself admitted that he had sexual congress with the unconscious child.) [17] If the woman is under 12 years of age. as may be gleaned from his extrajudicial confession. rape was still considered a crime against chastity. what might have caused the laceration? A: Under normal circumstances this might have (sic) caused by a penetration of an organ. rape may be committed even by a woman and the victim may even be a man. T: Saan lugar ng malaking bahay ni ATE MARIA mo ni rape yung batang babae? S: Sa kuwarto ko po sa itaas. as in this case.

―31. ―30. de Leon. ―35. T: Kanino ka natatakot? S: Natatakot po ako sa ginawa kong masama. it is not full or deep penetration of the victim‘s vagina. ―23. buhay pa ba siya o patay na? S: Buhay pa po. T: Ano ang nangyari kay MA. VICTORIA CHAN. which he. whether before or during the sexual act. ―Q – Was he alone? ―A – he was alone. nakaraos ka ba? S: Naka-isa po. ―28. Valenzuela. basta araw ng Linggo. ―27. T: Nung nakaraos ka. As testified to by the assisting lawyer: ―Q – Will you please inform the Court what was that call about? ―A – We went to the station. sir. It was at that instance that he ravished her and satisfied his salacious and prurient desires. rather the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ is enough to consummate the sexual intercourse. ―Q – So. T: Nais kong liwanagin sa iyo kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng ‗NAKARAOS‘. maaar i bang ipaliwanag mo ito? S: Nilabasan po ako ng tamod. T: Papaano mo siya pinatay? S: Tinulak ko nga po siya sa terrace. ―21. . Gen. from appellant‘s own account. hindi ko na matandaan kung anong petsa. nais kong ipaalam sa iyo na ang pangalan ng batang babae na iyong ni rape at pinatay ay si MA.‖[21] In proving sexual intercourse. ―22. Police Officer Nacis and other investigator inside the investigation room and the parents of the child who was allegedly raped. T: Saan lugar ito nangyari? S: Sa Diam. I think. T: Natapos mong ma-rape si MA. T: Buhay pa ba si MA. ―25. T: Noong mga oras o sandaling gahasain mo si MA. if any? ―A – They told us together with Atty. ―29.And when you reached the investigation room do you notice whether the accused already there? ―A – The accused was already there. ―Q. T: Bakit mo namang naisipang ilagay si MA. VICTORIA sa poso-negra? S: Doon ko lang po inilagay. it could safely be concluded that she had not given free and voluntary consent to her defilement. ano pa ang sumunod mong ginawa? S: Natulak ko siya sa terrace. natatakot ako sa mga pulis. From the wounds. ―33. mayroon ka kasama? S: Nag-iisa lang po ako. when you were already infront of SPO1 Arnold Alabastro and the other PNP Officers. he pushed the victim causing the latter to hit her head on the table and fell unconsc ious. T: Alam mo na ba ang pangalan ng batang babae na ni rape mo? S: Hindi ko po alam. Considering that the victim. ―Q – And upon reaching the investigation room of Valenzuela PNP who were the other person present? ―A – Police Officer Alabastro.S: Mga bandang alas 8:00 ng gabi. force was indeed employed upon her to satisfy carnal lust.M. ―26. claims was executed in violation of his constitutional right to counsel. M. T: Saan makikita yung poso-negra na sinasabi mo? S: Doon din sa malaking bahay ni ATE MARIA. was unconscious. Zapanta that this Larry Mahinay would like to confess of the crime charged. Moreover. araw ng Linggo. T: Nung ma-rape mo. T: Ngayon. ―34. what did they tell you. T. VICTORIA nung ilagay mo siya sa poso-negra? S: Hindi ko po alam dahil nung pagbagsak niya inilagay ko na siya sa poso-negra. police investigation together with Atty. Froilan Zapanta and we were told by Police Officer Alabastro that one Larry Mahinay would like to confess of the crime of. [22] The mere touching by the male‘s organ or instrument of sex of the labia of the pudendum of the woman‘s private parts is sufficient to consummate rape. at the time of her penile invasion. VICTORIA CHAN? Matatandaan mo ba ito? S: Oho. ―32. VICTORIA matapos mong itulak sa terrace? S: Inilagay ko po sa poso-negra. T: Bakit nga doon mo inilagay siya? S: Natatakot po ako. sir. sir. VICTORIA CHAN. rape with homicide. warned and explained to him his constitutionally guaranteed pre-interrogatory and custodial rights. Another thing that militates against appellant is his extrajudicial confession. ―24. contusions and abrasions suffered by the victim. ―36. T: Nung gawin mo ba itong krimen na ito. But his contention is belied by the records as well as the testimony of the lawyer who assisted. nasaan parte ng katawan ng batang babae yung iyong ari? S: Nakapasok po doon sa ari nung babae. however.

Larry Mahinay? ―A – Yes. ―Q – Will you please go over this and tell the Court whether that is the same document you mentioned? ―A – Yes. there is a signature here. will you be able to recognize the same? ―A – Yes. ―Q – But he saw the accused.―Q – By the way. ―Q – There is a signature in this constitutional right after the enumeration. ―Q – And when he said or when he replied ―Opo‖ so the question started? ―A – Yes. what was the first thing that you did as assisting lawyer to the accused? ―A – First. that this document be marked as our Exhibit A proper. when Atty. ―Q – Was he also present at the start of the question and answer period to the accused? ―A – No more.Larry Mahinay said that we will proceed with his statement. what was the respond of the accused? ―A. The first one is when Larry Mahinay subscribed and sworn to. that the two (2) signatures identified by my compañero be encircled and marked as Exhibit A-1 and A-2. sir. That he has the right of a counsel of his own choice and that if he has no counsel a lawyer will be appointed to him and that he has the right to refuse to answer any question that would incriminate him. in local dialect. whose signature is that? ―A – This is also signed in my presence. after enumerating these constitutional rights of accused Larry Mahinay. ―Q – Why are you sure that this is his signature? ―A – He signed in my presence. sir. sir. and it was also explained to him one by one by Police Officer Alabastro. ―Q – And below immediately are the two (2) signatures. sir. these were the said rights reduced into writing. ―Q – And when this question and answer period started. do you recall whether this constitutional right enumerated by you were reduced in writing? ―A – Yes. ―Q – But you were present? ―A – I was then present when he signed. It was Police Officer Alabastro. PRINCIPE: May we request. sir. sir. ―Q – Now. ―Q – Did you explain to him the meaning of this waiver? ―A – I had also explained to him. I tried to explain to him his right. ―Q – In Filipino? ―A – In Tagalog. he already went to our office. ―ATTY. I was also present. ―Q – I show to you this constitutional right which you said were reduced into writing. sir. ―Q – In your presence? ―A – In my presence. sir. before and after there are two (2) signatures. . sir. sir. sir. sir. who was that Atty. sir. ―Q – I noticed in this Exhibit A that there is also a waiver of rights. do you recognize this signature? ―A – This is my signature. Your Honor. ―Nagsasalaysay‖. Zapanta left at what time did the question and answer period start? ―A – If I am not mistaken at around 4:05 of July 7. ―Q – Did you ask him of his educational attainment? ―A – It was the Police Officer who asked him. were you present also when he signed this waiver? ―A – Yes. sir. will you please recognize the two (2) signatures? ―A – These were the same signatures signed in my presence. under the constitution. I was left alone. ―Q – Do you recall after reducing into writing this constitutional right of the accused whether you asked him to sign to acknowledge or to conform? ―A – I was the one who asked him. Zapanta? ―A – Our immediate Superior of the Public Attorney‘s Office. PRINCIPE: May we request. ―Q – What was the reply? ―A – He said ―Opo‖. ATTY. ―Q – The signature of whom? ―A – The signature of Larry Mahinay. ―Q –What are those right? ―A – That he has the right to remain silent. ―Q – Now. ―Q – And there is also a signature after the waiver in Filipino over the typewritten name Larry Mahinay. 1995 in the afternoon. sir. sir. sir. Your Honor. ―Q – After you said that you apprised the accused of his constitutional right explaining to him in Filipino.

it may be considered as an aggravating circumstance.‖ This special complex crime is treated by law in the same degree as qualified rape -. [30] This case of rape with homicide carries with it penalty of death which is mandatorily imposed by law within the import of Article 47 of the RPC. except its conformity to our knowledge. the penalty shall be death. it may be treated as a qualifying circumstance. Death being a single indivisible penalty and the only penalty prescribed by law for the crime of ―rape with homicide‖.[24] ―Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness. But if it is not so alleged. as amended by R. she can also recover moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code [33] in such amount as the court deems just.‖ (emphasis supplied). conclusions and evaluation of the testimony of witnesses is received on appeal with the highest respect. Coming now to the penalty. Pursuant to current case law.[26] the same being supported by substantial evidence on record. do you recognize the signature? ―A – This is also my signature. The absence of any improper or ill-motive on the part of the principal witnesses for the prosecution all the more strengthens the conclusion that no such motive exists. a homicide is committed. all the foregoing boils down to the issue of credibility of witnesses.000. the co urt has no option but to apply the same ―regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may have attende d the commission of the crime‖[29] in accordance with Article 63 of the RPC. In an apparent but futile attempt to escape the imposition of the death penalty. [28] Neither was any wrong motive attributed to the police officers who testified against appellant. the record rebuffs appellant on this point considering that he was proven to be already more than 20 years of age when he did the heinous act. the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty.A.[34] Civil Indemnity is different from the award of moral and exemplary damages. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). which opportunity is denied t o the appellate courts. the penalty is death. a victim of simple rape is entitled to a civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos (P50. as amended. appellant tried to alter his date of birth to show that he was only 17 years and a few months old at the time he committed the rape and thus. in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. observation and experience. the same cannot affect the imposition of the penalty because Articles 63 of the RPC in mentioning aggravating circumstances refers to those defined in Articles 14 and 15. 7659 ―when by reason or on occasion of the rape. temperate and compensatory . In the words of Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet of New Jersey. Settled is the rule that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses‘ department on the stand while testifying.[35] The requirement of proof of mental and physical suffering provided in Article 2217 of the Civil Code is dispensed with because it is ―recognized that the victim‘s injury is inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award of moral damages‖. the civil indemnity for the victim shall be not less than seventy-five thousand pesos (P75. it was held that a conviction for rape carries with it the award of moral damages to the victim without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[36] Thus. the penalty cannot be death except if the circumstance proven can be properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under Articles 14 and 15 of the RPC which will affect the imposition of the proper penalty in accordance with Article 63 of the RPC. In cases where any of those circumstances is proven though not alleged. without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof. which provides: ―The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws. sir.[25] In this case.[32] In addition to such indemnity. but must be credible in itself . We have no test of the truth of human testimony.that is.‖ Ultimately.such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.[31] Again.000. and is outside of judicial cognizance. No.00).00) but if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by present amended law. the sentence imposed by the trial court is correct.A. covered by the proscription on the imposition of death if the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years at the time of the commission of the crime. There was no showing that the court a quo had overlooked or disregarded relevant facts and circumstances which when considered would have affected the outcome of this case[27] or justify a departure from the assessments and findings of the court below. Appellant‘s defense that two other persons brought to him the dead body of the victim and forced him to rape the cadaver is t oo unbelievable. if any of the 10 circumstances is alleged in the information/complaint. Under R. if any of those circumstances proven but not alleged cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance under Articles 14 and 15. in which case the only penalty is death – subject to the usual proof of such circumstance in either case. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous. when any of the 7 (now 10) ―attendant circumstances‖ enumerated in the law is alleged and proven. in which instances. [37] Exemplary damages can also be awarded if the commission of the crime was attended by one or more aggravating circumstances pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code[38] after proof that the offended party is entitled to moral.‖[23] (emphasis supplied). as amended.―Q – And immediately after your first signature is a Certification that you have personally examined the accused Larry Mahinay and testified that he voluntary executed the Extra Judicial Confession. 8353. except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court. However. the trial court‘s findings.

considering the heavy penalty of death and in order to ensure that the evidence against and accused were obtained through lawful means.damages. . if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer. the conviction of appellant is hereby AFFIRMED except for the award of civil indemnity for the heinous rape which is INCREASED toP75.000. jurisprudence and Republic Act No.A. otherwise. 3. or any medical doctor. 2. No. he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means – telephone. let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power. PLUS P50. that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence. shall be inadmissible in evidence. knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same. 11. 5. any member of his immediate family. Lastly. and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf. the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process. amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he makes such indication. appellant is liable to the victim‘s heirs for the amount of P75. 7438:[41] It is high-time to educate our law-enforcement agencies who neglect either by ignorance or indifference the so-called Miranda rights which had become insufficient and which the Court must update in the light of new legal developments: 1. SO ORDERED. In addition. he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak.00 as civil indemnity and P50. 7. 10. obtained in violation of any of the foregoing. Four members of the Court – although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People v. detained. or investigating officer or his companions must do and observe at the time of making an arrest and again at and during the time of the custodial interrogation[40] in accordance with the Constitution. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily.000. priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel. 4. 6. Every other warnings. whether inculpatory or exculpatory. 8. the Court. as guardian of the rights of the people lays down the procedure. Echegaray[42] that R. at any time.00. In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. The person arrested.000. or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-government organization.00 moral damages. letter or messenger – with his lawyer (either retained or appointed). The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent.[39] Under the circumstances of this case. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer. by a majority vote. is unconstitutional – nevertheless submit to the ruling of the Court. detaining. he must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel. 7659. if any. the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced. 9.00 as moral damages. he must be informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made. invited or under custodial investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. guidelines and duties which the arresting. upon finality of this decision. insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. inviting. 7659. in whole or in part. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him. The person arrested must be informed that. WHEREFORE. regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer. or the interrogation must ceased if it has already begun. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer.000. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished. as the case may be. radio. or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf. one will be provided for him. preferably of his own choice. information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said person.

Police Major Roberto Rosales of the Camarines Norte Integrated National Police testified that upon appellant‘s arrest. with intent of gain and by means of violence take from REYNALDO OCHOA and JOSELITO BALBASTRO the following personal properties. signed and sworn to before Jose Panganiban Municipal Mayor Arnie Arenal. were charged with the crime of robbery with double homicide in Criminal Case No. coercion and intimidation. who likewise inquired whether or not appellant understood the consequences of his confession. having sustained several mortally-inflicted stab wounds in different parts of their bodies.00. On June 25. later identified as appellant. rayban glasses. they proceeded to the said compound and found Reynaldo and Joselito lifeless. led by Julian. 1998] ROMERO. with deliberate intent to kill. province of Camarines Norte. unlawfully and feloniously. thereby inflicting upon them multiple mortal wounds on the different parts of their bodies. attack and stab said Reynaldo Ochoa and Joselito Balbastro. and a sum of money amounting to P37. the son of Reynaldo. in the presence of Atty. sought his father near Kathleen Pawnshop and advised him about the four carabaos allegedly for sale at Barangay Teddy. along with Joselito Quijan. Zaldy Victa and Efren Bola (at large). 1990. on the other hand. an investigation conducted by the police ensued and statements therein were reduced to writing. The victims were divested of their watches. vs.m. it was learned that the motorcycle owned by Reynaldo was in the custody of the barangay captain of Teddy. plaintiff-appellee. with treachery.R.00. Camarines Norte. J. [6] He further tried to buttress his alibi by declaring that no one saw him as a participant in the slaying nor was any property of the victims recovered from him. 114385. however. the accused entered a plea of not guilty. accused-appellant. two (2) gold plated Seiko 5 wristwatch(es). and as a result thereof. Camarines Norte. Philippines. the above-named (accused) armed with revolvers and bladed weapons conspiring. was conducted. Branch 38. drinking liquor with some friends. to wit: cash money amounting to P45. EFREN JEREZ. Camarines Norte. proffered alibi as his defense and that the extra-judicial confession was allegedly obtained through the use of physical violence. one (1) golden Horseshoe type ring and one (1) gold plated Ray-ban with the total value of P52. When apprised of the purpose of the visit. while waiting for passengers near Josie‘s Restaurant in the Municipality of Labo.000. confederating together and mutually helping with one another. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.000.[3] Subsequently. did then and there wilfully. to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victims.[4] Appellant. 1993. steal and carry away the aforesaid articles. tricycle driver Gil Villafranca was approached by a person. Philippine Currency. Rosa. that the two were seen alive.: Appellant Efren Jerez. 1990 within the Basit Compound at b arangay Sta. It was the last time. belonging to said Reynaldo Ochoa and Joselito Balbastro. In a decision dated April 19. CONTRARY TO LAW. 1990. boarded a motorcycle and proceeded to Barangay Teddy to check the condition of the carabaos.00. together with Reynaldo and another carabao buyer. to 4:00 o‘clock p. the trial court convicted appellant. [G. he was with his common law wife. Augusto Schneider. under an information[2] dated October 15. the said Reynaldo Ochoa and Joselito Balbastro died instantly. Jose Panganiban who told them that it was recovered from the Basit Compound. [5] Appellant. Julian. A concise narration of the factual circumstances that led to appellant‘s conviction follows: On May 23. a search. assault. Mercedes Sarical. the dispositive portion of which reads: . did then and there wilfully.m. that on the occasion of said robbery and for the purpose of enabling the said accused to take.000. unlawfully and feloniously.‖ Upon arraignment.(22) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. informing him that he was looking for a carabao buyer. When the latter failed to return the following day. Jose Panganiban. Joselito Balbastro. No. January 29. In the course of their inquiry. which reads as follows: ―That on or about 1:00 o‗clock in the afternoon of May 23. at the house of a certain Felix Rellolosa from 9:00 o‘clock a. 6755 before the Regional Trial Court [1] of Daet. the herein accused in pursuance of their conspiracy. the la tter was apprised of his constitutional rights. Forthwith. evident premeditation and taking advantage of their superior number and strength. Villafranca accompanied the latter to the house of one Reynaldo Ochoa. municipality of Jose Panganiban. He contended that on the day the incident in question occurred.

P 50. Subsequently.000. supposedly the only lawyer available in Jose Panganiban. Major Rosales suggested that Atty. Augusto B. It must be borne in mind that when appellant executed the extrajudicial confession. nais naming malaman mo na ikaw ay may mga karapatan susog sa ating Saligang Batas.000.00 damage for death 2.000. the extra-judicial confession voluntarily made by Jerez is admissible in evidence. Nais mo bang maging gabay mong manananggol ang ating kaharap na manananggol na si Atty. Nauunawaan mo ito? Sagot: Opo. The records of the case. P 50.000. Having failed to convince the authorities. others) 4. of spontaneity and voluntariness stands unless the defense proves otherwise.000. premises considered and finding accused EFREN JEREZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with double homicide. (3) the confession must be express. 50.000.‖[8] Appellant argued that the first and second requirements were not complied with. Freddie Venida but that the latter would not be available as he is due to depart for Manila on the same day.000.Ginoong Jerez.―WHEREFORE. Nauunawaan mo ito? Sagot: Opo.00 damage for death 2. he was assisted by an ineffectual counsel who could not safeguard his constitutional rights and interests. Schneider.00 burial and other expenses ---------------P225.‖[7] Appellant assails the lower court for giving weight and credence to the extra-judicial statement. appellant disclosed to the police officers that his counsel of choice was Atty.000. bago ang lahat.00. watch. it ―must satisfy all four fundamental requirements: (1) the confession must be voluntary. Ray-Ban) 4.00 loss of earning capacity (estimated income x life span) 3. sapagkat ang anumang sasabihin mo sa pagtatanong na ito ay maaaring gamitin laban sa iyo sa harap ng hukuman. SO ORDERED.000. and sworn to before Mayor Arenal. 50.00.00 articles/money lost (P17.000. it was done in the presence of his counsel. Schneider. [9] Appellant argued that the trial court erred when it denied his right to have an independent counsel of his own choice.00 But for insufficiency of evidence. We affirm appellant‘s conviction. and (4) the confession must be in writing.000. thus: ―PASUBALI:.000. Atty. 100. however. 100. (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. reveal otherwise. 25. ikaw ay kukunan namin ng malayang salaysay tungkol sa isang usapin na aming sinisiyasat. therefore. Ito ay ang mga sumusunod: Una: Ikaw ay may karapatang tumangging magbigay ng salaysay o kaya ay magbigay ng salaysay. as shown from the excerpts of his extrajudicial confession. ―The presumption. . Subalit. he could have informed the Mayor of the maltreatment he suffered.00 burial and other expenses ---------------P227. he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify and/or reimburse the heirs of the following: To the Heirs of Reynaldo Ochoa 1. stating that at the time of the taking thereof. Schneider? Sagot: Opo. Joselito Quijan and Zaldy Victa are hereby acquitted. watch. If indeed his confession were obtained as a result of coercion and intimidation by policemen at the police station.00 To the Heirs of Joselito Balbastro 1. The records show that at the time the extrajudicial confession was executed. appear as the counsel of appellant during investigation and the latter answered in the affirmative.00 articles/money lost (P20. It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that for a confession to be admissible. 27. Ikalawa: Ikaw ay may karapatang ding kumuha ng isang manananggol na sarili mong pili upang siyang maging gabay mo sa pagtatanong na ito.00 loss of earning capacity (estimated income x life span) 3.

finds that appellant‘s constitutional right to counsel was not breached when he agreed to be represente d by Atty.00 Multiply: 30 P1. it is not enough that the accused prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. Costs against appellant.00 Multiply: 21 P756. He must demonstrate that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.Pangatlo: Nais din naming malaman mo at ng lahat na ikaw ay hindi namin pinangangakuan.000. his denial of culpability should be accorded the strictest scrutiny. ―The formula consistently used by the Supreme Court in determining life expectancy is (2/3 x [80 age of the victim at the time of death]). In People v.080. his relatives and friends. he was engaged in a drinking spree with his friends at the house of Felix Rellolosa at Talobatib.‖ [15] Appellant testified that on the day in question. there is. The burden is on the accused to destroy this presumption.000. which could possibly be supplied only by the accused.00 Reynaldo Ochoa P36. Camarines Norte at a round 9:00 o‘clock a. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former‘s appointment during the course of the investig ation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. of the damages awarded by the trial court for loss of earning capacity fixing the same at P100. Unfortunately. Tanong: Kung nauunawaan mong lahat itong mga pasubaling ito.00.00 and P756.000.‖[17] Thus. Labo.m. where an accused‘s alibi is established only by himself. this Court declared that ―voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its language such that if upon its face the confession exhibits no sign of suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity. staying thereat for the rest of the night. A confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence. SO ORDERED. ―once the prosecution has shown that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation advisories. on May 23. Camarines Norte and he went home at 4:00 o‘clock p. It is settled in this jurisdiction that ―for alibi to prosper. no evidence on record to support the same. intimidation.‖[13] A scrutiny of the sworn statement discloses in detail relevant facts surrounding the commission of the offense charged which the accused himself could only have known. Villanueva.000. however. The computation.000. who positively identified him in court as the person scouting for carabao buyers in the Municipality of Labo.00 gross annual income (P3.080. They are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the testimonies of the more credible witnesses for the prosecution.‖ [14] This contention is simply unavailing in the case at bar. it being replete with details. Appellant likewise argued that the trial court should have admitted his defense of alibi ―considering that he was not properly identified and physical evidence like properties. . therefore.00 x 12 mos.000. for losses of their respective earning capacity. threat or promise of reward or leniency.000.[16] The Court is.000.49 age at time of death]) total loss of earning capacity WHEREFORE. reflecting spontaniety and coherence which psychologically cannot be associated with a mind to which violence and torture have been applied. sinasaktan o tinatakot upang magbigay ng iyong sariling salaysay. the appeal is DISMISSED and the decision of the trial court finding accusedappellant EFREN JEREZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant shall indemnify Joselito Balbastro and Reynaldo Ochoa in the amount of P1. in view of the foregoing. kundi. ikaw ba ay nakahanda ng magbigay ng iyong sariling malayang salaysay? Sagot: Opo. Needless to say.) life expectancy (2/3 x 31 [80 . [12] Although appellant thereafter claimed that the confession he gave was made under duress. [11] Thus. convinced that appellant‘s culpability of the offense charged was proved beyond reasonable doubt.m. this version of the appellant was contradicted by prosecution witnesses. however. Nauunawaan mo ito? Sagot: Opo.‖[10] While the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer or (where the preferred lawyer is unavailable as in the case at bar) is naturally lodged in the police investigators. Schneider.000. ito ay pawang katotohanang kusang loob mong sasabihin at isasalaysay.00 x 12 mos. The Court. a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession is involuntary and untrue. therefore. money. it may be considered voluntary. 1990. the accused has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. the award for loss of earning capacity for each victim shall be as follows: Joselito Balbastro P36. fingerprints were not discovered by the arresting officers.35 age at time of death]) total loss of earning capacity gross annual income (P3.00 for each victim is erroneous. Julian Ochoa and Gil Villafranca. respectively.) life expectancy (2/3 x 45 [80 .

BASILIO M.00) from him. BAYBAYAN. . Baybayan were members of the Camarines Norte Constabulary/Integrated National Police Command. Elizer saw Renato and spoke with him. The amount was reduced to six hundred pesos (P600. “Okey salamat sigi po maghihintay kami alas 4:00 mamaya. The trial court also ordered that alias warrants of arrest be issued against accused Danilo Obenia and Rufino Valera. Elizer heard one of the accused say that Renato must be taken as ―he must be acting as a lookout (for Lacson). Upon reaching the place.[10] the place mentioned in the letter to investigate who the persons demanding money were.).m. PEDRO G. Prosecution witness Ernesto Lacson (hereinafter referred to as ―Lacson‖) was the uncle and employer of Renato.P. purportedly members of the N.000. 2000] PARDO.000. who are at large. accused Sgt.000. JR. plaintiff-appellee. Camarines Norte.00).00).000.[12] Elizer saw two other civilians in their company. Pedro Taliman and Amado Belano.[5] On July 22. [11] Elizer complied and reached the place at around five o‘clock in the afternoon (5:00 p.90 inaasahan po namin ang iyong pakikipakaupira at inaasahan po namin na walang ibang makakaalam.046.[13] Elizer then saw accused Pedro Taliman and Basilio Baybayan take Renato [14] to a hilltop. funeral expenses of ten thousand pesos (P10.[2] We state the facts. R. BELANO. 1990.[9] prosecution witness Elizer Obregon (hereinafter referred to as ―Elizer‖). [3] On July 21.00) and actual damages for unrealized income in the amount of one million forty six thousand pesos (P1. TALIMAN. sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay the heirs of the victim.: The case is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The victim was Renato Cuano (hereinafter referred to as ―Renato‖). In the vicinity. DANILO OBENIA and RUFINO VALERA. at around eight o‘clock in the morning (8:00 a.A. PEDRO G. His wife handed him a letter delivered to her by a child. In the letter.000.) of the sa me day.00).m. 1990. Lacson instructed Renato to take his passenger jeep and to proceed to his ―gold field‖ in Nalisbitan to get his collectibles from the field. Elizer saw accused Basilio Baybayan.00 at ito po ang aming inaasahan “okey” inaasahan ko po at maghihintay kami doon sa kabilang ilog papuntang nalisbitan dalhin mo ang “jeep” mo iyan ang aming palatandaan alas 4:00 p.P. Lacson told his employee. Branch 40. Jr.(23) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.. Daet [1] finding accused Pedro Taliman. Lacson arrived home from church. vs. indemnity of fifty thousand pesos (P50. No. “MELCO GROUP “KA BONG “MABUHAY ANG N. to go to the crossing of Nalisbitan. Renato came to see Lacson and informed him that armed and hooded persons [4] were asking for money amounting to six thousand pesos (P6. who was the caretaker of his gravel and sand truck. accused-appellants. This was the last time Lacson saw Renato alive.” On the same day. July 22. TALIMAN. BASILIO M.‖ [15] Elizer then proceeded to Bagong Silang and reported to Lacson that Renato was taken by accused Pedro Taliman. m. Pedro Taliman and C1C Basilio M.000. Basilio Baybayan and Amado Belano.00) and finally to two hundred pesos (P200. BELANO. [6] We quote the letter:[7] “Sayo TaTay Erning “Rebolusyonaryong pagbati sa yo/ sa inyo layunin ng sulat kong ito upang ipahiwatig sa yo na ang pakikibaka pang kalawakang pakikibaka ay humihingi ng tulong sa iyo Tay “Erning” Siguro alam mo na amg aming pakay lalo na sa aming pangangailangan pinansyal upang magamit sa kilusan bigyan mo po kami ng halagang 8. demanded eight thousand pesos (P8. J.A.00). October 11. At that time. Basilio Baybayan and Amado Belano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. AMADO B. where he was guarded by accused who were armed. [G.[8] Also on the same day. BAYBAYAN and AMADO B. 109143. accused. Renato Cuano.

Jr. 1990. In the meantime. the trial court rendered a decision. 1990. Basilio Baybayan and Amado Delano are all found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder as charged. unlawfully and feloniously.life expectancy of the American Table of Mortality. police authorities. On July 23. alleging: ―That on or about 5:00 o‘clock in the afternoon of July 22. Irreversible shock due to massive hemorrhages ―Antecedent cause : b. Pardo was mayor of Labo. did then and there willfully. stating as cause of death. Gunshot wound and multiple stab wounds.‖ [22] On February 26. [27] On September 24.000. accused Pedro G. at Crossing of sitio Malisbitan. Basilio M.000. said deceased victim has still 44 years more to live were he not killed by the accused. accused waived the pre-trial conference[25] and trial ensued. and are hereby each sentence ( sic) to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua (or life imprisonment) (sic).‖ On December 18. conspiring. are still at large. Brgy. municipality of Labo. ―SO ORDERED. It was during this custodial investigation that accused Basilio Baybayin confessed to prosecution witness Sgt.‖[23]Accused Danilo Obenia[24] and Rufino Valero. Camarines Norte issued a certificate of death of Renato Lacson Cuaño.046. [17] On July 23. Attorney Nicolas V. were not arraigned because they remained at large. 1990. Danilo Obenia and Rufino Valera. 1992. Provincial Prosecutor Pascualita Duran-Cereno filed with the Regional Trial Court. accompanied by accused Basilio Baybayan went to the place indicated in a sketch prepared by accused Pedro Taliman. Jr. assault. with deliberate intent to kill. [20] On July 24. to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim. 1992. This confession was given without the assistance of counsel and was not reduced to writing.[18] It was in the place indicated that they found the cadaver of Renato. He went to the police station upon invitation of police corporal Cereno to ―assist‖ accused during their custodial investigation. the following:[21] ―Immediate cause : a.00) pesos. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Bonifacio Argarin that he participated in the killing of Renato because Renato did not give them the money they were demanding.000. and which injuries were the proximate cause of the death of said Renato Cuano alias Lapoy. Camarines Norte an information for murder against accused Pedro Taliman.[26] On May 29.00 his unrealized income for the 44 more years of his life is P1. in view of the foregoing. ―CONTRARY TO LAW. confessing to the commission of the crime. with treachery. Amado Belano. thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wound and multiple stab wounds on the different parts of his body. a medical officer of Labo. Therefore. ―Considering that accused Danilo Obenis and Rufino Valera. Belano were arraigned.000. Baybayan and Amado B. The accused are furthermore jointly and severally ordered to pay the heirs of the victim for his death the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50.00 for which the accused likewise are jointly and severally ordered to pay. attack. 1991. Basilio Baybayan. Philippines. Internal and External secondary to ―Underlying cause : c. since he was employed and receiving monthly salary of P2. [16] Accused executed extra-judicial statements.. 1990.A custodial investigation was conducted. 1991. Exiben. They pleaded ―not guilty.[19] This was the same place or hilltop where prosecution witness Elizer saw Renato being guarded. Jr.00) and for funeral expenses the amount of ten thousand (P10. let the records of the case be archived and reinstated as soon as they are apprehended. evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength. confederating together and mutually helping one another. the above-named accused. the decretal portion of which provides: ―WHEREFORE. the accused Pedro Taliman. the trial court declared the case submitted for decision. On March 21.‖[28] . and considering that the deceased victim was only 27 years old when killed and applying the formula (2/3 x [80-27] . stab and shoot one RENATO CUAÑO alias LAPOY. province of Camarines Norte. Camarines Norte. let an alias Warrant of Arrest be issued against them. 1990. Taliman.

1992.[33] On November 11. the benefit of this appeal is only accorded accused-appellants Pedro G. are suspects. Belano. while we agree that the extra-judicial statements of the accused are inadmissible in evidence. the relationship between lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic.[37] Thus. were not arraigned. These rights cannot be waivedexcept in writing and in the presence of counsel (underscoring ours). when sufficient .On October 28. how much more must we do so now. The extrajudicial statements alone cannot be a basis for conviction. the decision was promulgated. The Constitution expressly provides that the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. accused Pedro G.‖ . [32] The warrant of arrest was returned unserved as he could not be found. Article III. 1993. [35] We state at the onset that while counsel for accused represents all five accused in this appeal. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. 1992.[40] we held that the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant was inadmissible as he was ―assisted‖ by the incumbent municipal attorney. In People v. we disregarded the extra-judicial statements of the accused. whatever testimonials are given as proof of their probity and supposed independence.[41] we held that a municipal attorney could not be an independent counsel as required by the Constitution. The other two accused Danilo Obenia and Rufino Valera. Now. he must be provided with one. Jr. Accused-appellants submit that the extra-judicial confessions on which the trial court relied were inadmissible in evidence because they were obtained in violation of their constitutional rights.. [43] still the defect was not cured. It is therefore seriously doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without running into conflict of interests. [29] However.Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: ―(a) There is more than one circumstance. accused Basilio M. [44] This. 4. and not just the provincial attorney. Baybayan[36] and Amado B.[31] On October 30. when to insist on direct testimony would set felons free. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential. given that it was the mayor himself. including the maintenance of peace and order.‖ Mayor Pardo cannot be considered as an independent counsel for accused during their custodial investigation. accused-appellants did not do. that assisted accused-appellants? Even assuming that the right to counsel was orally waived during custodial investigation. Section 4 of the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence provides:[46] ―SEC. Baybayan. Section 12 (1) of the Constitution provides: ―Any person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent andindependent counsel preferably of his own choice. we find that there is still sufficient evidence to convict. Taliman filed a notice of appeal with the trial court. Baybayan was not present. Culala.[42] If in the aforecited cases. we resolved to accept the appeal. Besides. Circumstantial evidence.[38] the Court declared that one of the requisites for trial to proceed in absentia is that the accused had been arraigned. lawyers engaged by the police. he provides legal assistance and support to the mayor and the municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people. However. In People v. Bandula. the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons. While no one saw the actual killing of Renato. circumstantial evidence proved its commission. Basilio M. In many areas. the merits. and ―(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. We reasoned that as legal officer of the municipality. [39] We agree with accused-appellants on this point. [45] Rule 133. The rule on trial in absentia cannot apply to Danilo Obenia and Rufino Valera. the trial court issued a warrant for the arrest of accused Basilio M. Taliman. Salas. 1992. In People vs. even less obvious than that obtaining in the present case.[34] On May 26. Jr. ―(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.[30] despite due notice.

q.‖ [50] Third. I walked and upon reaching a point I have seen Basilio Naybayan in the company of two (2) civilians and I continued with my walk and ahead of them I saw Mr. constitute evidence which. This was the very jeepney indicated in the letter. Renato was last seen alive in the company of accused-appellants. The trial court did not find reason not to believe him. may surpass even direct evidence in its effect upon the court. I reached the place more or less 5:00 o‘clock in the afternoon of that same date July 22. [47] The trial court‘s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to respect. his calmness. Now. xxx a.In the present case. accused-appellants. xxx q. What time was that? a. Were you able to go to that place? a. sighs or the scant or full realization of his oath. I denied being the driver of the jeep. Upon reaching the place at the crossing of Nalisbitan I have talked with Renato Cuaño who asked where I was going. sir.[48] Second. What was your answer if any? a. This was the very place. Yes. we find the following circumstances attendant: First. The letter instructed Lacson to bring money and to drive a specific jeepney to Nalisbitan. We quote the pertinent portions:[53] ―q. Neither do we. I have not confided to him that I was doing surveillance work on the person demanding money from Ernesto Lacson and so I proceeded. he was driving Lacson‘s jeepney. sir. 1990. Why did you deny being the driver of the jeep? a. he did not have the money they demanded. xxx q.[49] While Renato‘s and Elizer‘s presence in the area was explained. when accused-appellants confronted Renato. The question of this Court is why did you say that this Renato Cuaño is being guarded? . q. Lacson to proceed to that crossing of Nalisbitan for you to see the person who was demanding money and identified themselves as members of NPA. The place and the time are significant. in weight and probative force. What did you do when you reached that Nalisbitan Crossing? a. Yet. his furtive glances. This conclusion is supported by Elizer‘s testimony. Taliman with Belano and I did not notice that I was followed by Mr. [52] When Renato passed through the Nalisbitan crossing.[51] The oral demand was followed up with a written demand. Renato and Elizer were the only persons present at the Nalisbitan crossing. on July 22. ―Facts or circumstances which are not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but also inconsistent with his innocence. when you go back taking the same route what did you see if any? a. sir. I saw. Taliman and Belano. the presence of accused-appellants in that area and during that crucial time can be only explained by the fact that accusedappellants were the very ones demanding money from Lacson. sir. sir. two other civilians. q. When I was on my way back taking the same route my way was blocked by Belano and Taliman accompanied by civilian and inquired from me whether I was the driver of the jeep. motive is apparent. Now. Renato relayed the demand to Lacson. I denied being the driver of the jeep because I saw already Renato Cuaño on top of the hill on a cut guarded by Baybayan with a ccivilian in their company. sir. Renato Cuaño. q. you said you were requested by Mr. 1990. at five o‘clock in the afternoon. the very date and more or less the time of day indicated in the letter of demand that Lacson received. Renato Cuaño was taken by Mr. This was the substance of Elizer‘s testimony. The fact that Renato was the driver of the jeepney indicated in the letter can explain accused-appellants‘ reason for killing him. Renato was first approached by accused-appellants with an oral demand. It is the trial court and not this Court that had the opportunity to observe Elizer‘s manner of testifying.

until their arrest and submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Renato‘s corpse was discovered in the same place where he was held and guarded by accused -appellants.[64] Renato‘s father testified that because of his son‘s death. The case is archived as to accused Danilo Obenis and Rufino Valera.‖ [65] The trial court‘s award of fifty thousand pesos ( P50.000. moral damages in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50. and in the absence of any modifying circumstance.[63] An award of moral damages in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50. The claim is not supported by any receipt. Renato‘s presence would naturally alarm accused-appellants. Basilio M. the penalty is imposed in its medium period. Belano are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE. methods. SO ORDERED. while Renato‘s death in the hands of accused -appellants was proven. to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal. dated September 24.‖ The letter[54] provided that ―no one else should know‖[55] about the demand. must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Motive is a key element when establishing guilt through circumstantial evidence. Thus.00) and civil indemnity in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50. because Renato Cuaño might be acting as a lookout. They are guarding Renato Cuaño. when Amado Belano asked you whether you know Renato Cuaño and you denied it. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. This can be awarded without need of proof other than the death of the victim. we find that the manner of killing was not so evidenced. Treachery exists when the accused employs means.[58] Fifth is the facts of death of Renato. Camarines Norte.00). and forms which directly and specially ensure its execution. the crime committed was homicide. motive may be sufficient to support a conviction. referring to Renato Cuaño.000. .000. Accused-appellants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the heirs of Renato Cuaño.000. We delete this award as it is not supported by receipts. are sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor.There was no showing of treachery. The trial court awarded the heirs of Renato Cuaño one million forty six thousand pesos (P1.00) as civil indemnity for wrongful death is affirmed. as maximum. Jr. the decision of the Regional Trial Court. [66] WHEREFORE. he felt ―great pain‖ and his wife suffered some ―sleepless nights‖ and ―cried for several days. [56] Coupled with enough circumstantial evidence or facts from which it may be reasonably inferred that the accused was the malefactor.. The testimony of Renato‘s father as to how much Renato was earning at the time of his death is self-serving and hearsay. He is the one who pretended to be the driver of the jeep. what more did Amado Belano ask you if any? a. as minimum. like the crime itself.000.00) pesos is likewise deleted.a. which is the corpus delicti of the crime. xxx q. Costs against accused-appellants.000. [59] Treachery.00) as actual damages for unrealized income. The award of actual damages for funeral expenses and unrealized income is DELETED.[60] In the absence of proof as to how the killing was perpetrated. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.00) is proper. sir. However. Baybayab and Amado B. Now. Daet. defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Branch 40. Amado Belano further made a statement that it is better for them to take along that man. [61] The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. because that is the person they have conferred with to whom they have relayed the demand of money and he is the driver of the jeep.[57] Fourth. The trial court‘s award of actual damages for funeral expenses in the amount of ten thousand ( P10.[62] The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies.046. Taliman. Accused-appellants Pedro G. 1992 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The rule is that every pecuniary loss must be established by credible evidence before it may be awarded.

Ramos dismissed him from that position pursuant to Administrative Order No. 145 creating a committee to investigate the complaints against Lumiqued.46. inter alia. CARPIO. Montenegro issued Department Order No. however. 52 dated May 12.: Does the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel during an administrative inquiry? Arsenio P. Senior Deputy Executive Secretary of the Office of the President. vs. and JEANNETTE OBAR-ZAMUDIO. QUISIMBING. 1992. the DAR Central Office in Diliman.00 for one vulcanizing job. Francisca A. Lumiqued purportedly defrauded the government ―by deliberately concealing his unliquidated cash advances through the falsification of accounting entries in order not to reflect on `Cash advances of other officials‘ under code 8 -70-600 of accounting rules. 1989.00 for a single vulcanizing job. With the use of falsified receipts. In his counter-affidavit dated June 23. The vulcanizing shop issued its own receipt so that they could reimburse the cost of the gasoline. According to private respondent. Lumiqued.[5] Lumiqued admitted that his average daily gasoline consumption was 108. September and October. He claimed that the apparent weakness of the charge was bolstered by private respondent‘s execu tion of an affidavit of desistance. 1997] ROMERO. The first affidavit-complaint dated November 16.00 for gasoline bought from the shop. May. and to submit their report and recommendation within fifteen days from its conclusion. ERDOLFO V. 117565.[4] Lumiqued alleged. May A. 1992.172. Honorable APOLINIO G. ALL Members of Investigating Committee. he made unliquidated cash advances in the total amount ofP116. EXEVEA. The order appointed Regional State Prosecutor Apolinario Exevea as committee chairman with City Prosecutor Erdolfo Balajadia and Provincial Prosecutor Felix Cabading as members. 1992. 1993. making it impossible for him to consume the nearly 120 liters of gasoline he claimed everyday. 145 on May 30. 1989. J. that such consumption was warranted as it was the aggregate consumption of the five service vehicles issued under his name and intended for the use of the Office of the Regional Director of the DAR.R. July. Lumiqued was the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform – Cordillera Autonomous Region (DARCAR) until President Fidel V. November 18. DAR – CAR. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. The three affidavit-complaints were referred in due course to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for appropriate action. Since it was almost midnight. 1989.[1] charged Lumiqued with malversation through falsification of official documents. Private Respondent. created by DOJ Order No. however. Lumiqued and Richard A. Any error committed in posting the amount in the books of the Regional Office was not his personal error or accountability. Explaining why a vulcanizing shop issued a gasoline receipt. HON. petitioners. FRANKLIN M. [G. August. Domingo Lucero. No. Lumiqued said that he and his companions were cruising along Santa Fe. Lumiqued. Regional Director. Lumiqued allegedly committed at least 93 counts of falsification by padding gasoline receipts. On May 20. In her second affidavit-complaint dated November 22. where he attended a seminar. From May to September 1989. and were initiated by private respondent in connivance with a certain Benedict Ballug of Tarlac and a certain Benigno Aquino III.[3] charged Lumiqued with oppression and harassment. CABADING. DRILON. Acting Justice Secretary Eduardo G. LUMIQUED (deceased). They were mandated to conduct an investigation within thirty days from receipt of the order.‖ The third affidavit-complaint dated December 15. LEONARDO A.(24) ARSENIO P. and Laguna. Lumiqued. Lumiqued submitted that the amount was actually only P6. BALAJADIA and FELIX T. The committee granted the motion and gave him a five -day extension. Lumiqued. Represented by his Heirs. respondents. 1992.000. The investigating committee accordingly issued a subpoena directing Lumiqued to submit his counter-affidavit on or before June 17. Lumiqued claimed and was reimbursed the sum of P44. and HON. He submitted. He affixed his signature on the receipts only to signify that the same were validly issued by the establishments concerned in order that official transactions of the DAR-CAR could be carried out.00. his heirs instituted this petition for certiorari and mandamus. CHIEF Presidential Legal Adviser/Counsel. Nueva Vizcaya on their way to Ifugao when their service vehicle ran out of gas.[6] With respect to the accusation that he sought reimbursement in the amount of P660. 1989.45 liters. Private respondent added that Lumiqued seldom made field trips and preferred to stay in the office. alleging that during the months of April. 1990. Arlene A. they sought the help of the owner of a vulcanizing shop who readily furnished them with the gasoline they needed. her two previous complaints prompted Lumiqued to retaliate by relieving her from her post as Regional Cashier without just cause. The dismissal was the aftermath of three complaints filed by DAR-CAR Regional Cashier and private respondent Jeannette ObarZamudio with the Board of Discipline of the DAR. filed instead an urgent motion to defer submission of his counter-affidavit pending actual receipt of two of private respondent‘s complaints. He added that the receipts which were issued beyond his region were made in the course of his travels to Ifugao Province. HON. questioning such order. Quezon City. the owner of said vulcanizing shop. it was not his obligation but that of auditors and accountants to determine whether they were falsified. Because these receipts were merely turned over to him by drivers for reimbursement. ANTONIO T. 1994. corroborated this explanation in an affidavit dated June 25.60. that the cases were filed against him to extort money from innocent public servants like him. In view of Lumiqued‘s death on May 19. He even submitted a vulcanizing shop receipt worth P550. and another receipt for P660. .[2] private respondent accused Lumiqued with violation of Commission on Audit (COA) rules and regulations.

1992. 1992. Although private respondent immediately returned the amount on January 18. Lumiqued claimed that she should be relieved from her duties and assigned to jobs that would not require handling of cash and money matters. the investigating committee rendered a report dated July 31. 1992. 1989. 1992. to enable him to employ the services of counsel. Committee hearings on the complaints were conducted on July 3 and 10. [8] alleging that he suffered a stroke on July 10. 1992. Annexes `G-1‘ to `G-15‘ show that the actual average purchase made by the respondent is about 8. this committee finds the evidence submitted by the complainant sufficient to establish the guilt of the respondent for Gross Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct.00.45 liters/day by justifying that this was being used by the 4 vehicles issued to his office. 1989. Respondent‘s act in defrauding the government of a considerable sum of money by falsifying receipts constitutes not only Dishonesty of a high degree but also a criminal offense for Malversation through Falsification of Official Documents. viz: ―The medical certificate given show(s) that respondent was discharged from the Sacre d Heart Hospital on July 17. . The committee granted the motion.00. 1990. which date was upon the request of respondent (Lumiqued). In an order dated September 7. He also asserted that no medical certificate supported her application for leave of absence. so the committee deemed the case submitted for resolution.00. He allegedly rejected her second application for leave of absence in view of her failure to file the same immediately with the head office or upon her return to work. On August 12. While only 15 of the gasoline receipts were ascertained to have been falsified. the day following the completion of the cash examination. Lumiqued presented a certification[7] of DAR-CAR Administrative Officer Deogracias F. The motion was forwarded to the Office of the State Prosecutor apparently because the investigation had already been terminated. Moreover. 1989 yet. 1992. The records do not disclose that respondent advised the Investigating committee of his confinement and inability to attend despite his discharge. respondent was already being assisted by counsel.45 liters at a purchase price of P550. he moved for its resetting to July 17. It made the following findings: ―After a thorough evaluation of the evidences (sic) submitted by the parties.46 liters only at a purchase price of P50. Montero denied the motion. 1992. justice can not be delayed much longer. Besides he also admitted having signed the receipts. such that a judicious determination of the case based on the pleadings submitted is already possible.406. 1992. In the same counter-affidavit.[9] State Prosecutor Zoila C. but Lumiqued was not assisted by counsel. Lumiqued contended that private respondent was not terminated from the service but was merely relieved of her duties due to her prolonged absences. In disputing the charges of oppression and harassment against him.To refute private respondent‘s allegation that he violated COA rules and regulations in incurring u nliquidated cash advances in the amount of P116. been established. either by himself or thru counsel. in contrast to the receipts used by the respondent which reflects an average of 108.87. were short by P30. but neither Lumiqued nor his counsel appeared on the date he himself had chosen. nevertheless. Lumiqued also claimed that private respondent was corrupt and dishonest because a COA examination revealed that her cash accountabilities from June 22 to November 23. the date of the hearing.‖ Following the conclusion of the hearings. The records likewise do not show that efforts were exerted to notify the Committee of respondent‘s condition on any reasonable da te after July 17. It is herein noted that as early as June 23. the greed of the respondent is made manifest by his act of claiming reimbursements of more than 10 times the value of what he actually spends. In fact. Moreover an evaluation of the counter-affidavit submitted reveal(s) the sufficiency. he had in effect admitted that he had been claiming for the payment of an average consumption of 108. Lumiqued claimed that the exigency of the service necessitated disapproval of her application for leave of absence. considering that the complaint-affidavit was filed as far back as November 16. the motive. [10] finding Lumiqued liable for all the charges against him. That the gasoline receipts have been falsified was not rebutted by the respondent. Lumiqued filed an urgent motion for additional hearing.000. Here. Almora that he had no outstanding cash advances on record as of December 31. On the second hearing date. While admitting that private respondent filed the required applications for leave of absence. the pattern and the scheme employed by the respondent in defrauding the government has. That most of the gasoline receipts used by the respondent in claiming for the reimbursement of his gasoline expenses were falsified is clearly established by the 15 Certified Xerox Copies of the duplicate receipts (Annexes G-1 to G-15) and the certifications issued by the different gasoline stations where the respondent purchased gasoline. completeness and thoroughness of the counter-affidavit together with the documentary evidence annexed thereto. 1992.

1994. with forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits. and dismissing him from the service. Lumiqued died.O. 1993. It is noted that this was done barely two weeks after the complainant filed charges against her (sic). the investigating committee recommended Lumiqued‘s dismissal or removal from office. [13] In a letter dated April 1. 1992.O.‖ On December 17. denied the same on August 31. His cash advances totalling to about P116. Lumiqued filed a second motion for reconsideration. this only show(s) that he is capable of giving bribes if only to have the cases against him dismissed. Ramos dated October 22. before his motion could be resolved. thro ugh Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Leonardo A. Acting on the report and recommendation. in fact. 52. among other things. 1994. [14] Concurring with this view. that he was denied the constitutional right to counsel during the hearing. former Justice Secretary Franklin M. Lumiqued prayed that A. however. On the third complaint. 1989 was an act of harassment. He added that the motion was also prematurely filed because the Office of the President (OP) had yet to act on Secretary Drilon‘s recommendation. Ramos himself issued Administrative Order No. He could not have given a certain Benigno Aquino III the sum of P10. 52). alleging.00 for any other purpose. [16] finding Lumiqued administratively liable for dishonesty in the alteration of fifteen gasoline receipts. Thus: ―That the receipts were merely turned over to him by his drive rs and that the auditor and accountant of the DAR-CAR should be the ones to be held liable is untenable. Undersecretary Esguerra informed Lumiqued that the investigating committee could no longer act on his motion for reconsideration. 1993. the OP. The recommendation of Jose G.[20] however. 1992. a former driver of the DAR-CAR. President Fidel V. The receipts in question were signed by respondent for the purpose of attesting that those receipts were validly issued by the commercial establishments and were properly disbursed and used in the official business for which it was intended.00 were properly documented. On September 28. No. His act in harassing a subordinate employee in retaliation to a complaint she filed constitute(s) Gross Misconduct on the part of the respondent who is a head of office. Quisumbing.[21] Secretary Quisumbing denied the second motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. of a certain Dwight L. 1993. 52 be reconsidered and that he be reinstated to his former position ―with all the benefits accorded to him by law and existing rules and regulations.[19] On May 19. the three-member investigating committee informed Undersecretary Esguerra that the committee ―had no more authority to act on the same (motion for reconsideration) considering that the matter has already been forwarded to the Office of the President‖ and that their authority under Department Order No. found that the charges of oppression and harassment. The affidavits of Joseph In-uyay and Josefina Guting are of no help to the respondent.000. Lumiqued filed a motion for reconsideration of ―the findings of the Committee‖ with the DOJ.[12] Undersecretary Ramon S. He added that the filing of the affidavit of desistance[11] would not prevent the issuance of a resolution on the matter considering that what was at stake was not only ―the violation of complainant‘s (herein private respondent‘s) personal rights‖ but also ―the competence and fitness of the respondent (Lumiqued) to remain in public office. 145 ceased when they transmitted their report to the DOJ. In a ―petition for appeal‖[17] addressed to President Ramos. This Office is not about to shift the blame for all these to the drivers employed by the DAR-CAR as respondent would want us to do.‖ The OP. Undaunted. 1993. Drilon adopted the same in his Memorandum to President Fidel V.‖ This pet ition was basically premised on the affidavit dated May 27.‖ [18] Treating the ―petition for appeal‖ as a motion for the reconsideration of A.This committee likewise finds that the respondent have (sic) unliquidated cash advances in the year 1989 which is in violation of established office and auditing rules. 52 (A.000. who confessed to having authored the falsification of gasoline receipts and attested to petitioner Lumiqued‘s being an ―honest man‖ who had no ―premonition‖ that the receipts he (Dwight) turned over to him were ―altered. without prejud ice to the filing of the appropriate criminal charges against him.‖ He opined that. 1990 or almost six months after the respondent‘s order relieving the complainant was issued. No. Esguerra indorsed the motion to the investigating committee.‖ Accordingly. No. Medina of the Commission on Audit came only on May 11. In fact. the evidence on record could call for ―a punitive action against the respondent on the initiative of the DAR. The mere certification issued by the Administrative Officer of the DAR-CAR cannot therefore rebut these concrete evidences (sic).[15] On May 12. . were not satisfactorily established.O. The requests for obligation of allotments and the vouchers covering the amounts were all signed by him. this committee likewise believes that the respondent‘s act in relieving the complainant of her functions as a Regional Cashier on December 1. as well as that of incurring unliquidated cash advances. Lumiqued.

[23] It is not an absolute right and may. the investigating committee created by Department Order No. it prays for the ―payment of retirement benefits and other benefits accorded to deceased Arsenio Lumiqued by law. 1994. it hinted at the filing of criminal case for malversation through falsification of public documents in its report and recommendation. 145 was for the purpose of determining if he could be held administratively liable under the law for the complaints filed against him. In the case at bar. 1992. In the first place. Regional Director. While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding. the committee should have appointed a counsel de oficio to assist him. The order issued by Acting Secretary of Justice Montenegro states thus: ―In the interest of the public service and pursuant to the provisions of existing laws. being notoriously undesirable and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against Mr. Department of Agrarian Reform. which is dated January 25. This was even made more pronounced when. the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus praying for the reversal of the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Committee. 1994. the fact remains that under existing laws. Do you have a counsel.[28] In an administrative proceeding such as the one that transpired below. a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel.‖[26] conducting criminal investigations is not its sole function. LUMIQUED. and the backwages from the period he was dismissed from service up to the time of his death on May 19. in an administrative inquiry. Furthermore.O.‖[24] As such. disgraceful and immoral conduct. thus. this resolution is applicable only to cases brought before the Civil Service Commission. This is clear from the provisions of Section 32. Thus at the July 3. LUMIQUED: . took effect fifteen days following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. 2260[29] (otherwise known as the Civil Service Act) and Section 39. 292[30] (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987). Thirdly. Janet Obar-Zamudio. the same committee was not remiss in the matter of reminding Lumiqued of his right to counsel. They maintain that his right to counsel could not be waived unless the waiver was in writing and in the presence of counsel. 52 issued by President Ramos. Cordillera Autonomous Region. Excerpts from the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearings attended by Lumiqued[31] clearly show that he was confident of his capacity and so opted to represent himself. after finding Lumiqued administratively liable. be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and. By its power to ―perform such other functions as may be provided by law.‖[32] is inappropriate. which cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing and in the presence of counsel. is a right afforded a suspect or an accused during custodial investigation. Accordingly. said resolution. a respondent (such as Lumiqued) has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not. Petitioners‘ misconception on the nature of the investigation [25] conducted against Lumiqued appears to have been engendered by the fact that the DOJ conducted it. the hearing conducted by the investigating committee was not part of a criminal prosecution.Hence. Director? DIR. Memorandum of then Justice Secretary Drilon. prosecution of offenders and administration of the correctional system. 145. A. a Committee to conduct the formal investigation of the administrative complaint for oppression. the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees. The investigation conducted by the committee created by Department Order No. with more reason. irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent‘s capacity to represent himself and no duty rests on such a body to furnish the person being investigated w ith counsel.‖[22] Petitioners fault the investigating committee for its failure to inform Lumiqued of his right to counsel during the hearing. No. Thus. t he DOJ shall ―administer the criminal justice system in accordance with the accepted processes thereof consisting in the investigation of the crimes. The complainant is present. 94-0521 of the Civil Service Commission on the Uniform Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigation stating that a respondent in an administrative complaint must be ―informed of his rig ht to the assistance of a counsel of his choice. hearing. petitioners invoke the right of an accused in criminal proceedings to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice. the October 22. If suspension was not possible. Complainant has just been furnished with a copy of the counter-affidavit of the respondent.[34] much later than the July 1992 hearings of the investigating committee created by Department Order No. ARSENIO P.[33] Secondly. The right to counsel. is hereby created x x x. 1992. Rule XIV (on discipline) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. however. with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service. 145 was duty-bound to conduct the administrative investigation in accordance with the rules therefor. was not accused of any crime in the proceedings below. paragraph 2. These arguments are untenable and misplaced.‖ [27] prosecutors may be called upon to conduct administrative investigations. and the orders of Secretary Quisumbing. petitioners‘ reliance on Resolution No. payable to his heirs. dishonesty. Lumiqued. Article VII of Republic Act No. They assert that the committee should have suspended the hearing and granted Lumiqued a reasonable time within which to secure a counsel of his own. Lumiqued was repeatedly appraised of his option to secure services of counsel: ―RSP EXEVEA: This is an administrative case against Director Lumiqued. While it is true that under the Administrative Code of 1987. Director Lumiqued is present. In a nutshell.

Sir. RSP EXEVEA: We will not entertain any postponement.I did not bring anybody. RSP EXEVEA: So. We are just apprehensive that you will go through this investigation without a counsel. because when I went to see him. Director Lumiqued? DIRECTOR LUMIQUED: I was not able to bring a lawyer since the lawyer I requested to assist me and was the one who prepared my counter-affidavit is already engaged for a hearing and according to him he is engaged for the whole month of July. DIRECTOR LUMIQUED: I will try to see. CP BALAJADIA: You are confident that you will be able to represent yourself? DIR. . CP BALAJADIA: Please select your date now. the investigating committee once again reminded Lumiqued of his need for a counsel. we will proceed with the hearing even without your counsel? You are willing to proceed with the hearing even without your counsel? DIR. Director Lumiqued. Sir. Do you have any request from the panel of investigators. CP BALAJADIA: Let us make it of record that we have been warning you to proceed with the assistance of counsel but you said that you can take care of yourself so we have no other alternative but to proceed. RSP EXEVEA: We cannot wait . There are plenty here in Baguio. (To Director Lumiqued) You really wish to go through with this even without your counsel? DIRECTOR LUMIQUED: A. . morning and afternoon today.. . I am confident .‖[35] (Underscoring supplied) In the course of private respondent‘s damaging testimony. We are no t saying you are guilty already. LUMIQUED: That is my concern. Sir . CP BALAJADIA: Why don‘t you engage the services of another counsel. we are only given one month to finish the investigation. The charges against you are quite serious. . . he told me. we will proceed. that he has already set a hearing. With or without counsel. Sir.. Why don‘t you get the services of another counsel. I think so. . the following colloquies transpired: ―CP BALAJADIA: We will suspend in the meantime that we are waiting for the supplemental affidavit you are going to present to us. We would like you to be protected legally in the course of this investigation. ‖[36] (Underscoring supplied) Thereafter. . LUMIQUED: Yes. Thus: ―CP BALAJADIA: Q.

[42] As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course. This.[40] the Court said: ―x x x. he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law. was the thought he entertained during the hearings he was able to attend. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party in a non -criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that. Prior to said date. Lumiqued. please bring them but reduce their testimonies in affidavit form so that we can expedite with the proceedings. Lumiqued did not inform the committee of his confinement. Lumiqued still did not avail of the services of counsel. if truth were on his side.‖[37] At the hearing scheduled for July 10. a Regional Director of a major department in the executive branch of the government. RSP EXEVEA: And is (sic) appearing that the supplemental-affidavit has been furnished him only now and this has several documents attached to it so I think we could grant him one last postponement considering that he has already asked for an extension. The right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the Constitution or the law. LUMIQUED: There is none Sir because when I went to my lawyer. the committee decided to wind up the proceedings. he could have defended himself if need be. and underwent training seminars both here and abroad. ―Yes. the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one‘s side. May we know if he has a lawyer to represent him in this investigation? DIR. ―That is my concern. Consequently.CP BALAJADIA: Madam Witness. and Lumiqued had already submitted his counter-affidavit. The charges in this case are quite serious and he should be given a chance to the assistance of a counsel/lawyer. In his statement. The last time he was asked to invite his lawyer in this investigation.‖ He was obviously convinced that he could ably represent himself. 1992. however. [43] Moreover. that Lumiqued was short-changed in his right to due process.[41] An actual hearing is not always an indispensable aspect of due process. through pleadings. the safeguard is deemed ignored or violated. was a recipient of various scholarships and grants. Chairman that the respondent is not being represented by a counsel. The assistance of lawyers. he told me that he had set a case also at 9:30 in the other court and he told me if there is a possibility of having this case postponed anytime next week. will you please submit the document which we asked for and Director Lumiqued. the investigating committee could not do more. however. if not exasperatedly.‖ [38] The hearing was reset to July 17. apparently. This did not mean. One can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink. the date when Lumiqued was released from the hospital. not solely by verbal presentation but also. without the help of counsel. 1992. DIR. ―You are confident that you will be able to represent yourself?‖ despite his having positively asserted earlier. and perhaps even much more creditably as it is more practicable than oral arguments. he shall not be bound by such proceedings. Auditor General. [39] Hence. probably Wednesday so we will have good time (sic) of presenting the affidavit. The ordinary citizen is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at all except only with a lawyer at his side. O ne may be heard. In Nera v.‖ one could detect that it had been uttered testily. because of the doubt or skepticism implicit in the question. I am now being bothered by my heart ailment. while desirable. for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. graduated from the University of the Philippines (Los Baños) with the degree of Bachelor of Science major in Agriculture. this constitutional mandate is deemed .‖ In administrative proceedings. is not indispensable. without such representation. The legal profession was not engrafted in the due process clause such that without the participation of its members. Pertinent excerpts from said hearing follow: ―FISCAL BALAJADIA: I notice also Mr. I am confident. because the hearing could not push through on said date. Beyond repeatedly reminding him that he could avail himself of counsel and as often receiving the reply that he is confident of his ability to defend himself. FISCAL BALAJADIA: Are you moving for a postponement Director? May I throw this to the panel. if you have other witnesses. LUMIQUED: Furthermore Sir.

52 of the Office of the President is AFFIRMED. therefore. Under Section 9 of the same Rule. Government officials are presumed to perform their functions with regularity. as follows: ―Section 1. The committee‘s findings pinning culpability for the charges of dishonesty and grave misconduct upon Lumiqued were not. must. the adoption by Secretary Drilon and the OP of the committee‘s recommendation of dismissal may not in any way be deemed tainted with arbitrariness amounting to grave abuse of discretion. the penalty of dismissal carries with it ―cancellation of eligibility.‖ The instant petition. however. it has been clearly shown that Lumiqued did not live up to this constitutional precept. Costs against petitioners. Public office is a public trust. and lead modest lives. fraught with procedural mischief. even if such evidence is not overwhelming or preponderant. and efficiency. act with patriotism and justice. se rve them with utmost responsibility. hence. Of equal weight is the countervailing mandate of the Constitution that all public officers and employees must serve with responsibility. [48] In this case. as shown above. fail. [44] Lumiqued‘s appeal and his subsequent filing of motions for reconsideration cured whatever irregularity attended the proceedings conducted by the committee. loyalty and efficiency.satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Its conclusions were founded on the evidence presented and evaluated as facts. the right to due process could rightfully be invoked. Nonetheless. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. liberty and property. the right to security of tenure is not absolute. This jurisprudential pronoucement has been enshrined in the 1987 Constitution under Article XI.[49] The quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [46] In the early case of Cornejo v.[50] Consequently. Dishonesty is a grave offense penalized by dismissal under Section 23 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987. which is aimed primarily at the ―payment of retirement benefits and other benefits‖ plus backwages from the time of Lumiqued‘s dismissal until his demise.‖ When the dispute concerns one‘s constitutional right to security of tenure. [51] which petitioners have not successfully disputed in the instant case. Section 1 on accountability of public officers. loyalty. and the disqualification f or reemployment in the government service. integrity. SO ORDERED. Gabriel and Provincial Board of Rizal [47] the Court held that a public office is not property within the sense of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law for it is a public trust or agency. Well-settled in our jurisdiction is the doctrine that findings of fact of administrative agencies must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. public office is deemed analogous to property in a limited sense. integrity. . the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus is hereby DISMISSED and Administrative Order No. WHEREFORE. forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits.[45] The constitutional provision on due process safeguards life. Strong evidence is not necessary to rebut that presumption.

that inquiries were immediately made about Pelagio and a search for him undertaken by his relatives and friends. March 6. for questioning about their father's killing.. that at some the point the trail of blood was interrupted by a patch of freshly plowed soil. Hence.. p. after Lt. 1991] NARVASA. 47). particularly Marcos and Robert. there we signs as of a body having been dragged through some bushes. At first. Bancog while at the same time.. Marcos and Robert. (Marcos) denied any participation on the of his father.. 1985. 7). Bancog took down appellant's confession in a piece of paper (Exh. that the brothers. hands and feet. 30). that although the search lasted the whole day and proceeded well into the night of the 12th. Thereafter. arms. Pat. The investigators also learned from the persons that interviewed of other circumstances that drew their suspicion to the sons of Pelagio Jimenez.. it proved unsuccessful. 10-11. August 13."C") ( id. The next day. p. the police invited Pelagio's widow. that midway between Pelagio's house and the cliff. Palmacio Calderon. and it was not until the morning of the following day. 7). JIMENEZ and ROBERT JIMENEZ. On the 16th of September.. 1986. p. p. and her sons. the searchers having been led to the place where he lay by the foul already being exuded by his corpse. No. Marcos Jimenez. 82604 December 10. Albina Jimenez. On August 13. The Municipal Circuit Judge of Ginatilan. Mario Jimenez. had earlier left (id. However. but refused to sign his statement (Exh.: The failure of the police authorities to observe the constitutional safeguards governing custodial interrogation impels rejection of the extrajudicial confession ascribed to one of the appellants and consequent reversal of the Trial Court's verdict of conviction chiefly based thereon. December 19. Marcos and Robert Jimenez. were seen by neighbors bathing at the artesian well in that place at midnight.: that was a trail of drops of dried blood leading from the porch (pantawan) of the dead person's residence to the cliff by balite tree where he was ultimately found. p. Pat. pp. He typed appellant's confession (Exh. The police investigators learned that the deceased Pelagio Jimenez had been living separately from his family. They came upon the lifeless body of Pelagio Jimenez at the place indicated. Bancog (Tsn. J. who was wont to spend the night at his father's house. 1985 the pohce officers at the Ginatilan. appellant Marcos Jimenez failed to come back as promised. 24. Cebu station received a report that one Pelagio Jimenez had been found dead at barangay Guiwanon. and the authorities were unsuccessful in fetching him since they were informed that appellant had left for Cebu City ( id. before whom the confession was supposed to be sworn to and signed. p. "as if washing away stains of blood. 1985. and apparently the corpse was beginning to decompose since there were maggots crawling over the face. plaintiff-appellee. 7).R. viz. "B") ( id. that in the early morning of August 12.. and had been known to complain that there were even occasions when he had been boxed and hit by his children.(25) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. appellant agreed to come back the next day to sign his statement (Exh. that Pelagio Jimenez was finally found. 22). vs.. Appellant was unable to sign his confession (Exh. Initially. accompanied them. p. 6). Cavalida continued the investigation conducted by Lt. MARCOS P. . "B") since Judge Calderon. Hon. Thereafter. Cavalida to enable the latter to type the same ( id. accusedappellants [G. May 26." Without much loss of time. told his mother that Pelagio Jimenez had not come home the previous night.. "C") prepared by Lt... they (Marcos and Roberto) carried their father near the balite tree by the cliff and left him there ( id. "below the cliff near the balite tree. injecting some questions of his own ( ibid. 4-5). p. May 26. The circumstances attendant upon and subsequent to the questioning Marcos Jimenez are succinctly narrated in the People's brief as follows: . Ferraren. Trifina M. p. as did Dr. Marcos Jimenez returned thereafter. 1985." and that Pelagio Jimenez often had violent quarrels with his children. Lt. p. Tsn. 8) in the presence of ExJudge Jabagat who acted as counsel for appellant Marcos Jimenez ( id. p. 1985. .. "C") to Pat. who had been accused of surreptitiously selling copra belonging to their father's brother. "B") which was contained in the draft (Exh. Lt. [TSN. Bancog confronted Marcos Jimenez of his observations during the ocular inspection ( id. pp. 23) the latter admitted that it was his brother Roberto who hacked their father on the right leg. Bancog gave the draft (Exh. Marcos and Robert Jimenez. 1986].. Reynaldo Cinco and other policemen went to the scene to conduct an investigation. with stab and lacerated wounds on the head and leg. murdered. had indeed noticed some blood on the ground but had attached no significance to it. a Dr. "B") ( id. Tsn. 1986. and Robert Jimenez said that it was he who had plowed that part of the field and before doing so. 8).

he went home while the rest stayed behind. Bancog on August 16. he told me he was not going to sign the confession and I ask (sic) him. Subsequently.M.. said accused. At past P. the prosecution presented eight (8) witnesses whose evidence established substantially the facts above summarized. . Bancog asked a policeman to invite ex-Judge Jabagat so that. When he arrived home. when she arrived at the station. . P. an information dated October 22. substantially corroborated by his brother. Robert.. at which time the Trial Court gave the parties thirty (30) days "from receipt of the stenographic notes within which to submit simultaneous memoranda. Albina Jimenez and her son.. Robert... Bancog wrote down what he stated. did then and there wilfully. 1985 at around 8'clock P. Albina Jimenez. . 4-5).At about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of August 16. He slept until the following morning.. that on August 11." According to Judge Jabagat. they agreed to look for him. Lt.. she could "assist the accused whose confession has been taken before the Office of the Chief of Police. . 5). "(I)t is just the same. namely: Albina Jimenez and Wilkins Jimenez. of that day. Marcos. Marcos replied. Wilkins. March 7.. Continuing. with bolo.) of his Constitutional right. "B"). p. for lack of proof.. and her son by Pelagio. you will be the one pressured" (id. wanted him to tell. All the accused entered a plea of innocent when arraigned... Cebu. Had somebody seen the one mentioned in the affidavit when I admitted?" ( id. His mother (Albina) and his two brothers. assault and hack Pelagio Jimenez . Marcos Jimenez. unlawfully and feloniously attack. 1985. At the trial. "It is just the same because if I don't admit. 1986. to use her own words. the said two accused should be acquitted.. 1985 (Tsn. if you don't like to sign its' (sic) just OK. and this handwritten statement was handed to Pat.. They were only two in the room. what happened was. Yes. he did not see his father.M. I said to him "are these true?" and he said. he claims that what is stated there is in accordance with what his uncle. (and) it was he and Robert who plowed the same. The defense rested its case on July 21. Marcos Jimenez — . So. of the felony of parricide in that . on or about August 11. Marcos Jimenez' testimony.. 1987. Marcos answered. you sign. (He also) admitted the existence of blood near the house and plenty of it in the bushes . and it was read to him.). finds no evidence whether direct or circumstantial that may tend to establish the guilt of two of the accused in this case... (Marcos) admitted having been investigated by Lt." The Court.. Albina remarked. In the matter of his confession (Exh. pp. Jimenez ( ibid). The four defendants took the witness stand and gave evidence in their behalf. 1985 was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu with the Regional Trial Court accusing Pelagio's widow. overheard a conversation between appellant Marcos Jimenez and his mother Albina. you think it over and ask me (for) time. a barangay Guiwanon. with intent to kill and during night time. Cavalida. inflicting upon the said Pelagio Jimenez mortal injuries on varoius parts of his body. is outlined by the Trial Court as follows: . the existence of blood in the plowed area . He was (also) apprise (sic. that he was pressured to admit the crime under threat of punishment. again in her own language. and Wilkins. . Dr Marcos Jimenez. Ginatilan.. Considering the rule that judgment of conviction should be imposed only after the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. that soon caused his death thereafter. was asked about the written confession. "You should have denied about the circumstances why it happened like that"(id. declaring that it was "cognizant of the fact that the accused had been incarcerated and detained for almost one year"' also issued the following Order absolving. . viz.. and I ask him about the contains (sic) of his written confession. and without just cause. his father came an asked for dry coconut leaves to light his way in going home. I am here to assist you. He claims that they were overseeing the house of their uncle. but if you think you are hesitant to sign it. He likewise admitted that Judge Jabagat arrived but only after his statement has been typed by Pat. he was at the house of his uncle. She heard Albina tell Marcos that the way he answered the questions during the examination before the authorities were wrong. alright I said. while they were on their way toward the house of Dr. you have the privilege not to sign.: The court after appreciating all the facts and the law in this case. When he still did not see his father the following morning. Cavalida. 4) Manolita Castañares.M. (saying) I would like to confer with my uncle Engineer Marcos Jimenez and that we summon (sic) his uncle who was just around. p. (Robert & Wilkins) were also there. He admitted that Lt. confederating together and helping one another. from liability under the indictment. At about 6. . he went back to his uncle's house to inform his mother and brothers that their father did not arrive home that night. if you will not sign. a relative of appellants. They looked for him in the bushes and towards the sea the whole day and the following day until the body was found near the cliff. They all maintained their innocence of the crime. It was then that he went to the poblacion to notify the authorities about the death of his father. and after that.

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide by mere circumstantial evidence. 2 In another case. 2) not giving credence to the testimony of accused Robert Jimenez to the effect that he had nothing to do with the death of his father . The Constitution explicitly declares that a person being investigated by the police as a suspect in an offense has the right. hereby orders the promulgation of this judgment upon the two accused immediately in open Court... As correctly pointed out." 4 Furthermore. jurisprudence sustains the admission of such an involuntary confession (People v.: the hacking by Robert of his father with a bolo is confirmed by the doctor who examined the cadaver. there being no eyewitness available. Elizaga. and all she did was to show the typewritten document to Marcos and ask him if he had voluntarily given the statements therein contained. 4) giving credence to the testimony of ex-Judge Pacita Jabagat to the effect that she was in the office of the Station Commander of Ginatilan.. "to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice" and if he "cannot afford the services of counsel. Sept.Wherefore. although unsigned and/or involuntarily given. not one foisted on him by the police investigators or other parties.. she did not ask Marcos if he was willing to have her represent him. she was the police officers' choice. . is admissible an evidence if in consequence of such confession facts are discovered which confirm it. 20. 1985. Cebu. Then on December 19. 23 SCRA 449).. likewise. 5) holding that the evidence shows conspiracy on the part of both accused . 1313). they are hereby ordered released from custody unless there are other causes which would warrant their further detention. it becomes admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts that stand to establish the guilt his codefendants (People v... show conspiracy on the part of both accused." and condemning "the said defendants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.." The Trial Court stressed that "the revelations . the carrying of the body from the house to the cliff is confirmed by the evidences of the bloodstains found along the way from the house to the cliff and of the signs of a body being dragged along the bushes. the evidence discloses that Judge Jabagat was not present at the critical time that interrogation of Marcos Jimenez by the police was actually taking place. 1 The lawyer who assists the suspect under custodial investigation should be of the latter's own choice. she just told him: "I am here because I was summon(ed) to assist you and I am going to assist you. prosecution that a confession. In this case. Simbajon." This is not the mode of solicitation of legal assistance contemplated by the Constitution. and the handwritten record of Marcos Jimenez' answers already typewritten. to wit: 1) not giving credit to the claim of accused Marcos Jimenez that what he stated in the alleged confession is in accordance with what his uncle. Marcos Jimenez. 1965). L-18073-75. She came only after the questioning had been completed. who "cannot exercise the function of defense counsel even during custodial investigation. 3) holding that Pelagio Jimenez was found in the house near the cliff on August 13. 1986) finding "the defendants Marcos Jimenez and Robert Jimenez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide as defined and penalized under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. In one case. 3 In still another case.. 1986. Marcos and Robert. the Court finds the said two (2) accused: Albina Jimenez and Wilkins Jimenez NOT GUILTY of the charge against them. the confession of the defendant was disregarded upon a showing that he had been assisted by an assistant fiscal (public prosecutor). While an extra-judicial confession is under certain conditions. confirmed that everything is true. former Judge Jabagat was evidently not of Marcos Jimenez' own choice. in the afternoon of August 16." The Court then made the following legal pronouncements: The Court agrees with the . et al. 1985 and she was then the counsel of accused Marcos Jimenez for the purpose of the confession and that she read the confession to him and when asked whether he admitted to be true all the allegations as stated in the confession. viz. This Order serves as a partial decision in this case. aware of the long detention suffered by the said accused. and 6) finding and holding both accused . This is far from being even substantial compliance with the constitutional duty of .. Accordingly.G. wanted him to tell and that he was pressured to admit the crime under threat of punishment. he must be provided with one. being there merely to give a semblance of legality to the proceedings. in the confession all tally with the evidences adduced during the trial. the Trial Court promulgated its Decision (dated November 21.. and where details as described in such confession is corroborated by evidence aliunde which dovetails with the essential fact contained in the confession (People v." and that said right "cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Fontanilla [CA] O." and to allow such a practice "would render illusory the protection given to the accused.. without prejudice to an extended decision. admissible only as against the person made it and not as against his codefendants. From this judgment the defendants have taken an appeal this Court and here ascribe the following errors to the Trial Court. the confession given during custodial investigation was invalidated where it appeared that the lawyers called to be present at the interrogation were members of the police organization investigating the suspects and did not actively assist and advise them. The evidence. the confession of an accused was rejected there being no showing that the lawyer of the Citizens' Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) called by the National Bureau of Investigation to assist the accused was his counsel of choice. among others. The Court.

In fact. This. . not only because obtained in violation of the Constitution and therefore void. Manolita Castañares. and when he was finally found after a day's search. or omission of another. would indicate at the most that the latter might have reason to wish him ill. And the fact that there might have been some animosity and quarrels between the deceased.police investigators during custodial interrogation. too. The interrogation of Marcos Jimenez having been conducted without the assistance of counsel. " 6 the confession of an accused is admissible only against him. Marcos Jimenez.e. without the confession or the admissions imputed to Marcos Jimenez. unsigned. all the evidence considered. who together with Eng. Marcos Jimenez knew this. Equally obvious is that any confession or admission ascribed to Marcos Jimenez in the premises is inadmissible against his brother. It is not correct to say. It bears stressing that the area covered by the search has been described as a "vast" area. the supposed waiver made therein of his constitutional right to counsel of his own choice is void. Bancog. 5 "The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act. and there were many large boulders and thick bushes about the balite tree. supra. was the one who requested Lt. 7 Now. are ACQUITTED. and no valid waiver of said right to Counsel having been made. according to him — of "rumors" and "gossips" 8 circulating in the barrio. is the explicit mandate of the Constitution: any confession or admission obtained in violation among others of the rights guaranteed in custodial investigations shall be inadmissible in evidence against the person making the confession or admission. Another brother of the victim. the Police Chief of another town. but as containing only what his uncle. Jacinta Jimenez who testified to a recent quarrel between the victim and his wife and sons Marcos and Robert. Marcos Jimenez forthwith reported his father's death to the police. This might explain why the corpse could not be immediately located. testified to having heard a conversation between the victim's wife Albina and the latter's son Marcos wherein the mother chided her son for giving wrong answers during the investigation. The truth is. They were after all children of the deceased. In fine. Jimenez and Robert Jimenez. Furthermore. his co-accused. that as disclosed by the evidence. Robert Jimenez. to prevent others from going to the precise spot where the slain man was eventually found. the decision of the Trial Court dated November 21. on the other. Marcos P. the searchers would not have proceeded thereto as the place was so secluded. is the wife of Eng. testified as to previous quarrels between the deceased and appellant. ostensibly washing away blood from their bodies and clothing. Jimenez." Hence. The confession was in fact expressly rejected by Marcos Jimenez as riot reflective of his own perceptions and recollection. had instructed him to tell the police "under threat of punishment. brother of the victim. Mario Jimenez. who were not themselves on good terms with at least one of the appellants. The information gathered by the police to the effect that Marcos and Robert Jimenez had been seen by neighbors bathing at the artesian well at midnight of the day of the crime. Eng. It follows that neither the handwritten summary of Marcos Jimenez' answers made by two investigating officers nor the typewritten statement based thereon is admissible. The truth is that the victim's family and neighbors first looked everywhere for him. That the appellants did not immediately notify the authorities that Pelagio Jimenez was missing cannot be taken as an inculpatory circumstance against them. Dr. one of whom usually slept in the same house as the latter. Not one of the persons who had supposedly seen the appellants washing themselves ever took the witness stand to affirm this. WHEREFORE. Another relative of the deceased. For instance. in any event. Marcos Jimenez. Robert Jimenez had indeed conducted a search for his father in the vicinity of the cliff near the balite tree where his father's body was found the following day. Marcos Jimenez. SO ORDERED. as are the handwritten notes from which the former was derived. the witnesses who gave evidence of said quarrels were close relatives of the deceased. but not against his co-defendants. that the appellants had tried to cover up the commission of the crime by not reporting it immediately to the authorities and by attempting.. to investigate close members of the victim's family — on the basis. and this is why he afterwards told other persons involved in the search not to proceed to that place any more. is patently speculative and arrant hearsay. and the appellants. too. as the Trial Court does in its judgment under review. a sister-in-law. with costs de oficio. not only the confession but also any admission obtained in the course thereof are inadmissible against Marcos Jimenez. on the one hand. but also because of the familiar principle of res inter alios acta. but would not be proof that they actually attacked and killed him. and his wife and children. The typewritten confession is. it appears that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate the guilt of the appellants the crime with which they are charged beyond reasonable doubt. his brothers. during the search for the deceased. i. proof of the presence of the appellants at or near the place of the commission of the crime is innocuous. had a previous misunderstanding with appellants concerning the latter's unauthorized sale of the former's copra. were it not for the foul odor emanating from the direction of the balite tree. This is so even if it be shown that the statements attributed to the accused were voluntarily made. 1986 is REVERSED. or are afterwards confirmed to be true by external circumstances. his cousins. the rest of the evidence of the prosecution is inadequate to overcome the presumption of innocence raised by the fundamental law in favor of both the accused. declaration.

worth P27. a gray-reddish car overtook the Mercedes Benz he was riding and blocked their way. domino style.000. No. a three (3) carat diamond ring worth P80. Quezon City.: If the Constitution has any value. [G. unlawfully and feloniously rob one DR.000. by means of violence and intimidation against persons. Two hours later. Bienvenido Echavez. confederating with and mutually helping one another . For denial of his right to counsel. The others remained at large.00. studded with diamonds. Simultaneously. the malefactors stopped his car and alighted. one 2 karat gold ring. vs.00. ALEJANDRO LUCERO y CORTEL. we acquit accused-appellant. Philippines. and taking advantage the(ir) superior strength. 1995] PUNO.(26) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. When no action was taken on his case. Richard Doe and John Doe were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. a necklace worth P27. 3 After driving them around the area for a couple of hours. in the manner as follows: on the date and in the place aforementioned. Dr. private complainant DR.00. plaintiff-appellee.600. take.000. While traversing Road 14. and his wallet containing P6.00.00. the man at the right side of his driver pulled out his gun and announced a hold-up. The man at the right side of his driver shot the latter at the chest before fleeing. worth P155. Balbino Echavez. Madrid divested him of the following: a gold Rolex watch. thus inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which resulted to the insta(n)taneous death of the said LORENZO BERNALES y ALERIA. Lorenzo Bernales. belonging to said DR. to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said LORENZO BERNALEZ y ALERIA in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the Civil Code. one (1) 3 karat gold ring worth P80. Thus. his driver died of hemorrhage as a result of the gunshot wound he sustained. one (1) gold Rolex watch worth P155.000. The first grabbed the driver's seat and pushed his driver to the other side of the seat.00. with the use of handgun. DEMETRIO Z.. The worst came. Quezon City. Three (3) men swiftly alighted from the car blocking them and barged into his Benz. Bago-Bantay. pursuant to their conspiracy blocked the way of the said complainant who was on board a Mercedez Benz crusing along Road 14 near (the) corner (of) Mindanao Avenue. one armed with handgun. However. 7 karat. one gold necklace with cross pendant. Peter Doe. The second occupied the right side of his driver. one (1) solid gold bracelet worth 363.00. It was around 7:00 a.m. this City. He heeded the advice.00. the above-named accused. DEMETRIO Z. with intent to kill. a bracelet worth P50. the above-named accused. it is because it stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. The evidence on record shows that on May 6. The third sat beside Dr. he filed his complaint with the Special Operations Group of the Central Intelligence Service (CIS). Madrid survived. a driver of the said offended party. it protected those under custodial investigation with the all-important right to counsel. shot LORENZO BERNALES y ALERIA.000. 1 Only the accused Echavez brothers and Alejandro Lucero were apprehended. the said accused. surrounded with diamonds worth P27. Contrary to law. in Quezon City. his driver. wilfully.000.600. We hold that the right to counsel cannot be diluted without tampering the scales of justice.00. The Information against them reads: That on or about the 7th day of May. Madrid at the back sent and punched him. conspiring together. J.00.000. 4 Dr. that Dr. MADRID spent the night at his boarding house. 97936 May 29. Pag-asa. 1988. Quezon City. did then and there. another two (2) carat domino-style ring. MADRID. Madrid and his driver were rushed by concerned citizens to the Veterans Memorial Hospital. 2 The man beside Dr. accused-appellant. 5 He reported the incident to the Quezon City police. the next day. MADRID. rob and carry away his cash money amounting to P6. 1988. Alejandro Lucero.000. and did then and there. that on the occasion of the robbery and pursuant to their conspiracy.R. DEMETRIO Z.000. worth P45.00.600. located at #35 Ilocos Norte Street. Philippine Currency. He wanted to return that night to his residence at Project 6.00. 6 . Madrid again asked his driver to bring him to his main residence in Project 6. to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the total amount aforementioned. advised him not to leave that night for Bernales overheard that the group of Balbino and Bienvenido Echavez would rob him on his way home. Trial proceeded only as against the three.

He said he only met Dr. Nonetheless. The men turned out to be police officers. the driver of Dr. was presented to Atty. He observed no reaction from Lucero. Capt. 12 After trial. Peralta. and . The next day. The extrajudicial statement of Lucero (Exhibit "C"). interrogated Bienvenido Echavez in Camp Crame. They turned them over to the Investigation Department of the CIS. 1988. Atty. 10 The three (3) accused denied complicity in the in the crime charged. he identified one of the men to be Capt. Peralta conferred with Lucero. Diosdado Peralta appeared at the investigator's office at around 9:00 p.. convicted accused Lucero. Boak. He was not informed of the offense for which he was being investigated. head of the CIS Special Operations Group. Two days later. Lucero also claimed he signed the extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "C") 11 under duress. stayed at his house the whole day repairing the upholstery of a customer's chair. Atty. Peralta left to attend the wake of his friend. Lucero was accompanied by two (2) CIS agents to Atty. They chased him. The doctor saw the contusions on his body.m. they apprehended Balbino Echavez and Alejandro Lucero. 1988. Lucero denied knowing Dr. the CIS investigator began taking down Lucero's statement. he could be reached at his residence. He advised that he be treated. Pursal went thru the motions of investigation. Peralta. Atty. He was He was blindfolded the whole night and did not know where he was taken. Appellant Lucero's defense is alibi. and that even if he has already given a statement. Madrid at the CIS Office during the police line-up. The trial court. He gave word that in case of need. Madrid finally identified him on the fourth time. 8 In any event. the Echavez brothers and the other accused in this case. The accused brothers BIENVENIDO ECHAVEZ y VALIDA and BALBINO ECHAVEZ y VALIDA are hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence. Atty. Peralta gathered the impression that Lucero understood his advice. judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1. The next morning. 1988. He also apprised Lucero of his constitutional rights. He declared that even before the investigation started. Emilio Dacanay. He was made to line-up four (4) times before Dr. A couple of days lapsed and a CIS agent brought him to a clinic inside Camp Crame. It was already signed by Lucero. Peralta was not present during his actual custodial interrogation. Pfc. however. Madrid. Atty. Alberto Pursal was assigned to conduct the investigation of the suspects. On July 23. handcuffed and blindfolded him and pushed him into a jeep. the Special Operations Group headed by Capt.Two months later. The CIS agent refused and they left the clinic. he was at his house in Caloocan City. The dispositive portion of the Decision 13 reads: ACCORDINGLY. Raul Boac. 7 Pfc. Atty. He explained to Lucero that he has the right to remain silent. that day. that he is not obliged to give any statement to the investigators. 9 In due time. He woke up at 6:30 a. Peralta examined Exhibit "C" and explained to Lucero its Legal implications. He testified that on May 7. Thereafter. When Lucero told him that he had no lawyer. he may refuse to sign it. He likewise confirmed that Atty. more than two (2) months after the commission of the crime.m. He asked Lucero whether he gave the statements voluntarily. He informed Lucero of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. He was then directed to where Lucero was. Neither did they reveal the identity of the complainant. Peralta's house. Madrid. When the investigator started asking the preliminary questions. In the presence of the two (2) CIS agents . at Fort Bonifacio . Later. Pursal informed that CIS Legal Department about Lucero's need for a lawyer. Lucero was apprehended on July 25.m. the court a quo acquitted the Echavez brothers for insufficient evidence. He identified himself as the lawyer who was requested to assist Lucero and inquired about the latter's whereabouts. He denied engaging the services of Atty. Lucero verbally admitted his participation in the crime and that he was the one who shot Bernales. the CIS efforts paid-off. after a surveillance of the suspects. He was then with his cousin Marcelino Seneta and his wife Mylen Lucero. Peralta then signed Exhibit "C". Lucero replied in the affirmative. He claimed that he was tortured. He said he was surprised when several unidentified men accosted him while he was walking towards his house. he learned he was in Camp Crame. He worked until 5 p.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE ALLEGED CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT CONSPIRACY WAS NOT PROVEN IN THIS CASE. and (b) his extra-judicial confession admitting his participation in the crime. There is no reason for the ambivalence. 6.00 representing the cash money. AND INSPITE OF THE LACK OF POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Madrid claimed that he could identify only one of the robbers who staged the hold-up. NOT CREDIBLE. 3. Initially. there is no reason for Dr. . On the civil aspect. Madrid's failure to immediately identify appellant. and b) to pay Dr. 16 In his affidavit.600. Secondly. We are also disconcerted by the vacillating testimony of Dr. the credibility of the main prosecution eyewitness. UNRELIABLE. Dr.00 as actual damages and P50. and money value of the jewelries and wristwatch he lost due to the robbery at bar. Demetrio Madrid who identified appellant. 17 Appellant's conviction cannot be made to rest on this nebulous identification by Dr. Dr. Alejandro Lucero is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment term of RECLUSION PERPETUA. raising the following assignments of error: 1. Accused ALEJANDRO LUCERO y CORTEL is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation of Robbery with Homicide. DOUBTFUL AND INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 5.2. Madrid. is seriously open to doubt. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND NOT ACQUITTING HIM LIKE HIS CO-ACCUSED AND ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS [THE ECHAVEZ BROTHERS] OF THE CRIME CHARGED.000. Madrid presented he could identify all three. They drove them around for three (3) hours. Demetrio Z. We find that the evidence proving these facts cannot stand scrutiny. Dr.00 as moral damages for the mental anguish suffered by his family. 2. SO ORDERED. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED ON THE BASIS OF HIS ALLEGED EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION (MADE IN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION) WHICH WAS OBTAINED THRU FORCE. Madrid during the trial. The robbery took place in broad daylight and the three malefactors wore no mask. Considering these circumstances. Madrid. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING MORE WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCES ( SIC) OF THE PROSECUTION WHICH WERE INCONSISTENT. 4 THAT THE LOWER ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED WITH CERTITUDE BY THE PROSECUTION. 15 At another point. VIOLENCE AND WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL OF HIS OWN CHOICE OR ENGAGED BY ANY PERSON ON HIS BEHALF OR APPOINTED BY THE LOWER COURT AND THEREFORE SUFFERED CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES. Alejandro Lucero is hereby ordered a) to pay the heirs of the deceased victim Lorenzo Bernales y Aleria the sum of P30.000. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED PRIMARILY ON THE BASIS OF THE WEAKNESS OF HIS DEFENSE OF ALIBI AND NOT ON THE STRENGTH OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE. It stands unrebutted on the record that appellant had to participate at the police line-up four (4) times before he was finally identified by Dr. The conviction of appellant rests on two (2) facts: (a) his positive identification by the complainant. Madrid the sum of P363. Firstly. Dr. appellant's conviction cannot be based on his extra-judicial confession. Madrid said he could identify two of the malefactors. We find the appeal meritorious. 14 Hence this appeal by Lucero.

Atty. In this case. De Guzman. We disagree. Atty. convicting appellant Alejandro Lucero y Cortel of robbery with homicide is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and confessions or admissions from the accused. appellant was brought by two (2) CIS agents to Atty. the Decision in Criminal Case No. i. The circumstances in the case at bench clearly demonstrate that appellant received no effective counseling from Atty. of course. 19We take pride in constitutionalizing this right to counsel even while other countries have desisted from elevating this right to a higher pedestal. Peralta left appellant in the custody of the CIS agents when his real interrogation started . Appellant. affirmed the voluntariness of the execution of the confession. Peralta himself admitted he received no reaction from appellant although his impression was that appellant understood him. such a confession where appellant was unprotected from mischief cannot convict. He said he had to attend the wake of a friend. Surely.. The trial court did not display the required sensitivity to appellant's right to counsel. In the presence of these agents. It was during his absence that appellant gave an uncounselled confession. the right to counsel attaches from the moment the investigation starts. In People v. it did not mean any kind of counsel but effective and vigilant counsel. Atty. Peralta's.The 1987 Constitution 18 requires that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime should be provided with counsel.e. Force and fraud tarnish confessions and render them inadmissible. Given the uncertainty of appellant's identification and the inadmissibility of his uncounselled confession. and talked with appellant about his rights. Chiseled in our jurisprudence is the rule that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. SO ORDERED.m. Indeed. More exactly. Peralta was satisfied and the trial court ruled that appellant's right to counsel was not infringed. They tried to cure his uncounselled confession for the next day. who was not the counsel of choice of appellant. . he arrived at the CIS Office at around 9:00 p. We hold that when the Constitution requires the right to counsel. Peralta's house. Branch CIII. Atty. 21 we held that in custodial investigation. it did not impose a rigorous respect for the right. arrived at the CIS Office an the second night of appellant's detention. Atty. IN VIEW WHEREOF. This is far from the intent of the Constitution. there is no thread of evidence to criminally inculpate appellant. At that critical stage. Neither can the trial court convict appellant on the ground that alibi is inherently a weak defense. The records show that Atty. 20Worse. It was satisfied that there was "substantial" compliance with the requirements of right to counsel. Q-88-201 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City . appellant gave his uncounselled extra-judicial a confession. at the crucial point when the interrogation was just starting. Peralta left appellant to attend the wake of a friend . We have constitutionalized the right to counsel because of our hostility against the use of duress and other undue influence in extracting confessions from a suspect. Peralta. We have sustained the inviolability of this precious right with vigor and without any apology. His attitude did not speak well of the importance he gave to his role as counsel to a person under custodial interrogation for the commission of a very serious offense. Peralta asked appellant if he understood the statements he gave and if he signed it voluntarily.

the trial court called their attention to the gravity of the charge and informed them that the death penalty might be imposed upon them. They told the guard: "Surrender po kami. convicting Jose Tampus of murder. J. refused. with the assistance of counsel de oficio. In this review of the death sentence. where Rodolfo Avila was one of the accused-appellants. to allow him to be brought to Makati. Avila stabbed Saminado when the latter was armed in the comfort room and his back was turned to Avila. In the same decision. The accused. 1976). [G. Saminado died upon arrival at eleven o'clock on that same morning in the prison hospital. 28. No. Rodolfo Avila. assigned to present the side of defendant Tampus. 18510). 27. A and C). B and D). together with Frankisio Aro and Pedro Lasala.R. was convicted of the same offense and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay the same indemnity. Tampus inflicted eight incised wounds on Saminado while Avila stabbed him nine times. evident premeditation and quasi recidivist At the arraigmment or after they had pleaded guilty. an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos (Criminal Case No. J dated January 14. (He was sentenced to death. Rosales was a member of the Oxo gang. In his written report submitted on the same day when the tragic occurrence transpired. Avila did not appeal. plaintiff-appellee. according to his on-the-spot investigation. L-44690 March 28. He and Avila. After emerging from the toilet. 1980] AQUINO. Tampus and Avila surrendered to a prison guard with their knives (Exh. Rizal and a patient in the emergency ward of the prison hospital. 37. or on January 16. . went to the toilet to answer a call of nature and to fetch water. 1976 in L-38141. Tampus and Avila took the witness stand. 1976. the co-accused of Tampus. followed Saminado to the toilet and." The motive of the killing was revenge. and Avila. a group hostile to the Oxo gang. The officer of the day investigated the incident right away. They reiterated their plea of guilty. sir. The trial court required the fiscal to present the prosecution's evidence. by means of their bladed weapons. Gumanti lang po kami. JOSE TAMPUS Y PONCE. Tampus. avenged the stabbing of Eduardo Rosales in December. Celso Saminado. accused whose death sentence is under review. assaulted him. he stated that. So. Two days after the killing. Criminal Case No. another prison guard investigated Tampus and Avila and obtained their extrajudicial confessions wherein they admitted that they assaulted Saminado (Exh. a prisoner in the national penitentiary at Muntinlupa. The New Bilibid Prison was the venue of the arraignment and hearing. affirmed their confessions and testified as to the manner in which they repeatedly wounded Saminado. The evidence shows that at around ten o'clock in the morning of January 14. both members of the Oxo gang. sentencing him to death and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim Celso Saminado.(27) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1187. contends that he was denied his right to a public trial because the arraignment and hearing were held at the state penitentiary. pleaded guilty to the charge of murder aggravated by treachery. and not the trial court's session hall at Makati. where Avila was a co-accused of Tampus. while Tampus stabbed the victim on the chest and neck (Exh. prisoners in the same penal institution. who were tubercular patients in the hospital. Makati Branch 36. The death sentence is under review in L-38141). the counsel de oficio. be held at the national penitentiary in Muntinlupa. Saminado was a member of the Batang Mindanao gang. Rizal because this Court in its resolution of July 20. for ty reasons. this Court directed that the arraignment and trial in the instant case. vs. 1975 by a member of the Batang Mindanao gang. The record does not show that the public was actually excluded from the place where the trial was held or that the accused was prejudiced by the holding of the trial in the national penitentiary. Tampus and Avila. in another case. There is no question that the guilt of Tampus was established beyond reasonable doubt.: This is an automatic review of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

ikaw ay hindi ko maaaring pilitin. No force. Vivencio C.378 U. 16 L. Rule 119. after coming out of the toilet. as shown in the following parts of the confession. sec. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. by the officer of the day. Under the circumstances. See 21 Am Jur 2d 305. 14. was part of the res gestae and at the same time was a voluntary confession of guilt. exclude from the trial every person except the officers of the court and the attorneys for the prosecution and defense. They did not appeal from the judgment of conviction. Not only that. Illinois. Tampus was not informed as to his rights to have counsel and to remain silent. 20. takutin o gamitan ng puwersa para makapagbigay ng salaysay o statement. 2nd 977 and Miranda vs. The two accused. even before Lahoz investigated the killing. Katulad sa mga bagay-bagay na ipinaliwanag ko saiyo kanina ay uulitin ko sa iyo na ikaw ay aking tinawagan dito sa aming tanggapan dahil sa ibig kitang maimbistiga tungkol sa pagkakapatay sa isang bilanggo rin na nagngangalan ng Celso Saminado noong petsa 14 ng buwan ding ito ngunit bago tayo magpatuloy ay uulitin ko rin saiyo na sa imbistigasyon naito. threat. according to his understanding.S. (Exh. 1979). Tampus and Avila had already admitted it when. regarding the rights of the accused to be assisted by counsel and to remain silent during custodial interrogation.There is a ruling that the fact that for the convenience of the witnesses a case is tried in Bilibid Prison without any objection on the part of the accused is not a ground for reversal of the judgment of conviction (U. intimidation. sir. 478. 384 U. The investigator in taking it endeavored. Ngayon at maulit ko saiyo ang mga karapatan mong ito. No person shall be compelled to be a witness at himself. The truth is that. However. vs. they surrendered to Reynaldo S. Arizona. the scene of the crime. July 30. (Sec. As the confession in this case was obtained after the Constitution took effect. The court may also. Na ikaw ay may karapatan na manahimik o tumanggi na paimbistiga. upon request of the defendant. counsel de oficio points out that before the confession was taken by investigator Buenaventura de la Cuesta on January 16. 2nd 694. . or any other m which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Lahoz. and that at that alleged custodial interrogation. or on the day of the killing. by means of that statement given freely on the spur of the moment without any urging or suggestion. 304). waived their right to remain silent and to have the right to counsel. 1976. section 20 applies thereto (People vs. violence. elicited without any interrogation. 436. ed. A). Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain anent and to court and to be informed of such right. it is not appropriate for counsel de oficio to rely on the rulings in Escobedo vs. 270). Na sa imbistigasyon naito ikaw ay may karapatan na magkaruon ng isang abogado na magtatanggol saiyo. to comply with section 20. That spontaneous statement. The other contention of counsel de oficio is that the confession of Tampus was taken in violation of Article IV of the Con constitution which provides: SEC. Ang may salaysay matapos maipabatid sa kanya ang kanyang mga karapatan tungkol sa pagbibigay ng malayang salaysay sa ngayon sa ipinag-uutos ng panibagong Saligang Batas ay kusang loob na nagsasabi ng mga sumusunod bilang sagot sa mga tanong ng tagasiyasat: xxx xxx xxx 6. Rules of Court.S. the first guard whom thuy encountered. plea of guilty and testimony in court. and they revealed to him that they had committed an act of revenge. Mercado. Eustaquio. 4 Phil. There is no doubt that the confession was voluntarily made.S.12 L. The accused may waive his right to have a public trial as shown in the rule that the trial court may motu propioexclude the public from the courtroom when the evidence to be offered is offensive to decency or public morals. That admission was confirmed by their extrajudicial confession. ed. Tampus was interrogated two days before. Dumdum. ikaw bay magpapatuloy pa sa pagbibigay ng salaysay bilang sagot sa alin mang itatanong ko saiyo — Sagot — Opo. L35279.

Revised Penal Code). 122. If he does not claim it and he calls the accused to the witness stand. the crime was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of the prosecution. WHEREFORE. He is sentenced to reclusion perpetua.alevosia qualifies the killing as murder. As alleged in the information and as shown in his prison record. Indeed. It is further contended that after the fiscal had presented the prosecution's evidence and when counsel de oficio called upon Tampus to testify. which is reclusion temporal to death.It should be stressed that. vs. confession. It is his counsel who should claim that right for him.S. Evident premeditation is also aggravating. The crime was correctly characterized by the prosecutor and the trial court as murder. Costs de officio SO ORDERED. The mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender to the authorities. cannot offset quasi-recidivism nor reduce the penalty. should be imposed in its maximum period and that is death (Art.. . p. vs. he was not able to make any defense at all (61 tsn). Binayoh. 4 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court. U. the trial court should have advised him of his constitutional right to remain silent. which can be appreciated in favor of Tampus.S. 35 Phil. That contention is not well-taken considering that Tampus pleaded guilty and had executed an extrajudicial confession (U. 196). The two accused. Hence. 18 Phil. Tampus was a quasi-recidivist. Exhibit H. The evidence shows beyond peradventure of doubt that Tampus and Avila planned the killing by providing themselves with bladed weapons and waiting for an opportunity to kill Saminado and thus satisfy their desire for revenge. plea of guilty and testimony. However. it should be commuted to reclusion perpetua. 23).S. while he was inside the toilet. Hence. it shall be applied regardless of any generic mitigating circumstances (Art. 63. Revised Penal Code). When death is prescribed as a single indivisible penalty. Tampus and Avila. Rota. 9 Phil. 1970 Ed. then he waives that right (U. the lower court's judgment as to Jose Tampus is modified. he was serving sentences for homicide and evasion of service of sentence. vs. three meters wide and three meters long. 426. the death penalty cannot be affirmed. even without taking into account Tampus' admission of guilt. Grant. At the time of the assault. made a deliberate and sudden attack upon the unarmed victim. as coconspirators. The accused resorted to a mode of assault which insured the consummation of the killing without any risk to themselves arising from any defense which the victim could have made. because of the unexpected attack. The court during the trial is not duty-bound to apprise the accused that he has the right to remain silent. for lack of the requisite ten votes. Because of the special aggravating circumstance of quasi recidivist the penalty for murder. 160.The lower court's judgment as to his civil liability is affirmed.

vs. BEN: Our mission in Paombong. p. reads as follows: Feb. 1979. 1979 in Caloocan City. cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous simultaneous acts. by pointing to Benedict Gonzales @ "Cocoy" to his co-accused and writing a ransom note demanding the amount of P200.000. father of Benedict Gonzales @ "Cocoy" did then and there wilfully. is to get you Mang Ben. That accused Moises Marcos y de la Rosa. 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. No. July 24. in view of the foregoing.m of the same day. CCC-2873 of the defunct Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig. said to have been committed as follows: That on or about the 20th day of February. pp. pp.00 from the father of the victim. about one (1) kilometer from the North Diversion Road.00 as ransom. guarded during the day by two of the men (TSN. '79 MR. beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping.000. CONTRARY TO LAW. 19). the men asked Benedict to go with them to the hospital (TSN. Benito Gonzales met an accident. At said hut. Benedict Gonzales. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Jun alias "John Doe" and "Peter Doe" escaped arrest and for this reason only appellant Moises Marcos was arraigned and tried. At about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 20. you will not see him anymore. 1979. while on his way home from school was approached by three (3) men on board an owner-type jeep. Jun alias "John Doe" and "Peter Doe. as charged in the Information.R. the Court finds the accused MOISES MARCOS. conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another. GUILTY. plaintiff. for the purpose of extorting ransom from Benito Gonzales. a 9 year old pupil of the St.(28) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 20. On the pretext that the boy's father.00 cash tomorrow night. 51-11).000 and another P25. together with Danilo Castro. July 24.000. 1987] ALAMPAY.. the above-named accused. Benedict was detained for two nights and one day. At about 8:00 o'clock p.: In Criminal Case No. Appellant's co-accused. 1979. with the dispositive portion thereof reading as follows: WHEREFORE. and hereby sentences him with the penalty of Death: to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P25. The evidence for the prosecution as summarized in the appellee's brief tend to establish that. Benedict's brother found a note (Exhibit A) at the gate of their residence. The note in full. Metro Manila. being the private individuals. Bulacan. accused. Martin de Porres Catholic School in Paombong. L-65048 January 9. if you dislike. Thereafter. INSTRUCTION .000. 1979.. The unsuspecting Benedict went with the three (3) men who brought him to an isolated hut situated at Baesa. just give us P200. Benito Gonzales but were able to get only the amount of P20. Caloocan City. the court rendered its decision." were charged with the crime of kidnapping. J. 13-18. But don't worry about your son. that is. [G. MOISES MARCOS Y DE LA ROSA. dated July 24.00 as moral damages and exemplary damages. appellant MOISES MARCOS. Danilo Castro.

appellant Benito proceeded to the office of Engr. 1979. pp. Appellant also pointed to the NBI agents the isolated hut in Baesa.000. 1979.. After the investigation. appellant and Benito went home to Paombong. Benito fearful for the life of his son and having no ready cash at the time. they proceeded to Novaliches. 5). testified as follows: . married. Tell him to travel the Highway going to N.00 and proposed the raise the amount through a loan from a friend. February 21. Appellant Marcos. Benedict's father. about three (3) minutes later. Bulacan.Let your driver alone to bring the money. 1979. invited Benito. Appellant is Benito's first cousin and resides just across the street from the Gonzales' residence (TSN. On the other hand.000. arrived at the Gonzales' residence. appellant allegedly handed them the P20. As planned.The NBI agents questioned not only Benito and Benedict Gonzales but also appellant and Romeo Castro. Makati where appellant advised Benito to disregard the NBI original plan. July 23. Nino Paombong. The next morning. p. readily agreed to appellant's proposal (TSN July 23.000.. 1979. afterwards. who allegedy loaned the amount of P20.00 ransom money. 49 years old. sought the help of appellant. who in turn advised them to report the kidnapping to the National Bureau of Investigation (TSN. Cesar Gonzales at Ayala Avenue. Metro Manila for the filing of the appropriate information against appellant Danilo Castro. appellant together with Benedict. Benito Gonzales. the NBI conducted further investigation . 1979. From the NBI. appellant. Santiago Toledo. February 21. Bulacan. Thereafter. 4). Benito believing that appellant was able to secure a loan from Castro. appellant and Benito proceeded to the store of Romeo Castro (appellant's friend) in Caloocan City. He volunteered to talk with the kidnappers to reduce the ransom money to P20. appellant and Benito went to the house of Engr. 1979 voluntarily given before NBI Agent Esteban Libit appellant admitted that he. At the NBI. if you want to see your son alive. 6-7). pp. p. 1979. 1979. 5). a former NBI agent.000. 76-81). July 23. on the car with hands up and with lights on inside the car. 1979. Rollo. (sic). government pensionado and residing at Sto. July 23. July 23. 1979. together with Danilo Castro. Appellant alone talked to Castro inside The latter's store and.m. 56). Benito Gonzales reported the above developments to the NBI Noting some suspicious circumstances in appellant's story. and reenacted the incident." planned and executed the kidnapping of Benedict. p. of the same day. appellant left purportedly to meet with the kidnappers at the highway going to Nueva Ecija (TSN. at about 7:00 o'clock p. related that on his way to Nueva Ecija.00 with an apology that said amount was the only money that the family of Benedict could afford. pp. (Appellee's Brief. the persons asked him for the money. when questioned how he was able to get back Benedict. appellant offers as his version of the same incident the following. 1979. On March 5... with guns aimed at appellant. After the usual introductions. p. At about 2:45 o'clock in the early morning of February 22.000.. Quezon City where Benedict was detained (TSN. go down.00 or your own son? That same night. Benito was briefed by NBI Supervising Agents Nestor Gonzales and Emeterio Manalo 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. "Jun" and alias "Peter Doe. proceed to pay the same within the week (TSN. 6). stop on the rear. "Jun" and "Peter Doe" (Exhibit G). From there. P200. Cesar Gonzales (Benito's brother) who referred them to Atty. 1979. Caloocan City where Benedict was detained. July 23. July 23. appellant's friend. purportedly to secure a loan of P20.00. In his sworn statement (Exhibit E) dated July 10. Ben don't tell this to the authority or to anybody. 78). pp. Mr.. Amidst the tearful reunion. Ecija see our car with red flag. he was signalled to stop with a red flag by persons on board a red car. the NBI indorsed the case to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig.

That the father of the victim is his first cousin. Hearing of July 24. Hearing of July 24. b) THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT CONSPIRACY OR THAT APPELLANT MARCOS WAS GUILTY AS CO-PRINCIPAL AND/OR MASTERMIND. 64). 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. c) UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE CASE OF PEOPLE VS. (TSN. 1979. THE PENALTY IMPOSABLE SHOULD ONLY BE PRISION MAYOR IN ITS MINIMUM AND MEDIUM PERIODS AND A FINE NOT EXCEEDING SEVEN HUNDRED PESOS. pp. CONSIDERING THAT: a) THE PARTICIPATION OF APPELLANT MARCOS WAS MERELY THAT OF AN ACCOMPLICE. 1979. 58-59). APPELLANT MARCOS DOES NOT BELONG To THAT TYPE OF KIDNAPPERS .. 10-11). Hearing of July 24. p... That Danilo Castro gave him the pen to write the ransom note and -although instructed to give the ransom. 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. (Appellant's Brief.. That he was forced or intimidated to write the ransom note because if he will not do so. note to his cousin.. That he was told by Danilo Castro that if he will not make the ransom note.. Hearing of July 24. That he wrote the ransom letter (Exhibit A) because he was instructed at the town plaza of Paombong. pp. 70). appellant herein attributes to the trial court its commission of the following assigned errors: I THE CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF PASIG METRO MANILA ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT MARCOS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING WITH RANSOM. 57-58). 361. (TSN. pp. 56-57).67-68). 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. In seeking the reversal of the decision rendered against him. and c) SAID COURT BASED ITS DECISION ON FACTS AND MATTERS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORDS. ACOSTA AND BRAVO 107 PHIL. p. 1979. July 24. 1979. hearing of July 24. (TSN. 1979. they (Danilo Castro and companions) will get his children who are studying in Manila (TSN. 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.. his two children will be "madisgracia. Hearing of July 24. (TSN." (TSN. pp. p. That he did not report the latter to the authorities because he thinks that he can get his grandson (TSN. 54). pp. he placed the ransom note in the gate of his cousin's house. b) UNDER THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 268 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. 1979.

Enrile. In the sworn statement of appellant Moises Marcos. a requisite which should have been complied with as was stressed in the case of Morales vs. this waiver is without legal effect as such was made without the assistance of a lawyer. In other words. The Court in this regard. sir. you have a perfect right to remain silent. 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. . finds that appellant's protestations do not warrant reversal of the appealed judgment. 121 SCRA 538 and reiterated inPeople vs. and d) THE DEATH PENALTY CONSTITUTES A CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 21. From the case records. to the NBI. When appellant gave his sworn statement before the NBI agent Esteban Libit on July 10. I am. Galit. 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. sir. 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. that whatever you may say here may be used as evidence against you in any criminal or civil proceedings. marked as Exhibit E. Is this clear to you? ANSWER: Yes. Exh.year-old son of MR. 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. Q Would you. Q Would you like to be assisted by a lawyer now? A No more. however. 4.QUESTION This investigation concerns the alleged kid napping of a certain BENEDICT GONZALES y SANTOS. 135 SCRA 465. He was merely invited for questioning so he can shed light on the kidnapping of Benedict. 1979 he was not then under police custody. Bulacan. admitted having voluntarily given his sworn statement. the government will appoint one for you. Before we proceed. 2. 1979. Appellant who is a retired First Lieutenant in the Philippine Constabulary and who had studied up to third year in mechanical engineering. You are also entitled to be informed here. It is significant to consider that appellant Moises Marcos was duly informed of his right to remain silent. E. 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. an 8. 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. sir. dated July 10. as we are informing you. now. however. sir. 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. are you willing to give a statement without a lawyer helping you? A Yes.WHO DESERVE THE S UPREME PENALTY OF DEATH CONSIDERING THE SMALL AMOUNT INVOLVED AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT (KIDNAPPING) WAS COMMITTED. Q In that case. He was even allowed to go home after the investigation. therefore. He avers that although he waived his right to counsel. 3. BENITO GONZALES of Paombong. ARTICLE IV OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION. are reflected the following: 1.

July 10. 1979. executed by the appellant. We find no reason to set aside and reject the evidence which the court below had properly appreciated. All the above mentioned evidence. his participation was merely that of an accomplice.000. Consequently. The declarations of Benito Gonzales. Exhibit E. appellant stated: 19. MARCOS. 1979. Testifying before the trial court. Q You gave this voluntarily? A Yes. which was marked as Exhibit "E. 135 SCRA 465 and Morales.. Exhibit E. as his "lolo Nito" who had taken him from the place of detention in Barrio Baesa and brought him back home to his parents. Apart from the extrajudicial statements of the accused. the Court is of the view that appellant's admissions. father of the kidnapped child indicate the role played by appellant Moises Marcos in obtaining the amount of P20. a nine-year old kidnap victim who attested to and confirmed the fact that it was the accused Moises Marcos. Galit. the other evidence submitted by the prosecution include the testimony of Benedict Gonzales. render worthless the challenge now interposed by him to the admissibility of appellant's sworn statement.. 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. Q You were not coerced by the NBI agents to sign your signature here? A No. Considering all the foregoing circumstances. The findings and conclusions of the trial court receive fullest support from the evidence adduced by the prosecution aside . What appears is that appellant wrote the ransom note while in his residence and without any of his co-accused being present.. Q What did you do then in your house? . your Honor . Jr. Exhibit E. pp. excludes the case at bar from the scope and application of the pronouncements made in the case of People vs.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. (TSN. MOISES R. We cannot give credence to the claim of the appellant that he was coerced into writing the ransom note. from appellant's admissions made before the trial court. wherein it described the role he played in the kidnapping of Benedict Gonzales. SGD. which appellant invoked. his testimony is as follows: xxx xxx xxx Q By the way. July 24. Enrile. appellant expressly acknowledged that he voluntarily signed his sworn statement. The facts and circumstances attendant in this instance. 121 SCRA 538." In this regard. are likewise proof establishing beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's guilt. 65-66). there are some signatures in this document (referring to Exhibit E is this your signature? A Yes. In his extrajudicial statement. your Honor. There is no averment nor is there even mention of any such alleged coercion exerted on him when appellant executed his sworn statement. 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. and confirmed by him in open court during his trial. separate and independent from the extrajudicial statement Exhibit E. vs. 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. voluntarily made. your Honor.

. It is undisputed that appellant received from Benito Gonzales the amount of P 20. 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. 81 Phil.00 from one Romeo Castro which was to be used in paying the ransom and although appellant did not actually obtain that loan. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. xxxxxxxxx 4. even if none of the circumstances above mentioned were present in the commission of the offense. It implies there somethig inhuman and barbarous." that Benito Gonzales. as amended by Republic Act Nos. addressed to Mr. where the kidnapped boy was detained. is among the richest residents of Paombong. a ransom letter. appellant contends that the death penalty should not have been imposed on him because the amount of the ransom money involved is small. the victim. 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.00 in cash which must be delivered the following night to us as a ransom for his son. Appellant made it appear that he borrowed money in the amount of P20.A I wrote a letter. Caloocan City. something more than the mere extinguishment of life. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another. the milder form of criminal liability should be favored. Bulacan. There is no question at all that Benedict. disallowed by Section 21. Bulacan. 267 Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. female. 436.000. by himself. 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. Finally. or a public officer. was then a minor and that he was kidnapped for the purpose of extorting ransom. Appellant's argument that death is a cruel and unusual punishment does not deserve consideration. this Court stated. Director of Prisons. 136 U. shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Camano. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor.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. I also mentioned in that ransom note that along the highway. 741 — The penalty complained of neither cruel. 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. "John Doe" and "Peter Doe. as such is not excessive. In Ex Parte Kemmler. 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. We already held that the death penalty. citing Harden vs. He then brought back the latter to his parents in Paombong. he nevertheless caused the boy's father to agree to re-pay that alleged loan and this the latter did afterwards. unjust or cruel.S. He maintains that the death penalty constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. 19-20). 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. It was appellant who informed his co-accused Danilo Castro and the other persons named only as. or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty. In People vs. almost only as an accomplice (Appellant's Brief. 115 SCRA 688.000. The driver must bring with him the ransom money and we will intercept him. To mitigate somehow his criminal liability. Ben and telling him to prepare P200. unjust or excessive. pp. The Court agrees with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court that appellant's participation in the said felony was as a principal.000. father of the kidnapped victim. within the meaning of that word in the Constitution. In said case. I mean the money. Appellant. 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. went to Baesa. 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. Appellant asks that he be given the benefit of doubt and that he be regarded. The crime committed by appellant and his co-accused is defined and penalized in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. 18 and 1084. which provides: Art.

Appellant obviously did not fully realize the gravity of the crime he and his companions were embarking upon. to be inappropriate.000.00 received by them (herein appellant had no share in the ransom paid). The vacciliation of appellant is understandable because. being in accordance with the evidence is AFFIRMED but with modification. SO ORDERED. . Furthermore.000.000. already regretted his felonious act and thus he voluntarily returned the kidnapped boy to his parents although full payment of the P200. p.00.000. It was rather a crime clumsily conceived on the spur of the moment.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." (Appellant's Brief. In our assessment of the facts of this case and upon considering the conduct and actuations of the herein appellant. 65-67. 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). ". The indemnity to be paid to the offended party is also reduced to P20. . The Court also notes that only P20. 23). Thus. appellant then sold his car for P5. In all other respects.00 was paid by the father of the kidnapped child for ransom but the amount of P25. of turning back from his assigned role.00 and gave this money to his co-conspirators to appease them (Q.000. We find the extreme penalty of death imposed on appellant. the penalty that should be imposed should be reduced to life imprisonment. 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. the Court is disposed to accept the urging of appellant's counsel de oficio. .000.00 being demanded in the ransom note was not given by the boy's family. who went to the National Penitentiary to interview the accused. We are inclined to agree with the observations of the appellant's counsel de oficio. Sworn Statement of Appellant. E). appellant is not a professional wrong doer (he has not been guilty of any other previous offense). the said judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 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. WHEREFORE. It should be therefore reduced to P20. Moises Marcos. Exh. he must have even at that time. Appellant's change of heart could have been brought about by appellant's realization of the anxiety and suffering inflicted on the parents of the child those father is the first cousin of the appellant. then the proper recommendation in his behalf should be made by the prison officials concerned for the further commutation of his prison term. In the view of the Court. the appealed decision. that if appellant's conviction is sustained. as to the penalty of death imposed on the accused-appellant Moises Marcos which is hereby reduced to Reclusion Perpetua. as submitted by appellant's counsel in this case.000.00 was decreed in the decision of the court below. It is indicated that when his other co-accused were later grumbling about the small sum of P20. under the given circumstances in this case. Considering the foregoing circumstances.00. the appropriate penalty that he should suffer must not be the extreme penalty of death. 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.

" The crime took place in the first hour of April 11. several persons. only Rebecca. willfully unlawfully and feloniously entered the compound of Rebecca Saycon located at No. 117106. from heel. 4 cms. measuring 5 x 1. from anterior midline. "(4) Stab wound. towards midline. and Joey's twin brother Jonathan Rodriguez. conspiring. 9. a house boy thereat on his chest. 1994 [1] of Branch 104 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.[5] He fought back but he was stabbed. towards midline. from posterior midline. 99 Tandang Sora Avenue. directed upwards. thru the muscle tissue. by means of such violence and intimidation against persons. depth. who was later identified as Diego Aruta.38 caliber revolver with Serial No. [3] According to Joey's testimony. 99 Tandang Sora Avenue." "taller. wilfully. with intent to kill and with the use of bladed weapons stabbed FELIPE CLIMACO. Climaco said his gun[6] had been taken by a person whom he described was "fatter. and unlawfully and feloniously take. 1. After a while. and the costs. backwards. at the compound of Pastor and Rebecca Gaskell-Saycon at No. vs. slightly backwards. from heel. [7] Climaco was taken to the Lanting General Hospital but he was dead on arrival. which had been taken from the victim by one of the malefactors. "(3) Stab wound. depth. 12 cms. fracturing the 9th right thoracic rib along the midclavicular line. from the heel. Accused-appellant was in addition ordered to indemnify the heirs of Felipe Climaco in the amount of P50. Joey saw Climaco running towards the swimming pool. No.5 x 12 cms. 31897 with six (6) rounds of ammunitions of still undetermined value. He ran towards the house. measuring 4 x 2 x 12 cms. finding accused-appellant Jimmy Alberca guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Physical Injuries[2] and sentencing him to death. her two sons and their "yaya" (nursemaid). June 26. right scapular region. depth. he heard a gunshot. this City. Conjunctivae.000. "Contrary to law.. [G. Found dead in the garden by the police was one of the intruders. from the heel. slightly towards lateral. rob and carry away the service firearm of FELIPE CLIMACO. Joey opened the gate when he was suddenly attacked by a person whom he identified as accused-appellant. in Quezon City. anterior left upper thorax. wounded. 121 cms. measuring 8 x 2 cms. Arnold Agustin. 11 cms.R. 107 cms. 1996] PER CURIAM: This case is here on appeal from the judgment dated August 11. the above-named accused.5 x 13 cms. thus inflicting upon FELIPE CLIMACO serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death and injuries to JOEY RODRIGUEZ and thereafter said accused with intent to gain.5 cms.5 x 6 cms.00 for the value of one (1) . directed upwards. to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Felipe Climaco. and inside the house he saw Climaco lying on the floor. The information against accused-appellant alleged"That on or about the 11th day of April 1994. [8] The autopsy report[9] showed that he suffered several wounds in various parts of the body. fairly nourished male cadaver." and heavier than Joey and who wore his hair long. Incorporated. 130 cms. Revolver. . directed upwards. 1994. "EXTERNAL INJURIES: TRUNK AND UPPER EXTREMITIES: "(1) Stab wound. from anterior midline. anterior right lumbar region. plaintiff-appellee. to wit: "Fairly developed. 11 cms. Joey Rodriguez of the injuries sustained [sic] and Triad Security & Allied Services. arrived. Inc. Thereafter. accused-appellant. fracturing the 5th right thoracic rib along the midclavicular line. piercing the middle and lower lobes of the right lung. a security guard on his body several times and JOEY RODRIGUEZ. 126 cms. measuring 7 x 2.(29) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. and the police. the amount of P10.000.[4] he was sleeping in the servant's quarters when he was awakened around midnight by the footsteps of Climaco. backwards. thru the muscle tissue. confederating and mutually helping with several others whose true names and real identities have not as yet been ascertained. in rigor mortis with postmortem lividity over the dependent portions of the body. did then and there. At that time. anterior proximal 3rd left arm. including Danilo Saycon. belonging to Triad Security & Allied Services.38 cal. JIMMY ALBERCA. depth. respectively.00 and to pay the Triad Security and Allied Services. lips and nailbeds were pale. from anterior midline. slightly forwards. directed slightly upwards. security guard Felipe "Philip" Climaco and houseboy Joey Rodriguez were in the house. anterior right thorax. Quezon City. He asked Climaco what the matter was ("Ano po ‗yon?") but the latter did not answer as he proceeded to the closet to get a gun. Philippines. Along the way he met another person with a gun in one hand and a knife in the other. Climaco was in pain and asked to be taken to the hospital. Incorporated. "(5) Incised wound. measuring 5 x 1. Intending to ask help from neighbors. towards rnidline. "(2) Stab wound. piercing the loops and mesenteries of small intestines and portal vein. He got up and followed Climaco to the swimming pool where Joey heard shouts. from anterior midline. did then and there.

the prosecution's other evidence established beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant‘s guilt. backwards. thru the muscle tissue. the group went into action. 1994 he proceeded to Barrio Tibagan. "(10) Stabwound.5 x 1 x 5 cms. Ant. (Accused-appellant and his family lived in a house which was just outside the Saycon compound in Tandang Sora. eventually to die from his gunshot wound. The accused-appellant and the group drank two bottles of gin. Accused-appellant then noticed a little man coming from a small room near the gate. April 9.. Accused-appellant claimed that he signed the confession (Exhibits "B-1" to "B-3") because he had been "threatened" with harm if he did not[13] and that Atty. directed slightly downwards. thru the muscle tissue. Atty. Bulacan. anterior proximal 3rd right forearm. "(7) Abrasion. The medico-legal certificate of the attending physician stated that Joey suffered a "stab wound. It held that even without the extrajudicial confession. directed upwards.7 x 0. He was taken to the NBI Headquarters on Taft Avenue in Manila where he gave an extrajudicial confession in the presence of his wife Noemi and of an assigned counsel. "(8) Linear abrasion. All the while.1 cm. "(12) Stab wound. followed by Darius and accused-appellant and then by the three. At around midnight. 11 cms. the group dispersed.6 x 0.. from posterior midline. respectively. 4 cm. measuring 1."(6) Linear abrasion.8 x 5 cms. Hence this appeal based on the following assignment of errors: I THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT DECLARING AS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION EXECUTED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT. x 10 cms. 1994. Diego was left behind. 4 cms. "(9) Linear abrasion. Almar. 4 cms. Abrenica. escaped through the gate.[10] The wound would not have caused his death even if Joey had not been given immediate medical attendance as it did not penetrate his lungs. 1994 in San Miguel. measuring 2. anterior midline.. Lucas and Benny. body. at around 7:00. measuring 3. Diego climbed over the wall. 1994. posterior proximal 3rd right forearm. Accused-appellant stayed in his house until 4:00 in the morning and then left for Pasay City. After the incident. while Darius. "CONCLUSION: "Cause of death is stab wounds. Oscar "Lucas" Clariza and Bengie "Benny" Demson arrived in his house.) Diego and Darius arrived at about 10:00 in the evening. depth. 4 cms. anterior left lumbar region. from anterior midline. 4 cms. "(11) Stab wound. According to accused-appellant.3 cm. measuring 7 x 0. "(13) Incised wound. Diego was Joined by Darius who also stabbed the guard at the front and by accused-appellant who stabbed the guard at the back.. anterior left lumbar region. San Miguel. 5th ICS. On April 13. from anterior midline. towards lateral. Quezon City. [14] Accused-appellant claimed that he could not have committed the crime because at that time he was in San Miguel. Joey was taken to the Quezon City General Hospital. was not his counsel of choice but had merely been provided him by NBI Special Investigator Ramon Yap. posterior middle 3rd right arm. who took the security guard's gun. 1994 to visit an aunt. April 10. they were looking over the wall which separated accused-appellant's house from the Saycon compound ("Sinisilip nila sa pader ang bahay ni Mr. "INTERNAL FINDINGS: "(1) Recovered from the right thorax and abdominal cavity about 1. Saycon"). He followed the man and stabbed him.000 cc and 500 cc of blood and blood clots. in the house of his aunt. axillary line. from posterior midline.[11] Accused-appellant. measuring 0. Bulacan. towards lateral. Jhonny "Almar" Alcober. Greatly weakened by his wound. Diego charged ("sinugod").. where NBI agents eventually found him.8 x 1. accused-appellant said that the plan to rob the Saycons had been conceived by Diego Aruta and Darius Caenghog and that he had been told of it on the night of Saturday. forwards. Accused-appellant then escaped by going over the wall. from anterior midline. having gone there on April 10. depth. 15 cms. posterior proximal 3rd right forearm. The man. 1994. a "taho" vendor. 6 cms. though stricken.2 cms. was able to run inside the house. chest (R)" which would require medical attendance for seven days under normal condition. from posterior midline.2 cm. dorsum of the right hand. Abrenica. II ." On the other hand. [12] In his confession. measuring 6 x 0. measuring 2. Erlando A. embraced the security guard and then stabbed him. the following night.5 x 0.1 cm.. who assisted him in the execution of the confession. But they were noticed by the security guard who shot Diego Aruta. Bulacan. was arrested by NBI agents on April 17. anterior left lumbar region. measuring 5 x 0. [15] The trial court dismissed accused-appellant's alibi. The security guard staggered into the house. Priscilla Dagandang Mabuhay. "(2) Recovered from the stomach 1 glass of partially digested food particles consisting mostly of rice. given on April 19. depth. towards midline. directed upwards.3 cms.

the first part of the document reads: "0. which consists of two parts. marked Exhibit "B". "PAGPAPAUBAYA "Ako ay pinagpayuhan ng aking mga karapatan na manahimik at magkaroon ng sariling abogado. force. nais mo pa rin bang magbigay ng iyong pahayag sa pagsisiyasat na ito at magbigay o magsabi ng katotohanan at pawang katotohanan lamang? S: Opo. T: Pagkatapos mong malaman ang iyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas. xxx xxx xxx Accused-appellant signed a document. written in Filipino. ako po ay kusang loob na magbibigay ng aking salaysay at magsasabi ng katotohanan at pawang katotohanan lamang sa pagsisiyasat na ito. threat. ERLANDO ABRENICA at ang aking asawa na si NOEMI J. nauunawaan mo ba ito? S: Opo.incommunicado. that any statement he gave could be used against him in court. intimidation. 1. Art. sir. ikaw ba ay nakahanda na lumagda sa kasulatang pagpapaubaya sa mga karapatang mong ito? S: Opo. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. violence. marked Exhibit "B-4.THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE UNRELIABLE. Naririto po ngayon si Atty. at matapos na ikaw ay paliwanagan ng iyong abogado na si Atty. ERLANDO ABRENICA at ang aking asawa na si NOEMI ALBERCA na siyang aalalay sa akin sa pagbibigay ko ng aking salaysay na ito. .1 TANONG: Bago and lahat. PASTOR SAYCON sa #99 Tandang Sora Avenue. Nauunawaan ko po at nais ko pong magbigay ng aking salaysay. Thus. Secret detention places. sir. Quezon City. 12. "04. "02. ikaw ay bibigyan namin ng isang abogado na may sapat na kakayahan para pangalagaan ang iyong karapatan. T: Ibig ko rin ipaalam sa iyo na ikaw ay may karapatang magkaroon o kumuha ng iyong sariling abogado na pili mo at kung ikaw naman ay wala at hindi mo kayang magbayad ng isang abogado upang tumulong sa pagsisiyasat na ito. T: Kung gayon. Pagkatapos kong marinig at maintindihan ang aking mga karapatan sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas. solitary. ito ba ay naiintindihan mo? S: Opo. na ikaw ay may karapatan na manahimik at huwag magbigay ng anumang pahayag sa pagsisiyasat na ito at anumang pahayag na iyong sasabihin ay maaaring gamitin laban sa iyo sa harap ng ating husgado. 1994 sa tahanan ni MR. "(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution provides in part: "Sec. sir. T: Nais ko rin na ipaalam sa iyo ang iyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng ating saligang batas. 0 3. that he had a right to retain counsel of his choice and that if he could not afford to hire the services of counsel he would be given a competent and independent one. Lubos ko itong naiintindihan at nais kong ipaubaya ang mga karapatan kong ito kaharap ang aking abogado na si Atty. Nais kong magbigay ng aking kusang loob na salaysay at alam ko rin na anumang aking sasabihin sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay maaaring gamitin laban o pabor sa akin. sir. naiintindihan mo ba ito? SAGOT : Opo. nais kong ipaalam sa iyo Ginoong JIMMY ALBERCA Y MABUHAY na ikaw ay aming iniimbistigahan sa kasong Robbery with Homicide na nangyari noong madaling araw ng Abril 11." shows that accused-appellant was informed that he had a right to remain silent and not to give any statement. sir. ABRENICA kaharap ang iyong asawa na si NOEMI ALBERCA Y JATULAN. he must be provided with one. "(2) No torture. or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. After being thus informed. IMPLAUSIBLE AND UNPERSUASIVE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND IN DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE PROFERRED BY THE DEFENSE. he said he was nonetheless willing to give a statement and tell the truth. Naiintindihan ko. ALBERCA. The first part. III THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. ERLANDO A. (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. "05.

He did so in the presence of his counsel. was made to sign under duress. Atty. Nantes. given the fact that as already stated. this document was signed not only by him but also by his wife. what is noteworthy is not the prosecution's failure to present Atty. which is his confession. Greenhills. and that he had been given time to look for one. Accused-appellant makes much of the fact that Atty. Abrenica was not presented by the prosecution. contrary to what is recited in the document. was not his counsel of choice. What he claims is that the constitutional rights stated in the document were not read to him because he was merely forced to sign that document. He is joined in this regard by a dissenting member of the Court who contends that Atty. Erlando A. pinilit o pinangakuan ng anumang bagay o may ginawa laban sa akin na makakagambala sa aking malayang pagpapaubaya. and of his wife Noemi Jatulan Alberca. arguing that in any event it does not appear from the document signed by accusedappellant that he was informed that it was his right to have a competent and independent counsel of his own. This is improbable. however. What was necessary was to assure him that if he could not afford to hire the services of counsel he would be provided by the investigator with a lawyer who was competent and independent. In this case accused-appellant does not claim he did not understand what the document states. But his part of Exhibit "B" was signed and thumbmarked by accused-appellant. the rights were not read to him and that Atty.[16] it was also alleged by the defense that accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession should have been excluded from evidence because the counsel. Llenaresas. who assisted him in waiving the constitutional rights. Abrenica. Erlando A. Additionally. ERLANDO A. ABRENICA #5 Goldhill Tower. Another member of the Court also dissents. fatal to the case of the Prosecution since the testimonies of the police officers and of Prosecutor Pedro S. Question No.the assigned counsel does hot have anything more to do. who assisted him in executing his confession. "(SGD) JIMMY ALBERCA Y MABUHAY "Nilagdaan sa harap ni: "(SGD) NOEMI ALBERCA Y JATULAN "CERTIFICATION "THIS IS TO CERTIFY that Affiant JIMMY ALBERCA Y MABUHAY voluntarily waived all his right under the law after the same were satisfactory explained to him including whatever consequences his statements may do. Abrenica. apart from the second part. 3 (quoted above) shows that accused-appellant was told that it was his right to have counsel chosen by him and that if he could not afford to hire one. ikaw ay bibigyan namin ng isang abogado na may sapat na kakayahan para pangalagaan ang iyong karapatan. we held: "It is true that the prosecution did not present Atty. did not testify in court. too. But beyond seeing to it that the suspect in custodial investigations had been informed of his constitutional rights and that he understood these rights before he waived them-and thus insure that the waiver was knowing. Abrenica but accused-appellant's failure to call on his wife to corroborate his allegation of coercion. were quite adequate to sustain the conclusion reached by the trial court. Hindi ako tinakot.. voluntary and intelligent . Erlando A."Nauunawaan ko ang aking mga karapatan at nakahanda akong sumagot sa anumang mga katanungan. Abrenica should have been presented in order to testify on the extent of services he had rendered to accused-appellant. in conjunction with the statements found in the extrajudicial confession itself." Indeed. ("[I]kaw ay may karapatang magkaroon o kumuha ng iyong sariling abogado na pili mo at kung ikaw naman ay wala at hindi mo kayang magbayad ng isang abogado upang tumulong sa pagsisiyasat na ito. that he had been asked whether he had one. which was . San Juan.") It was unnecessary to tell accused-appellant that he had a right to have a counsel of his choice who was competent and independent since he was told he could choose his own counsel. Rejecting this contention. Meliton Angeles as a witness to confirm his presence during the custodial investigation of Jabil and Llenaresas. In People v. he would be given a competent counsel in order to protect his rights. Annapolis St. accused-appellant does not claim that she. Metro Manila" Accused-appellant claims that. (SGD) Atty. accused-appellant affirmed the document before the Assistant City Prosecutor. After all. Such failure is not.

SAYCON na nasa kabila lamang ng pader ng aking tirahan. the investigator Ramon Yap and the Assistant City Prosecutor conspired to railroad him to conviction. this would render his confession inadmissible under paragraphs (2) and (3) of Section 12. which makes it improbable that it was not voluntarily given. before answering the questions of the investigator. 1994. The confession comprises the second part of the document marked Exhibit "B". Bandang alas 10:00 ng gabi ay dumating na rin sina DIEGO at DARIUS sa aking bahay. This is evident in the following portion of the confession: "09.[20] Indeed to disregard the foregoing circumstances and give credence instead to the accused-appellant's claim that he was forced to sign his confession would be to suggest that accused-appellant's wife." OSCAR CLARIZA @ "Lucas. Although accused-appellant claims that he told the prosecutor that the content of the extrajudicial confession was not true. Kinabukasan araw ng linggo. He did not even say what he was told would be done to him if he refused to sign the confession. Neither did he say who allegedly made the threat. intimidation or force used against him to make him sign the confession and waiver of rights. Atty. Noemi was never presented to corroborate accused-appellant's claim that he had been threatened into signing the confession. "10." Sila po ay nagtuloy sa aking tinitirhan at doon pa po sila naghapunan. Habang kami ay nag-iinuman ay panay ang labas nila DIEGO at DARIUS at sinisilip nila sa pader ang bahay ni Mr. bandang alas 7: 00 ng gabi ay dumating sina JHONNY ALCOBER @ "Almar. Abrenica. He made this claim twice in his testimony in the trial court. The confession of accused-appellant in the case at bar is replete with details. noong ika-11 ng Abril 1994? S: Ang nasabi pong bahay ay aming pinasok. Abrenica as the counsel he wanted to assist him in making the waiver. who signed the confession as witnesses thereto. However. araw po ng Lunes. bandana alas dose ng tanghali ay nagplano sina DIEGO ARUTA at DARIUS CAENGHOG sa aking tinitirhan sa 101 Tandang Sora Avenue. III. On the contrary. Nonetheless he willingly gave a statement in order. (c) The NBI investigator Ramon Yap testified on the due execution of the extrajudicial confession and on the fact that accused-appellant was informed of his constitutional rights but he waived his rights and decided to proceed with the investigation. He did not say he was beaten up or subjected to third degree methods. (d) On April 22. Quezon City na papasukin at pagnanakawan ang bahay ni Mr. which is the waiver of constitutional rights. accused-appellant was taken to the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The presence of Noemi could only have worked to prevent accused-appellant's will from being overborne by pressure. at nilooban at ninakawan. once during his direct examination [17] and again in his crossexamination. before whom accused-appellant affirmed his confession. Ang plano ni DIEGO ay pasukin namin ang bahay ni Mr. according to him. 1994. However. [19] He denied that the confession had been prepared beforehand and that accused-appellant was simply made to sign it. Like the first part. Quezon City. which lasted morning and afternoon of April 19. accused-appellant was informed in Filipino of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel of his choice and warned that any statement he gave could be used against him. T: Maaari mo bang isalaysay ng maigi ang mga pangyayari? S: Noon pong araw ng Sabado. There is therefore no basis for the plea of accused-appellant that his extrajudicial confession should have been excluded from the evidence because it was obtained in violation of his rights under Section 12 of Art.[18] If true. PASTOR SAYCON doon sa #99 Tandang Sora Avenue. Atty. to tell the truth. the assigned counsel.what was done in this case. the second part was also signed by him. T: Kung gayon. the following circumstances belie his claim that he had been coerced into signing the confession: (a) Accused-appellant signed the confession (Exhibits "B-1" to "B-3") in the presence of his wife Noemi Jatulan Alberca and counsel. Erlando A. Kami po tatlo nila DIEGO at DARIUS ay uminom ng dalawang boteng Ginebra habang sina ALMAR. 1994. Sinabi nila ito sa akin bandang alas 7:00 ng gabi noon ding po Sabadong iyon. Abrenica. LUCAS at BENNY ay nagpapahinga sa itaas ng bahay ko. Accused-appellant also claims that he signed the extrajudicial confession because he had been "threatened" with harm if he did not. 1994 pero nainip po sina DARIUS at ALMAR at sinabi nila na pasukin namin ang nasabing bahay ng bandang alas dose. noong mga bandang alas dose ng madaling araw ng Abril 11. he does not claim that he complained of any threat." ." at BENGIE DEMSON @ "Benny. (b) As already noted. petsa 9. apart from saying that he was "threatened. Saycon ng bandang ala-una petsa Abril 11. Saycon." he did not elaborate as would naturally be his wont had he really been coerced to sign his confession. maaari mo bang sabihin sa akin sa pagsisiyasat na ito ang iyong mga nalalaman na may tungkol sa nangyari sa bahay ni Mr. Nor was it necessary to ask him whether he had counsel or give him an opportunity to look for counsel since he had waived the right to counsel and pointed to Atty. with his wife by his side. let alone intimidation. petsa Abril 10. 1994. Noemi. 1994.

[26] Joey could not. It is not necessary that the person robbed be the same person whom the malefactors originally intended to rob. [25] The premises were sufficiently illuminated by light coming from the terrace of the house and from the MERALCO street light which made identification of the accused-appellant possible. 1994 that he gave his statement to the NBI. (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. he is liable because of the rule in conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all. [35] Moreover. the crime committed is the complex one of robbery with homicide. what the prosecution lacked by way of an eyewitness was made up by the circumstantial evidence in the record of this case. .[32] This accused-appellant failed to do. In fact it would seem that Alcober. Abitona. Bulacan and Tandang Sora. In People v. It was held that the crime was robbery with homicide. He claims that he went to San Miguel. (3) Climaco died due to multiple stab wounds. Don Julio Gonzaga. Quezon City. found his testimony to be truthful and we find no reason to disregard its finding on this matter. therefore. For the defense of alibi to prosper. On the other hand.[39] facts or circumstances which are not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but also inconsistent with his innocence. 4 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.[27] Aborque was also a "taho" vendor. [23] In this case.Accused-appellant claims that this portion of his confession was supplied by Ramon Yap.[36]As provided in Sec. constitute evidence which. While accused-appellant and his companions failed to rob the Saycons. In this case it is established that (1) accused-appellant was present at the scene of the crime. Aborque testified that he saw accused-appellant in the latter's house with three male visitors at around 7:00 p. As for the contention that it was only on April 16. 1994 he was in San Miguel. [31] In any event the trial court. Furthermore. and even an hour less if traffic is not heavy. As noted in People v. Bulacan at the time of the crime was contradicted by prosecution witness Joselito Aborque. he could have easily returned to Tandang Sora later the same day. He engaged accusedappellant in a fight and was stabbed by the latter. According to him.[29] Aborque denied he and accused-appellant were business rivals.[37]and (5) accused-appellant fled to Bulacan thereafter. Upon the facts thus established the Court is convinced that accused-appellant is guilty of robbery with homicide. have been mistaken as to the identity of accused-appellant. they fled without being able to take anything from the house. Joey was a houseboy of the Saycons. except that the prosecution agreed that if presented their testimonies would corroborate accused-appellant's alibi. Ga. and his wife and houseboy and seriously wounded his daughter and. the NBI investigator. Bulacan in the morning of April 10 and stayed there until he was picked up by NBI agents on April 17. Caenghog was from Carigara. They killed the house owner. Clariza and Demson were accused-appellant's townmates because it was to Barogo. of April 10.[38] It is logical to infer from all these circumstances that accused-appellant was among those who inflicted fatal wounds on Climaco. The defense tried to discredit him by imputing to him a desire to eliminate a competitor since they were both "taho" vendors and by pointing out that Aborque had given his statement to the NBI five days after the crime.m. the three fled after the crime.[40] the accused planned to rob a house at Forbes Park in Makati. He claims that at the time of the commission of the crime on April 11. as shown by the concerted manner in which accusedappellant and his companions entered the Saycon compound and later withdrew from it and the way they attacked the security guard and the houseboy. Accused-appellant does not deny that he knows these persons. the distance between San Miguel. Since the group in addition killed the guard. however. which had the opportunity to observe this witness' demeanor. a neighbor in Bulacan. as well as Isa Joson.[21] Accused-appellant would have called on his relatives Priscilla Dagandang Mabuhay and Antonio Dagandang. a point on which the defense harps. the fact is that they took the gun of the security guard for the purpose of gain. 2. Instead they took a wristwatch and transistor radio belonging to a houseboy. circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if (a) there is more than one circumstance. can be negotiated in two and a half hours. 1994. it is sufficient to say that the reluctance of some people to be involved in criminal trials is a matter of judicial notice. Yap would not know who the members of the group were if accused-appellant did not give their names. as help was coming. accused-appellant must establish by clear and convincing evidence not only that he was not present at the scene of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been present there at the time of its commission. 1994 [28] as he (Aborque) and his wife went out for a stroll. Bulacan. according to the confession. also in Leyte. Accused-appellant's defense is alibi. Failure to volunteer what one knows to law enforcement officials does not necessarily impair a witness' credibility. this would not be enough for him to testify falsely against accused-appellant. to testify. may surpass even direct evidence in its effect upon the court. even assuming that accused-appellant really went to Bulacan in the morning of April 10. (4) bloodstains were found on the wall separating the Saycon compound from the house of accused-appellant. It is true that none of the witnesses for the prosecution testified having seen accused-appellant stab Felipe Climaco.[24] He did not know accused-appellant personally but neither was the latter a "total stranger" to him.[33] Hence. where according to the confession.[30] Even if they were. His flight is evidence of his guilt. Leyte. where the Saycon compound is.[34] There was conspiracy in this case. Regardless of the part of accused-appellant in the stabbing of the guard and the wounding of the houseboy. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. For the fact was that accused-appellant's house was just outside the Saycon compound. the claim that accused-appellant was in San Miguel. positive identification of accused-appellant was made by Joey Rodriguez. He was a neighbor of accused-appellant.[22] Now the rule is settled that the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused. (2) he had a bladed weapon in his possession and displayed a readiness to use the same when he stabbed Joey Rodriguez. 3. in weight and probative force.

which took effect December 31. (People v. They evidently knew that Abdulmonim had a firearm in his house. Pamintuan." In another case. the three turned to him and ganged up on him. 9. 7659. Nevertheless. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons . Thus. they would have robbed the victim of his guns the first time they came. It is immaterial that homicide preceded the robbery where robbery was the real motive of the culprits.[43] three individuals were creating trouble in a store. 62.[42] the accused. People v. or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: '1. killing jail guards and taking firearms from the armory. In People v." But the contention was dismissed. is hereby amended to read as follows: 'Art. Sr. Guillermo Lopez. In the case at bar. while the accused took the victim's service pistol which was tucked in his waist. The gun was first taken from the victim before he was killed. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.. The testimony of Lourdes Santos clearly shows that there was an intent to rob the victim of his gun. It was contended that the taking of the gun was a mere afterthought and that to prove robbery with homicide the prosecution must show that the robbery preceded the killing. one of whom was the accused. Republic Act No. Now as to the penalty. when by reason or on occasion of the robbery. in People v. escaped from jail. They were found guilty of robbery with homicide. Indeed. When a policeman across the street was summoned for help by the storeowner." 4.Penalties. Balanag.[44] three individuals. left with the advice that they would return. the crime of homicide shall have been committed. Lopez's daughter.Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: '1. amended Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code as follows: "Sec. The accused took the service revolver of the policeman and shot him and then fled with the gun. Gapasin 145 SCRA 178). when told that he was asleep. the trial court said that the groups' purpose in looking for the victim was to "confront [him] about something.In People v. Genoveva. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Article 294 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 'Article 294. An hour later they returned. Nor is it necessary to show that the sole purpose was robbery and by reason thereof homicide was committed. as amended. . They talked with the victim outside his house and after awhile one of the trio shot the victim. and then killed him for having filed a case against one of the accused. Article 62 of the same Code. apart from the handgun tucked in his waist. we held: "The contentions of the accused-appellant are untenable. They fled after taking with them a shoulder bag of Dr. It was contended that robbery was not the primary motive because if this had been their intention. Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is robbery with homicide not only when "by reason of the robbery" homicide is committed but also when "on the occasion" thereof homicide is committed. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency . this Court said: "[T]here is no reasonable doubt that a principal (though not necessarily the only) objective of the malefactors was to take away the firearms in the possession of the deceased policeman. Finding the accused guilty of robbery with homicide. while appellant pulled out the handgun from Abdulmonim's waist. 23. 1993. Hasiron. Tolentino."' It provides in Section 23: "SEC. Jerry Hayudini promptly and unerringly went inside the Aspi house and secured the M-16 armalite. The gun was then taken away and hidden. who were detention prisoners.[41] the accused entered the house of Dr. another one went inside his house and took his M-16 Armalite. went to the house of the victim and. the special complex crime is deemed committed. whether or not the taking was before or after the death of the victim is of no moment in this case. the accused intended both to take the gun and kill the victim. . This was also held to be robbery with homicide. If robbery and homicide are committed on the same occasion. In rejecting this contention.

and even if they are members of the syndicate. that is another matter. they will not be held liable. "My question is: Would the same situation not arise if we say that conspiracy would qualify the offense instead of having a syndicated crime here where the member of the syndicated group. Mr. the syndicated crime is something like an offense by a group actually for gain purposes. "Senator Guingona. of course. Well. but of crimes. under the principle of conspiracy. not only a particular crime. All the members. as amended. well. President. But in the case of a syndicated crime. That is a conspiracy. the trial court imposed on accused-appellant the death penalty. . which is the essence of a syndicated or organized crime group. We can have that as a proposal later on. May we know the difference between the offense committed by a syndicated crime group and one which is committed by conspiracy of two or more persons. We hold that the trial court erred in finding that accused-appellant and his companions constituted a syndicated or an organized crime group within the meaning of Article 62. President. I think. So that if two or more persons get together and decide to commit one crime only. The following exchange between Senator Tolentino and Senator Guingona during the deliberation on what is now Art. Yes. there is a big difference between the conspiracy and the syndicate. All right. that is the only difference. that is not necessarily so. that is not a syndicate. The difference.'1(a). "Senator Guingona. while such organization is not required in the case of mere conspiracy. if there is a conspiracy to sell prohibited drugs. in the case of a band that means all of them participate in the commission of the offense. That is why under the circumstances. "Senator Tolentino. maybe one member of the group alone commits a crime. only those who actually commit the offense would be the one liable for this aggravating circumstance. So. x x x"' On the basis of these provisions. In case of conspiracy. there is no proof that they were a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain. They are all liable equally. but there is no aggravating circumstance. Two or more persons just agree to commit a crime. but as can be gleaned from the answer of the distinguished Sponsor. while in the case of a syndicate there is a group that is actually organized for crime purposes. When the commission of the crime. "Now. "xxx xxx xxx "Senator Guingona. So that. is that in the case of syndicated crime. 62. But in the case of a syndicate. "xxx xxx xxx "Senator Guingona. 'The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. the liability of the seller would be equally applied to the liability of the financier or to the importer. the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances. Mr. "Senator Tolentino. "Senator Guingona. How about the difference between the syndicated group and a band in case of specific crimes against persons and property? "Senator Tolentino. if the idea of the distinguished President Pro Tempore is to make the mere fact of conspiracy an aggravating circumstance. who does not participate. advantage was taken by the offender of his public position. "Senator Tolentino. That is not a syndicate. the group is an organized group. But mere conspiracy does not constitute a syndicate as conceived in this provision that we are presenting. confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime. the concept here is a group that is organized for commission of crimes. I think the concept of syndicate here is different from conspiracy. Two or more persons may conspire to commit robbery. 'An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating. While it is true they confederated and mutually helped one another for the purpose of gain. "Senator Tolentino. But if they are not syndicate. is not liable? "Senator Tolentino. while in the organized group one or two members may commit the crime. four or more participate in the commission of the offense. we have a conspiracy. That is a particular offense. paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code is enlightening:[45] "Senator Guingona. there is no aggravating circumstance. Those who know but do not participate are not principals.

Since the votes of the five (5) Justices fall short of the majority of eight (8) votes needed to affirm the sentence of death of the trial court. The idea of this proposal is that this group actually engages in the commission of crimes. There are different crimes committed by a single group that is organized for that purpose. This is sufficient in order that the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity may be held to exist. Because that means. "Here is a syndicate that may commit one crime now. not just a particular crime."Senator Guingona. 32 Phil. and it is up to the individual person to put up the defense and say: 'I did not know. while two (2) do not think it should. It is really a crime group. apply that and say that conspiracy will now be considered as the qualifying aggravating circumstance? In that way. Mr. we already increase the penalty. Of these six. (U. To them it is clear that accused-appellant and his companions waited until it was midnight of April 10. All the time. death) must be imposed on accused-appellant. 7659. Maybe." What emerges from this discussion is the idea of a group of persons. Even viewed objectively. There was a conspiracy to commit robbery but not a syndicated or organized crime group. another crime tomorrow. "As in the case already mentioned by the distinguished Gentleman. whenever there is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a particular crime at one time. expressed different reasons for their dissents.’ we just have to say 'who is a part of conspiracy. no. "Senator Guingona. One said: . but I was only doing something that I thought was confined to this. there is no evidence that they were organized for the purpose of committing crimes for gain. Clariza and Demson) arrived at 7:00 o'clock in the evening of April 10. four (4) believe that nighttime should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. at least two in number. Alcala:[46] "While it does not positively appear that the accused sought the nighttime for the perpetration of the crime. They waited until midnight before they did.S. the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on accused-appellant in accordance with Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code. paragraph 2. there is a syndicate. Precisely. five (5) of whom believe that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime should have been appreciated by the trial court. Evidently accused-appellant and his group were waiting until the occupants of the house had retired for the night. I was a part of the syndicate. As held in People v. As earlier noted. In the case at bar. Can we not change or instead of amending the conspiracy concept. the penalty for which is composed of two indivisible penalties. Still the group did not strike.. the fact is that they at least took advantage of it. as amended by Republic Act No. not in a particular instance. The foregoing is the opinion of nine (9) members of the Court. I do not think the Gentleman can raise that to a level of making it an aggravating circumstance because there is no reason for it. three of accusedappellant's companions (Alcober. which is organized for the purpose of committing crimes for gain. do not agree that nighttime was sought in this case in order to facilitate the commission of the crime and therefore they vote to impose on accusedappellant the penalty ofreclusion perpetua. 1994 before carrying out their plan. in accordance with Article 63. the group was looking over the wall.. for they approached the house at an early time. vs. But the group did not then go into action.)" Since there is no mitigating circumstance to offset the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. while holding that accused-appellant is guilty of robbery with homicide. President. Must there be more than one offense planned? "Senator Tolentino. another group commits the crime of planting drugs. Billedo. we mean an agreement between two or more persons to commit a particular crime. in the opinion of the five (5) Justices the greater penalty (i. Two (2) of the six (6) Justices. the greater penalty should be imposed. the possibility of resistance from the occupants of the house and help from the neighbors was considerably diminished. the better to ensure its success. The remaining six (6) other Justices believe that accused-appellant is guilty only of the separate crimes of homicide and physical injuries. At 10:00 o'clock the other two (Aruta and Caenghog) arrived to join the group. with whom the other four (4) concurred (so far as the two find the crimes committed to be homicide and physical injuries). while the evidence shows that accused-appellant and his companions planned to rob the Saycons. 574. 1994 in the house of accused-appellant. That is not the idea of this. but one group commits the crime of selling. another crime two days afterwards. several in the future. and yet they did not commit the crime until late in the night. On the other hand.' "Senator Tolentino. four (4) of the Justices.’ that will not carry the intent of this provision. it can be said that nighttime greatly facilitated the commission of the crime because with people asleep. if what the distinguished Gentleman means that instead of 'who belongs to an organized or syndicated crime group. The reason in the syndicated crime is that it is practically a profession that is being adopted by a group.e. 1 which provides that when only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of an offense. another group commits the crime of importing. all will have the same liability. "But when we talk of conspiracy.

Atty. it behooves this Court to be strict in safeguarding the right to counsel of the accused. Galit (135 SCRA 465 [1985]). It can spell the difference between life and death. x x x They failed to consummate their conspiracy because of the intervention of security guard Felipe "Philip" Climaco and houseboy Joey Rodriguez. Hasiron are different from the case at bar. so far as it finds the accused-appellant guilty of robbery with homicide is. . accused-appellant cannot be held liable for theft because that is not the object of the conspiracy. x x x he should only be convicted for the separate crimes of homicide and physical injuries. Indeed. However. When the crime is heinous and punishable by death. Atty. Tolentino and People vs. x x x "The facts in People vs. Neither was he asked whether he has a counsel of his choice.' The warning given to the accused-appellant in the form of two paragraphs falls short of this requirement. import." [2] "My reading of the PAGPAUBAYA suggests that he waived not just the right to remain silent but also the right to counsel. Abrenica appears to belong to this variety." [3] "Even assuming that the extrajudicial confession spoke the truth and was not extracted by means of violence or intimidation. Climaco died while Rodriguez sustained serious physical injuries. the group had no intention of robbing Climaco of his gun. On the occasion of said attempted robbery. Before they entered the premises. he remained as a mere stolid witness to an act of a lowlytaho vendor. x x x For generally. The rule is that conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. In those cases. and consequences of the waiver. His act was merely an afterthought. the denial of the accused-appellant's right to a competent and independent counsel or the absence of effective legal assistance when he waived his constitutional rights rendered the confession inadmissible pursuant to Section 12(3). AFFIRMED with the modification that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed on him for lack of necessary votes to affirm the death sentence. x x x" WHEREFORE. Abrenica did nothing as a procured lawyer. one of the companions of accused-appellant. it was held that to satisfy the constitutional guarantees accorded a person under custodial investigation. accused-appellant and his companions stabbed Climaco and Rodriguez. Be that as it may.[1] "In People vs. The evidence shows that the group only conspired to rob the Saycon residence." [2] "Even assuming that the appellant was not denied the right to counsel. as can be gleaned from his certification. He was not informed by the investigator of his right to a competent and independent counsel of his choice. the decision of Branch 104 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. 'there should be several short and clear questions and every right explained in simple words. The police practice of calling any lawyer on-sight to assist a suspect under custodial investigation should be discontinued. SO ORDERED. x x x "The taking [by another malefactor] of Climaco's gun constitutes theft. he did not even appear during the trial to enlighten the court of the extent of his legal services to the appellant. It was only Darius. x x x "The taking of Climaco's gun cannot be complexed with the stabbing of Climaco and Rodriguez to constitute robbery with homicide. nor was he given an opportunity to look for one. Article II of the 1987 Constitution. these on-sight lawyers give their services free and understandably lack the enthusiasm to defend the rights of an accused. [The Constitution] requires of the counsel a meaningful presence consisting of a sincere effort to explain further to the subject the significance. which could seal the latter's destiny with death." The other said: [1] "The NBI ought to have given him reasonable opportunity to get a lawyer of his confidence thru his family or friends before extracting his confession. who seized Climaco's gun after they had killed him. the intent to rob the victims is clear and the killing was only incidental to the robbery. x x x The records do not show how well he advised appellant of his rights.

J. respondents. a 42-year old driver. you have the right to remain silent and the right to the presence and assistance of a counsel of your own choice. [G. 1980 in Saypon.00 as actual and compensatory damages. 5 Aballe also made an extrajudicial confession admitting his guilt in killing Jennie while under the influence of liquor and marijuana. 3 At daybreak of the following day. 4 Also taken from Aballe was the bloodstained red and white striped T-shirt which he claimed he wore during the commission of the crime. orally admitted that he killed Jennie Banguis. 17 years old. Branch II. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE JUDGE BERNARDO V. Davao City. A Peter Paul Aballe y Mendoza. November 8. Toril. Any statement you may give may be use (sic) for or against you in court in the future. Marante. Q Are you willing to waive all these rights? A Yes sir. Marante subsequently brought him to the Toril police station for interrogation. Crossing Bayabas. C. Q Are you aware on why you are in this Office? . Q If so will you please state your name and other personal circumstances. SALUDARES. a school dropout (he finished second year high school) and next door neighbor of the victim. Cause of death was attributed to hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds. . you are under investigation in connection with an offense. There were no eyewitnesses to the bizarre killing. Sgt. While under custodial investigation. do you understand? Do you waive all these rights? Answer: Yes sir. the accused without anyone asking him. Upon seeing Sgt. . Aballe. finding petitioner Peter Paul Aballe y Mendoza guilty of homicide and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal with all the accessory penalties and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jennie Banguis y Aquino in the amount of P12. No. Quirino found Jennie in the sala. lying prostrate. Under our New Constitution. petitioner.000. L-64086 March 15.(30) PETER PAUL ABALLE Y MENDOZA. 17 years old. . vs. Q After apprising you of your rights under our new Constitution. They found him just as he was coming out of the communal bathroom in Saypon and wearing what appeared to be a bloodstained T-shirt. Aballe. bathed in her own blood with multiple wounds on different parts of her body. leaving his 12-year-old daughter Jennie alone in their house. attended a birthday party at the residence of his neighbor Aguilles Mora. Toril. single. brought the police to his house and pointed to them the pot at the "bangera" where he had concealed the death weapon which was a four-inch kitchen knife.: This is a direct appeal from the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Davao City. a high school drop out. 1990] FERNAN. Quirino Banguis. The postmortem report disclosed that Jennie sustained a total of thirty-two (32) stab wounds. 6 The sworn affidavit in the main reads as follows: Preliminary Question: Mr.000. 1980. acting on information furnished by the victim's father. Davao City. jobless and presently residing at Saypon.00 and to pay the amount of P5.R. 1 At around seven o'clock in the evening of November 7. He brought along his wife and other children. a police team headed by Sergeant Herminigildo Marante sought the accused Peter Paul Aballe for questioning. 2 Upon their return at around 8:30 that same night. do you still wish to proceed with this investigation? A Yes sir.

Aballe contends that the trial court erred in giving full weight to his extrajudicial confession taken during custodial investigation and in imposing a penalty which was not in accordance with law. (Investigator showing the subject a kitchen knife measuring about (4) inches in length with a wooden handle and a striped T-shirt with blood stains) can you identify this ( sic)? A That is the very same knife sir I used in stabbing JENNY BANGUlS and that was the T-shirt I wore during the incident. 8 At his arraignment on April 13. the trial court convicted the accused of the crime of homicide. 1981.A I am here sir in connection with the death of a minor JENNY BANGUIS Y AQUINO. The argument that Aballe's extrajudicial admission should have been disregarded by the lower court for having been obtained in violation of Aballe's constitutional rights is well taken. Q Are you willing to affix your signature in this statement signifying veracity to the best of your knowledge and belief ? A Yes sir. the accused's parents and relatives were almost always around but at no stage of the entire proceedings was it shown that the youthful offender was ever represented by . Aballe's repudiation of his earlier confession notwithstanding. 10 In this petition for review on certiorari. . Q What do you know about the death of the said JENNY BANGUIS? A I was the one who killed her sir while she was sleeping alone at their residence by stabbing her with the use of a kitchen knife for several times while I was under the influence of liquor and marijuana at about 6:30 P. where did you go? A I went to watch television at the residence of one Alias Ma at Saypon. 7 Whereupon. Q You mean to say that you just stabbed her because she slapped you when you woke her up? A Yes sir. November 7. charging him with homicide penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. 1980. Q After you have stabbed her. 1980. . Throughout the custodial interrogation. he pleaded not guilty. for I only stabbed her when she slapped me after I woke her up at their residence where she was sleeping alone. Crossing Bayabas. 9 He also disavowed his extrajudicial confession on the ground that it was obtained through coercion and in the absence of counsel. Q I have no more to ask. Toril. and I was not at my right sense for I was under influence of liquor and the marijuana I took.00) per match box. Q Showing you this kitchen knife and this blooded ( sic) T-shirt. . Q Do you have any standing grudge with the said JENNY? A No sir. Davao City and I only knew that the said JENNY BANGUIS was dead the morning after and I was apprehended by the Police and was brought to this office.M. an information was filed against Aballe. . Q Where did you get the said marijuana you were referring to? A From one alias Dodong Flores who sold it to me for Fifteen pesos (P15. do you have something more to say in investigation? A No more sir. our neighbor in the night of November 7.

sir. being in the nature of an evidence in plain view 15 which an arresting officer may take and introduce in evidence. Q: This subject you are referring to Sgt. who is he? A: Peter Paul Aballe. Together with the extrajudicial confession. . or which may be used in evidence in the trial of the cause . ah. Q: And what did you find out? A: Somebody told us that the subject was still in a common bathroom so I posted myself outside the bathroom.counsel. is admissible. It is well to note that even before the taking of the extrajudicial confession. whether de oficio or de parte. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution." 16 But even with the exclusion of the extrajudicial confession and the fatal weapon we agree with the trial court that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt. upon being picked up in the morning of November 8. Q: Is he the accused? . Q: And could you tell us of any unusual incident? A: The father of the deceased came to the office and he told us that he suspected somebody whom he observed to be suspicious so we responded immediately to the call of assistance of the father and went back to the scene of the incident and asked for the whereabouts of the person whom he confided to us the name. . where were you at that time? A: At the police station. the accused. equally inadmissible is the kitchen knife 13 recovered from Aballe after his capture and after the police had started to question him. and the waiver of counsel was not made with the assistance of counsel as mandated by the provisions of Section 20. The testimony of Sgt. the fatal weapon is but a fruit of a constitutionally infirmed interrogation and must consequently be disallowed. 1980. Marante. The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction is that "an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any money or property found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping. 14 however. xxx xxx xxx Q: And after finding out that . said confession should have been discarded by the lower court. Q: And did that person come outside? A: Yes. suddenly broke down and knelt before Sgt. His testimony reads in part: Q: In the morning of November 8. Since the execution of the extrajudicial statement 11was admittedly made in the absence of counsel. The bloodstained T-shirt. 12 Indeed. . Marante and confessed that he killed Jennie Banguis. 1980 as he was coming out of the communal bathroom and wearing a T-shirt covered with bloodstains which he tried to cover with his hands. by the way. Marante on Aballe's oral confession is competent evidence to positively link the accused to the aforesaid killing. where was the bathroom? A: It was a common bathroom located just a few meters away from infront of his house. xxx xxx xxx Q: And when you found out that the subject was still in the bathroom what did you do? A: I waited until he came out. .

held my hand. Q: And also the T-shirt? A: Yes sir. while he was inside or already outside the bathroom? A: He was coming out. Q: What else? A: The T-shirt with bloodstain. xxx xxx xxx . Q: Aside from the admission of the accused in this case what other physical objects of the crime were you able to recover? A: I was able to recover the fatal weapon. xxx xxx xxx Q: When did you apprehend the accused. And in the course. Q: Where is the knife now? A: In the possession of the desk officer in Toril. Q: Where? A: From the house of the accused. sir. the knife. what other procedure followed? A: The accused was indorsed to the office investigator to take down the statement of said accused. Q: So after interviewing the accused. Q: Who gave it to you? A: The accused himself. At the police station the mother later arrived and I told her that your son confessed to the commission of the crime. knelt down and confessed that he was the one who killed the victim and I said you stop that because whatever you will say now might led ( sic) you to jail and he continued and so I asked him where is (sic) his parents and the mother was nowhere to be found and I asked for his relatives and they accompanied him to the police station. Q: And in the station what did you do per your procedure? A: As I was appraising (sic) him or asking him in front of her ( sic) mother I still repeated the same thing. I appraised (sic) him if he needs a lawyer and he said he does not need a lawyer because he just wanted to tell the truth. Q: What happened next? A: I saw bloodstains in his T-shirt and I pointed to the bloodstain and he tried to cover it and I notice again that he had a swollen knuckle — and I asked him what is this and then he broke down. I called the desk officer to record what he mentioned as to the commission of the crime.A: Yes.

" 18 The rule is that any person. For being only 17 years. Q: You just answer the question. 4 months and 8 days of age at the time of the commission of the offense. a fact overlooked by the trial court. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim. The killing of Jennie is mitigated by minority (the accused was born on June 29. 20 The penalty decreed by the lower court must however be modified. Marante you immediately asked or rather you informed the accused immediately of the death of Jennie Banguis after getting out of the bathroom? A: He confessed to me. the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed on the accused but always in the proper period. the penalty is imposable in its maximum period or from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years or prision mayor maximum. A: Yes. Q: Without even introducing yourself at that time is was only after bringing the accused to the police station did he know that you were a Deputy District Commander of the police in Toril? A: Probably yes. I did not. dwelling is considered generic and cannot therefore offset minority which is a privileged mitigating circumstance. The civil indemnity is increased to P30. the range of the penalty next lower is from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional. Q: Mr. WHEREFORE. . whereby the accused orally admitted having slain the victim.000.Q: What was he wearing? A: T-shirt with bloodstain on the breast that is why I asked him immediately what is this and I pointed to the bloodstain. (23 C. 196) 19 Compliance with the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation is not applicable to a spontaneous statement. Costs against the accused Peter Paul Aballe. 17 "The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offenses charged may be given in evidence against him. I was in civilian. the appealed judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED with the penalty modified to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum. 21 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.S.00 in accordance with recent jurisprudence. Q: At that time were you in your police uniform? A: No. otherwise competent as a witness. who heard the confession. is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. Not having been alleged in the information. sir. Q: So without informing him about it as you said he immediately confessed. With the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. but given in an ordinary manner.J. not elicited through questioning. The imposable penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. but in such case it must be given in its substance. 1963). SO ORDERED. but it is aggravated by dwelling since Jennie was fatally stabbed while in her parents' house. did you inform him? A: No.

otherwise a court's jurisdiction starting at the banning of the trial may be lost in the course of the proceeding. If. As far back as Abriol v. presided by respondent Judge. at the hearing on June 3. in the opinion of respondent Judge. Homeres. 10 a 1949 decision. which did not contain a provision similar to Section 20 which adopted the Miranda doctrine. 1 Clearly then. but briefly stated. before whom a written statement of the accused Paquito Yupo and his alleged waiver of his right to remain silent and to be assisted by a counsel of his own choice was taken. In the language of Chief Justice Warren: "Our holding win be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow. either retained or appointed. was interrogated extensively in Tagalog.(31) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. provided the waiver is made voluntarily. as noted above.R. an information for murder against Paquito Yupo y Gonzales. without his having been assisted by counsel. The defendant may waive effectuation of those rights. and PAQUITO YUPO. 6 After this witness had Identified the statement of the accused and the waiver. it must be intelligently waived. as the statement was taken by the police without any counsel assisting the accused in the investigation. with the case. Prior to any questioning. There was. relying on the leading American case of Johnson v. [G. and his common-law wife. the Court rules that there is no bar to such a waiver if made intelligently and voluntarily. CAGUIOA Judge.: It is not easy to make out a case of improvident exercise of authority on the part of a lower court when the assailed actuation was clearly inspired by a desire to adhere to the literal and explicit mandate of the Constitution. 146-V-73. respondents. 11 made clear that while there could be a waiver of the rights of an accused. through Justice Ozaeta. which was docketed as Criminal Case No. he was questioned on the incriminating answers in such statement to the police. 1973. however. Rodolfo Tribol. decided under the 1935 Constitution. Manguera 2 does not apply. HON. An even more telling circumstance against such alleged waiver being given credence was that private respondent. According to the petition. this Court. the prosecution presented Corporal Conrado Roca of the Meycauayan Police Department. then nineteen years old. it is this: the prosecution may not use statements. intended to buttress and fortify the right against selfincrimination. that any statement he does not make may be used as evidence against him. Zerbst. 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. 4 The trial of the case then proceeded. no showing having been made that his acquaintance with the language was such that he could fully understand the import of what was asked him. the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed on September 14. vs. the source of this constitutional provision. L-38975 January 17. 1973. The questioning was rather perfunctory. knowingly and intelligently. Certiorari does not lie. the prosecution having presented six witnesses. Miguel Tribol. that any utterance may be used against him and that he has the right to the presence of a counsel. Caguioa sustaining the objection of the defense to questions asked a witness based on an alleged extrajudicial admission by an accused private respondent Paquito Yupo. after the raffle. the suspect being warned prior to questioning that he has a right to remain silent. 1980] FERNANDO. That is the difficulty confronting the prosecution when it filed this certiorari proceeding resulting from respondent Judge Eduardo P. 8 He likewise stated that such right could not be waived. emphasized that statements made during the period of custodial interrogation to be admissible require a clear intelligent waiver of constitutional rights. he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking. By custodial interrogation. the accused pleaded not guilty. the following measures are required. 1973.J. 1. 13 decided in 1966. Arizona. during a police interrogation conducted on July 18. 5 Then. was not susceptible of waiver. Court of First Instance of Bulacan. stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. The petition must be dismissed. Lydia Begnotia who allegedly received the ante mortem statement of the victim. 3Upon arraignment on October 5. there can be no questioning. 9 Upon his refuse to reconsider such ruling. . in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent. It was not shown that the alleged waiver was given freely and voluntarily. the petition was filed. it appearing that the accused was not assisted by a counsel when it was given. being assigned to Branch VIII. contending that there was a waiver. 12 The landmark opinion of Miranda v. with full understanding of its consequences. 1974. C. a clear failure to abide by the express prohibition in the fundamental law against the possibility of any confession obtained from a person under investigation without his having been informed of his right to keep silent and to have the benefit of counsel. this petition was filed. but there was an objection on the part of the defense counsel based on the ground of such statement being inadmissible in evidence. When he remained firm in his stand. the leading case of Magtoto v. a native of Samar. 7 Respondent Judge sustained the objection of the defense on the view that such judicial confession of the accused is inadmissible in evidence for being unconstitutional. On the specific question of whether or not the right to counsel during custodial interrogation interrogation may be waived. No. Branch VII. the interrogation having taken place six months after the effectivity Of the present Constitution. and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney. EDUARDO P. a grave abuse of discretion being imputed to him. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed. petitioner. including the father of the deceased. 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 prosecution would deny its applicability. Respondent Judge was of the view that this innovation in the Constitution. either retained or appointed. whether exculpatory or inculpatory.

. People v. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions 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 with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned. It is clearly inadmissible. halting. the private respondent. it is "inadmissible in character. a Visayan. siya ay nagbigay pa rin ng salaysay . magsasalaysay ka pa rin ba?" 15 Then came the monosyllabic answer Opo. The point at issue was whether there was an improvident plea of guilt. there was a statement that it was a certified true copy by a certain Teresita M. Anumang iyong sasabihin ay maaring gamiting katibayan laban sa iyo. Admittedly. it did not cure the fatal infirmity. The day when it was subscribed and sworn to. and one fully conversant [only] with his native Visayan. The trial of the case is ordered to be resumed forthwith No costs. the same observations can be made. ikaw ay may karapatan na huwag magsalita kung ayaw mo at may karapatan ka rin na magkaroon ng abogado na iyong gusto at dapat mo ring mabatid na anuman ang sabihin mo dito ay maaaring gamitin ng ayon o laban sa iyo.. Bacong 17 stands as a warning against imputing to an accused an understanding of the proceeding when the language used is one with which he is not familiar. . Tecson. therefore.. In that case. the failure to submit to this Court the alleged signature of private respondent may be indicative of the fear on the part of counsel for petitioner that the absence of education of the nineteen-year old private respondent would be apparent. pero hindi po ako masyadong marunong. binata tubo sa San Policarpio.. Eastern Samar ang nasa ibaba nito '[Ikaw ay sinisiyasat ngayon dahilan sa paglabag sa batas. presumably signed by the same people and certified by the same Tecson. and the interrogator was satisfied with the monosyllabic Opo... Mendoza. Tested by such a clear and unequivocal standard. They may not become a cloak for inquisitorial practices and make an empty form of [constitutional rights]. and show a difficult and laborious effort to write the letters of his name. To quote from that eminent civil libertarian Justice Douglas: "Formulas of respect for constitutional safeguards cannot prevail over the facts of life which contradict them." The lower court. 19 na taong gulang. there was an effort to ascertain whether the accused could read and write in Tagalog' In this case. Solicitor General Estelito P. At ikaw ay may karapatan sa tulong at sa pagharap ng abogado na iyong napipisil sa habila ng kabatiran ni [Paquito Yupo ng mga nilalaman ng nasa itaas. Again. the police may not question him. This is apparent from his statement thus: "26. Roca of the Police Force of Meycauayan." 16 Could it be their way of trying to impress on a court the fact that there was an in waiver? If so. ." 19 WHEREFORE. otherwise. It was stressed in the brief filed on behalf of the accused that he " 'is an ignorant and illiterate person. ipinaalam at naintindihan ni Paquito Yupo y Gonzales].. if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated. the petition for certiorari is dismissed. There were only illegible letters. The strokes of his signature are irregular. which allegations had been the subject of various interpretations of our courts. . 3. bago ko ipagpatuloy ang pagtatanong sa iyo. allegedly before Municipal Judge Mariano Mendieta was not even specified... ang tangi ko pong naiisulat ay ang aking pangalan " . in lieu of appellant's brief filed a manifestation admitting that there was an improvident plea of guilt and that judgment should be set aside. There was a perfunctory opening statement asked by a certain Corporal Conrado B. perhaps indicating that they were the initials. We cannot expect the accused to have fully understood the legal signification of these qualifying circumstances. The doubt that must have occurred to the police officials of Meycauayan is evident from their submitting a one-page statement. At any rate. was asked a kilometric question in Tagalog. There was no signature.." 14 2. the alleged waiver falls far short. T Marunong ka bang bumasa at sumulat ng wikang tagalog? & Naka uunawa po ako sir. reading in fun as follows: " [Sa sinumang Kinauukulan lpinabasa. worded thus: "Ipinaaalam ko sa iyo na ikaw ay sinisiyasat tungkol sa isang paglabag sa batas na iyong ginawa. That was ala Even the very annex submitted to the petition merely stated that there were signatures of private respondent Yupo. . and a certain Roberto Sales.Likewise. it cannot be denied that to predicate a waiver under the circumstances disclosed would be to nullify the plain command of the constitutional provision requiring that a confession to be admissible must be given only if the accused were informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel. In his signature on file with this Honorable Court.' " 18 As a matter of fact in that case. Also. An observation and closer look [at] his signature indeed reveals that the accused is an illiterate and unschooled person.. a neophyte in the national penitentiary. the aforesaid Roca. the accused is a Visayan and still a neophyte in the national penitentiary who does not understand well Tagalog. Karapatan mo ang huwag magsalita. . acted in accordance with the plain dictate of the Constitution. Rather the contrary. whose connection with the case or with the court was not even shown.

Aided by the illumination coming from a pressure lamp ("petromax") inside the store. also saw appellant Jose Malimit (or "Manolo") rushing out through the front door of Malaki's store with a blood-stained bolo (TSN. p. Rondon was to purchase chemical for his rice farm (TSN. pp. 15). 16-17). p. Malaki's houseboy Edilberto Batin. it was only on September 17. 2 was meted by the trial court 3 the penalty of reclusion perpetua.. went back to the store. 1992. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AS EVIDENCE THE WALLET AND ITS CONTENTS ALTHOUGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LEAD TO ITS PRODUCTION WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. Batin had just finished cooking and from the kitchen. p. 24). they saw the lifeless body of Malaki in a pool of blood lying prostrate at the floor. charged with 1 and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. 4 In this appeal. Batin. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Onofre Malaki the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50. Inside. Batin immediately went out of the store to seek help. 1992.). vs. May 22. Rondon came from his house. 19). 109775 November 14. 22). appellant questions the credibility of prosecution witnesses Florencio Rondon and Edilberto Batin by pointing out their alleged delay in revealing what they knew about the incident. 1996] FRANCISCO. to wit: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE UNRELIABLE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES ON THEIR ALLEGED IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME DESPITE THE FACT (SIC) THEY REVEALED THEIR ALLEGED "KNOWLEDGE" OF TH6E CRIME MORE THAN FIVE MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT. p. accusedappellant. who was outside and barely five (5) meters away from the store. appellant asks for his acquittal alleging that the trial court committed the following errors. Meanwhile. on the other hand. while his boss. and to pay the cost. Florencio Rondon. He posits that while the crime took place on April 15. [G. June 19. around 8:00 o'clock in the evening. a farmer. along with Beloy. 1991. 14). 1992. 6 In his first assignment of error. 1991 when these witnesses tagged him as the culprit. Rondon. p.. 199 (sic). Outside the store. was sprawled on the floor "struggling for his life" (hovering between life and death) (Ibid. he met Rondon (TSN. [Onofre] Malaki was attending to his store. bathed in his own blood. was busy cooking chicken for supper at the kitchen located at the back of the store (TSN. and duly supported by the evidence on record: On April 15. p. 1992. As Batin stepped inside the store. No. After a brief conversation. 14). he proceeded directly to the store to ask his employer (Malaki) if supper is to be prepared. plaintiff-appellee. arrived at the store of Malaki.R..(32) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Beloy readily noticed that the store's drawer was opened and ransacked and the wallet of Malaki was missing from his pocket (Ibid. . May 22. June 9. 5 The following is the recital of facts as summarized by the appellee in its Brief. JOSE ENCARNACION MALIMIT alias "MANOLO".00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Soon thereafter. J. he was taken aback when he saw appellant coming out of the store with a bolo (TSN.000. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.: Appellant Jose Encarnacion Malimit. Rondon clearly recognized Malimit (Ibid. p. both Batin and Rondon rushed to the nearby house of Malaki's brother-in-law Eutiquio Beloy and informed Beloy of the tragic incident which befell Malaki. 1991. approximately one hundred and fifty (150) meters distant from Malaki's store (Ibid. 29). June 9.

27 It does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence. was merely the date 7 when Rondon and Batin executed their respective affidavits. 19 And although the rule admits of certain exceptions. then. In his second assignment of error. 25 Likewise. 13 Besides. 22 (2) his identification card. 16 is of judicial notice. (1) Malaki's residence certificate. As to appellant's claim of delay. suffice it to state that extant from the records are ample testimonial evidence negating appellant's protestation. 1991 carrying a bolo stained with blood and rushing out of Malaki's store. We are not persuaded. however. admission of his guilt. The aforementioned date however. Wigmore. its presentation as evidence is not indispensable. Appellant haphazardly concluded that Rondon and Batin implicated the appellant to this gruesome crime only on September 17. viz. as in this case. 11 Next. appellant asseverates that the admission as evidence of Malaki's wallet 21together with its contents. The right against self-incrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law finds no application in this case. it is not merely compulsion that is the kernel of the privilege. . viz: (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. discussing the question now before us in his treatise on evidence. Rondon and Batin immediately looked for Eutiquio Beloy. against his will. if appellant believed that he was not identified therein. Section 12. but also for his physical control in whatever form exercise. but testimonial compulsion 28 Neither are we prepared to order the exclusion of the questioned pieces of evidence pursuant to the provision of the Constitution under Article III. 1991. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. . and defy the authority of the law to employ in evidence anything that might be obtained by forcibly overthrowing his possession and compelling the surrender of the evidential articles — a clear reduction ad absurdum. . Entries in the police blotter are merely corroborative evidence of the uncontroverted testimony of Batin that he identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime before the Silago police. . . to wit: (1) after having discovered the commission of the crime. said: If. he was not informed of his constitutional rights. 17 At any rate. wherein he pointed to the investigating policemen the place where he hid Malaki's wallet. or after the lapse of five months from commission of the crime. namely: (1) when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court. 12 We do not believe. or (2) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence. As such. appellant derided the non-presentation by the prosecution of the police blotter which could prove if appellant was indeed implicated right away by Batin to the crime. the consistent teaching of our jurisprudence is that the findings of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses are given weight and the highest degree of respect by the appellate court. he must be provided with one. 18 This is the established rule of evidence. then he should have secured a copy thereof from the Silago Police Station and utilized the same as controverting evidence to impeach Batin's credibility as witness. Justice Holmes in Holt vs.. as put by Mr. with all the tools and indicia of his crime. . If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. 8 narrating that they saw the appellant on the night of April 15. 23 and (3) bunch of keys. Malaki's brother-in-law. Neither was its non-presentation in court fatal to the prosecution's case. 14 Having failed to do so." It is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the [accused]'s own lips. . In other words. and informed him that appellant was the only person they saw running away from the crime scene. conduct and attitude at the trial. United States. that it was necessary for the prosecution to present as evidence a copy of the aforementioned police blotter. in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only for his [physical control of his] own vocal utterances. 1991. 20we found none in this case. 24violates his right against selfincrimination. appellant cannot now pass the blame on the prosecution for something which appellant himself should have done. this fact alone does not render their testimony less credible. thus. The non-disclosure by the witness to the police officers of appellant's identity immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not entirely against human experience. 10 and (3) Batin again made a similar statement later at the Silago Police Station. 9 (2) Beloy and Batin reported the crime with the CAFGU detachment in their barangay where Batin declared that it was appellant who robbed Malaki on that fateful night. as the matter of assigning values to the testimony of witnesses is a function best performed by the trial court which can weigh said testimony in the light of the witness" demeanor. This right. is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion. to extort communications from him . 26 ". appellant sought for their exclusion because during the custodial investigation. it would be possible for a guilty person to shut himself up in his house.We find these contentions bereft of merit. xxx xxx xxx . Even assuming arguendo that Rondon and Batin identified the appellant only on September 15. 15 In fact the natural reticence of most people to get involved in criminal prosecutions against immediate neighbors.

37 and (5) appellant's flight and his subsequent disappearance from Hingatungan immediately after the incident. infractions thereof render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation. Surprisingly. 43 In fine. He claims that they had just arrived from a gambling spree allegedly in the house of a certain Maui Petalcorin. accompanied by some policemen. Our close scrutiny of the record reveals otherwise. we ruled that there can be a verdict of conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the accused. Nevertheless. As the defense of alibi is weak in view of the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses. the wallet is admissible to establish the fact that it was the very wallet taken from Malaki on the night of the robbery. defined and penalized under Article 294. at the time of its commission. SO ORDERED. holding a bolo in his right hand and rushing out of Malaki's store seconds prior to their discovery of the crime. Neither did he execute a written waiver of these rights in accordance with the constitutional prescriptions. as to why appellant should fear being implicated in the crime if indeed he merely found Malaki's wallet by chance. identification card. even assuming arguendo that these pieces of evidence are inadmissible.) xxx xxx xxx These are the so-called "Miranda rights" so oftenly disregarded by our men in uniform.(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Sec. to the exclusion of all the others. retrieve Malaki's wallet underneath a stone at the seashore in Barangay Hingatungan. WHEREFORE. (Emphasis ours. on the other hand. We. 1991. therefore. are admissible to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki. 29 is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation. Concededly. appellant's version of the story does not inspire belief. No inference can be drawn from appellant's purported apprehension other than the logical conclusion that appellant had knowledge of the crime. (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. now come to appellant's third assignment of error where he demurs on the prosecution's evidence.. no evidence to negate this possibility was ever adduced by him at the trial. Appellant's insistence that he merely found Malaki's wallet by chance while gathering shells along the seashore. Appellant must likewise demonstrate that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or in its vicinity. as the killing of Malaki took place on the occasion of robbery. hardly inspires belief. paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. secondary to severe external hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds". 38 On the other hand. as in fact. these constitutional short-cuts do not affect the admissibility of Malaki's wallet. 31 In this case. He maintains that on that fateful night he was in his house together with his wife. The identification card. 32 specifically: (1) appellant was seen by Rondon and Batin. 1991. the same must comply with these essential requisites. 30 In order that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to convict. or any other person who may have seen the appellant in the said place. there were at least five (5) circumstances constituting an unbroken chain of events which by their "concordant combination and cumulative effect". the defense did not bother to call appellant's wife to the witness stand to corroborate appellant's alibi. if only to provide a semblance of truth to this assertion. however. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 42 It was. and that he feared being implicated in the crime for which reason he hid the wallet underneath a stone. proof that appellant was in his house when the crime was committed is not enough. 40 Furthermore. 36 (4) appellant himself admitted in his testimony that on August 6. just as the trial court was.39 it becomes weaker because of the unexplained failure of the defense to present any corroboration. residence certificate and keys found inside the wallet. the appealed judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. The admissibility of other evidence. proof that appellant is in possession of a stolen property gives rise to a valid presumption that he stole the same. appellant himself admitted that his house was just about eighty (80) meters away from the house of Malaki. as the perpetrator of the crime. 35 (3) witness Elmer Ladica saw the appellant on August 6. We are at a loss. Furthermore. 41 In this case. Thus. (a) there is more than one circumstance. residence certificate and keys for the purpose of establishing other facts relevant to the crime. whose credibilities were untarnished. However. provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules. the same will not detract from appellant's culpability considering the existence of other evidence and circumstances establishing appellant's identity and guilt as perpetrator of the crime charged. viz. . shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. 33 (2) Malaki sustained multiple stab wounds 34 and he died of "cardiac arrest. Time and again. Besides. satisfy the requirements for the conviction of the appellant. Neither did it present as witness Maui Petalcorin. not impossible for him to have been physically present at the place of the commission of the crime. contending that they are insufficient to sustain his conviction. 17 hereof. appellant was not informed of his right to remain silent and to have his own counsel by the investigating policemen during the custodial investigation. appellant was correctly convicted by the trial court of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. he accompanied several policemen to the seashore where he hid Malaki's wallet.

[7] Meanwhile. a public officer.m. upon seeing Pasicolan going towards Amorsolo St. the accused. Atty. 109242. Marcelo. [G. Metro Manila. Romero. steal and carry away from the Central Post office of Makati one bag containing assorted mail matters some of them containing U. Jacinto Merete. ROMERO and LITO MARCELO. and with intent of gain and without the consent of the owners thereof. J. Jacinto Merete. [8] At that point. Unaware of the arrest of Romero and Marcelo. Many of them. . MARCELO. 1989. disclosed to his chief. They were subsequently notified by the Bureau of Posts to claim their letters. They were just in time to see Pasicolan handing over the mail bag to Marcelo and Romero.R.S. did then and there wilfully. and Redentor Aguinaldo. SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.[2] Among those mentioned by Merete were Arnold Pasicolan.. Tumagan accompanied a team of NBI agents composed of Senior Agent Arles Vela and two other agents in a private car. unlawfully and feloniously with grave abuse of confidence. who were later identified as Ronnie Romero and petitioner Lito Marcelo. They stayed at the corner of Adelantado and Gamboa Streets. Redentor Aguinaldo. while two other teams of NBI agents waited at Amorsolo Street. Pasicolan then passed through an alley between Esguerra and Montepino Buildings going towards Amorsolo St.00. assorted mail matter) to a travelling bag. an emergency laborer assigned as a bag opener in the Printed Matters Section. after proper identification.[12] The names of the addressees were listed. a postal delivery jeep.e. Projecto Tumagan.: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Lito Marcelo from a decision of the Sandiganbayan (First Division)[1] convicting him and two others of qualified theft. The latter transferred the contents of the mail bag ( i. driven by one Henry Orindai. Merete stayed inside the jeep. On February 17. 1989. they were not able to find him there. CONTRARY TO LAW. NBI Director Salvador Ranin dispatched NBI agents to Legaspi Village following a report that the group would stage a theft of mail matter on that day. The passengers of the postal delivery jeep were Arnold Pasicolan. THE HON. Philippines. [6] Montepino Building is adjacent to Esguerra Building. a letter carrier in the Makati Central Post Office.. 1999] MENDOZA. Henry Orindai. The two then secured the bag to the back of their motorcycle. The two are separated by the alley. a mail sorter of the Makati Post Office. being then an Emergency Laborer assigned as bag opener at the printed matters section of Makati Central Post Office. they passed by the Makati Central Post Office. or its peso equivalent in the amount of P11.[11] The unsorted mail seized from Marcelo and Romero consisted of 622 letters. Upon reaching Amorsolo St. in the Municipality of Makati. were able to claim their letters. 1989.(33) LITO C. No. and Pasicolan were asked to affix their signatures on the envelopes of the letters.[4] Esguerra Building is located between Adelantado and Amorsolo Streets.. ARNOLD PASICOLAN. Dollar Bills in the aggregate amount of $500. both private individuals. to the damage and prejudice of the different addressee (sic) or the government in the aforesaid mentioned (sic) amount. Some letters contained money. and taking advantage of his official position by having access to the mail matters in conspiracy with accused RONNIE S. Sacaguing and Arles Vela arrested the two accused. moved their car and started towards Amorsolo St.m. The information against them alleges: That on or about February 17. They did so in the presence of the members of the NBI Administrative and Investigative Staff and the people transacting business with the NBI at that time. and the driver. Philippine Currency. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. the existence of a group responsible for the pilferage of mail matter in the post office. was parked in front of the Esguerra Building on Adelantado Street. take. January 26. They arrived at Legaspi Village at about 1:00 p. The facts established during the trial show the following: On February 10. vs. respondents.[5] Pasicolan alighted from the jeep bringing with him a mail bag.[3] At 2:00 p. Tumagan sought the aid of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in apprehending the group responsible for mail pilferage in the Makati Post Office.. Pasicolan gave the mail bag to two persons. For this reason. Pasicolan went back to the postal delivery jeep and proceeded toward Pasay Road. the NBI team led by agent Vela.000. Adelantado and Amorsolo Streets are parallel to each other. The NBI agents followed the postal delivery jeep. near the Esguerra Building.[9] The NBI agents brought Pasicolan. However. Merete likewise described the modus operandi of the group. petitioner. [10] On their way to the NBI headquarters. overtook it. and Romero to their headquarters. and arrested Pasicolan. They also brought along with them the motorcycle of Romero and Marcelo and the bag of unsorted mail found in their possession. Marcelo. intending to arrest another suspect.

and his co-accused Arnold Pasicolan were one in saying that it was their first time to see him and Romero on February 17. Ronnie Romero y Santos. as maximum. the Court imposes upon Arnold Pasicolan y Mabazza the penalty ranging from EIGHT (8) years. earthquake. or any other calamity. the Court finds the three accused. Likewise. Hence. regardless of whether the offender is a postal employee or a private individual. guilty.000. Thus. Jacinto Merete. and Lito Mercado [should be Marcelo] y Cruz. The letters were found to contain three (3) one dollar bills. Projecto Tumagan. the Sandiganbayan found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of qualified theft. and 100 dollars. On March 8. He contends that since he is not a government employee. a check for twenty-five dollars. Those letters which were not claimed were opened in court in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Applying again the Indeterminate Sentence Law and there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances. the crime is qualified theft. the Court imposes upon Ronnie Romero y Santos and Lito Marcelo y Cruz. only a government employee may be held guilty of qualified theft unless a private individual was shown to have been in conspiracy with him. it was only on February 17. as the subject of the pilferage was mail matter. one (1) twenty dollar bill. and herein petitioner Lito Marcelo were charged with infidelity in the custody of documents. at the then exchange rate of P22 to US $1. can be held liable of qualified theft. This much is clear from Art. vehicular accident or civil disturbance. he and Romero were not around nor were their names mentioned. petitioner points out. We cannot understand petitioner‘s theory that.[15] The addressees agreed to leave the envelopes of the letters with the NBI. typhoon. 50. and ELEVEN (11) days of reclusion temporal.[16] Arnold Pasicolan. Accordingly. . beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft defined in Article 310. were worth P11. the penalty ranging from SEVEN (7) YEARS. and ONE (1) day of Prision mayor.According to Director Ranin. they required the accused to do this in order to identify the letters as the very same letters confiscated from them. as principals. First. Petitioner says that since the subject of the alleged pilferage was mail matter. as minimum. 1993. if committed by a domestic servant. in conjunction with Articles 308 and 309. presumably of the postal service. fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire. and TWENTY-ONE (21) days of prision mayor. Ronnie Romero. The case was later withdrawn and another information for qualified theft was filed before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner says that although he and Romero knew each other. and fifty (50) Saudi Arabian riyals. or with grave abuse of confidence. in utter disregard of his constitutional right. it is mail matter. it is not necessary that petitioner be shown to have been in conspiracy with a government employee in order to hold him liable for qualified theft. (2) Respondent Honorable Court erred in admitting as evidence of petitioner‘s guilt the letters signed by the accused during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel. one (1) five dollar bill. conspiracy was proven in this case.[13] NBI Director Ranin allegedly saw US dollar bills in various denominations of 20. 310. of the Revised Penal Code. SIX (6) months. four (4) months. In this case. Hence. if converted to Philippine pesos. as long as the thing stolen is one of those enumerated in Art. The dispositive portion of its decision reads: WHEREFORE.00. as maximum. 1989. to eleven (11) years. to THIRTEEN (13) YEARS. EIGHT (8) months. Be that as it may. Arnold Pasicolan y Mabazza. ¾ The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article. ONE (1) month. applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of public position. only a government employee. or if the property stolen is motor vehicle. and ONE (1) day of prision mayor. the instant petition for review on certiorari based on the following assignment of errors: (1) Respondent Honorable Court had wrongly made the crucial finding against petitioner that he has committed the act charged in conspiracy with each other. What makes the theft of mail matter qualified is the fact that the subject thereof is mail matter. The petitioner argues that there is no evidence to prove that he was at any time in conspiracy with the members of the syndicate inside the post office. In fact. NBI agent Arles Vela testified that petitioner was instrumental in transferring the contents of the mail bag which Pasicolan handed to them to their travelling bag and that afterward petitioner and his co-accused Romero tied the bag to their motorcycle. volcanic eruption. [14] Vela and the other NBI agents stated in their affidavits that there were dollar bills in the letters which. mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. 1989 that they saw each other again in order to see a movie. 310 of the Revised Penal Code which provides: Qualified theft. as minimum. then he cannot be charged or held guilty of the crime as there is no proof that he conspired with a postal employee. in the meeting allegedly conducted by the members of the syndicate.

CRUZ Q What was the reason why you were asked by Ronnie Romero? A He wanted me to go with him to see a movie. Petitioner Marcelo showed no sign of surprise or hesitation when Pasicolan handed the mail bag to him and Romero. Q A Q And what happened next? While we were there I told Ronnie Romero I had to buy cigarette from across the street and after a while. And when Romero and Marcelo were arrested for receiving the mail bag. who likewise testified that Romero and Marcelo transferred the contents of the mail bag to their bags.. ATTY.Vela‘s testimony was corroborated by Projecto Tumagan. that when Pasicolan handed four envelopes to Romero. a person identifying himself as an NBI agent arrested them. when the postal delivery jeep stopped near Esguerra Building along Adelantado Street. Not even a whimper of protest was heard from them. .. Tumagan said that the contents of the mail bag were transferred to one ―other bag‖ — implying that there was really just one bag involved. he got the bag and he and Romero then transferred its contents to their travelling bag.‖ . the defense should have confronted Tumagan with this inconsistency and asked him to explain. and he said. in effecting the delivery.. Ronnie called me I saw somebody handing him about four pieces of envelopes. . Pasicolan did not ask if Romero and/or Marcelo were the person or persons sent to receive the mail bag. sir. Q What was your reply? A I told him ―yes. These facts indicate that the three accused already knew each other and were fully aware of what each had to do. Although Tumagan said petitioner and Romero had two bags. Q While at Taguig. on the other hand. and Romero and Marcelo. No words were exchanged between Pasicolan. ―this will not take long‖. thus indicating he was in conspiracy with them. Q What happened next Mr. What is important is that Tumagan corroborated Vela‘s testimony that petitioner helped in putting the letters in their bag. Petitioner acted in concert with Pasicolan and Romero. For its failure to do so. sir.. they said nothing to the NBI. the defense cannot for the first time raise the point in this appeal. ATTY. Thus. I will go with you. anyway I have to go to my work at 10:00 o‘clock in the evening.. Pasicolan alighted bringing with him a mail bag. thus contradicting Vela‘s testimony that petitioner and his co-accused had only one bag. JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA Q What time was this when you were asked by Ronnie Romero? A 1:00 o‘clock in the afternoon. he was across the street buying cigarettes. during the cross-examination. about half an hour. As the Sandiganbayan said: The accused appear to have committed the acts charged in conspiracy with each other pursuant to a pre-conceived plan known to all of them to attain a common goal. were you informed by Ronnie Romero that you will be waiting for somebody when you reached Makati? A No. CRUZ Q What was told to you when you reached there? WITNESS A He told me he had to wait for somebody there and I told him to hurry up. on the other. Upon receiving the mail bag they quickly opened it and transferred its contents to a bag which Aguinaldo provided for the purpose. Marcelo testified:[18] ATTY. 1989 in order to see a movie. the inconsistency in the testimonies of these two prosecution witnesses is not really of much importance.. and that when he joined Romero. Marcelo? A Then I rode at the back of his motorcycle and we went straight to Makati. It was apparent he was acting pursuant to a prior agreement because when the mail bag was given to him. passed through an alley beside Esquerra Building. Suddenly we stopped near a building and I asked him what we will do there and he told me he was going to wait for somebody there. ―I thought you said we are going to see a movie‖.. sir. The discrepancy could be due to the fact that these two witnesses were inside a car and were at some distance from the persons they were observing. CRUZ Q So you were asked by Ronnie Romero if you will be reporting for work at that time? A Yes. Q Did he tell you at what place you will see a movie? A No. How would you describe that envelope? . and upon reaching Amorsolo Street handed over the mail bag to Romero and Marcelo who were waiting for him. They appear resigned to their fate after having been caught red-handed. At any rate. [17] Moreover. Petitioner Marcelo claimed that he and Romero met on February 17...

CRUZ: Q You mentioned of an envelope which you claim not to have known the contents of the same. ATTY.. JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA: Q Tell us the circumstances under which you received this envelope? A I received that envelope given to me by Arnold Pasicolan. When you crossed the street was the envelope still being handed or already handed to Ronnie? It was already handed to him. While that envelope was being handed to Ronnie. do not move‖. Were you able to see what was the contents of these envelopes? No. Why do you say that you are not part of the conspiracy. That person who handed the envelope to Ronnie. ―WE are from the NBI. you mean to say you were across the street? Yes. What I will do is get the envelope and bring it to a certain subdivision in Las Piñas and somebody will pick it up and pay me P100. Q When. what do you mean by that statement? A Because. Alright. I. had asked him to meet a person in Makati who would give him an envelope to be delivered to an unidentified person at the BF Homes Subdivision in Parañaque. Q Do you know Arnold Pasicolan prior to and/or before February 17. sir. 1989? A Yes. sir. You can proceed now.. I. CRUZ: Q And do you know a certain person by the name of Redentor Aguinaldo? JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA: Q The accusation against you is that you conspired with your co-accused Arnold Pasicolan and Lito Marcelo in stealing the articles and things stated in the Information. sir. CRUZ: Q When for the first time did you come to know Arnold Pasicolan? A On February 17. CRUZ: Q Now. . do you know him? I do not know him. Q Now. ATTY. I. I. Q If you answer in monosyllable we will not understand. sir. sir. ATTY. where specifically did you come to know him? A At the NBI office. CRUZ: Q Do you know a certain Redentor Aguinaldo? A Yes. sir. JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA: You may not cross-examine. Romero said that Redentor Aguinaldo. Q Now. sir. A No. sir. if you do now know the person to whom you will deliver the envelope. I do not know what was the contents of the envelope. What happened next? After I crossed the street somebody shouted at us identifying himself as NBI. CRUZ: Q Where specifically in the subdivision in Parañaque where you will deliver the envelope? . I.A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A It was like the Manila envelope that we see being used by the elementary grades. Proceed. Your Honor. Proceed. do you know the person to whom you are to deliver the envelope? A No. a mail sorter.. Was there any distinguishing mark in this envelope? No. Romero‘s version is as follows:[19] ATTY. sir..00 for it. And so you crossed the street to reach Ronnie? Yes.. ATTY.. JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA: Q February 17. sir. I. Who gave you the envelope? A Arnold Pasicolan. The foregoing testimony is contrary to the testimony of Ronnie Romero.. tell him to tell us facts. ATTY. 1989? . you tell your story? A Redentor Aguinaldo on February 17 told me that he is going to give me a job..

A ruling that petitioner‘s admission that the letters in question were those seized from him and his companion on February 17. . defined as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way. Q BF Homes subdivision in Parañaque has several vacant lots. Indeed. §12(1). That these letters were the ones found in the possession of petitioner and his companion and seized from them was shown by the testimonies of Vela and Tumagan. . this purpose and petitioner‘s signatures on the envelope. they should be excluded. SO ORDERED. ―Writing is something more than moving the body. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. However. For indeed. Petitioner‘s counsel says that the signing of petitioner‘s and his co -accused‘s names was not a mere mechanical act but one which required the use of intelligence and therefore constitutes self-incrimination. JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA: Q To what particular person will you supposed to deliver it? A I was just asked to go to that place and somebody will approach me. How will the person know that you are carrying an envelope for him. the use of specimen handwriting in Beltran is different from the use of petitioner‘s signature in this case. the letters are themselves not inadmissible in evidence. Where were you supposed to deliver it. It is where I often go. If you cannot explain that. The petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in admitting in evidence the letters signed by him because he was asked to sign them during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel. he must be provided with one. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.A BF Homes. undoubtedly help establish the guilt of petitioner. Petitioner‘s counsel presumably has in mind the ruling in Beltran v. the decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED. To be sure. when coupled with the testimony of prosecution witnesses that the envelopes seized from petitioner were those given to him and Romero.. WHEREFORE. Samson[20] to the effect that the prohibition against compelling a man to be a witness against himself extends to any attempt to compel the accused to furnish a specimen of his handwriting for the purpose of comparing it with the handwriting in a document in a prosecution for falsification. petitioner and his co-accused were not convicted solely on the basis of the signatures found on the letters but on other evidence. 1989 is inadmissible in evidence does not extend to the exclusion from evidence of the letters themselves. §17. [22] Under the Constitution. You enter that subdivision and there will be several persons whom you can see there. the purpose was to show that the specimen handwriting matched the handwriting in the document alleged to have been falsified and thereby show that the accused was the author of the crime (falsification) while in this case the purpose for securing the signature of petitioner on the envelopes was merely to authenticate the envelopes as the ones seized from him and Ronnie Romero. writing is not a purely mechanical act because it requires the application of intelligence and attention. Since these signatures are actually evidence of admission obtained from petitioner and his co-accused under circumstances contemplated in Art.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. The following provisions of the Constitution are invoked by petitioner: Article III.‖ [21] so it was held. Q To make your story more believable. Q So. BF Homes in Parañaque is a very big subdivision. notably the testimonies of NBI agents and other prosecution witnesses. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. In that case. being the fruits of a crime validly seized during a lawful arrest. we will not believe you? A In that subdivision. how will you know what vacant lot to proceed to? A It was pointed to me by Aguinaldo.. The letters were validly seized from petitioner and Romero as an incident of a valid arrest. or the fin gers. petitioner and his co-accused signed following their arrest.. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. that he must be provided with one. The letters can stand on their own. §§12(1) and 17 of the Constitution. Second. Aguinaldo went with you in the morning of that same day and pointed to you the place? A In the morning of that same day and he pointed to me the place. there is a vacant place where there are no houses. Hence. they were at the time under custodial investigation. among the rights of a person under custodial investigation is the right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice and if the person cannot afford the services of counsel. . III. or the hand. However.

aluminum foil. Metro Manila. 135406. respondent. 331 Ortigas Avenue. 05 MARCH 1994 REQUESTING PARTY/UNIT: C. Jr. one big). Exh. yielded negative results. The items which were confiscated were then brought to the crime laboratory of the Philippine National Police (PNP) at Camp Crame. at the second floor of the house.R. as amended. Quezon City for laboratory tests. which were parked inside the compound of the residence of petitioner Gutang. ―A-1‖ – One (1) white film case with dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops weighing 1. which was issued by Judge Martin Villarama. 2000] DE LEON.. Exh.56 grams.4 grams of suspected marijuana fruiting tops contained in a small white plastic. Metro Manila. SPECIMEN SUBMITTED: Exh. three (3) weighing scales. CR No. ―B-1‖ – One (1) Winchester case with white crystalline substance. 2nd SOG NARCOM Camp Crame. Q. Of RA 6425 SUSPECTS: DAVID GUTANG Y JUAREZ NOEL REGALA Y YORRO ALEX JIMENEZ Y ESPINOSA CAREY DE VENECIA Y LOCSIN TIME AND DATE RECEIVED: 1430H. c. h. JR.7 gram of suspected dried marijuana contained in a small plastic container. in connection with the enforcement of a search warrant [3] in his residence at No.(34) DAVID GUTANG Y JUAREZ.70 gram. D-168-94 CASE: Alleged Viol.. When the police operatives of the PNP-NARCOM served the search warrant. f.[5] The PNP-NARCOM team also inspected the cars of accused Regala. The items found inside the car of Regala were also positive for shabu. of the Regional Trial Court. Jr. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. together with Noel Regala. ―B-2‖ – One (1) black case containing several tooters with white crystalline residue. They found a Winchester Rayban case (sunglasses) with an undetermined amount of suspected shabu residues and tooters in a black plastic container and aluminum foil inside the car of Regala. 1994. the following materials were found on top of a glass table inside the master‘s bedroom: a. several transparent plastic bags of different sizes.R. i. two (2) burners (one small. they found the petitioner and his three (3) companions inside the comfort room of the master‘s bedroom. Branch 156. Gutang guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 8 and 16 of RA 6425. PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION: To determine the presence of prohibited and/or regulated drug. about 1. The cars of Jimenez and de Venecia. Exh. Greenhills. Jr. Jimenez and de Venecia. Metro Manila. plastic sealant used in repacking shabu. d. accused-appellant David Gutang. 1998 rendered by the former Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.[4] During the search. about 0. The results of the laboratory examinations showed that the said items found in the master‘s bedroom of the residence of petitioner Gutang were positive for marijuana and methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). respectively. ―A‖ – One (1) white plastic bag containing the following: Exh. The findings are as follows: ―PHYSICAL SCIENCES REPORT NO. petitioner. g. such as tooters. 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. July 11. The assailed Decision affirmed the judgment[2] dated October 13. Alex Jimenez and Oscar de Venecia. 2696-D and 2697-D. ―A-3‖ – Two (2) pieces of improvised tooter with white crystalline residue. Exh. shabu paraphernalias. 19463. . The facts are as follows: On March 5. b. J.C. Jr. (for illegal possession and use of prohibited drugs) as charged in Criminal Cases Nos. San Juan. was arrested by elements of the PNP NARCOM. Pasig. vs. No. Exh. ―A-4‖ – Several foil and small plastic bag with white crystalline residue. finding petitioner David J. ―B‖ – One (1) white plastic bag marked ―ROEL REGALA‖ containing the following: Exh. [G.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision[1] dated September 9. fourteen (14) disposable lighters. ―A-2‖ – One (1) small black box with dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops weighing 0. e.

Exhs. Mrs. EXHIBIT ―D‖. However. 2) In Criminal Case No. ―A-1‖ and ―A-2‖ – POSITIVE to the test for Marijuana. Regala. four (4) months of prision correccional and to pay the costs. Jimenez and de Venecia. petitioner Gutang did not present any evidence. this petition wherein the petitioner raises the following assignments of error: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY SEIZED. ―A-4‖. ―SO ORDERED. petitioner Gutang entered a plea of not guilty. Jr. foregoing considered. 6-8) On the same day. immediately after Gutang. Incidentally. 3) accused NOEL REGALA. likewise pleaded not guilty. EXHIBIT ―I‖ AND EXHIBIT ―R‖. DT -107-94. After trial. 2696-D. II THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN OVERCOME BY PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. ―A-3‖. the informations in Criminal Cases Nos.‖[10] The judgment of conviction of the lower court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence. the dispositive portion of which reads: ―WHEREFORE. AND THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE REPORT NO.[6] After receiving the said request. and are hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor to two (2) years. 1994 on the ground that he voluntarily submitted himself for treatment. pp. EXHIBIT ―M‖ ARE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. the lower court rendered its decision. DT-107-94[7] and Physical Report No. four (4) months of prision correccionaland to pay the costs. Esguerra of the PNP Crime Laboratory asked the four (4) men including the petitioner to give a sample of their urine. 2698-D (Possession of regulated drugs) is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor to two (2) years. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 8 of R. DT-107-94[8] dated March 9. Exhs. Regala and Jimenez. THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE REPORT NO. ―A-1‖ and ―A-2‖ contain marijuana. their office received from PNP-NARCOM which is also based in Camp Crame a letter-request for drug dependency test on the four (4) men. ―A-3‖. 1994. was dismissed by the trial court in an Order[9]dated August 3. joint trial of the cases proceeded. the Court finds 1) accused DAVID GUTANG and ALEXANDER JIMENEZ in Criminal Case No. four (4) months of prision correccional and to pay the costs. . rehabilitation and confinement at the New Beginnings Foundation. ―B-1‖ and ―B-2‖ – POSITIVE to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). March 5. xxx REMARKS: TIME AND DATE COMPLETED: 1630H. Jr. THE CHEMISTRY REPORT NO. D-168-94. a prohibited drug. PNP Forensic Chemist De Villa came out with Chemistry Report No. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 16 (ibid) and are hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor to two (2) years. According to PNP Forensic Chemist Julita De Villa. Exhs. were placed under arrest.A. 1994. ―The items confiscated are ordered forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law. NOEL REGALA and ALEXANDER JIMENEZ. in Criminal Case No. The petitioner and his co-accused complied and submitted their urine samples to determine the presence of prohibited drugs. Consequently. ―A-4‖. DT-107-94. His co-accused. 6425 as amended (Possession and use of prohibited drug). Thereafter. EXHIBIT ―L‖. the charge against accused Oscar de Venecia.FINDINGS: Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave the following results: 1. Or March 1994 (Annex ―A‖. they were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame. Inc. showing that the said urine samples all tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). 2. (otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act) as amended by Republic Act No. a prohibited drug. 6425. After examining the said urine samples. ―B-1‖ and ―B-2‖ contain Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) a regulated drug. 2696-D and 2697-D were filed in court against the petitioner and his companions for violation of Sections 8 and 16 of Republic Act No. a private rehabilitation center accredited by the Dangerous Drugs Board. a regulated drug. Upon arraignment.. 2697-D (Possession) accused DAVID GUTANG. 7659. CONCLUSION Exhs.

papers. both dated March 9. DT-107-94 (Exhibit L) finding the said items seized to be positive for marijuana and shabu. it follows that the Physical Science Reports Nos. It has been held in a long line of cases that the signature of the accused in the Receipt of Property Seized is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. which provides that: Sec. Therefore. which described the properties seized from the petitioner by virtue of the search warrant. Exhibits ―L‖ and ―M‖. the laboratory tests conducted thereon were legally and validly done. The said Receipts for Property Seized. considering that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. an accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or measured. Franklin Moises Mabanag. 1994. [11] The signature of the accused on such a receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged for the reason that. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. mere unexplained possession of prohibited drugs is punishable by law. or his garments or shoes removed or replaced. are also inadmissible in evidence since his urine sample was derived in effect from an uncounselled extra-judicial confession. what the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused. Petitioner claims that the taking of his urine sample allegedly violates Article III. 2. without running afoul of the proscription against testimonial compulsion.e. We are not persuaded. the same being tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is prohibited by the Constitution. said evidence are tantamount to having been derived from an uncounselled extra-judicial confession and.[13] The situation in the case at bar falls within the exemption under the freedom from testimonial compulsion since what was sought to be examined came from the body of the accused. are also inadmissible inasmuch as they are mere conclusions drawn from the said Receipts and hence a part thereof.We affirm the conviction of the petitioner. the said Reports containing the results of the laboratory examinations. i. but not an inclusion of his body in evidence. are admissible in evidence and sufficiently proved that the petitioner used and had the said prohibited drugs and paraphernalia in his possession. Petitioner insists that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence Exhibits ―I‖ and ―R‖. Since the said materials were validly seized or taken from the bedroom of the petitioner in his presence.[14] Assuming arguendo that the urine samples taken from the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence.‖ We agree. when it may be material. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. aside from the testimonial and other real evidence of the prosecution. Petitioner also posits the theory that since he had no counsel during the custodial investigation when his urine sample was taken and chemically examined.. Metro Manila. In fact. Section 2 of the Constitution. [16] Petitioner‘s feeble excuse that he and his co -accused were not in the master‘s bedroom but inside the comfort room deserves scant consideration since the comfort room is part of t he master‘s bedroom. houses. which are the respecti ve Chemistry and Physical Reports. Petitioner further contends that since the Receipts for Property Seized (Exhibits I and R) are inadmissible in evidence. Hence. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. We disagree. Such right is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. even without the Receipts of Property Seized (Exhibits I and R) the alleged guilt of the petitioner for the crimes charged were proven beyond reasonable doubt. head of the said PNP-NARCOM raiding team. which are the Rece ipts of Property Seized. The fact that the Receipts of Property Seized (Exhibits I and R) are inadmissible in evidence does not render inadmissable the Physical Science Reports (Exhibit D and M) and the Chemistry Report (Exhibit L) inasmuch as the examined materials were legally seized or taken from the petitioner‘s bedroom on the strength of a valid search warrant duly issued by Judge Villarama. the signatures of the petitioner on the two (2) Receipts of Property Seized (Exhibits I and R) are not admissible in evidence. First of all. The right of the people to be secure in their person. or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done.[17] Prosecution witness Capt. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confession or admissions from the accused. inasmuch as the said evidence were obtained without the assistance of a lawyer. [12] In fact. the record shows that petitioner and his co-accused were not compelled to give samples of their urine but they in fact voluntarily gave the same when they were requested to undergo a drug test. contain his signature. In other words. thus. This was a mechanical act the accused was made to undergo which was not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation. D-168-94 and DT-107-94 (Exhibit D and M) and Chemistry Report No. in the case at bar. . According to petitioner. However. the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the presence in his bedroom of the assorted drug paraphernalia [15] and prohibited drugs found atop a round table therein at the time of the raid. we agree with the trial court that the record is replete with other pieces of credible evidence including the testimonial evidence of the prosecution which point to the culpability of the petitioner for the crimes charged. Jr. The right to counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under investigation for the commission of a crime. of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. are inadmissible in evidence for being ―fruits of the poisonous tree.

Fiscal Villanueva: We agreed as to the expertise of this witness at the time when I was qualifying him (interrupted) By Fiscal Villanueva (To the witness) Court: At any rate. SO ORDERED. Court: Let the witness answer. the petition is hereby DENIED. the latter showed manifestations and signs that he was under the influence of drugs. during the surveillance. they are presumed to be in the regular performance of their official duties. they showed manifestations and signs that they are under the influence of drugs. Arias: But the rule is clear. Alexander Jimenez and Oscar de Venecia? A: A drug test was made on them because when we held these persons David Gutang. let it remain. Arias: Precisely. Court: That is what he observed. why was a drug defendant (sic) test requested on the persons of David Gutang.‖[18] It is worth noting that the search warrant was served only after months of surveillance work by the PNP-NARCOM operatives led by Chief Inspector Franklin Mabanag in the residence of petitioner.testified that when petitioner was arrested. Arias: That is a conjectural answer. Earlier. All told. The police officers are presumed to have performed the search in the regular performance of their work. Fiscal Villanueva: And what is this manifestation that you observed? Atty. WHEREFORE. Allegedly improper motive on the part of the PNP-NARCOM team must be shown by the defense. Noel Regala. Prosecution witness Mabanag also found. that is already proving something beyond what his eyes can see. . it is clear that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. to wit: ―By Fiscal Villanueva (To the witness) Q: Mr. Witness. in the face of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. reason why we made the necessary request for drug test. that was only his observation it is not necessarily binding to the court. Alexander Jimenez and Oscar de Venecia. a confidential informant had even bought a gram of shabu from petitioner Gutang. I let them show their tongue and it was whitish and their faces are pale. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED. Witness: I observed they are profusely sweating and their lips are dry. and that the confidential informant of the PNP-NARCOM had in fact gained entry into the house. Atty.[19] But the defense failed to do so. otherwise. Fiscal Villanueva: That is part of his testimony. Noel Regala. The witness is not authorized to testify on that. Atty. that is his testimony. persons who frequented the house of petitioner.

defendants-appellants. thus: Rey Deniega's confession essentially stated: On August 28. The body bore thirty nine (39) stab wounds. thereby inflicting upon her serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her death. There they had an altercation because she wanted to break up with her already. the above-named accused. Her hands were tied behind her back by a shoestring and pieces of her own clothing. in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the New Civil Code. 1989. Carmel Church in New Manila. without her consent and against her will. J. Friends of Canoy volunteered the information that the former had just broken off from a stormy relationship with Daniega. to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Marlyn Canoy Bendo. with lewd designs.R. unlawfully and feloniously. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.(35) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. to meet again after she gets (sic) out of the Disco Pub to have a final talk about their relationship. Boyet arrived with two companions. 3 desperately tried to patch up the relationship. Carmel Church compound. an Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. A second sworn statement. 1 a waiter at the Gathering Disco where Canoy used to work. Diaz admitted his participation in the rape of Canoy. 1989. CONTRARY TO LAW. Quezon City. plaintiff-appellee. There was evidence that she had been brutally assaulted. Police authorities investigating the gruesome crime on August 31. He arrived there earlier than Marlyn. with intent to kill and without any justifiable cause. 1995] KAPUNAN. did. then and there wilfully. 1989. before she was murdered.: The naked body of Marlyn Canoy was found on a heap of garbage in an ill-frequented back corner on the left side of the Mt. arrested Rey Daniega y Macoy on information that the victim was last seen with Daniega.a. he and Marlyn were at her house at Onyx Street. then and there wilfully.k. They agreed however. it was bruited. assault and employ personal violence upon the person of said victim. 2The latter. 5 Armed with the said extra-judicial confessions. conspiring together. Sta. Boyet berated Marlyn for choosing Rey as her boyfriend instead of Boyet despite the fact that he has already . 4 appellant Hoyle Diaz y Urnillo was invited by the investigators for questioning. substantially similar and corroborating many of the details of Daniega's sworn affidavit. by then and there stabbing her with an icepick several times. Rey saw Hoyle Diaz (a. When Marlyn and Rey were already at the Mt. confederating with and mutually helping each other. by means of force. violence and/or intimidation have sexual intercourse with MARLYN CANOY BENDO. They agreed to see each other at 3:00 in the morning of August 29. vs. 6 charging petitioners with the crime of Rape with Homicide. the confessions obtained by law enforcement authorities during their (separate) custodial investigations formed the centerpiece of the prosecution's case for Rape with Homicide against both accused. Rey told Hoyle that he is going to take Marlyn to the Mt. and HOYLE DIAZ y URNILLO. No. REY DENIEGA y MACOY. said accused. While waiting. Boyet) pass by. attack. committed as follows: That on or about the 29th day of August. At trial. pursuant to their conspiracy. 1991. and on the basis of a confession obtained by police authorities from him during custodial investigation (where he allegedly admitted raping and killing Canoy). Philippines. Following the latter's arrest. Metro Manila. [G. in Quezon City. unlawfully and feloniously. 103499 December 29. and by reason of and on the occasion thereof. summarized by the trial court in its Decision dated August 23. In the said statement. was later extracted from Diaz. 1989 at a waiting shed along Aurora Boulevard near San Juan. did. Ana Manila. but denied that he had something to do with the victim's death. 7 These confessions allegedly disclosed details of the killing. Carmel Church compound and if Boyet wants to take revenge on Marlyn (makaganti) Boyet can hold-up her there. He accompanied Marlyn afterwards to Rolando's Disco Pub where Marlyn works. physically and sexually.

Rey was holding no weapon. suddenly the two companions of Boyet by the name of Tony and Carlos pulled with a jerk the apparel of Marlyn and undressed her. the prosecution presented no other evidence to warrant a conviction. Then Boyet gave Rey an icepick and ordered him to stab Marlyn whom he stabbed once in the stomach. hurling and hollering bad words at each other. 11 In a demurrer submitted to the trial court on December 28." and 3) except for the testimonies of the medico-legal officer and two IBP lawyers who alleged that they assisted the accused during their custodial investigation. Hoyle also recalled that on the way to Mt. Hoyle also stated that he saw that Rey was heavily influenced by drugs (sabog sa gamot). After the rape. inadmissible in evidence. 9 Appellants Daniega and Diaz went to the extent of seeking the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation. 15 In dismissing appellant's principal defense that their confessions were obtained in violation of their constitutional rights. Boyet then took off his T-shirt and pulled down his pants and raped Marlyn. 8 In their defense. Quezon City on August 29. They contended that they were arrested without warrants of arrest and that the confessions obtained from them immediately thereafter were made without the assistance of counsel. He saw Rey Deniega on a bridge near Broadway Avenue and Aurora Boulevard. When Rey ran after Hoyle. Carmel Church Compound. the trial court held that: The court finds it hard to believe that (Atty. Rey took out an icepick and stabbed Marlyn. He was courting Marlyn there and used to take her as a table partner. bag and wristwatch of Marlyn. Over and beyond this it appears that the confessions were executed during daytime and the accused themselves brought to the Quezon City IBP office at noontime during office hours when several employees of . the lower court. 10 Both testified that they were subjected to electrocution and water treatment. Then they had an altercation. both of whom are officers of the Legal Aid Committee of the IBP and are prominent practitioners of great integrity. 12 In an Order dated January 30. He asked Hoyle to accompany him.14 They were likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Marlyn Canoy the amount of P50. Hoyle Diaz confession essentially stated: He came to know of both Rey Deniega and Marlyn Canoy at Gathering House where Hoyle used to take drinks. 2) the same (confessions) "were obtained through torture. 1989 at around 2:00 in the morning. the Regional Trial Court denied the motion for Demurrer to Evidence.000. The two tied Marlyn's hands and got her necklace and wristwatch. Then he handed the icepick to Hoyle and Hoyle stabbed Marlyn too. which the trial court granted. After Rey was through. As Hoyle ran he threw away the icepick. the accused-appellants moved for leave to file Demurrer to Evidence. Carmel a man followed them but the man was no longer in the vicinity when they reached the Mt.00 in solidum. stressing that: 1) the confessions obtained by police authorities were acquired without the assistance of counsel in violation of their constitutional rights and were hence. threat and other means which vitiat[ed] (their) free will. Rey boxed Marlyn and was finally able to take off her clothes. Hoyle raped Marlyn.spent large sums for her. Rey tried to undress Marlyn who resisted. and there executed a sworn statement to the effect that their respective confessions were coerced and obtained through torture. 1991. Rey left leaving the three men behind. The two talked for about 20 minutes. Rous). He does not know if Rey returned to get the necklace. would act as the accused said they did. Sansano and Atty. There Rey told Hoyle that he will teach Marlyn a lesson and will hold her up. After the prosecution rested its case on December 14. appellants moved for the dismissal of the information for Rape with Homicide on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Then Rey faced Hoyle (hinarap) and so Hoyle ran away as Rey chased him. 1991 rendered its Decision convicting the accused-appellants of the crime of Rape with Homicide and sentencing each of them to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. vehemently denied the claim that they had voluntarily executed the said confessions. Rey told Hoyle that so that there will be no more trouble (aberia) they better finish off Marlyn. during the course of the trial. Afterwards. after hearing the appellants' testimonies. Tony and Carlos stabbed Marlyn. 1990. At between 3:00 and 4:00 that morning Marlyn arrived at the waiting shed where she and Rey were supposed to meet and Rey took Marlyn to Mt. 1990. appellants. Then. on August 31. Marlyn was raped right where she was found dead. 13Consequently. Then Rey raped Marlyn. force. Carmel Church compound with Hoyle Diaz following behind.

Rey was brought to the IBP at around 11:00 in the morning and Hoyle at around 2:00 p. Rous' declaration that "the custodial investigation was conducted by the policeman in the (IBP chapter) office. Sansano for instance. the accused. they were not present at all during the actual custodial investigation of the accused in the police headquarters. Atty. Rous. QCPS (himpilan ng homicide.M. contradicting the prosecution witnesses' declarations that the confessions were obtained in the Quezon City IBP office. testified that Daniega's extrajudicial confession was taken at the QC-IBP office. is pivotal in the resolution of the instant appeal. For instance. With respect to the extrajudicial confession of appellant Diaz. 17 it is one thing for appellants to be brought to the IBP office only for the purpose of signing the confessions in plain view of the other employees of the office. Analyzing the appropriate provisions of law in relation to the facts of the case at bench. respectively. that their confession were coerced and untrue. Rey Deniega was arrested at around 6:30 in the morning and Hoyle Diaz at around 9:30 in the morning. were in typewritten form. The statements evidencing the interrogation. . It is a settled rule that this Court will not normally overturn factual conclusions of the trial court. within the body of these documents. There is convincing proof 18 that. These were spaces obviously provided for the accused to fill in the blank with the word "yes" ("opo") followed by another blank space for their respective signatures. Moreover. 1989 or earlier than the time they allegedly arrived at the IBP office. There is nothing in the record to show that the apprehending officers are clever and articulate enough to be able to fabricate in a short a time the kind of confessions submitted here . and therefore. SID. Sansano placed the time of arrival of appellant Deniega at the IBP Quezon City chapter office at "around 11:30 in the morning" of August 31. Deniega's extrajudicial confession taken by Pat. The two counsels testified that they precisely segregated the accused from their police escorts to cull out the truth and the accused volunteered to confess to the crime at bar.m. 1989. QCPS) and not the IBP office. Their confession were quite lengthily (4 page each) and filled with details. Atty. including those portions in which the appellants purportedly were informed of their constitutional rights. as contended by appellants. 21 An examination of the document's heading however reveals that the confessions were given to the investigator (Maniquis) at the police headquarters of the SID. However. . . The confessions which form part of the record of the case at bench are an eloquent example of facts deliberately ignored: the legal insufficiencies and inconsistencies in the documents in question are so glaring. Sansano and Rous may have been present at the signing of the documents. 1990. we find for appellants. 20 there is conflict as to the place where the custodial investigation was actually conducted." 22 conflicts with the statement in the actual document (sinumpaang salaysay) that he (appellant) executed his confession at the police headquarters of the SID. that they should not escape even the untrained eye. while Attys. had ample atmosphere to tell Atty. even from a cursory examination of the confessions. blank spaces were conspicuously left at strategic areas (spaces) where the accused were supposed to sign and acknowledge that they were appraised of their rights and that they gave their statements voluntarily. there exists evidence indicating that the actual custodial investigation was conducted at the police headquarters in the absence of counsel. QCPS ( sa himpilan ng homicide ng SID. While we have no dispute with the trial court's observation that the appellants were brought to the Quezon City IBP office during daytime when other individuals were holding office in the IBP floor (who may have witnessed the presence of the appellants in the area). while compliance with the constitutional mandate requiring the presence of counsel during the actual custodial investigation is quite another. In addition to these. Sansano.that chapter were working. Maniquis gives the time of its execution as 11:20 A. QCPS) not in the IBP office of Atty. the issue of the voluntariness and due execution of the extrajudicial confessions of the appellants upon which their conviction was based. there are usually other lawyers there. of the same day of their arrest on August 31. even assuming the possibility of error in recording the actual time of the investigation. 16 Considering that no eyewitnesses to the actual commission of the crime were presented before the court. . also on August 31. Apart from the defects evident on the face of the documents. if their confession were really prevaricated beforehand. 19 However. the header of the disputed documents indicates that the investigations were conducted at the police headquarters. Sansano and Atty. Atty. unless factual evidence has either been deliberately ignored or misapprehended.

moreover. Sansano and Atty. 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. deprived of normal conditions guaranteeing individual autonomy. the probity of Pat. an informed judgment based on the choices given to him by a competent and independent lawyer. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. Rous. 25 the Court defined the procedure which law enforcement officers must observe in custodial investigations as follows: At the time. by according the accused. who testified in rebuttal was certainly not enhanced by the information given the trial court by prosecution witness P/Sgt. handcuffed. Atty. Galit. by any person on his behalf. the standards utilized by police authorities (and the lawyers) to assure the constitutional rights of the accused in the case at bench fall short of the standards demanded by our case law and the Constitution itself. under the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation. . a confession to be admissible must satisfy all of four fundamental requirements: 1) the confession must be voluntary 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. In Morales. it was the police authorities who brought the accused. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. v. Finally. a person is arrested. Republic Act 7438 mandates that the entire confession must be in writing. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Section 33. 28 In all. 24 Clearly. Jr. Section 12 provides: 1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. that a confession. 23 A thorough reading of the transcripts of the testimonies of the two lawyers. The bulk of the lawyers' oral testimonies merely gave the trial court assurance that they supposedly explained to the appellants their constitutional rights. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. Article III. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. must beexpress. Maniquis. and that the accused agreed to having the lawyers assist them during the process of custodial investigation. under rules laid down by the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence. to the IBP headquarters where the services of the lawyers were supposedly "engaged. if any. that the signatures present were their signatures and those of the accused. Rogelio Barcelona that he (Maniquis) had been dismissed from the service for unspecified reasons. Their addition in the fundamental law of 1987 was meant to stress the primacy accorded to the voluntariness of the choice. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court requires. Enrile. 3) the confession must be express and 4) the confession must be in writing. to be admissible. It is noteworthy that the modifiers competent and independent were terms absent in all organic laws previous to the 1987 Constitution.Lastly. 27 The 1987 Constitution provided a stricter rule by mandating that waiver of the right to counsel must be made not only in the presence of counsel but also in writing. In the case before us. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or by letter of messenger. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. shall be inadmissible in evidence. indicates that they appeared less as agents of the accused during the alleged investigation than they were agents of the police authorities. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. in whole or in part. a relative." No details of the actual assistance rendered during the interrogation process were furnished or alleged during the entire testimony of the lawyers in open court. and that any statement he might make could be used against him. 26 The rules laid down in Morales were reiterated in 1985 case of People vs. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel he must be provided with one.

The failure to meet the constitutional requirement for competent and independent counsel and the glaring inconsistencies in documents purportedly executed under the trained and watchful eyes of the lawyers who allegedly were of assistance to the accused during the process of custodial investigation . The process above-described fulfills the prophylactic purpose of the constitutional provision by avoiding "the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of the offense" 31 and ensuring that the accused's waiver of his right to self incrimination during the investigation is an informed one in all aspects.. we made that at the headquarters. are generally suspect. There would be denial of the right to the assistance of competent and independent counsel if the investigation or. that he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused. The competent or independent lawyer so engaged should be present from the beginning to end. as in many areas. Sansano present when this alleged sinumpaang salaysay was taken from you by questions and answers which consist of 31 questions and 32 answers? A No. Conditions vary at every stage of the process of custodial investigation. The process of assisting appellants in the case at bench as described by the lawyers in their testimony therefore hardly meets the standard of effective and meaningful communication required by the 1987 Constitution. or by the latter's relative or person authorized by him to engage an attorney or by the court. peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights. During the trial. the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. the constitutional standard guaranteed by Article III. 32 In his cross-examination.e. Section 12 (1) is not met." 29 Ideally therefore. the lawyer called to be present during such investigations should be as far as reasonably possible. and support the contention that the sworn statements executed by the appellants were already prepared and signed at the police headquarters before the statements were brought to the QC-IBP office for signing. upon proper petition of the accused or person authorized by the accused to file such petition. . i. If the advice given is so cursory as to be useless." 30 Lawyers engaged by the police. Daniega testified to the following: Q Was Atty. If the lawyer were one furnished in the accused's behalf. as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine. Q Do you know who prepared this at the headquarters? A It was Pat. this Court stressed that an accused's right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel "contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. choose to remain silent or terminate the interview. during the process of signing. The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning.Thus. What may satisfy constitutional requirements of voluntariness at the investigation's onset may not be sufficient as the investigation goes on. counseling or advising caution reasonably at every turn of the investigation. as in the case before us. when its framers decided to add the modifiers competent and independent to the requirement for counsel during the process of custodial investigations. a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial investigation (if the latter could not afford one) "should be engaged by the accused (himself). the other accused. whatever testimonials are given as proof of their probity and supposed independence. voluntariness is impaired.taken together with the manner in which the signatures of the accused were affixed into the confessions — cast a serious doubt on their due execution. at all stages of the interview. it is important that he should be competent and independent. Diaz likewise testified as follows: Q Who told you to sign this document? A That paper. If the lawyer's role is reduced to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared document albeit indicating therein compliance with the accused's constitutional rights.. In People vs. Maniquis. the relationship between lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic.e. and stopping the interrogation once in a while either to give advice to the accused that he may either continue. because this statement was signed by me at the police station and then we brought it to the IBP office. Basay. i.

Q What time did you sign this? .Q And Pat. Q After you signed this how long a time elapse(d) before you went to Quezon City IBP? Atty. Q And you did not take any opportunity to read this before you sign(ed) it? A Everything went fast. at the IBP Bldg. Maniquis told you to sign this? A I don't know them. I only remember Pat. how long a time elapse(d) before you were brought to the IBP Bldg. Maniquis. Q Who were present at the time Pat. Maniquis investigated you? A Yes maam. Q What time more or less was that. who were the person(s) present aside from you and Pat. your honor. Maniquis. Q And after that one hour. your Honor. when you signed that document? A About lunch time. he showed that to me. It was at the headquarters. Gojar: It was already answered. sir. Q Was that after Pat. it was later. Q But can you read tagalog? A Yes maam. Maniquis? Atty. maam. Q And when you were told to sign this document. Q Did you have any occasion to read this before you sign(ed) this? A No maam. Q For how long a time more or less (did) Pat.. A Two or three in the afternoon. Pat. I did not see that paper while he was investigating me. Maniquis investigate(d) you? A About one hour maam. Gojar: He did not sign that in the IBP. A I signed that document(s) at the police headquarters. Maniquis was typing this while he was asking you this question? A. he just asked me to sign it.

appellants were quite vehement as they were consistent in their separate oral testimonies. or in part. in the process of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. shall be inadmissible in evidence. SO ORDERED. Section 12[1]) . and one or both of them would have withered. WHEREFORE. A person compelled under the circumstances obtaining in every custodial investigation is surrounded by psychologically hostile forces and the threat of physical violence so that the information extracted is hardly voluntary. either by psychological and physical torture. by removing the incentive of law enforcement and other officials to obtain confessions by the easy route.ad nauseam. if it was made without the assistance of counsel. III." 35 There is a distinct possibility that the confessions given by the appellants in the case at bench might speak the truth. as alleged by the accused. courts are confronted with the difficult task of taking a hard look into the sufficiency of extra-judicial confessions extracted by law enforcement authorities as the sole basis for convicting accused individuals. PREMISES CONSIDERED. including the pressure of their heavy dockets. Javar. the Constitution provides the corresponding remedy by providing a strict exclusionary rule. and renders nugatory the only effective constitutional protections available to citizens. They are on the forefront of the government's battle against crime. there remains the possibility that the real assailants lurk free somewhere. in the only conceivable way those rights could be effectively protected. we emphasized. the impulse to find the culprits at any cost occasionally tempts these agencies to take shortcuts and disregard constitutional and legal safeguards intended to bring about a reasonable assurance that only the guilty are punished. Judges face unimaginable pressures from all areas. In People v. in a number of cases before this. . not to vindicate the constitutional rights of lawbreakers but to protect the rights of all citizens. who were not trained in the law. In the oftentimes highly intimidating setting of a police investigation. 33 (Emphasis supplied. 12 of the Constitution that: Any statement obtained in violation of the constitutional provision. that "[a]ny confession or admission obtained in violation of (Article III.A I signed it about ten to eleven in the morning ad we went to IBP about two or three in the afternoon. in relation to the unfortunate circumstances of the case at bench has already been said. it would not be difficult for us to give credence to appellants' testimonies to the effect that the investigation was actually conducted in the absence of counsel in one place (the QC SID headquarters) and signed in the presence of counsel in another (the QC IBP office). Our courts. conformably with Art. Allowing any profit gained through such methods furnishes an incentive for law enforcement officials to engage in constitutionally proscribed methods of law enforcement. once again.i. 34 In fine. Every so often. Their immediate release from custody is hereby ordered unless they are being held on other legal grounds. on intense cross examination. If the standards are not met. it becomes inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. and the contradictions and inconsistencies here noted. . What can only be said. Assuming they were couched. In cases of crimes notable for their brutality and ruthlessness. thanking their luck. Even if the confession speaks the truth. that the exclusionary rules adopted by the framers of the 1987 Constitution were designed. would not have understood the constitutional nuances of the fact that the confessions and the signing of the documents evidencing the confessions were obtained in different places. Were it not for the defects inherent in the confessions.e. play a central role in bringing about this assurance by determining whether or not the evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies scrupulously meets exacting standards fixed by the Constitution. the trial court's well-written opinion in the case at bench — an eloquent example of the earnest attempts judges make to battle crime. the likelihood for compulsion is forcefully apparent in every custodial investigation. We stress. or by methods which fall short of the standard provided by the fundamental law. These facts lead us to the inevitable conclusion that the confessions of both defendants were obtained in the absence of independent and competent counsel as mandated by the 1987 Constitution and that the same may have been acquired under conditions negating voluntariness.) Together with all the legal deficiencies pointed out so far. Appellants. hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence. . especially the innocent.. Sec. 36 for instance. Yet again. the potential for suggestion is strong. appellants Rey Daniega y Macoy and Hoyle Diaz y Urnillo are herebyACQUITTED of the crime of Rape with Homicide. would have been readily sustained by this Court. in any case.

Progress Report (Exh. 1997] FRANCISCO. After several inquiries Pat. J. 87-58217. did then and there willfully.driver of Marietta rushed out and gave the duo a chase. Advanced Report (Exh. inflicted fatal stab wounds upon the said Ignacia J. Jr. knocked at the room of her boss. Manila where Beatriz Bido is a stay-in sales girl. who was carrying a leather bag. The patrol car with some four policemen were searching and investigating the place.150. a businesswoman.150. F) Statement of Rosemarie Libreilla (Exh. E statement of Beatriz Bido (Exh. Renato Marquez. About five minutes later. rob and carry away one bag containing P1. with intent to kill. He pushed her into the bath room repeatedly but she resisted.. Philippine Currency. Sabas' companion did not carry anything. 4 already in the premises. Sarnpaloc. Bdio ( sic) rushed down shouting hysterically. she went upstairs. among other things. No. One of them held a gun whom Bido identified as one. Nobody answered. owned by said Ignacia J. He threatened Bido not to shout else (sic) he will shoot her. G). herein accused. The cabinets and drawers were forced open and ransacked. Ignacia Maullon sustained multiple stabbed wounds on different parts of her body. When they arrived.(36) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Leny. Maullon's room she was speechless and surprised to see Mrs. She saw Cora. the Homicide Section of the Western Police District received a telephone call from Tessie Evangelista informing them that a female unidentified body was found inside Philip's Bakery located at the corner of Morayta and España Streets. the electric post and that of Philip's Bakery illuminated the place well.clothes and other articles were scattered all over the place. that by reason or on the occasion of the said robbery. . Mrs. Gorospe was just in front of her store facing the Philip's Bakery when this incident happened. who was running towards P. pointed his gun at Henry Jordan. to the damage and prejudice of said Ignacio J. conspiring and confederating together with JOSE BALSOLASO Y TUBINO who has already been charged for the same crime before the Regional Trial Court of Manila under Criminal Case No. By the side of the street near the store is an electric post with electric light. Tony. 91694. identity and whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another. The team immediately proceeded to the place of the incident. Some of her companions then rushed upstairs to see for themselves what happened while the others sought immediate help. the contents of the cabinet and drawers were scattered all over the place. B). The victim Ignacia Maullon lie sprawled on her back in the middle of the room. She narrated to them as she gasped for breath the horrible sight she saw upstairs. The men came from the stairs of Philip's Bakery. Obrero succeeded in getting two witnesses: Beatriz Bido and Rosemarie Libreilla. Norberto Obrero. Beatriz identified one of them as Sabas Calvo. SABAS CALVO. When Bido succeeded in entering Mrs. Exh. they saw a mobile patrol car of police Station No. Rodolfo. Maullon's body sprawled on the floor in a pool of blood. Nonong. Romy. unlawfully and feloniously take. He scampered for safety and gave up the chase. Campano Street. they have stores scattered all over the City and employ a host of bakery workers. Jr. C). Bido also identified the companion as one Bobby Gaspar. It was while facing the Philip's Bakery. two men barged out from the room rushing downstairs. Her store was still opened at the time and was well lighted. Pfc. [G. On September 26. with intent to gain and by means of force and violence. "Nearby the Philip's Bakery is another store owned and operated by one Lucila Gorospe. She also saw the room in disarray .R. in the City of Manila. that is. March 14. Sabas Calvo. vs. the said accused. One. and co-accused Rodolfo Longcop under an information reading: "That on or about September 26. The police immediately dispatched a team of operatives composed of Pfc. and one whose true name. and others. Philippines. 1987. the Philip's Bakery is at España. Rosemarie. Cora. Mauleon against the latter's will.. Ignacia Maullon. are engaged in a bakery business with every sign of prosperity. to wit: "FACTS DEDUCED FROM THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: "Spouses Felipe and Ignacia Maullon. plaintiff-appellee. Henry Jordan . Bobby and Calvo made good their escape. who closely followed Calvo. They found the room with the dead Ignacia Maullon. Pedro Campano and Pat. Mauleon which were the direct cause of her death immediately thereafter." The antecedents have been narrated in detail by the trial court. and RODOLFO LONGCOP. JR. "One of their bakeries. a distance of about seven (7) meters away when she saw two men running as fast as their legs could carry them.accusedappellants. Calvo however. The room was in topsyturvy condition. "In the meantime.00. Mauleon in the same sum of P1. carrying a bag. Booking sheet and Arrest Report. 1987 at about 9:00 in the evening after her washing chores. by strangling with a piece of cloth IGNACIA MAULEON Y JOPIA and stabbing her several times with bladed instruments. All these lights: the one at her store.: Charged with and prosecuted for robbery with homicide were herein appellant Sabas Calvo. Investigation went underway and series of documents were prepared such as the Progress Report. in fact. another sales girl. The team proceeded upstairs. went to a neighbor and phone Yollie Maullon who was at another store of the Maullon's.00 in cash. Cpl. Obrero took pictures of the scene.

In the statement (Exh. Abil Orio. Immediately the operatives were dispatched and the proceeded to 4959 Herran. On November 5. "On the other hand. the defense presented the lone testimony of accused Sabas Calvo. single. a confession to be admissible must satisfy all of four fundamental requirements: 1) the confession must be voluntary. accused Rodolfo Longcop was also arrested at Philip's Bakery. Jr. Now before us pleading for his acquittal. Jr. 1988 under Crim. of the CLAO. The duo were followed closely and were found trying to hide in the roof. The remaining suspects were not bagged. the operatives led by Pat. The accused was adviced on his Constitutional right by both the police and his counsel Atty. Quezon City. the Fiscal Office filed the case against Sabas Calvo Jr..00. where she failed to identify accused Jose Balsolaso. Jr. during the custodial investigation. Deniega"[2] that "under rules laid down by the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence. Anent extrajudicial confessions. Feraren. gave his statement marked as Exh. policeman from Palapag and two other policemen from Laoang Northern Samar and he was brought to the Municipal Hall of Palapag and later to Laoang. Whereupon. the police closed the case with the filing of the complaint before the Fiscal's Office. Manila. 1987 (sic). the Prosecution moved for the dismissal of the case as to Jose Balsolaso. 3) the confession must be express. of his constitutional rights and gve (sic) him Atty. as counsel to assist him during the custodial investigation/interrogation. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE: "1. Rodolfo Longcop. accused Rodolfo Longcop was immediately arrested and placed on detention. During the operation two persons were seen scampering for cover. Again the police followed the trail of the other culprits."Afterwards. an identified informant tipped the police on the whereabouts of the suspects.. and 4) the confession must be in writing. Proj. appellant assails the admissibility of his alleged extrajudicial confession. Accused Sabas Calvo Jr. of the Citizen Legal Assistance Office of Quezon City. this Court reiterates its pronouncement in " People vs. Tips came in. . an employee of Philip's Bakery and employed by victim Ignacia Maullon did not go into hiding after the killing and when the authorities were hot on the trial of the suspects he chose to stay put and continue his work at Philip's Bakery. On November 3.. The arrested man turned out later to be Jose Balsolaso. He was brought to the headquarters. He disclaimed participation in the robbery at Philip's Bakery and the killing of Ignacia Maullon. sentenced to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and ordered to indemnify deceased Ignacia Mauleon's heirs in the amount of P50. On November 5 1987. When accused Sabas Calvo. that the wanted culprits could be at Barrio Obrero then at Balic-Balic. 87-58217 dismissed the case of accused Jose Balsolaso. However. made to go outside where a woman looked at him and identified him while inside the jail. Withe (sic) assistance from the Local Police authorities they found their quarry. Sabas Calvo. he was investigated. In turn. Then more information was received that suspects may have gone to their hometown at Northern Samar. and Rodolfo Longcop for robbery with homicide under Crim. he died of sickness. "The accused testified and claimed that on February 26. Northern Samar. Northern Samar. Case No. indicated his willingness to give his statement. Sabas Calvo. Jr. 1987. Case No. 1987 (Exhibit "K") wherein he recounted how the plan to rob the bakery was hatched and his participation as lookout while his companions Longcop and one Bobby Gaspar did the actual heist and killing of Ignacia Mauleon. According to him he was placed in a police line-up. Metro Manila.000. brought to Manila Headquarters. Rodolfo Longcop chose to remain silent and did not issue any written statement. Feraren Jr. as well as the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Jr. The police advised accused Sabas Calvo." The "irregularities" which appellant claims to have attended his extrajudicial confession principally relate to the second requirement. inspite of the concerted efforts. K) he admitted having committed the crime and implicated one Bobby Gaspar and Rodolfo Longcop." [1] With the death of accused Longcop during the pendency of the trial and the dismissal of the case as against Jose Balsolaso. was arrested at his hometown at Northern Samar and during the investigation pointed at Rodolfo Longcop as one of their companions in the dastardly crime that he had committed. They threw a cordon around the place. Pat Libol and relatives of the victim went to Palapag. the Court in its order dated March 13. Then he was turned over to Manila Police authorities who in turn brought him to Manila. Tan. On November 1.. Upon investigation. Alfredo Feraren.. Accused Sabas Calvo.. The bases for conviction were (1) appellant's extrajudicial confession dated November 5. only appellant Calvo was found guilty of the crime charged. Unlike the other accused. One of them made a dash for liberty but eventually fell into the clutches of the lawmen. was placed under their custody. On instructions from their headquarters. Silk screen printer and a resident of Pilarmino St. During the trial while accused Rodolfo Longcop was in detention. and (2) the identification of appellant by prosecution witnesses Beatriz Bido and Lucila Gorospe. he was at home at Palapag. 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. 4. the hunt proved futile. Feraren Jr. 26. 1985. K. He claimed to have asked protection from the police and to wait for his mother to get a lawyer for him. Jr. Jr. Makati. "After the government witness Beatriz Bido finished testifying.. 87-58217. Jr. He does not know he was represented by a counsel and does not know Atty. duly counter signed by his appointed counsel Atty. 1987 while in his hometwon (sic) he was arrested by three men — Pat.

it would be better for him to execute an Extra Judicial Confession. What protection did you ask from the policemen? While I was investigated I was telling them to wait for my mother who was then looking for a lawyer for me. Ferraren incompetent. no temptation to appellant to falsely accuse himself can be found in the tenor and language of Atty. Bago ka namin isailalim sa pagsisiyasat. Ferraren's proposition that appellant may be suspected of merely fabricating facts if he does not execute a confession hardly qualifies as a "threat" or "promise" as herein contemplated. 1987. or could ever be considered as telltale sign of the involuntariness of the confession. Appellant thus testified: "Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: When you were brought by the policemen to the General Headquarters.[7] Atty. (At this juncture. Ferraren? S: Opo. huwag magbigay ng isang salaysay o tumangging sumagot sa anumang katanungan. It is better that he execute an Extra Judicial Confession. "threatened the accused and further pushed him deep to the mud. intimidation. conceded to push thru with the taking down of declarant's statement after the latter signified his willingness and voluntariness to give a free and voluntary statement) . T: Naiintindihan mo ba ang lahat ng mga karapatan mo na ipinaliwanag namin sa iyo? S: Opo. What was the response of Corporal Bagallon? Never mind. It was nothing more than a straight-forward exhortation for appellant to tell the truth as to his participation in the crime." [3] "FISCAL PATAG (to witness): Q: Now. ano ngayon ang iyong masasabi? S: Magbibigay po ako ng salaysay. I advice ( sic) him if he really committed this offense. Surely then."[4] We cannot see how this kind of advice rendered Atty. you said you have assisted him in the preparation of this Extra Judicial Confession. I told that if he does not. Ferraren utterly failed to protect his rights during the custodial investigation as shown by the following advice given by said lawyer which. tinatanggap mo ba na maging abogado mo ngayon si Atty. Ferraren's advice. must take the form of violence. otherwise if he will not execute an Extra Judicial Confession. [6] These threats or promises which the accused must successfully prove in order to make his confession inadmissible. the CLAO lawyer who assisted appellant in the preparation of his extrajudicial confession. To whom did you ask this request? To Corporal Bagallon. asked him his involvement in this case. ALFREDO FERRAREN. 04. a promise of reward or leniency. T: Sa kabila ng mga karapatan mo na aming ipinaliwanag sa iyo. Sampaloc. A confession is not rendered involuntary merely because defendant was told that he should tell the truth or that it would be better for him to tell the truth. bilang isang taong nasasailalim ng isang pagsisiyasat o imbestigasyon. unless threats or promises are applied. sir. Appellant claims that Atty. will you kindly tell this Court as to how you assisted him there? A: (Atty. Alfredo Ferraren. to render objectionable a confession thereby obtained. inasmuch as appellant claims that the police authorities ignored his initial request to wait for his mother who was scouting for a lawyer.: Ikaw SABAS CALVO Jr. T: Ikaw ay may karapatan pa ring kumuha ng serbisyo ng isang abogado para makatulong mo sa imbestigasyong ito at dahil din sa nasabi mo sa amin kanina na pansamantala ay wala kang makukuhang abogado ikaw ngayon ay aming bibigyan ng libreng abogado sa pamamagitan ng pamahalaan o gobierno natin at ito ay nasa katauhan ni ATTY. he maybe placed in a situation were they maybe thinking that he fabricated facts. then he maybe suspected of having fabricated facts after a long time. tulad ng mga sumusunod: 01. COURT (to witness): Q: You advice (sic) him that? A: I advice (sic) him that if he really committed the offense. if he indeed had something to do with it. Thus: "PAALAA(sic). ikaw pa rin ba ay nakahandang magbigay sa amin ng isang malaya at kusang loob na salaysay sa harap ni ATTY.The first "irregularity" concerns the competence of Atty. Isasalaysay mga pangyayari. to borrow appellant's counsel's words. 02. ALFREDO FERRAREN. "K") he agreed to be represented by Atty. Ferraren in lieu of a counsel of his own choice. telling the accused that it would be better for him to speak or tell the truth does not furnish any Inducement. FERRAREN? S: Opo. Manila. ATTY. as shown by the following excerpts from his extrajudicial confession (Exh. [5] Stated elsewise. ay nasa ilalim ngayon ng isang pagsisiyasat hinggil sa isang krimen na naganap noong petsa 26 ng Setyembre. T: Ikaw ay may karapatang manatiling tahimik. did you ask some favors for your protection? Yes.. sir. The other "irregularity" apparently relates to a denial of the right to have an independent counsel of one's own choice.. (Underscoring supplied). JR. Ferraren) I talked with him. 03. sa loob ng isang bakery shop sa kalye España. ikaw ay aming pinaaalahanan na may mga karapatan ka sa ilalim ng ating bagong Saligang Batas. or a sufficient inducement."[8] Appellant is nonetheless deemed to have waived this defect when. na kung saan ay may nasawina nagngangalang IGNACIA MAULEON. Your Honor.

[14] In fine. appellant's conviction for robbery with homicide as charged. . cannot prevail over positive identification. is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects. Jr.[12] Besides."[13] (undersoring supplied) With the identification of appellant made by witnesses Bido and Gorospe whose testimonies appear credible and who have not been shown to have been driven by any ill-motives in implicating him in the crime. with one Henry Jordas giving chase. appellant's claim of non-involvement must therefore fail.[11] Contrary to appellant's claim. Your Honor. ______________________ ATTY.SGD. " SGD. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon. [9] Even if the extrajudicial confession be ignored by assuming. constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience. C. JR. according to Gorospe. Baguio. Q." WHEREFORE."[16] "The Code does not prescribe the penalty of 'life imprisonment' for any of the felonies therein defined. does not appear to have any definite extent or duration. POTOT: It was already answered. in open court.[10] Witness Gorospe corroborated Bido's identification of appellant when she testified that from her vantage point (in front of her own store which is just seven (7) meters away from deceased Ignacia Mauleon's bakery). We nonetheless have to correct that portion of the appealed decision (specifically in the dispositive portion) where the trial court. before this Court. she went inside the room which was already in disarray and saw the bloodied. is sufficient basis for his conviction. for argument's sake. A confession. of appellant as the one present at the scene of the crime with Bobby Gaspar. as both have similar facial features. there is nonetheless other evidence — particularly the identification made by prosecution witnesses Beatriz Bido and Lucila Gorospe — upon which appellant's guilt was duly established. Witness Gorospe also stated that she was familiar with appellant. we therefore uphold the admissibility of appellant's extrajudicial confession which. 1987. does not carry with it any accessory penalty. ATTY. nonetheless gave up his pursuit when appellant pointed a gun at him. 1987 whom you saw at that time held a gun whom you said pointing at you saying that you should not shout? A: It was Sabas Calvo. what is more determinative is her identification. lifeless body of Ignacia Mauleon sprawled on the floor. Both are different and distinct penalties. it also carries with it accessory penalties. that penalty being invariably imposed for serious offense penalized not by the Revised Penal Code but by special laws. 1989 convicting appellant Sabas Calvo. SO ORDERED. the assailed decision dated March 31. she pointed to Jose Balsolaso as Bobby Gaspar's companion in the crime committed at the Mauleon bakery. by itself. JR. the credibility of witness Bido is not at all shattered by the fact that during the police line-up held on September 30. . namely: perpetual special disqualification. she identified appellant who was carrying a shoulder bag. as one of the two (2) men coming down from the stairs of deceased Mauleon's bakery and who thereafter ran away at a very fast pace. Witness Bido identified appellant as one of the two (2) men (the other was Bobby Gaspar) who went out of deceased Ignacia Mauleon's room and who angrily told her not to shout otherwise she will be shot. Q: For purposes of identification . She has offered a satisfactory explanation by saying that she has honestly mistaken said Balsolaso for appellant. Thus. ALFREDO FERRAREN. is in order. "Q: Now. that the alleged "irregularities" indeed marred its execution. WITNESS: Witness pointing to a person who identify himself as Sabas Calvo. having seen the latter in front of deceased Mauleon's bakery on three (3) previous occasions. and for another. Alibi and denial. apparently equated such penalty with life imprisonment. She further testified that after appellant and Bobby Gaspar left the room and went downstairs already carrying a bag. save for the slight modification removing from its dispositive portion the alternative reference to "life imprisonment". of the crime of robbery with homicide. to repeat. (Declarant) Having been cleared of any irregularity. It is not the same as 'life imprisonment' which. COURT: Let the witness answer. etc. Henry Jordas. Sabas Calvo. for one thing. Citizens Legal Assistance Office QUEZON CITY DISTRICT OFFICE 646 Perlas Building Quezon Avenue. Your Honor. while correctly imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. . will you kindly point to the person whom you saw the presence at the scene on September 26. to recall. FISCAL PATAG: For purposes of identification. This presumption of spontaneity and voluntariness stands unless the defense proves otherwise. _________________ SABAS CALVO.[15] As explained in "People vs.

however. For the crimes for which they were charged and sentenced. Rodolfo Manalili. while Beebom was a graduating student at the College of Mass Communications from the same university. the suspect in the killing of his brother. insisting on their innocence. One group chanced upon Dayrit‘s Ham and Burger House where they were told that a couple who fitted their descriptions were taken by three (3) men believed to be from the military in the evening of April 25.: The parents of Cochise and Beebom must have lifted their sorrowful faces heavenward and blurted out an anguished cry: ―Oh God! Why must it be they. a businessman asked Felimon Garcia. Enrico Dizon and another man armed with a service pistol to Manalili. So an appointment was set at 12:00 p. Manalili gave them P2. friends‘ houses and possible places where the couple would go. On said date Manalili.* his employee who will point to them the person to be arrested. they were accosted by Dizon and Manga who were both carrying firearms. January 30. Both excelled in academic and extra-curricular activities.00 and instructed them to go and see Vic Nabua.m. the group saw a man and a woman who happened to be Cochise and Beebom leave the Castaños residence in a green box type Lancer car. RODOLFO MANALILI. the group was asked to come back the next day. Quezon City where the couple intended to have dinner. The young couple‘s failure to go home that night and the next day alarmed their parents. 1990 and Ana Lourdes Castaños. Amidst protestations. Appeals by the parents to locate them reached the authorities where all possible angles of their disappearance were explored but there were no significant leads. But what makes this crime more despicable in our eyes is the involvement of people sworn to uphold the law. a break came on June 21. the same group arrived at the vicinity of the Castaños residence at around 5:00 p. to be brutally snatched from our embrace and never to be seen again?‖ Conchise. 1990 at Dau Exit. On April 25. Felimon Garcia was already there waiting for Manalili. had to change venue because Roberto Lising‘s live -in partner. if he knew somebody who could allegedly effect the arrest of one Robert Herrera. Dizon poked his gun at Cochise. They conducted a surveillance on the Castaños residence in the hope of seeing Herrera. arrived at the Dau Exit at about 12:30 p. Shortly. Dizon and Manga riding in a black car and Lisboa and Garcia in a motorcycle. During the meeting.m. Failing to do so. Two hours later. 1990. so young. handcuffed him. Lising‘s group went to Quezon City and met Vic Lisboa. Pampanga. [G. ROBERTO “RAMBO” LISING. vs. so a search was then initiated by cl ose friends and relatives . was 22. his townmate. Mabalacat. Delfin Manalili. to resume their surveillance. restaurants. The Lancer car went to Dayrit‘s Ham and Burger House on Timog Circle. 1990 when two (2) security guards working in a Shellane Warehouse in San .(37) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. and shoved him into the car. No. of April 22. horrifies us. Cochise had just graduated from the University of the Philippines with a degree of Bachelor of Laws and was reviewing for the bar examinations. Ligaya Faustino and other companions were in the restaurant. or Beebom to her family and friends. of April 22. Later. both full of promise. On April 21. plaintiff-appellee. They proceeded to the Golden Palace Chinese Restaurant where they would meet Roberto Lising. Felimon Garcia arrived and introduced Roberto Lising. The group followed the Lancer car with Lising. Alighting from the car. Beebom protested loudly at the arrest and was also shoved into the back of the car. FELIMON GARCIA. J.000. On April 23-24. 1990. The senseless and gruesome killing of the young man and woman. Felimon Garcia said he knew one and arranged a meeting with him. 106210-11.m. ENRICO DIZON and ROBIN MANGA. together with his son Richard. Felimon Garcia called up Manalili and informed him that he already contacted a policeman to help him and said that the policeman wanted to talk to him. So they went instead to a nearbycarinderia and instructed Felimon Garcia to follow them there. so loving.R. so beautiful and so promising. After about two (2) months of futile search for their whereabouts. accused-appellants. 1998] KAPUNAN. 1990. appellants now come to this Court asking us to give their case a second look. Lisboa alerted the group after allegedly spotting Herrera entering the Castaños residence.inquiring from hospitals. North Expressway. was 26 years old on the fateful day of April 26. The abduction of Cochise and Beebom hit the front pages. They. Sometime in March. 1990. whose full name was Ernesto Bernabe II.

[1] On June 25. FILIMON GARCIA and RUDY MANALILI parted ways. umiiyak na lang yong babae. tuloy-tuloy na umalis. 1990. Pagkatapos ayaw nga lumabas ng lalaki. Bicutan. He named Pat. that on board the Lancer were a man and a woman who were blindfolded and were introduced to him by RUDY MANALILI as ROBERTO HERRERA and JOY MANALILI. owned by LIGAYA FAUSTO where he bound COCHISE and led him back of the warehouse. si Felimon at yong kasama ni Rambo. An autopsy was conducted where the finding was: Cause of Death: ―Multiple Stab Wounds‖ The next day. Enrico Dizon was turned over by his superiors to the NBI. wag kang maingay. Pagkatapos lumabas ng gate si Felimon may dala na pala. Pampanga and that they have a problem. Bernabe referred the two guards to the CAPCOM who interviewed them. Beebom‘s body. According to him. both employees of Roberto Lising.Fernando. papatayin rin kita‖. informed them that Lising killed a mestisuhin man and a woman in their warehouse. sabi naman ng babae maawa naman po kayo sa amin dahil wala kaming kasalanan‖ pagkatapos tinutukan ni Rambo yong babae at sabi ―Puta ng ina mo. owned by Ligaya Fausto. Manga was also picked up. the manhunt for Felimon Garcia and Rodolfo Manalili began. that he saw a yellow Mercedes Benz. Quezon City on April 26. San Fernando. that afterwards RUDY MANALILI paid the chit and they proceeded to the warehouse at Villa Victoria. that he gave P15. a black Torana and a green Lancer. he received a telephone call from FELIMON GARCIA informing that he and his companions were at Valle Verde Lodge at San Fernando. 1990. 1990. nang mayron kumatok sa pinto ng bodega at nagising ako. Raul Morales was picked up and told his story. tapos unang bumaba sa kotse na itim si Rambo. pangalawa si Felimon bumaba sa kotse na Lancer may dala na pala. 1991. Pagkatapos nag-usap-usap silang tatlo. Roberto Lising was finally apprehended on June 30. itinulak ni Rambo papunta sa labas.00 to FELIMON GARCIA and kept the rest. MANALILI told him to take care of the Lancer. On January 16.00 in check which he encashed at the UCPB Diliman Branch. Thus. he implicated Felimon Garcia and Roberto Manalili. One by one. bukod pa yan. Cochise. [2] Thereafter. Nakahubad siya at pinapawisan. He named a certain CIC Robin Manga as one of their companions and owner of the car they used when Cochise and Beebom were kidnapped. In a Sworn Statement on the same day at Camp Bagong Diwa. sa Lancer naman ang nakasakay yong kasama niya at si Felimon. 1991. change its color and later he will get it and after that he was given P40.000. Enrico Dizon as the companion of Lising when Cochise and Beebom were kidnapped and brought to Valle Verde Lodge. 1990. the men responsible for the killing of Cochise and Beebom fell into the hands of the authorities. Pampanga. Binuksan ko ang gate at nagsakayan sila sa kotse. maaari bang isalaysay mo ang sinasabi mong hindi pangkaraniwang pangyayari? S: Nangyari yan alas 2:00 ng madaling araw ng 26 April 1990 natutulog ako. the body of Cochise was exhumed. On June 23. that he had the Lancer repainted and used it. Si Rambo naman binuksan yong dalawang pinto ng kotseng itim bumaba yung babae at saka yung lalaki hinila palabas ni Rambo. Mrs. that they proceeded to one of the rooms of the motel where MANALILI told him that the two persons should die because they killed his brother DELFIN MANALILI. at pagkatapos lumabas na sila. two (2) kilometers from where Cochise‘s body was fou nd. On January 4. this is what happened: x x x at about 11:00 o‘clock in the evening of April 25. In a sworn statement executed on even date. located near Valle Verde Drive-In Lodge in San Fernando. Pampanga went to see Ms. Rosie Bernabe at her Pasay City Hall office and had information concerning her son. si Rambo sa itim at saka yong babae. Noong binubuksan ko yong gate sabi sa akin ni Roberto Llising ―Bakit ang tagal mo‖ tapos pakabukas ko ng gate pumasok yong dalawang kotse una yung itim pagkatapos yung green na kotse na Lancer. After evading arrest the previous days.000. He refused to make a statement or give further information until Rodolfo Manalili was arrested.‖ In the main. that FELIMON GARCIA and another person brought the blindfolded woman to Brgy. si Rambo. Noong dinala na ni Rambo. T: Sa ikaliliwanag ng pagsisiyasat na ito. biglang dumating si Felimon dala pa yong pala pagkatapos sininyasahan si Rambo na ilabas na iyong lalaki. naghugas pa ng kamay siya. The two guards told the CAPCOM that their friends Raul Morales and Jun Medrano. he said: 21. Pagkatapos tinalian niya ng alambre bukod pa sa pagtali ng alambre pati pa yong mukha tinalian ng damit. Tinawag ko si Aida Morales para buksan ang gate tapos sabi ni Aida ―Ikaw na lang ang magbukas‖ pagkatapos kinuha ko yung susi sa kanya para buksan ang yong gate. He immediately went to that place and saw FELIMON GARCIA who introduced to him RUDY MANALILI who was then accompanied by six (6) other men. . Pagkatapos nagsabi si Rambo sa akin na buksan na ang gate at aalis na sila. Mga kalahating oras bago bumalik si Rambo sa bodega na hindi na kasama yong lalaki. Dinala ulit ni Rambo yung pala noong palabas na sila nung lalaki. common-law wife of Roberto Lising alias ―Rambo. Pampanga. 1990. which was in an advanced decomposing stage was exhumed from a shallow grave. San Agustin where she was killed that before he. Pagkatapos pagtali ni Rambo. that MANALILI stabbed COCHISE and he acted only as a look-out. he stated that he was apahinante residing in the warehouse where LPG cylinders are stored. Garcia surrendered and was brought to the NBI.

Colt Galant (sic) driven by ROBIN MANGA and NABUA finally told then that HERRERA was at a house near the Camelot. a policemen assigned with Pampanga PC Intelligence Unit. at about 8:00 a. Rodolfo Jimenez manifested on January 18. There they saw LISING and ERNESTO COCHISE BERNABE and BEEBOM CASTAÑOS. At about 9:00 a.m. 1990. 1990. he told GARCIA to postpone their plan against HERRERA due to his forthcoming travel to Germany on April 25. he placed a long-distance call to MANALILI to inform him that LISING is willing to help.000. will act as pointer of the persons to be arrested and LISING agreed and asked from MANALILI P50. He met LISING together with a certain Pat ENRICO DIZON of the Guagua police and another police officer in Dau. Minalin. which he did.00 to LISING as expenses. said that VIC NABUA. He told LISING that the man is not HERRERA. and on April 21. 1990.00 for the job to which MANALILI agreed. Diego Gutierrez after proper representations were made with the Australian police. Quezon City while soliciting contribution for Barangay fiesta of San Isidro. after MANALILI left. his employee.. LISING and GARCIA came to his house and told him that the man and BEEBOM were already released and in turn gave them a Far East Bank check in the amount ofP40. On January 17. and gave them a sketch of HERRERA. and brought him to Room 213 where he saw a man slumped on the floor with his eyes and mouth covered with tape. on the other hand. at about 10:00 p. to help in the arrest of HERRERA. while in the residence of LISING. Diliman. However. MANALILI identified them and instructed him and LISING to release COCHISE and BEEBOM and assured that whatever MANALILI promised to LISING WILL BE PAID. the suspect in the killing of his brother DELFIN MANALILI.m. Luna. with the assistance of Atty. 1990. The following day. He together with LISING. Quezon City and there a check forP40. The lady companion sitting on the bed had her eyes also taped. Said car proceeded to Timog Circle and parked in front of Dayrit Hamburger House.00. 1990. 1990.00. the accused in the killing of his brother DELFIN MANALILI. He was accompanied in his car by GARCIA and VICTOR LISBOA. he and LISING went to the warehouse of MANALILI at Xavierville Subdivision. He was forced to peek (sic) inside the room anew. Thereafter BEEBOM was forced by ENRICO DIZON and ROBIN MANGA top board the Galant car which left the warehouse towards Barangay San Agustin. LISING and DIZON returned on board a black car. He alighted at Sto. He contacted ROBERTO LISING alias RAMBO.00 was given to LISING who encashed it with Fareast Bank and went to Pampanga. Pampanga on April 22. Pampanga after LISING gave him P500. Domingo. He and LISING were left in the warehouse and proceeded to the house of LIGAYA FAUSTO at MALIGAYA Village in San Fernando. during the meeting.00. 1991 Felimon Garcia. After he was told that BEEBOM and COCHISE would be released he instructed GARCIA to stay behind and see to it that his instructions were complied with. . On April 26. GARCIA came to his office at No.000. Lising AGREED. He met MANALILI at the Dao-Mabalacat exit and accompanied the latter to LISING. Then. However. LISING told him to bring COCHISE and BEEBOM to a warehouse owned by LIGAYA FAUSTO where COCHISE was killed by LISING. ENRICO DIZON and the driver of a Tamaraw went to Quezon City on April 23 and 24. executed a statement revealing that: x x x he met RODOLFO MANALILI sometime in April 1987 in his office at No. MANALILI. with the assistance of his counsel. and this time recognized the woman to be BEEBOM CASTAÑOS. Atty. Redemberto Villanueva. San Fernando. After a few minutes of surveillance NABUA approached them and told them to follow the car driven by a man with a woman companion. He pleaded to LISING and companions to release them and would give them whatever amount he promised them. who was in Australia at that time was fetched by then NBI Director Alfredo Lim and Atty. he returned with VICTOR LISBOA. The relationship continued until he was requested by MANALILI to look for persons who could help in arresting ROBERTO HERRERA. Pampanga. his relative and live-in partner of LISING. Quezon City and informed that they have already arrested HERRERA with a lady companion and that he was instructed to go to Pampanga. but VIC NABUA failed to spot HERRERA. otherwise he will kill him or implicate him in the crime. Rodolfo Manalili.Meanwhile. 1991: That he met LISING through FELIMON GARCIA whom he requested to look for some police officers who could help in the arrest of ROBERTO HERRERA.[3] Rodolfo Manalili. They proceeded to Valle Verde Hotel in San Fernando. On April 24. thru LIGAYA FAUSTO. Pampanga. followed by the Colt Galant which they likewise followed on board a motor and handcuffed the man and the woman. Initially MANALILI gave P2.000. 71 Mapang-akit Street corner V.000. Then LISING instructed him to contact MANALILI and VIC NABUA proceeded to Pampanga PC where they were instructed by the military on duty to proceed to Valle Verde Lodge.45 CALIBER AND Armalite. On April 25. of April 25. They talked over the phone and agreed to meet the following day in Dao. he left for Germany and returned on May 28.000. ENRICO DIZON AND ANOTHER MAN ARMED WITH SERVICE PISTOL (. 71 Mapangakit.m. Minalin. While still in Germany his wife and househelps have been receiving threatening telephone calls and on the first week of June he received a call from GARCIA who gave the telephone to LISING who asked for P60.

1991. and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof. Raul Morales was presented in court on April 17. Olimpia further explained that the security guard of Dayrit‘s Ham and Burger House. 1990 was from 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight.On June 21. He knew Roberto Lising to be a policeman and is known by the name ―Rambo‖ Lising. Quezon City. pursuant to their conspiracy. in Quezon City. the prosecution presented two vital witnesses: Froilan Olimpia. rob and carry away one G. Q-90-15240 For: Kidnapping with Double Murder[7] That on or about the 25th day of April. then and there. Philippines. was not really able to witness the whole incident since he was busy buying a cigarette stick from a nearby vendor. He came to know about the identities of the man and woman and their disappearance when two persons were making inquiries about them on April 27.T. and Ligaya Fausto. did. who witnesses the abduction of the young couple at Dayrit‘s Ham and Burger House. Felimon Garcia. They announced that they were policemen. These men went towards the green box type Lancer and handcuffed its driver. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Roberto Lising y Canlas. 1990. Felimon Garcia and Ligaya Fausto. the establishment beside Dayrit‘s Ham and Burger House along Timog Circle. the said accused. [6] Criminal Case No. Felimon Garcia. Just when the latter was returning to his post. Robin Manga y Quimzon. Enrico Dizon. He did not tell anyone about the incident nor bothered to report to the authorities since he was aware that the perpetrators were policemen. Rodolfo Manalili. Froilan Olimpia testified in court and stated that he was 31 years old and was formerly a security guard of Nationwide Security and Investigation Agency. He only heard the man being handcuffed retort ―Bakit?‖ When asked about the female companion. and Ligaya Fausto. On May 27. Lancer. 1990. the cars were already backing up ready to leave. 1991. Q-90-15239 For Carnapping (Violation of Republic Act No. did.and Rodolfo Manalili.[4] Consequently. Pampanga. P/Pfc. the pahinante who testified on the killing of Cochise. Enrico Dizon. and several Does. both private individuals. all the accused pleaded not guilty. Criminal Case No. conspiring together. private individuals and several Does. one was carrying a . then and there stab them several times in the chest and slit open their necks. The next time. PER 942 in an undetermined value and belonging to Ernesto Bernabe II. and with intent to kill. 6539) [5] That on or about the 25thday of April 1990. he said that his attention was more focused on the handcuffing incident and just later noticed that the woman was already seated at the back of the car. He stated that since March 1988. confederating with and mutually helping one another. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. unlawfully and feloniously take. also a private individual. He did not even see the other man driving the black car. knowing the criminal intent of the above-named principal accused cooperated in the execution of the crime by supplying material and/or moral aid. took them to San Fernando. 1990 he left for Hong Kong then to Melbourne for fear of his life and that of his family. He was assigned at the Rotonda Wine Station.45 caliber firearm in his holster and other was carrying a long firearm. to the damage and prejudice of the offended party in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code. with treachery. Pampanga. located in Valle Victoria Village. Roberto (sic) Manga y Quimzon. to the damage and prejudice of the Heirs of said victims in such amounts as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the New Civil Code. In building up their case. At about 7:00 to 7:30 in the evening. did. then and there. San Fernando. Enrico Dizon. [8] Upon arraignment. Anastacio dela Cruz. augmenting their sufferings which were the direct and immediate cause of their deaths and thereafter burying them to prevent discovery. His tour of duty on April 25. and Rodolfo Manalili. being then members of the Integrated National Police with Presidential waiver. and Raul Morales. He works . Then a black car with no license plate parked behind the green car and two men alighted from it carrying guns. being then members of the Integrated National Police with Presidential waiver. Robin Manga. the said accused. with intent to gain. willfully. a dealer of LPG. two (2) Amended Informations were filed in court against Roberto ―Rambo‖ Lising. There was a green box type Lancer car which parked in front of the Dayrit‘s Ham and Burger House carrying a man and a woman. another group of people asked him about what he witnessed until he was picked up by the NBI for further questioning about the whole incident. with plate No. He claimed that the police officers he saw in Valle Verde Hotel were Pampanga policeman and not Quezon City policeman. conspiring together. Roberto ―Rambo‖ Lising y Canlas. in Quezon City. confederating with and mutually helping one another. he had been working for Ligaya Fausto and Roberto Lising as a pahinante or truck helper of Crown Gas Commercial. Philippines. willfully. by means of violence and intimidation against persons.‘ kidnap or in any manner deprive them of their liberty and thereafter. evident premeditation and cruelty. unlawfully and feloniously and for the purpose of detaining Ernesto Bernabe II y Blanco @ ‗Cochise‘ and Ana Lourdes Castaños y Jis de Ortega @ ‗Beebom. P/Pfc. Olimpia was at his post in front of the Wine Station.

On the basis of the testimonies of the above witnesses.00 as downpayment. with Felimon Garcia seated in front. After the two cars entered the premises.) 6. at around 5:00 o‘clock in the afternoon. ( Ibid. Dizon and Manga carried Cochise out of the warehouse.45 caliber pistol. ( Ibid. In a little while. After alighting from the car. and accused Manga. alighted from the black car. The conspiracy to abduct and subsequently kill Ernesto ―Cochise‖ Bernabe II and Ana Lourdes ―Beebom‖ Castaños was hatched sometime in March 1990 when accused Rodolfo Manalili secured the services of accused Felimon Garcia to look for men who would be willing to commit the dastardly deed for a fee. Lising called on Morales and told him to close the gate and keep the shoes of Cochise. (Exhibit ―MM‖) 8. Lising boarded the green box-type Lancer car with Garcia and the woman. Morales was given a clean sheet of paper and pen where he was asked to make a sketch of his place of work. and a black car with Dizon and Manga. Pampanga about the details of the conspiracy.‖ (Ibid. Felimon Garcia got a spade from the back compartment of the car and went out of the warehouse. plus the confessions made in the extrajudicial statements executed by Roberto Lising. On April 26. went to the vicinity of the Camelot Hotel at Quezon City. namely. on board Manga‘s black car. (TSN. During his testimony. Dizon and their companions the amount of P50. (Exhibit ―DD‖) 9. he was awakened by a knock at the gate of the warehouse. (Id. Manga‘s black car was parked immediately behind. Lising.) 13. At a meeting arranged by Garcia on 22 April 1990. Lising and Dizon then brought Cochise to an area in the middle of the warehouse while Manga led Beebom to another end. Accused Garcia then set about on his task and contacted accused Roberto Lising and Enrico Dizon for the ―job. carrying a long firearm. When he opened the gate. Before leaving. to wit: 1. 1991. after going inside the warehouse.6) 12. They positioned themselves about 60 meters away from the Castaños residence and waited for the victims. the court conducted an ocular inspection of the scene of the crime. Lising and Dizon then removed the handcuffs of Cochise. ( Ibid.) 7. Upon reaching Dayrit‘s hamburger House. ( Ibid.‖ (Ibid. Felimon Garcia. 7 May 1991. accused Manalili talked with Lising and Dizon at Mabalacat. (Exhi bits ―HH‖ and ―MM‖). PER 942. Fiscal Ernesto Bernabe. Lising and Dizon readily accepted Manalili‘s using a total of P10.as a policeman in the morning and when he returns home after work. Accused Lising. he noticed another man enter the gate and walked towards Beebom. Cochise and Beebom went out of the Castaños residence. The four walked towards Manalili and talked with each other. At about 2:00 in the morning of April 26. Morales further testified that it was Lising who closed the gate but left it ajar. helps in delivering gas. the prosecution presented their version of the incident as quoted from the trial court‘s decision. Quezon City. Garcia. ( Ibid. the four men. and registered under the name of Cochise‘s father. proceeded towards the green Lancer and announced that they are policemen. At around 6:30 o‘clock in the evening of the same day.) 10.00 for the ―job. maawa po kayo sa amin. He could not hear the conversation but saw that they grouped themselves together. Accused Dizon. Garcia and Manga. At 7) .) This Lancer car is owned by.) 3.) 11. Garcia. accused Lising. Accused Lising and Dizon then recruited accused Robin Manga to help implement the orders of Manalili. and Rodolfo Manalili. Dizon. was handed a knife by Lising which he used to stab Cochise on the chest. On 25 April 1990. (Ibid.000. p. Cochise parked the green Lancer in front of the restaurant. Accused Manalili promised Lising. tied his hands with the wire and blindfolded him with a tape and torn cloth. the balance of P40. armed with a . (Ibid. the four men directly went to the well and washed their hands. boarded Cochise‘s green colored 1985 Lancer car with plate No. Garcia and Manga immediately boarded Manga‘s black car and tailed the green Lancer.) 5. he saw Lising go behind their sleeping quarters and get a wire. a man and a woman at the back seat of the car. Witness Morales pointed to the court how events transpired from where he was seated.00 payable after the victims have been kidnapped and killed. He noticed Rudy Manalili walk out of the gate. He heard the woman plead: ―Uncle.‖ while Manga was tying Beebom‘s hands with the wire. Cochise and Beebom then proceeded toward Dayrit‘s Ham and Burger House at Timog Avenue.000.) 4. They were away for about half an hour and when they came back.000. Dizon. 1990. Immediately thereafter. Lising then retrieved his knife from Garcia and continued to stab Cochise. 2. When Cochise was already dead. two cars came in: a green box-type Lancer car driven by Lising.

at 8) 25. Lising and Dizon answered that they had released Cochise.. mortally wounded.. 18. Dizon.) 22. (Ibid. p. on board Manga‘s black car. Pampanga. as if telling Garcia how to do it. Garcia walked towards the back of the bodega and there. Dizon approached. immediately followed. was driving the black car. parang awa mo na. (TSN.. Manga. (Ibid. visibly surprised and confused. Thereupon.14. Manalili then was left to keep watch over Beebom. 18. ( Ibid. Exhibit ―MM‖) . ( Ibid. Cochise. at 14-15) 36. asked Dizon. dissatisfied. Wala kaming kasalanan. Accused Dizon and Manga then boarded the front of the green Lancer. (Exhibit ―MM‖) 21. Beebom inquired about Cochise. Garcia further told Manalili to go to a designated place in San Fernando. a ccused Lising. 40. at 8) 24.‖ (Ibid. 26 April 1991. Garcia and Manga brought Cochise to the back of the bodega. Lising was driving the green Lancer with Garcia at the front seat. at 14) Accused Dizon ignored the question and rudely pushed Cochise into the back seat of the green Lancer. who then stabbed Cochise in the chest. handcuffed and gagged with several strips of masking tape. Manalili then proceeded to San Fernando. The order was for all of them to leave. Pampanga on board his gray Mercedes Benz. Exhibit ―MM‖) 39. Cochise. blind-folded. (TSN. Lising. and went out of the bodega.45 caliber pistol at Cochise and handcuffed Cochise‘s hands behind his back. 16. on the other hand.at 11) 19. At the rear of the car were Cochise and Beebom.) Manalili simply ignored Beebom‘s plea for mercy. (TSN. Garcia went to the back of the green Lancer. on the other hand. Beebom. 18 April 1991. dug a shallow grave. April 1991. with Dizon beside him. 18 April 1991. Pampanga owned by accused Ligaya Fausto. p. ( Ibid. TSN. 29. (Ibid). After the green Lancer and the black car were parked inside the bodega. (Id. At this point in time. pleaded. At this time.11) 28. All this time.) 20. At around 2:00 o‘clock in the morning of 26 April 1990. pointed the .. 34. ( Id. Lising went to the clothesline area of the bodega. (Exhibit ―HH‖) 31. Cochise then fell to the ground. 26 April 1991. at 9-10. 26 April 1991. 6. 18 April 1991. got a spade from the truck compartment. and pushed her into the other back seat of the green Lancer. parked the car on the road outside the bodega and walked inside towards Beebom. Manalili arrived. Lising. grabbed the knife from Garcia and stabbed Cochise several times in the chest and stomach area.) 27..3) 26.6) 23. Meanwhile. Garcia informed Manalili of the success of the operation. p. (Id. Similarly.) 18. and that they would likewise release her. was taken by Manga to another area of the Bodega where she could not see Cochise or hear what was being done to him. ( Id. ( Id. (Ibid. (Id. ―Bakit?‖ (Id. p. 12) 33. Accused Lising and Garcia. Beebom. (TSN.) 37.) 30. ( Id. ―Uncle. got a length of a laundry wire and some clothes which he tore apart and made into makeshift ropes. (Id. accused Manga approached Beebom at the other side of the green Lancer. was dragged out of the green Lancer by Lising and Dizon towards an area near the toilet. The four then covered cochise with soil. Garcia and Manga brought Cochise and Beebom to a bodega in San Fernando. Dizon motioned to Manga to help carry the body of Cochise.. into the shallow grave dug by Garcia. (Ibid. Dizon was holding Cochise. at 7-9) 17.. While Cochise and Beebom were alighting from the green Lancer. seeing Manalili. Garcia then returned to the bodega with the spade still in his hands and approached Cochise. After the forcible abduction of Cochise and Beebom. 18) They then reported to Manalili for final instructions. where Cochise and Beebom will be taken.) 35. (TSN. appearing. Dizon. at 16) 38. at 8) 15. backed the car out of the parking area of Dayrit‘s Ham & Burger House and drove away towards EDSA. p. (TSN. ( Id. p. p. at 14) Lising handed a knife to Garcia.

(TSN. Pampanga. namely. The Bernabe family. to drive the Lancer car to her house in Maligaya Village. ―CC-1‖ to ―CC-6‖ and ―EE‖) 53.. in their attempt to locate Cochise spent a total of P380.00 for the funeral services for Beebom.00 for funeral and other expenses. Cochise was 26 years old and Beebom was 22 years old when their lives were untimely ended by the accused.00 balance of the ―contract‖. after two months of frantic and exhaustive search made by the Bernabe family. Lising arrived on board the Lancer car taken from Cochise. At the same time.000. Exhibits ―CC‖. The next day. one of Fausto‘s helpers in the bodega. Exhibits ―LL‖. It was determined during an autopsy that Cochise died to multiple stab wounds in his chest and upper stomach. (Exhibit ―MM‖). Bebot and Arnold. Exhibit ―II‖) 56. on the other hand. It was determined during the autopsy that Beebom died of severe hemorrhage. at 22) 46. Exhibits ―D‖. (Id. Manalili in his own car. (TSN. Lising alighted from the Lancer car. at 21) 45. (TSN. drove the Lancer car to Fausto‘s house and hid it in the ―barbelan‖ area of the house. Cochise and Beebom were in the best of their youth and health at the time of their untimely death. ―LL-1‖ to ―LL-3‖) 57. (TSN. San Fernando. on the other hand. 18) 42. in laying Cochise to his final rest. at 23-24. 10 April 1991. Jun Medrano. Pursuant to Fausto‘s instruction. TSN. pp. Fausto emerged from the hut and instructed a certain Jun Medrano. the body of Beebom was found and exhumed from a shallow grave about two kilometers from the bodega of Fausto. 24-26. Thereafter. p. also after two months of frantic and exhaustive search made by the Castaños family. the five accused left the bodega. 43. was a graduating Mass Communication student of the University of the Philippines when she was abducted on 25 April 1990.222. by issuing a Far East Bank check for the said amount to Lising at around 8:00 o‘clock in the morning of 26 April 1990. upon Fausto‘s instructions. Raul Morales. together with two other helpers of Fausto. 4-7. Cochise had just finished his Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines and was then reviewing for his bar examinations when he was abducted on 25 April 1990. and informed Fausto about the taking of the Lancer car. Rudy. 18 April 1991. each one had an alibi. (TSN. Garcia Dizon and Manga at the back of Fausto‘s bodega in San Fernando. (Ibid. Meanwhile. Pampanga. and a certain Nonoy. Exhibits ―1‖ and ―J‖) 55. Later. Lising immediately encashed the check and distributed the proceeds among himself and the other accused.000. on the other hand. (TSN. Lising and Fausto thereafter started using the Lancer car in going to the bank and other places in San Fernando. proceeded to one of the huts in the bodega where Fausto was staying. Pampanga. their written works having been published in periodicals and other publications. Dizon and Manga on board the black car. 9 August 1991. ―CC-1‖ to ―CC-6‖) 50. Jun Medrano. Beebom. Fausto‘s helpers in the bodega. 23 July 1991. 10 April 1991. 18 April 1991. satisfied that his orders had been fully implemented. After the Lancer car was repainted to light gray. (TSN. 9 August 1991. (TSN. Raul Morales.41. secondary to two stab wounds in the chest. At around 5:00 o‘clock in the morning of the same day. Thus. The Lancer car taken from Cochise. the body of Cochise was found and exhumed from the grave where Cochise was buried by Lising. Fausto arrived at her bodega and waited for Lising to arrive. (Exhibits ―K‖ and ―HH‖) 48. the accused policemen claimed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain their conviction.000. pushed the Lancer car for about fifteen minutes to have its engine started. pp. Dizon and Manga took Beebom with them on the black car. The Lancer car was subsequently recovered by the PC/CAPCOM and turned over to the custody of Fiscal Ernesto Bernabe. the Bernabe family spent a total of P632. 18 April 1991. spent a total of P350. the Lancer car was driven to Fausto‘s bodega. (Id.. 23 July 1991. p. p. (TSN. ―D-1‖ ―E‖ and ―E-1‖ 54. .00. 28-29) 51.) 52. p. and hide it there. About an hour later. 2627. (Id. upon the instructions of Lising. The Castaños family. Exhibits ―K-2‖ and ―MM‖) 49. (Exhibits ―CC‖. After a few minutes. This was the last time that Beebom was seen alive. and Lising. remained hidden for sometime at the residence of Fausto in Maligaya Village where it was repainted to a light gray color upon the instruction of Fausto.. Exhibit ―Y‖) 47. 20) 44. 40. pp. Garcia and Beebom in the green Lancer. 18 April 1991. Manalili paid Lising the P40. Both Cochise and Beebom excelled in academic and extra-curricular activities. 39)[9] In their defense. On 25 June 1990. 33. pp. 12. p. p.

Accused LIGAYA FAUSTO who is charged as an accessory after the fact (not accomplice as alleged by the Prosecution).00 as funeral and other expenses. P2. LIKEWISE. He left the office at 5:00 p. III. Bgy.000. IN STATING THAT HEREIN APPELLANT IMMEDIATELY ENCASHED THE CHECK AND DISTRIBUTED THE PROCEEDS AMONG HIMSELF AND THE OTHERS (EXHS.00 as compensatory damages.000. ―MM-1‖ TO ―MM-14‖) ADMISSIBLE AS AGAINST ROBERTO ―RAMBO‖ LISING. premises considered. P500. Q-15239 for carnapping. On July 1. The Court also finds accused Roberto Lising.00 as moral damages. Pampanga and stayed there for the night. (a) (b) (c) (d) P1. two of his neighbors recounted in court the verbal exchange they had when they saw each other in their neighborhood. and headed for home at NO. this Court finds accused RODOLFO MANALILI.000.. The heirs of Ana Lourdes Castaños: (a) (b) (c) P350. II. THAT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED. is hereby acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. ―HH-1‖ TO ―HH-25‖) AND THAT OF FELIMON GARCIA (―MM‖.m.00 as moral damages. 107 Kamia St. San Fernando. ―K -2‖ AND ―MM‖). His father was presented to corroborate his assertion. [10] In this appeal. ENRICO DIZON.000. all the accused are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged. They opted to rely on their extrajudicial statements executed the previous days manifesting the absence if criminal intent. Enrico Dizon testified that April 25. meanwhile averred that it was impossible for him to participate in the commission of the crime since he was still nursing his gunshot wounds sustained in an encounter with lawless elements for about a year already. 1990 was an ordinary working day for him. IV.000.Roberto Lising asserted that on April 25.000.000. With respect to Criminal Case No. to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Ernesto Bernabe II. it appearing that the use of the car was done only to facilitate the commission of the crime of Slight Illegal Detention. Enrico Dizon and Robin Manga GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Slight Illegal Detention aggravated by use of a motor vehicle and hereby sentences each one of them to suffer the maximum penalty of Reclusion Temporalwith imprisonment from Seventeen (17) years. Roberto Manga.000. Accused RODOLFO MANALILI. ALSO AS AGAINST ROBERTO ―RAMBO‖ LISING.00 as compensatory damages.00 for funeral and other expenses. ROBIN MANGA y QUIMZON and ENRICO DIZON y ESCARIO. THAT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING RAUL MORALES AS A CREDIBLE WITNESS. Four (4) months and one (1) day to Twenty years. Pampanga. 1992.000. ROBERTO LISING y CANLAS. he took a leave of absence from office to be able to celebrate his father‘s b irthday in Arayat. the trial court rendered a decision with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE. FELIMON GARCIA. Garcia and Manalili did not take the witness stand. 1990. Sindalen. ROBERTO LISING. and hereby sentences each one of them to suffer a penalty of double Reclusion Perpetua with all its accessory penalties provided by law (the death penalty having been abolished by the 1987 Constitution). ROBIN MANGA and FELIMON GARCIA are given full credit of their respective sentences in this case. THAT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE STATEMENT OF THE HEREIN APPELLANT AS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AS AGAINST HIM. In fact. and to pay the cost. . THAT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AND CONSIDERING THE STATEMENTS OF RODOLFO MANALILI (EXHS. ―HH:. P50. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Double Murder qualified with treachery and aggravated by evidence premeditation and abused of public position by Lising. P500. the following assignment of errors were made: Roberto Lising contends that: I. P50.00 for Cochise‘s loss of earning capacity. Manga and Dizon.

Enrico Dizon argues that: 1. IV. V. Rodolfo Manalili avers that: .V. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS OF RODOLFO MANALILI AND FELIMON GARCIA ―AFFIRMED CONSPIRACY‖ AMONG THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE ITS UTTER LACK OF EVIDENTIARY VALUE. 5. AND AFFIDAVITS PRESENTED. PANGAN AND REMOLACIO. AND THAT THE HON. JIVING (SIC) THE PLACE FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION. SELF-CONTRADICTIONS AND ARE HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADJUDGING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS BASED ON THE DECLARATION OF FELIMON G ARCIA‘S EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION WITHOUT ESTABLISHING FIRST THE CONSPIRACY TO WHICH ACCUSED-APPELLANT DIZON WAS A PART. ROLANDO FERNANDEZ. THAT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT HEREIN APPELLANT (LISING IS EQUALLY LIABLE FOR KIDNAPPING – THUS.[12] Robin Manga asserts that: I. 1990 AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENT FELIMON GARCIA WAS NOT EVEN IDENTIFIED BY THE LATTER DURING THE TRIAL OF THESE CASES. FERNANDEZ.[13] II. 2. NOEMI PANGAN AND JESUS REMOLACIO FROM THE INFORMATION AND ADMIT AMENDED INFORMATION IMPLICATING ACCUSED-APPELLANT ENRICO DIZON DESPITE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF THE PARTICIPATION OF KHO. VI. WITHOUT REGARDING THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS RAUL MORALES AND FROILAN OLIMPIA. MANALILI AND GARCIA DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT PRESENTED AS WITNESSES BEFORE THE LOWER COURT. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT FELIMON GARCIA‘S NARRATION OF THE ABDUCTION WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY OF FROILAN OLIMPIA WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTICIPATION OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT ROBIN MANGA DESPITE STATEMENTS BY OLIMPIA THAT HE SAW QUEZON CITY POLICEMEN ROLANDO KHO AND ROLANDO FERNANDEZ AS THE PERSONS WHO ABDUCTED ―COCHISE‖ AND ―BEEBOM‖ IN THE EARLY EVENING OF APRIL 25. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDIT ON THE TESTIMONIES OF RAUL MORALES AND FROILAN OLIMPIA DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STATEMENTS OF THE TWO ARE REPLETE WITH INCONSISTENCIES. COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING TE HEREIN APPELLANT (ROBERTO LISING) AS ONE OF ALL THE ACCUSED FOR THE CRIMES OF DOUBLE MURDER AND WITH ENRICO DIZON AND ROBIN MANGA FOR SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE MOTION TO DROP THE NAMES OF ROLANDO KHO. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO OBSERVE THE PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT MANGA BEING INVOLVED IN THE OFFENSES CHARGED. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT MANGA. 4. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING THE PROSECUTION‘S VERSION OF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ALTHOUGH THERE WERE MISLEADING STATEMENTS AS PROVED BY THEIR CONTRADICTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPTS OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE FOR IT RELIED IN THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDIT ON THE EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENT OF CO-ACCUSED RODOLFO MANALILI AND FELIMON GARCIA DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TWO DID NOT TAKE THE WITNESS STAND NOR THEIR STATEMENTS OFFERED IN EVIDENCE. THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT GAVE CREDENCE TO THE AFFIDAVITS EXECUTED BY LISING. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING AS EVIDENCE MATTERS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT MANGA. VII. 3. [11] VI. III.

III. V. AND EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT APPELLANT FELIMON GARCIA IS NOT EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RAUL MORALES WAS A REHEARSED AND PERJURED WITNESS TO MAKE FALSE ASSERTIONS IMPLICATING APPELLANT FELIMON GARCIA IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF DOUBLE MURDER. . VII. THEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION HAS NOT FULFILLED THE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW OF PROVING THE GUILT OF ACCUSED RODOLFO MANALILI BEYOND DOUBT AND THEREFROM SAID ACCUSED MANALILI IS ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL. 1990.[14] II. SINCE THERE WAS IN EFFECT SEPARATE TRIALS OF THE SEVERAL ACCUSED WHO WERE EACH REPRESENTED BY SEPARATE LAWYERS AND CONSIDERING THAT CONSPIRACY BETWEEN APPELLANT FELIMON GARCIA AND HIS CO-ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY ANY ACT OR DECLARATION DURING ITS EXISTENCE. IV. VI. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT ACCUSED RODOLFO MANALILI DID NOT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL INTENT OF DOING AWAY WITH THE LIVES OF ERNESTO BERNABE II AND ANA LOURDES CASTAÑOS AND THAT HE LIKEWISE DID NOT HAVE ANY MOTIVE WHATSOEVER IN CONSPIRING TO DO SO. AND THE OTHER REASONABLE INTERPRETATION LEADING TO A FINDING OF ACQUITTAL. III. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT ANOTHER PARTY WHO WOULD BE MOST BENEFITED BY DOING AWAY WITH THE LIVES OF THE VICTIMS. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT APPELLANT FELIMON GARCIA DID NOT HAVE ANY CRIMINAL INTENT NOR MOTIVE WHATSOEVER TO CONSPIRE WITH APPELLANT LISING ET AL TO KILL ERNESTO BERNABE II AND ANA LOURDES CASTAÑOS BOTH OF WHOM APPELLANT GARCIA HAS NEVER KNOWN OR MET BEFORE APRIL 25. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONCLUDING THAT ACCUSED RODOLFO MANALILI NEVER ENTERED INTO A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE CRIME OF DOUBLE MURDER NOR DID HE COMMIT ANY ACT/S ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT HE ENTERED INTO SUCH A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE CRIME IMPUTED TO HIM. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING TOTAL CREDIBILITY TO RAUL MORALES AND IN NOT FINDING THAT RAUL MORALES WAS A REHEARSED AND PERJURED WITNESS INSOFAR AS IMPLICATING ACCUSED RODOLFO MANALILI IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF DOUBLE MURDER IS CONCERNED. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT FELIMON GARCIA PERFORMED THE ACTS ADMITTED BY HIM UNDER THE COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE AND/OR UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE IN CRIMINAL LAW THAT WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS: ONE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION LEADING TO A DECISION OF CONVICTION. AND THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AWARDING INFLATED. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SWORN STATEMENT OF ROBERTO LISING AS EVIDENCE AGAINST RODOLFO MANALILI TO THE EXTENT THAT IT PURPORTS TO ATTEST TO MANALILI‘S INVOLVEMENT IN THE CRIME. IV.I. V. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SWORN STATEMENT OF ROBERTO LISING AS EVIDENCE AGAINST APPELLANT FELIMON GARCIA. Felimon Garcia contends that: I. SINCE THERE WAS IN EFFECT SEPARATE TRIAL OF THE SEVERAL ACCUSED WHO WERE EACH REPRESENTED BY SEPARATE LAWYERS AND CONSIDERING THAT CONSPIRACY BETWEEN MANALILI AND HIS CO-ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY ANY ACT OR DECLARATION DURING ITS EXISTENCE. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING HIM GUILTY II. AND SPECULATIVE DAMAGES WHICH ARE NOT RECOVERABLE UNDER EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE. WAS BEHIND THE COMMISSION OF DOUBLE MURDER. UNSUBSTANTIATED.

MERELY AS AN ACCOMPLICE OF THE CRIME OF DOUBLE MURDER AND THEREFORE ENTITLED TO A LOWER PENALTY IN VIEW OF THE PRESENCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, OBFUSCATION, AND LACK OF INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG, AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.[15] Basically the present appeal is anchored on three issues: (a) the admissibility of the extrajudicial statements of appellants Manalili, Garcia and Lising; (b) the credibility of prosecution witnesses Froilan Olimpia and Raul Morales and the (c) finding of conspiracy among the appellants. Extrajudicial statements are as a rule, admissible as against their respective declarants, pursuant to the rule that the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. This is based upon the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself, unless such declarations were true. A man‘s act, conduct and declarations wherever made, provided they be voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth and it is his fault if they are not.[16] There is no question that their respective extrajudicial statement of Manalili and Garcia were executed voluntarily. They were assisted by their counsel and properly sworn to before a duly authorized officer. They merely relied on their extra-judicial statements and did not take the witness stand during the trial. Lising, on the other hand, claims that he was coerced and tortured into executing the extrajudicial statement but nothing appears on record that such extrajudicial statement was made under compulsion, duress or violence on his person. Lising did not present himself for physical examination, nor did he file administrative charges against his alleged tormentors which would necessarily buttress the claim of torture in the absence of such evidence. There are in fact indicia of voluntariness in the execution of his extrajudicial statements, to wit: (a) it contains many details and facts which the investigating officer could not have known and could have supplied, without the knowledge and information given by Lising himself; (b) it bears corrections duly initialed by him; (c) it tends to explain or justify his conduct and shift the blame to his co-accused Manalili. Moreover, the claim that Lising was not assisted by counsel is belied by the fact that the signature of his counsel Atty. Yabut appears in all the pages of his extrajudicial statements. The rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence only against the person making it, also recognizes various exceptions. One such exception worth noting is the rule that where several extrajudicial statements had been made by several persons charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said several confessions, the facts that the statements are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein.[17] They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated therein to show the probability of the latter‘s actual participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as corroborative evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime charged and proved. [18] These are known as ―interlocking confessions.‖ No doubt that the statements were independently executed and rather identical with each other in their material details. There are also distinct similarities in the narration of events leading to the killings of Cochise and Beebom. Manalili and Garcia‘s statements reveal that Manalili wanted to effect the arrest of Robert Herrera; that he asked help from Garcia if the latter knew of policemen who could do the job for the promised consideration of P50,000.00; that a downpayment of P2,000.00 was made; that Manalili was informed that Robert Herrera and Joy Ortega were arrested; that Manalili together with Garcia and Nabua proceeded to Valle Verde Motel; that they were met by Dizon and Manga at the motel and were told that Herrera was inside the room; that upon discovery that Lising‘s group had taken the wrong person and recognized Beebom‘s voice, Manalili pleaded to the group that the victim be released, assuring Lising that the balance P40,000.00 would still be paid; that Lising and his group refused but relented upon Manalili‘s persistence; that Manalili left for Man ila but instructed Garcia to stay behind and ensure the release of the victims; and that the next day Lising went to his office and claimed the balance to which Manalili issued the corresponding check. Garcia added that after Manalili had left, Lising told him to bring Cochise and Beebom to the warehouse owned by Ligaya where Cochise was killed. Thereafter, they forcibly took Beebom into the car and proceeded to Brgy. San Agustin. Likewise, we find Lising‘s statement as corroborative evidence against the ot hers. Except as to that portion where he exculpates himself from any liability stating that it was Manalili and Garcia who actually stabbed Cochise in the warehouse and that he was merely a lookout, Lising‘s statement is identical as to the other material facts, namely, that Cochise and Beebom were brought to the Valle Verde Motel, blindfolded where he met Manalili and Garcia; that they were brought to the warehouse on board a green box type Lancer car, where Cochise was killed; that Beebom was brought to Brgy. San Agustin where she was eventually killed; that he should take care of the green box type Lancer car and was given P40,000.00 in check. Nonetheless, the trial court‘s decision, in convicting all the accused was based not on the aforesaid extrajudici al statements of the accused alone but mainly on the eyewitness account of the two witnesses, Froilan Olimpia and Raul Morales, which the trial court gave weight and credence as bearing the ―chime of truth and honesty.‖ Well -established is the rule that the trial court‘s evaluation of the credit-worthiness of the testimony given before it by witnesses should be accorded great respect. [19] Froilan Olimpia, a security

guard of the Rotonda Wine Station, an establishment adjacent to the Dayrit‘s Ham and Burger House who witnessed the abduction of Cochise and Beebom in front of the said restaurant. He testified that he saw three men in a black car without a license plate drive to Dayrit‘s Ham and Burger House and park behind the green Lancer car. When the two men alighted from the car, they introduced themselves as policemen to the by-standers, one carrying a .45 caliber firearm in his holster and the other carrying a long firearm. The two men approached the green Lancer car and handcuffed its driver. Olimpia only heard the man say: ―Bakit?‖ He later noticed that the woman was already seated at the bac k of the car. These two men drove the green Lancer car which was followed by the black car. When asked to identify the three men, Olimpia unhesitatingly identified Dizon and Manga.
Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Mr. Witness, on April 25, 1990, where were you employed? Security Guard of Nationwide Security & Investigation Agency. You said you were employed with Nationwide Security & Investigation Agency, as Security Guard on said date, where were you assigned as security guard? At Rotonda Wine Station, sir. Where is this Rotonda Wine Station located? At Timog Ave., sir. What city? Quezon City, sir. You said you were employed as security guard of Rotonda Wine Station, Timog Ave., Quezon City, do you have proof to show that you were a security guard of said Rotonda Wine Station on April 25, 1990? I have, sir, but it is filed with the agency. This Rotonda Wine Station, what establishments are beside this establishment, and let us talk first on the left and then right? The left side of Rotonda Wine Station is the Dayrit Hamburger House and the right is a drugstore. What was your tour of duty on April 25, 1990? 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight, sir. And did you report for duty on said date? Yes, sir. On or about 7:00 to 7:30 o‘clock in the evening of April 25, 1990 , what particular portion of Rotonda Wine Station were you posted? I was at the door, sir. Door of what, front or back? Front door of the Rotonda Wine Station, sir. When you said you were at the front door, inside the building or outside? Outside of the door, sir. You mentioned a while ago that on the left side of the Rotonda Wine Station where were posted is the Dayrit Hamburger House, was there a security guard there? Yes, sir. And do you know him? Yes, sir. What is his name? Anastacio de la Cruz, sir. You stated that at 7:00 to 7:30 in the evening of April 25, 1990, you positioned yourself in front or outside the door of Rotonda Wine Station, did you notice anything unusual while you were posting there? Yes, sir, there was. What was that unusual incident that took place, if any? There was a vehicle parking in front of Dayrit Hamburger house. What kind of a vehicle parked there? Green Lancer, car, box type. Where was it parked particularly? In front of Dayrit Hamburger house, at the side of the street. Did you notice the passenger of that green Lancer car? No, I did not know them, sir. But did you have the occasion to look and see them? Yes, sir. How many were they? Two, sir. Were they male and female? Yes, sir, one man a and one woman. You said you noticed the car with two persons boarding it, what happened after the vehicle parked on the side of the street in front of the Dayrit Hamburger house? After they had parked their vehicle, I noticed that another car parked behind that green Lancer car without any plate number. Did you notice what kind of a car was that which parked behind the green Lancer car? I noticed it was a black car without plate number but I did not notice the make. What happened after the black car parked behind the green Lancer car? Two men from the black car alighted. What did the two men do after they alighted? After they alighted they announced and introduced themselves that they were policemen and they went towards the green Lancer car.

Q. A. Q. A. Q. A.

You said they introduced themselves as policemen, to whom? To the people around the vicinity, to the by-standers. When the two men who introduced themselves as policemen, did you notice if they were armed? Yes, sir. Please inform us what arm or weapon did they carry? The other one was carrying a .45 firearm on his holster and the other one was carrying a long firearm, I do not know what kind of firearm that long firearm was. Q. This person carrying 45 firearm, could you still recall him or his figure or feature? A. If I see him again, I could recognize him. Q. But can you describe him before this Court? A. Yes, sir, he is tall, a little bit dark complexion and with a little mustache. Q. You said that if you see that person again, you can recognize him. Will you please look around the courtroom and point to him if he is now inside? A. Yes, he is here, sir. Q. If he is here, will you please point to him? A. Yes, I can point to him. Q. Will you please go down from the witness stand, go to him and tap him on his shoulder? A. (Witness went down from the witness stand, went to the person and tap the shoulder, who when asked of his name answered as ENRICO DIZON). Q. Go back to the witness stand. ATTY. CRESCINI: May we make it of record, Your Honor, that at the time the witness was asked to identify Enrico Dizon, there are many people, at least one hundred in number, standing inside the courtroom closely to each other. FISCAL: I would like to adopt the same manifestation, Your Honor. Q. You have identified the person with 45 caliber firearm, the person who was carrying a long firearm, can you still recognize him or can you remember his feature? A. If I could see him again, I can recognize him. Q. You said that you can see that person with long firearm again, you can recognize him, will you look around the courtroom and tell us if that person you are referring to is here? A. Yes, he is here. Q. Will you please point to him? A. (Witness pointing to a person inside the courtroom who when asked of his name answered as ROBIN MANGA). Q. Now, that you identified the two armed men who alighted from the black car and introduced themselves as policemen, what did these two men do after that? A. They went towards the parked green Lancer car. Q. And what did they do when they went towards the green Lancer car? A. They immediately handcuffed the man driving the green Lancer car. Q. This person who was handcuffed, were you able to look and see him? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you still recognize him if you see him again? A. Yes, sir, I can recognize him if I see him again. Q. What about a picture, if you are shown a picture of that man who was handcuffed, could you still be able to identify him? A. Yes, sir, I can. Q. I am showing to you a picture marked as Exh. ―X -4‖ please look at this picture and tell us if you could recognize this picture? A. Yes, sir, I know this person. Q. Who is this person? A. He is Ernesto Bernabe II, sir. Q. What relation has this person in this picture and the person who was handcuffed in the evening of April 25, 1990 at the time you saw him? A. I know, sir, this person in the picture and the one who was handcuffed refer to one and the same person. Q. You said that Ernesto Bernabe was handcuffed, you know where was his companion at the time, who was a woman? A. I noticed she was already inside the car. Q. What car are you referring, the green Lancer car or the black car without plate number? A. The green Lancer car, sir. Q. You said you saw the woman, were you able to look and see her that evening? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you still be able to identify her if you see her again? A. Yes, sir. Q. I am showing to Exh. ―X-4‖ will you look at this picture, and tell us what relation has this person in this picture to the one who was together with the man who was handcuffed? A. She is the woman I am referring to, sir, whom I saw inside the green Lancer, they are one and the same. Q. You said you saw the man whom you identified as Ernesto Bernabe being handcuffed by the two policeman, how far were you from them? A. Five armslength (sic), sir. Q. By the way, this front of Dayrit Hamburger house and this Rotonda Wine Store, are they lighted at night? A. Yes, sir. Q. What kind of light illuminates the area? A. Mercury lamp, sir. Q. How many lights are there?

A. Q. A.

Many, sir. You said there were lights, in the area during nighttime, can you describe to us from your point of comparison in daytime whether it is bright or not more particularly at the time of the incident in question? It was bright just like daytime, sir.[20]

As to the killing of the two victims, Raul Morales‘ testimony about what transpired in the warehouse in the morning of April 26, 1990 satisfied the trial court beyond reasonable doubt, as being consistent and credible, sufficient to convict all the accused for the crime of murder. He testified positively, that on that fateful morning, two cars entered the warehouse after he opened the gate. Lising and Garcia alighted from the green Lancer car and brought out from the backseat Cochise and Beebom. The other black car carried Dizon and Manga. Soon after, Manalili entered the gate which was left open by Lising, and stood beside Beebom. Cochise, whose hands were tied with a wire was brought to an area far from Beebom‘s view. He was stabbed by Garcia, and then by Lising. Afte r killing Cochise, the four men carried him out of the warehouse while Manalili stayed with Beebom. The trial court was even more convinced about the witnesses‘ credibility after conducting an ocular inspection of the scene o f the crime.
ATTY. LLORENTE: Q. Now, Mr. Morales, from yesterday‘s hearing, you mentioned that at about 2:090, April 26, you were awakened by a sound of a motor vehicle and somebody was knocking. Do you recall having stated that yesterday? A. Yes, I remember that, sir. Q. Now, apart from the sound of the motor vehicle and the knock at the door, what else do you recall? A. Somebody called for Aida, sir. Q. What else? A. I heard somebody said ―Aida, you open the door‖ and she told me ―just open the door, Sir. Q. And what did you do? A. I opened the door, Sir. xxx. Q. After the gate was opened, what happened? A. Two (2) cars got inside, Sir. Q. Can you describe the first car that entered he gate. A. The first one that got inside was colored green, Sir. Q. Do you know the make model or kind of vehicle that is colored green? A. It was a Lancer car, Sir. Q. Did you notice also who was driving? A. Yes, I saw, Sir. Q. Who? A. It was Roberto Lising, Sir. Q. Was there anybody else inside the car? A. There was, Sir. Q. Who were inside that car? A. One was in front and two were at the back seat, Sir. Q. The one in front, do you know who was that? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Who? A. Felimon Garcia, Sir. Q. Was that the first time that you met this person? A. Felimon Garcia? ATTY. LLORENTE: Yes. A. That was the third time, Sir. Q. Why do you know Felimon Garcia? A. Because he is a cousin of Ligaya Fausto, Sir. Q. Can you please look around the Courtroom and tell us if you can point to this Felimon Garcia and if you can, please do. That man, Sir. (Witness pointing to a man in white t-shirt who when asked answered by the name of Felimon Garcia). Q. What about the two (2) passengers at the back of the Lancer car, who were they? A. There was one woman and one man but I don‘t know their names, Sir. Q. Let‘s go to the man. Did you see his condition? Physical condition, his appearance? A. Tall, medium built, good-looking and hairy on the arms. He was wearing white t-shirt and was in shorts, Sir. Q. What about the condition under which this person was seated at the back of the car, can you describe that? A. I was not able to observe how he was seated, all I know is that I saw him when he went out of the car, Sir. Q. What about the other passengers, the woman passenger. Can you describe her. A. She was medium built, she was beautiful and fair complexioned ―puti‖. Q. Now, let‘s go to the second car. Did you notice the driver of the second car? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you recognize this person?

Cochise Bernabe. what else did Mr. How did that woman reach that portion of the Lancer car? Can you describe that? She was brought to that portion by he companion of Rambo. Sir. And what did Felimon do? A. Did you ever come to know his name later on? A. Did anybody else arrive? Yes. Sir. What is the complete name? A. Now. After the man and the woman were placed in that position as you described. (witness pointing to accused Robin Manga). Q. Q. What is his complete name? A. Sir. Q. And what was the name that you were able to read from the paper that made you identified that woman from the Lancer car? A. Q. Yes. A. All by himself? They were two (2).A. Now. what happened? A. Now. Sir. Let me just refer you to the woman that was brought out of the green car. Q. Q. A. (witness pointing to a man in white shirt who when asked answered by the name of ROBIN MANGA). Q. Q. Q. Q. Sir. Sir. Q. Dizon do with this man? A. After that. Did you notice where Felimon Garcia got that spade or pala? Yes. Felimon went inside the bodega. A. Q. Can you again look around the Courtroom and tell us if that person is present and if so. Q. A. Sir. after his hands were tied at the back. how did he arrive? A. Q. What about the man. They went towards the man. Lising and Mr. what happened? Felimon Garcia came out and he was bringing with him a spade (pala). Lising? (witness pointing to accused Enrico Dizon). Q. (Witness pointing a man in stripe shirt who when asked answered by the name of Enrico Dizon). please point to him. Sir. Sir. A. Sir Who in particular? That man. Can you please look around if this person driving the second car is in this Courtroom and if so. Who? (witness pointing to accused Rodolfo Manalili) witness pointed to a man in eyeglasses who when asked answered by the name of Rodolfo Manalili. this person that you said arrived. Was there anybody else inside the second car aside from the driver? A. Did you also get his complete name. Sir. Sir. (Witness in the vernacular said ―kutsilyo‖) Q. Incidentally. Q. Q. Sir. he went towards Lising. Would you be able to identify him? A. Sir. Yes. And when Felimon approached Lising. We have done no wrong‖. Yes. A. Mr. Q. In what particular portion of the Lancer car? At the back compartment of the car. how was he brought to that portion which you have identified from the Lancer car? It was Roberto Lising who brought him there. p. Sir. Sir. Q. there were. Sir. 46 missing person that you have described in that area present at that time? A. A. Where? They got it from the Lancer car. Sir. Would you be able to identify that person? A. . could you please tell us what happened with these two (2) cars after entering the premises? A. Q. A. Q. When I read it from the newspaper. Who‘s the second aside from Mr. A. he went direct to the woman and talked with the woman. A. Sir. Sir. Sir. What about the man. Q. Sir. Beebom. A. Q. Sir. Q. I only heard ―Don‘t harm us. Morales. A. Beebom Castaños. Yes. What did Felimon do with the knife? A. There was. what happened to the gate? Who closed the gate? It was they who closed the gate. I saw Roberto Lising went behind the place of our sleeping quarters and got a wire. after this man that you have just identified as Cochise Bernabe. Q. Sir. Q. xxx Q. Felimon was given a knife. Did you hear any conversation between that man as you identified as accused Manalili to the woman that you pointed to here in the sketch? A. When he arrive. Sir. please point to him? A. Sir. Lancer car. the two (2) cars having entered the premises. Q. They were sweethearts.

at that time. In has been held that inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not impair the witness‘ credibility. He saw Cochise‘s face on the papers and recognized him to be the man who m Lising‘ s group killed. Understandably. Morales indicated that he did not see the actual killing of Cochise since the victim was brought out. in the early morning of April 26. Then he stabbed the man once. Raul Morales himself admitted later on that there were omissions in his sworn statement made before the CAPCOM because he was afraid of his employer Lising and his companions. Such omission and discrepancies should not be taken against him. the omission of his name was a significant development as it appeared improbable that a vital witness will miss out an alleged perpetrator if indeed he was present at the scene of the crime. Rambo grabbed and took the knife from Felimon. rather than weaken. [23] The defense finds it also improbable for Morales to have witnessed the events at such a vantage point from the steps of the hut. Yes. Sir. It bears emphasis that a sworn statement or an affidavit does not purport to be a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant. Morales claimed that the black car driven by Lising entered the compound ahead followed by the green car driven by Garcia while he stated in his testimony in court that the green Lancer car was first to enter.[27] Whenever there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and testimony of the witness. ATTY.Q. LLORENTE: Can you demonstrate to us how did he do this? A. while he testified in court that Garcia and Lising stabbed the victim inside the compound. Raul Morales was merely concerned with bringing out his story without really paying particular attention to the details. who was under his control and who was afraid of him. Did you notice what portion of Cochise was stabbed when Lising was doing this? A. sir. he was reluctant to volunteer all the information about the killing for fear that he would suffer the same fate of Cochise and Beebom. a good friend of Cochise. Morales only mentioned Lising and Garcia‘s names in his sworn statement because they were the only ones known to him. however. Yes. as sanctuary during the trial of this case. including the two victims. (2) in his statement. he was a rehearsed witness. And what did Rambo do with the knife? A.[21] The defense. since he was taken from the NBI to the residence of Governor Remulla‘s son. Sir. To them. Inside the bodega. driven by Lising with Garcia in the passenger seat followed by the black car with Manga and Dizon on board. [24] Besides. Obviously. xxx. ―Sa may bodega‖. Sir. since the perpetrators of a crime would not unnecessarily expose themselves in the committing the act to prevent possible identification. the credibility of witnesses as they negate any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Sir. while in court. Manalili makes capital of the fact that Morales did not mention him at all in his prior sworn statement as being present at the scene of the crime. [25] It is a matter of judicial experience that a sworn statement being taken ex parte is almost always incomplete and often and often inaccurate. ATTY. [28] . And what happened? A. would ever testify against him. Q. (witness demonstrating by placing his left hand on the height of his shoulder and making a thrust by his left hand forward). Yes. He also stabbed the man. (3) Morales made mention of a total of five persons. he identified the five accused seen with the two victims. For Manalili. How? Can you demonstrate? A. Where? A. Some of the inconsistencies pointed out are as follows: (1) in the sworn statement. What else happened after what you had demonstrated happened? A. the latter commands greater weight. [22] These inconsistencies even tend to strengthen. discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his sworn statement and those made on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him. The initial reluctance of witness to volunteer information about a criminal case and their unwillingness to be involved in the criminal investigation is of common knowledge and has been judicially declared as insufficient to affect credibility. LLORENTE: Please do. Sir. would discredit the of Raul Morales alleging that he was not a credible witness considering that there were inconsistencies and improbabilities in his testimony. Q. Q. He related that his employer Lising and companions brought a man and a woman to their warehouse and killed them both. Thus. Sir. Q. Q. (witness demonstrating by putting his left hand forward at the height of his shoulder and making a forward thrust by his right hand several times). it never occurred to Lising at the time that Morale.[26] There is no rule of evidence to the effect that omission of certain particulars in an affidavit or sworn statement would estop an affiant in making an elaboration thereof during the trial.

was never presented in evidence. Likewise. He did not do anything to deter the commission or to report the crimes immediately thereafter. Degoma. the Court explained: x x x. appellate courts give much weight and respect to the findings of the trial court since the trial court is in the better position to examine real evidence as well as observe the demeanor of the witness. 157 SCRA 541 567 [1988].[35] For the same reasons. did he send feelers for this surrender. to seek to prevent commission of the second or related felony or to abandon or dissociate himself from the conspiracy to commit the initial felony. he stated that he and Lising saw each other after the incident but never mentioned anything about it. One who joins a criminal conspiracy in effect adopts as his own the criminal designs of his co-conspirators. Delfin Manalili. Only after several months of being hunted. the defenses raised by the accused do not persuade us. acts made under the compulsion of an irresistible force. but the facts and circumstances surrounding the case do not support his sta nd. 20 SCRA 153. which if considered would make him merely an accomplice to the crime. why did he take it upon himself to employ persons unknown to him to effect the ―arrest‖ of Herrera? The warrant of arrest of Herrera. We have examined carefully the arguments of the Solicitor General in urging Manalili‘s acquittal. (People v. conspiracy may be inferred from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when during and after said acts point to a joint purpose and design. the manner of abduction where . in particular. Lising‘s intentions to silence both Cochise and Beebom at the end upon realizing an alleged mistake was known to him. Where conspiracy is established. When it comes to the issue of credibility of the witness. People v. concerted action and community of interest. We find it difficult to accept Manalili‘s contention that he had contracted the services of policemen to effect the ―legal arrest‖ of Robert Herrera. 159-160 [1967]‖ (Italics supplied). Escober. By and large. In the second place.[32] That compulsion must be of some character as to leave the accused no opportunity for self-defense in equal combat of for escape. the main suspect in the killing of his brother.000. according to Lising.Roberto Lising discredits Raul Morales as having a motive in implicating him to the crime since ―he quelled a rally staged by Morales who was the most arrogant and stubborn of Fausto‘s employees. In the first place. if one was really issued. [34] The degree of actual participation in the commission of crime is immaterial. 163 SCRA 574. The motive imputed to Morales. A person who embraces a criminal conspiracy is properly held to have casts his lot with his fellow conspirators and to have taken his chances that things may go awry and that the offended party may resists or third persons may get killed in the course of implementing the basic criminal design. Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime. Manalili can not likewise be exonerated from the crime. This brings us to the third issue of whether or not there was conspiracy. a person invoking irresistible force or uncontrollable fear must show that the force exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument who acted not only without will but against his will. the culpability of the accused for the crimes charged have been established. Garcia. In fact. Where conspiracy is established. would be tolerated by Lising. Salvador. People v. People v. Morales. the suspect in the shooting of his brother. the tailing of the car. seeking an increase in pay. In People v. if he were arrogant and stubborn.[31] Undoubtedly. for his part. which only goes to show their intention of concealing the crime. Pelagio. a mere pahinante. Bazar. To free himself from such criminal liability. Neither is there factual basis to his claim that he had every reason to protect the life of Beebom. To be exempt from criminal liability. He was instrumental in introducing Lising to Manalili. the act of one is the act of all. the surreptitious meeting of Manalili with Lising arranged by Garcia. Unfortunately. the live-in partner of Fausto. He was very well aware of Manalili‘s plans. [29] With the eyewitnesses‘ account of Froilan Olimpia and Raul Morales. since the latter is a principal witness against Robert Herrera. the abduction at Dayrit‘s Ham and Burger Restaurant and the detention in the Valle Verde Motel and the subsequent killing of the two victims all show that all the accused acted in unison and cooperated with each other towards the accomplishment of a common criminal design.[33] Garcia‘s participation and presence from the time the abduction was hatched. prays that his liability be mitigated on grounds of lack of intent or motive. The stake-out at the Castaños residence. the trial court did not err in finding the existence of conspiracy in this case. up to the killing of the victims is undisputed. so he insisted that they be released. [30] Where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it then conspiracy exists. he merges his will into the common felonious intent. 162 SCRA 609. was oftentimes reprimanded for not doing his job well and held responsible for lost gas tanks. the group came to an agreement to effect the arrest of Robert Herrera for a considerable sum of P50. the law requires some overt act on the part of the conspirator. Pampanga. Garcia and Lising. Equally preposterous is his assertion that upon arriving at the Valle Verde Hotel in San Fernando. he realized there was a mistake in the identities of the persons arrested. With the interlocking confessions of Manalili.00. these defenses and unavailing. While direct evidence is not necessary. 580-582 [1988].‖ As pahinante in their LPG business. 617 [1988]. the precise modality or extent of participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all. the surveillance or stake out of the Castaños‘ residence. and voluntary surrender.

and 2. His pretension that he wanted to keep Beebom from harm‘s way because she was to have testified in the prosecution of his brother brings hollow. why did they hole-up with the victims in a motel when they arrived in Pampanga? Finally. all the accused should be equally guilty for the crimes as charged. and stand beside Beebom. After all.[37] The inaction of Manalili where he could have prevented the killings only reveal his complicity to the crime. There being conspiracy. cannot certainly be considered as acts in the regular performance of their duties as policemen. it was not necessary for them to also take the woman companion of the person they mistook as Herrera. if it was true that Manalili just wanted the arrest of Robert Herrera. assuming the remote possibility. Furthermore. convinces us with moral certainty that Manalili is equally guilty of the crime charged. we can no longer convict Manalili and Garcia for Kidnapping in consonance with the constitutional right against double jeopardy. Manalili is certainly part of a complete whole without whom there would be no Cochise-Beebom double murder case. the mistake in the identity of the victims does not exonerate Manalili pursuant to the rule that one who performs a criminal act should be held liable for the act and for all its consequences although the victim was not the person whom the fellow intended to injure. If arrest was really in the minds of the accused. All these only shows that Manalili had premeditated in his mind a more sinister plot than merely effecting a ―legal arrest.‖ It is an unmitigated absurdity for Manalili to pretend that upon his realization of the mistake in their ―arrest. In any case. Raul Morales‘ positi ve testimony that he saw Manalili enter the bodega. Felimon Garcia. if they were bent on legally arresting one Roberto Herrera. Fourthly. The decision of the lower court finding accused Rodolfo Manalili. It cannot be assumed that had she lived she would have testified in court and pointed to Robert Herrera as the killer of Manalili‘s brother.‖ he insiste d upon the release of the victims since he had every reason to keep Beebom alive. Manga and Enrico Dizon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of double murder. . Unfortunately. including their civil liability is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. [36] We are reminded of the rule that the conviction must not rest on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution‘s evidence. and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. while Cochise was being killed. is was not difficult to locate Robert Herrera as he was reportedly frequenting the Castaños residence in Quezon City. they stand to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for the double murder. Roberto ―Rambo‖ Lising. In the instant case. The crime of Slight Illegal Detention should be qualified to Serious Illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code considering that a female victim was involved. why did he have to seek the assistance of Pampanga policemen? It would have been more logical and expedient to have utilized the NBI or Quezon City Police especially when the alleged warrant of arrest was issued by a Quezon City court. and Robin Manga guilty of the crime of slight illegal detention aggravated by the use of motor vehicle is hereby MODIFIED. apart from its interlocking sworn statements of appellants. His presence in the warehouse clearly belies his claim that from the motel. the decision of the trial court exonerating Manalili and Garcia for the crime of Kidnapping and finding the rest of the accused guilty for the crime of Slight Illegal Detention only does not escape us. mere denials of the accused cannot prevail to overcome conviction by the court. The decision of the lower court finding accused Roberto ―Rambo‖ Lising. Nonetheless. why did Manalili leave for Manila without bringing her and Cochise with him to make sure that no harm would befall them. handcuffed and gagged at Valle Verde Motel. SO ORDERED. to do away with having to e xplain why he was at the scene.the victims were blindfolded. Robin Q. Thirdly. It would have been more cogent for the appellants to have delivered the victims to the nearest station of the Quezon City Police Department considering that the warrant of arrest was allegedly issued by a Quezon city court. in that the said accused are hereby declared guilty of the crime of Kidnapping under Article 267 (4) of the Revised Penal Code. Enrico Dizon. As against the positive testimony and identification. If he had just a bit of concern for Beebom‘s safety. he left for Manila already. knowingly full well of Lising‘s resolve just revealed to him to silence both victims? What should be nearer the truth in that Beebom and Cochise became aware of Manalili‘s presence at the motel together with the other accused and this was the added reason why the two ha d to be eliminated. it does not stand to reason why the victims were taken to Pampanga after allegedly being arrested in Quezon City. this Court hereby renders judgment as follows: 1. WHEREFORE.

They introduced themselves as rebels and offered to help the municipal government." He recognized APPELLANTS as among the suspects. Jesus Rubio. Branch 32 (the CASE BELOW).A. killed a certain Benny and one Balaba. of May 1. CHARLITO MANATAD. 3) Removed right external ear.A disclosed to the Station Commander that they were the ones who had beheaded the DECEASED. Subsequently. secondary to incised wounds of the neck and multiple stab wounds at the back. 1982. (4) Jesus Rubio. 1986] MELENCIO-HERRERA. CRIS RAMIREZ. he heard a gunshot. 1982. No. (6) Jose CABAGERAN (7) Cris Ramirez. There were three persons who mauled the DECEASED. and (8) Jesus or John Doe were charged with Murder for the death of the DECEASED. The other prosecution witness. was found killed by his wife and children near the hut in their farm in Sitio Capacohan in the same barangay. witness Bagacay heard of the death of Lacumbes at the hands of the rebels. the latter told him that his ailment was caused by witchcraft of the victim. 4) Contusions left lumbar region. A review of the prosecution evidence presented in the CASE BELOW can begin with the testimony of Felicisimo Alciso. CHARLITO MANATAD. while MANATAD and DE LA PEÑ." DE LA PEÑ. BRIGIDO ENCIPIDO. also called "Agosto de la Pena struck the Deceased's neck with a bolo which almost I severed the latter's head. Then. in Criminal Case No. 70091 December 29. Jose Lacumbes (hereinafter referred to as the DECEASED). . 1983. and who were responsible for all the killings in Dinagat Island. the two proceeded to a store where ENCIPIDOs fourteen companions were already waiting. accused.M. vs. and JESUS or JOHN DOE. one [1] inch in length and two and a half [2½] inches in depth. INP Station Commander of Loreto. Before Alciso there was another prosecution witness presented. the other five accused having remained at large. This witness narrated that he went to the hut of the DECEASED in the afternoon of March 30. Only fly APPELLANTS were tried. and that he would seek the aid of the rebels to cut Lacumbes' head. [G. and because "I was afraid that I will be the next one to be killed by them. JOSE CABAGERAN. somebody struck the DECEASED with the butt of a gun causing the latter to fall to the ground. In the course of the conversation. and EDDIE DE LA PEÑ.R. testified that in the evening of that same day of May 1. testified that when he had just arrived from Surigao City at about 2:30 o'clock P. who confided to him that they would cut Lacumbes' neck for making Lumarda sick and for being responsible for all i the witchcraft in the community. 1982. Bagacay met one of those originally indicted." invited him (Ortega) for a drink so he could talk to the latter personally. J. a resident of Barangay Mabini in the Municipality of Tubajon. the following eight (8) persons: (1) Brigido ENCIPIDO (2) Charlito MANATAD. BRIGIDO ENCIPIDO. Rudy Lainarda on March 10. the latter answered that it was because they were the ones who had beheaded the DECEASED. plaintiff-appellee. On February 2. he was met by ENCIPIDO who introduced himself as "Commander Tanga.A accused-appellants. RUDY LUMARDA. He described that the hands of the DECEASED were tied at the back. Post Mortem findings performed the following morning were: l) Incised wound of the neck. Armando Bagacay whose testimony turned out to be hearsay but which nevertheless is reproduced here to complete the evidence for the prosecution. severe. When he asked DE LA PENA why he was in jail. the Municipal Mayor of Loreto. before reaching the hut. He testified that while he was massaging one of the accused. in order to get some chickens which the latter had promised him but that. ENCIPIDO and DE LA PEÑ. CAUSE OF DEATH: Hemorrhage. 1982.A. Alciso was unable to talk to ENCIPIDO and MANATAD. (5) Rudy Lumarda. Surigao del Norte. 10th Judicial Region. Mariano Espina. (3) Eddie DE LA PENA (hereinafter referred to as APPELLANTS). Station Commander Jorge Ortega informed him that Commander Tanga" and his men wanted to pay him a courtesy call. Jose Lacumbes. 2) Eight [8] multiple stab wounds at the back.: On March 30. Four days later. JESUS RUBIO. while others stayed at a distance.(38) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Having ac cepted the invitation. witness Alciso fled from the scene. 1On orders of ENCIPIDO also known as "Commander Tanga. 1982. He stopped and saw that the DECEASED was being tied and subjected to fist blows. After learning from friends and neighbors that those who had killed the DECEASED were detained. ENCIPIDO was behind the DECEASED. Two other prosecution witnesses supported testimony Alciso Jorge Ortega. and while still at the wharf. 5) Both hands tied at the back with rattan. Agusan del Norte. Frightened.A were on the sides. 14 of the Regional Trial Court. Alciso went to the jail to find out for himself if they were among the group responsible for the death of the DECEASED. EDDIE DE LA PEÑ.

ENCIPIDO and MANATAD denied having I killed the victim and interposed the defense of alibi. E The lower Court erred in refusing to give due course to appellants' motion for reconsideration holding that it was filed out of time when its judgment accordingly has become final. 1982. MANATAD and a third individual merely forced him to join.They arrived at about 8:00 in the evening at his house. that.45 caliber pistol to the latter on May 2. and after them he was also arrested by the CHDF. for his part. 1982. and even showed the latter's ear. that he started plowing early in the morning and stopped at about 5:00 o'clock P. that the duo were the first ones apprehended. 1982. For his part. nor were firearms confiscated. F . C The lower Court erred in appreciating the so-called judicial admission of accused Eddie de la Pena as against his co-accused Brigido ENCIPIDO and Charlito Manatad. He decided to surrender his pistol because he was afraid he might be apprehended for having an unlicensed firearm.M. He denied having admitted to the Station Commander and to the Municipal Mayor his Identi ty as "Commander Tanga" or that he had killed the DECEASED and other persons besides. at Barangay Boa for a certain Norberto Bukid. he was plowing the field tenanted by his mother-in-law at Barangay Malinao. so that the latter could no longer harm other people with his witchcraft. Bienvenida Edusma also testified that her husband stayed home after 5:00 o'clock P. 1982 after which he was arrested. to the surprise of APPELLANT APPELLANTS' common counsel testified in open Court that. At the time. They introduced themselves and placed their sidearms on a table as a sign of goodwill. He further testified that he did not know the DECEASED nor the Station Commander. Thereafter." the latter. that he did not know the DECEASED nor who killed him that during the whole day of March 30. 1982 when "Commander Tanga" and MANATAD killed the DECEASED but that he was merely standing by. he was sawing lumber from morning till 3:00 P.A brought out a sharp-pointed knife and tried to test its sharpness. In their defense. there were about 2 policemen and 3 CHDF men outside the house but no arrests were made. APPELLANTS raise the following Assignments of Error: A The lower Court erred in giving credence to the hearsay testimonies of prosecution witnesses Mariano Espina and George Ortega basing therefrom its findings of conviction. 1984. 1984.A. he was taken to PC headquarters at Surigao City where they were severely maltreated and he was forced to sign an affidavit admitting that he is "Commander Tanga" responsible for the killing of the DECEASED and other persons.00 and to pay 3/8 of the costs. she quarreled with her husband because he refused to accompany her in bringing their sick child to Tubajon on so that she went alone carrying the child even though she was then seven months pregnant.000. MANATAD's wife. that he had already killed many people. After working he rested in Bukid's house and did not leave the place. B The lower Court erred in giving credence to the incredible and hearsay testimony of Felicisimo Alciso the alleged eyewitness. ENCIPIDO claimed that on March 30. after which he stayed home. MANATAD and DE LA PENA were also placed in jail with him. with seven others. 1984. which the latter denied for having been filed more than fifteen (5) days after the promulgation date of December 5.M. threatening to kill him if he refused. He also informed the Mayor that he had been a member of the NPA since he was 13 years old. admitted having cut the neck of the DECEASED. in fact. also denied all imputations against him. as a sign of reciprocal goodwill "Commander Tanga" then confided to the Mayor his mission to cooperate with his administration as they had heard that he was a good Mayor. In a Decision promulgated by the Trial Court on December 5. DE LA PEÑ. dried by that time. which we accepted in the interest of substantial justice. D The lower Court erred in convicting appellants Brigido ENCIPIDO and Charlito Manatad. that he was present on March 30. although he belonged to the group of "Commander Tanga.M. counsel de officio filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Trial Court on December 26. including the DECEASED. of that day as he was tired after the day's work. APPELLANTS were found guilty of Murder and sen tenced to reclusion perpetua to pay damages to the heirs of the DECEASED in the amount of P12. stating that he only came to know ENCIPIDO in jail. 1982. The penalty imposed by the Trial Court being reclusion perpetual the appeal was indorsed to this instance. On behalf of APPELLANTS. DE LA PEÑ. The foregoing testimonies were buttressed from a most unexpected source. Barangay Captain Sergio Peniones partially corroborated MANATAD's testimony by stating that he saw MANATAD plowing the i field in the morning of March 30. that he was with the group from March 28. nor the Municipal Mayor except when he surrendered his . A Notice of Appeal filed before the then Intermediate Appellate Court was allowed as an appeal not from the judgment but from the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. MANATAD.

he witnessed the incident and his description of it was corroborated by the admission of APPELLANTS. The autopsy findings. it is argued that Alcisos testimony that he went to i the jail to verify the Identity of the malefactors is not worthy of credence. Before I met them in the jail I already recognized their faces but I just do not know their names. 1982. as alleged. as the witness explained he did so because he feared that he may be the next one to be Killed And the fact that he asked DE LA PEÑ. Persons observing a startling occurrence would strive to know the ones involved specially where as in this case the DECEASED was not unknown to Alciso. It is true that at the start of his testimony. and when Jose Lacumbes fell down. The defense contents.. however. The evidence against APPELLANTS. the Identities of the malefactors. if any? A. Thus: Q. Subsequently. 6 the credibility of the testimony of a witness is not affected by some flaws and inconsistencies in minor details. . particularly. the crime. Commander Tanga commanded Eddie de la Pena to cut the head of the victim but the head was not severed from the body.A why the latter was in jail does not necessarily lead to the conclusion. referred to the early stage of the incident when the victim was being mauled. while he was also about the same distance from the hut at that time. it does not necessarily follow that he could not have recognized their faces. and thereafter mauled him and hacked his neck in the afternoon of March 30. As this Court ruled in People vs. that he had not witnessed the occurrence. the witness declared: Fiscal Sandangal Could you not recognize the three persons who killed Jose Lacumbes? Witness: I could recognize the three persons who killed Jose Lacumbes. he said that the place of the killing was about "20 arms length" from the hut of the DECEASED. Concededly. What else did you see. I saw that somebody was beating Jose Lacumbes with the use of a gun. I already know their names. taken en conjunto" justifies the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. that said witness could not have recognized APPELLANTS. 3 Then he described specifically: Q. and there were some other persons who were staying from a distance. themselves and supported by the autopsy findings on the cadaver. In another instance. that actuation was unusual However. 4 After pointing to the APPELLANTS in the Courtroom and replying to a question by the Court. with his hands tied behind his back. 2 That testimony. Next. however." And although it was admittedly the first time that Alciso saw the malefactors. Hamtig et al. The distances stated were merely his estimates and can be moderately exact or moderately inexact specially with provincial folk. however. Later on. in respect of the killing itself.a." "contusions left lumbar region" and "both hands tied at the back with rattan" confirm his description of what he had witnessed. he had stated that he did not recognize the assailants. Eyewitness Felicisimo Alciso positively Identified APPELLANT as among the group who led the DECEASED out of his hut. 5 The defense further claims that Alciso could not have recognized the assailants because he was at a distance of 80 to 90 meters away from the scene of. Who were the persons who mauled Jose Lacumbes during that time? A.The lower Court erred in convicting appellant Eddie de la Peñ. if as regards the main incident. Alciso further explained: Court (addressing to the witness) When did you know the accused by their names? WITNESS: In the jail your Honor. 1. A friendly question was more likely to evoke candid answer. I saw that there were three of them but I could not recognize them. the "incised wound of the neck. the testimonies appear to be consistent with each other. The important fact is that even from where he was.

or disbelieved in whole or in part. they were not "confessing" but bragging of their exploits" in the belief that they were saving the community from the witchcraft of the DECEASED and the evil doings of some people.A pursuant to Sections 22 8 and 29 9 of the Rules of Court. was with them since two days before the incident. or on May 2. Mayor Espina. 278. heard. is not well taken. in their minds. Niblack. 3. Apparently. are not infrequent. lose its character as a confession from the fact that it was accompanied by statements of an exculpatory nature. who are responsible public officers and presumed to have regularly performed their functions and against whose impartiality nothing has been proven. Further. The fact that no arrest were made by them immediately after the disclosures do not necessarily belie their testimonies since the spirit of "reciprocal goodwill" pervaded the encounters. Herein. and Alciso as to the extrajudicial admissions made to them respectively by ENCIPIDO and/or DE LA PEÑ. DE . the exculpatory statement has been proven false by Alcisos credible account that upon ENCIPIDOS orders. testified that he belonged to "Commander Tanga's" group. who heard the confession. to acquit himself while he can do so from all liability that might arise from his act. DE LA PEÑ. The additional incriminating evidence was furnished by DE LA PEÑ. otherwise competent as a witness.A constitute hearsay. The argument that the testimonies of Station Commander Ortega. DE LA PEÑ. Proof of the contents of an oral extrajudicial confession may be made by the testimony of a person who testifies that he was present. at the very least. it must be weighed. And while it may be that ENCIPIDOS written statement before the PC on May 6. also admissible as circumstantial evidence against their co-accused implicated therein to show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime.A also admitted to Alciso when the latter I asked him the reason for their confinement. and remembers the substance of the conversation or statement made by the accused. with perhaps very rare exceptions. under oath. They admitted that they had beheaded the DECEASED. is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood an of it. 14 it being "the natural tendency of every transgressor. however. for the prosecution. they denied having made them. understood.AS declaration confirms the existence of the group. sec.S. the day after. (23 C. and thus inadmissible. There is no proof whatsoever that the extrajudicial admissions in question were coerced or concocted by those officials. while I i in jail. p.A verbally acknowledged their guilt before Station Commander Ortega and Municipal Mayor Espina when they individually boasted that they had killed the DECEASED so that the latter could no longer harm other people with his witchcraft.. therefore. DE LA PEÑ. 11 They are also admissible as corroborative evidence against the others. 12 They are what is commonly known as interlocking confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence only against the declarants thereof. DE LA PEÑ. 4th Ed. are Identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other.A's extrajudicial acknowledgments of guilt to the Municipal Mayor and the INP Station Commander are not necessarily incredible for.J.A exculpated himself by stating that he was only forced to join the group and was merely standing by when the killing occurred. as reason may decide. 13 ENCIPIDOS and DE LA PEÑ. These oral confessions indicating complicity in the commission of the crime with which they are charged are admissible in evidence against the declarants ENCIPIDO and DE LA PEÑ. 15 Like other evidence. their responsibility for the killing and. and that he was with ENCIPIDO and MANATAD when they killed the DECEASED. having referred to them merely as "five persons. APPELLANTS had the opportunity during the trial to refute their verbal admissions as in fact. but in such case it must be given in its substance. it was not important or necessary to bolster up its case. that it was because they were the ones who had beheaded the DE CEASED. A statement involving guilt does not. particularly under circumstances of hurry and impatience." As is wen known "an affidavit is not prepared by the affiant himself Omissions and misunderstanding . An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim. Arrests were made. 1982. Oral confessions may be proved by any competent witness by whom they were heard.There is nothing strange either in Alcisos not having mentioned the culprits by name in his sworn statement taken more than three months after the incident. believed. but their denials do not ring with truth in the face of other inculpating evidence.A even showed the Mayor the DECEASED's dried ear which he had severed." 7 ENCIPIDO and DE LA PEÑ. the same as any other fact: The rule is that any person. his presence during the commission of the crime. it being clear from other facts and circumstances presented that persons other than the declarants themselves participated in the commission of the crime charged and proved. 551). (Underhill's Criminal Evidence.A who. 196). 10 It is also to be noted that APPELLANTS' extra-judicial confessions were independently made without collusion. in open Court. or at least mitigate it in the eyes of the law and those of his fellowmen". They are. 1982 confessing to the killing of the DECEASED was not presented at the trial no presumption of wilful suppression of evidence may be levelled against the prosecution on account of its non-production. True. however. It is the fact that admissions were made by APPELLANTS and against their own interest which gives them their evidentiary value.

A did not follow counsel's bidding as to the nature of his testimony. the core issue addresses itself to the credibility of witnesses.A on the other and ENCIPIDO at the back when they perpetrated the offense with which they are changed.AS judicial admission is admissible not only against him but against his co-accused ENCIPIDO and MANATAD as well.A hacked the DECEASED's neck with a bolo which almost severed the latter's head. admits of exceptions. a matter that the Trial Court had unequalled competence to consider and decide since it was in a vantage position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses of both sides while testifying. Thus. about 12 kilometers. The general rule that the confession of an accused may be given in evidence against him but that it is not competent evidence against his co-accused. 21 which exceptions we find absent herein. the threads of evidence woven together establish APPELLANTS' guilt to a moral certainty. the testimony lawfully given by one during the trial implicating the others is competent evidence against the latter." DE LA PEÑ.000. The last assigned error delving on the refusal of the Trial Court to give due course to appellants' Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that the judgment had become final is no longer of any consequence since all the grounds therefor have been elevated to and considered by this Court on appeal. Neither were ENCIPIDO and MANATAD able to prove that they were at some place for such a period of time that it was impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Barangay Boa where ENCIPIDO was allegedly sawing lumber was approximately 60 kilometers away." 17 who had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Besides. The coached testimony failed but the truth prevailed." It was likewise proven false by DE LA PEÑ.A's testimony if he had chosen to do so but did not. the reason counsel refrained from cross examination was not because he was not given the opportunity to do so but because DE LA PEÑ. which testimony is confirmed by the autopsy finding of "incised wound on the neck. an opportunity not afforded to Appellate Courts. With proportionate costs. In MANATAD's respect. it is not necessary to invoke conspiracy" to support his conviction. The witness has not actually followed what I intimated to him to be the nature of his testimony.LA PEÑ.00 in accordance with recent jurisprudence.i judicial admission/confession. In fine. The defense of alibi separately interposed by ENCIPIDO and MANATAD cannot prevail over their positive Identification by eyewitness Also by ENCIPIDOS verbal acknowledgments of guilt. and by DE LA PEÑ. which is buttressed by the post mortem finding of "removed right external ear. which is hereby increased to P30. 19 and Barangay Malinao where MANATAD was supposedly plowing the field. The first is admissible against the declarant alone. but the second is perfectly admissible against his co-accused. In this case. . Tubajon. Its findings as to credibility should not be disturbed and are entitled to great weight unless there is some fact of record that has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misconstrued. defense counsel could have presented rebuttal evidence to overcome DE LA PEÑ.A's declaration in open Court that "Commander Tanga and Charlito Manatad killed a certain person. the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed except as to the civil indemnity. 16 "The extrajudicial admission or confession of a co-conspirator out of court is different from the testimony given by a co-accused during trial. DE LA PEÑ. Surigao where the incident occurred. In the last analysis." and the corroborative testimony of Alciso who categorically testified that MANATAD was on one side of the DECEASED. which are interlocking and ad-missible as against themselves and as against the others whom they also implicated. counsel de officio had such opportunity to cross-examine DE LA PEÑ.As own extrajudicial admission to the Municipal Mayor that he had hacked the DECEASED's neck and severed his ear. SO ORDERED.A but did not avail of it because in his own words: Atty Moleta: I would like to inform the Honorable Court that I am in quandary It is my duty as counsel-de-oficio to be candid to this Honorable Court. this Court has held that where several accused are tried together for the same complaint. WHEREFORE.A's judicial and extra. MANATAD's direct participation in the commission of the crime with which he is charged has been established by DE LA PEÑ. 20from Barangay Mabini. Thus. therefore. 18 In other words.

The gunman escaped and boarded the last truck which was the one owned by Gerson Dulang. He admitted that he shot and killed Robert Te. FORTUNATO PAMON. 1987. Zamboanga del Norte. The latter died instantly. convicting accused-appellants Fortunato Pamon and Gerson Dulang of murder and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. From the records. Rubencio Ligorio of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO). he said that he was promised P15. at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning. Q Were you able to kill Dodong Te? A Yes. Fortunato Pamon was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest for a murder charge against him in the RTC of Tangub City.R. GERSON DULANG alias "Toto". 1993] CAMPOS. his meeting with "Dodo" for the first time in the house of Inocencio Feras. 1985. With him were Hipolito Andig. 1985.(39) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Alias Dodo was hired by one Toto Dulang.000. Roland Salatandre of the CIS a Confession marked as Exhibit "A". Roxas. Robert Te remained behind the wheel to maneuver the truck. Branch 6. and how they got to Lipakan in the morning of July 26. Robert Te drove his 3/4-ton cargo truck from his residence in Sta. where were you in the morning of July 26. plaintiff-appellee. and two other laborers. Orlando Tapia. a copra buyer from Dipolog City according to alias Dodo. he implicated John Doe. the trucks of Lily Wong and Gerson Dulang which were following his truck were blocked and could not proceed.00 by Inocencio Feras as payment for the job and that alias "Dodo" would receive the same amount from Gerson Dulang. Lipakan. Zamboanga del Norte together with alias Dodo. subsequent investigations by the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) yielded Fortunato Pamon as the one responsible for Robert Te's death. accused-appellants. alias "Dodo". 1985.: This is an appeal from the judgment ** of the Regional Trial Court. J. While they were negotiating a road in Lipakan. Gerson Dulang. a man approached Robert Te and shot him on the bridge of his nose. Furthermore. The following are excerpts from the affidavit: Q If you can still remember. and Inocencio Feras. Robert Te ordered his companions to tie the wrench of the truck to a coconut tree with a cable. Roxas. [G. Thereafter. Another shot was fired and Cesar Siga was hit. AND JOHN DOE alias "Dodo". Filomena to Sindutan. Q Why did you kill Dodong Te? A I killed Dodong Te with the assistance of my companion alias Dodo per instruction of Mayor Inocencio Feras (sic). Zamboanga del Norte to buy copra. more or less? A I was in Brgy. 102005 January 25. 1 He also narrated the circumstances leading to his being hired as a gunman. a copra buyer from Dipolog City. Dipolog City. JR. the following facts are evident: In the morning of July 26. Sicayab. Victorino Jauculan. sir. . I shot him with a 45 Caliber Pistol on his head and when I shot him again. the truck was burned by another man. Fortunato Pamon. Furthermore. Initial investigations by the police and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) pointed to the New People's Army (NPA) as the killers. As a result. in the presence of Atty. Q What were you two (2) doing there? A We were on mission to kill Dodong Te. No. vs. In order to pull the truck from the mud. He was detained at the PC stockade at Camp Hamac. executed before Pfc. the truck got stuck in the mud. However. While in that position. 1987. On March 18 or 19. I do not knew (sic) if he was hit. On March 14.

accused Fortunato Pamon who acted as the triggerman. The latter invited Robert Te to a birthday party in Gerson Dulang's house. After Robert Te was hit on his forehead he dropped himself to the right side of the placed (sic) where he was sitting whereupon I shot him again because I thought that he could not be killed by the first shot and that that shot I could not tell whether he was hit or not. viz: a) Indemnity for victim's death P30. already drunk. accuses FORTUNATO PAMON alias "Bebie". the prosecution presented the testimonies of Evangeline Te. an information for murder was filed against Fortunato Pamon. with the aggravating circumstance of recidivism with respect to accused Fortunato Pamon alias "Bebie" having been convicted in Criminal Case No. assault and shoot said ROBERT TE alias "Dodong" while the latter was operating his 3/4 ton cargo truck bound for Sindutan of said municipality. to the left side of the carao truck and when I was already near the driver I pulled out the 45 caliber which I placed on my right armpit wrapped in a jacket and aimed it to the driver and at that moment looked and faced me and that was the time I pulled the trigger of the 45 caliber and hit the forehead of the driver. Ex-Mayor INOCENCIO FERAS as principal by induction. that as a result of the commission of the said crime the heirs of the herein victim suffered the following damages.000. and in consideration of price and reward. Evangeline Te testified that at about 9:00 o'clock in the morning of July 25. 1985. armed with a 45 caliber pistol and with intent to kill by means of treachery and evident premeditation. within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. unlawfully and feloniously attack. he was asked: Q When you were told by Dodo that one [sic] the Chinese who is the one driving the truck is Robert Te @ Dodong what did you do? A We were yet on our way to the truck which was driven by Robert Te @ Dodong and upon reaching the rear part of the cargo truck which was driven by Robert Te I handed the gasoline which was placed in the plastic gallon wrapped with a dirty cloth which Dodo received then I told Dodo do not burn the truck because we will kill him and burn the truck. 1987.This extrajudicial confession was subscribed and sworn to before Judge Vicente Aseniero on March 20. CONTRARY TO LAW. offer a price and reward to his co-accused conspiring.00 b) Loss of earning capacity 10. Provincial Fiscal. on or about the 26th day of July. she received a call from Gerson Dulang. (Viol. Judge Vicente Aseniero. 1985. did then and there wilfully. did then and there wilfully. Inocencio Feras and Gerson Dulang as principals by inducemet.00 c) Moral and exemplary damages 20.000. and returned at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. as principal by direct participation. 4615 for Murder in Tangub City. accused Ex-Mayor Inocencio Feras being then the mastermind in the bizarre plot to liquidate one ROBERT TE alias "Dodong". and the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. 1987. left at half past nine. he again told her those words. the information was amended by dropping Feras' name and substituting the name of Gerson Dulang. Zamboanga del Norte. the widow of Robert Te. as principal by direct participation. "We will meet in the mountain to find out who is the better man among us". . and John Doe. During the said investigation. 3 When Inocencio Feras died during the course of the trial.00 ————— P60. Rolando Salatandre. 2 On September 17. his wife. The original information stated: The undersigned. Revised Penal Code). in the municipality of Roxas. that Gerson Dulang told him. During the trial. in the abovequoted paragraph. he revealed to Evangeline. Robert Te accepted the invitation. 1985. of Art. in the morning. Then I proceeded to the place where the driver was. She also said that before her husband left at 4:30 in the morning on July 26. While in that state. 248. alias "Dodo" as accomplice. Fortunato Pamon reaffirmed his Confession during the preliminary investigation of the case on March 23. 1987. confederating together and mutually helping with one JOHN DOE alias "Dodo" who is still at large. unlawfully and feloniously induce. thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound on the bridge of his nose which caused his instantaneous death. committed as follows: That. Victoriano Jauculan and Hipolito Andig.00.000. GERSON DULANG alias "Toto" as principal by induction and JOHN DOE (at large) as accomplice of the crime of MURDER.000.

1987. The defense. by the latter's (prosecution's) Exh. Legorio was not present when his Confession was taken. . with curly hair and was bearded". Oct. 1992 which stated that no marks. Yap. indeed. Rubencio Ligorio was not Fortunato Pamon's choice as his counsel during the custodial investigation because Fortunato Pamon was only forced to sign a paper which turned out be a letter to Atty. Such unexplained failure of accused Pamon constituted a conduct (Emphasis supplied) on his part granting truth or verity to the prosecution's assertion that. His affidavit of retraction. signed his Confession (Tsn. together with his counsel Atty. said accused repudiated his Confession during trial claiming. a neighbor of Fortunato Pamon. in fact. Roxas. This affidavit was. supra) is valid and admissible. accused Pamon declared that he. Atty. as well as latter's claim under discussion is toppled by his "unexplained failure" (People vs. of Jaime Gilbero. threatened and coerced Appellant MENDOZA into giving his sworn statement. Sosing. 4 and who said that Fortunato Pamon was not the killer. 374. Legorio as his counsel during his custodial investigation". 7 . A. 3-A. Prosecution also presented as evidence the medical certificate issued by Dr. Victoriano Jauculan. 111 SCRA 368. on the other hand. compliance by the custodial investigator with the jural mandate in PEOPLE VS. Atty. It held: The prosecution's thesis that accused Pamon was the author of the death of Robert Te finds support in the Confession (Exhibit "A") of said accused admitting his role as particeps criminis or criminal partner of his coaccused. indicating after all. but this is belied by Exhibit H-3 showing Atty. the court said that there was no violation of the constitutional right of the accused to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice "because Pamon did not also refuse Atty. III. 6 The trial court also considered the argument of the defense that Atty. and not after his (accused Pamon's) investigation. 135 SCRA 465 prescribing the assistance of counsel for the validity/admissibility of a Confession. Hamoy. This was reaffirmed by Judge Vicente Aseniero in his testimony. Legorio to assist him during his investigation. On this point. refused Atty. Par. Hamoy. 12(1) of the Constitution are not admissible against the declarants and much less against third persons). Muy. presented the testimony of Gerson Dulang who professed ignorance of the crime. . Ramirez. because the latter authority says. considering. who described the killer as "short. (People vs. Oct. Anent this allegation.Rolando Salatandre testified that the extrajudicial Confession of Fortunato Pamon was voluntary and that it was in accordance with the constitutional mandate. Venusto Bengua on March 20. the CLAO attorney would not have affixed his signature had Pat. 10. (People vs. GALIT. arrived in said office when his Confession was already prepared (TSN. Sec. . as alleged. according to him. Dipolog City. among others. pointed to Fortunato Pamon as the gunman. Gerson Dulang and John Doe alias "Dodo" admitting having killed the victim on that illfated morning of July 26. Rubencio Legorio. Gerson Dulang and John Doe alias "Dodo". as a PAO attorney.) In fact. Salatandre was typing (Exhibit H-1) his investigation of said accused. his choice of Atty. Zamboanga del Norte. for he did not even declare during the trial that he. "Confessions obtained in violation of Art. 1990. Par. Legorio was actually present during. and of Fortunato Pamon himself who denied the killing and retracted his extrajudicial confession. dark in complexion. in which case. Legorio to assist him during the investigation. dated April 23. Legorio. 169 SCRA 711 — A SENSU CONTRARIO. They both stated that Fortunato Pamon boarded Gerson Dulang's truck after the incident. After trial. therefore. p. 1985 at Linapakan. Legorio to bolster his claim that latter lawyer was not present when his Confession was taken. of Raul Curativo. the Supreme Court said — Surely. Inocencio Feras. bruises or signs of torture were found in Fortunato Pamon's body. but also against his coaccused Dulang and John Doe alias "Dodo". not only against him. Hipolito Andig likewise identified Fortunato Pamon as the killer. would not have affixed his signature (Exhibit A-15) if Pfc. not offered in the trial court as an exhibit. p. thus. supra. the trial court convicted Fortunato Pamon. 10. is attached as Annex "B" 5 of Appellant's Brief. Ronald Salatandre on March 18-19. Rubencio Ligorio. A confession constitutes evidence of high order because it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless he is prompted by truth and his conscience. accused Pamon's Confession (Exh. Legorio. There was. an employee of Robert Te. Legorio while Pfc. Ronald Salatandre had threatened and coerced accused Pamon into giving his sworn statement/Confession. 3) to present Atty. that his supposed counsel. Of course. 1987 at the CIS Office. 5. 71) by which he meant that Atty. He alleged therein that the confession was involuntary on his part as it resulted from torture and coercion. for Atty. 1990. however. that he was not assisted by counsel during his investigation by CIS Pfc. 72). 185 SCRA 227. who said that at the time of the killing. Fortunato Pamon was plowing his field.

in trying him under the amended information when he was not arraigned under it. and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of deceased victim. A confession constitutes an evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience. Fortunato Pamon and Gerson Dulang. 13 this Court. 10 This presumption of spontaneity and voluntariness stands unless the defense proves otherwise. or promise of reward of leniency. that Fortunato Pamon was not the killer. 4615 by the Regional Trial Court of Tangub City. inclusive of indemnity for victim's death — P60. Fortunato Pamon. Raul Curativo. Section 12(1) of the Constitution which guarantees a person under investigation the right to be assisted by an independent counsel of his own choice and the right against torture and violence.In upholding the voluntariness of the extrajudicial Confession. Costs against both convicted accused. 8 The participation of coaccused Fortunato Pamon was held to be principal by direct participation because according to his Confession. Besides. in dismissing the plea that the trial court erred in admitting the accused's allegedly involuntary extrajudicial confession. the court also said that assuming that the Confession was inadmissible. Both allege that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. on the other hand. he had already been implicated by Fortunato Pamon in his Confession. Contrary to the allegations of Fortunato Pamon. threat.00). is not entitled to the full credit of his preventive imprisonment in view of his being a recidivist (Article 29. loss of earning capacity — P10. This appeal hinges on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the extrajudicial Confession of accused-appellant Fortunato Pamon as evidence against him and his co-accused Gerson Dulang. in admitting the amended information after his arraignment on the original information because the amendment was not merely a formal but a substantial amendment. . We are constrained to uphold the admissibility of his extrajudicial Confession. It also considered Gerson Dulang's demeanor as a basis for convicting the latter for his lack of seriousness in testifying which rendered him incapable of telling the truth. Fortunato Pamon avers that the trial court erred in upholding the validity of his arrest and the voluntariness and admissibility of his extrajudicial Confession.000. Furthermore. 11 A confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence.00. shattered the defense of alibi of the accused. This. in the total sum of ninety thousand pesos (not sixty thousand as mistakenly alleged in the original and amended information) (P90. the defendants appealed. there was no other evidence to prove the conspiracy and Gerson Dulang's guilt. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder charged in the Information and are hereby correspondingly sentenced each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessories of the law. the bailbond of accused Gerson Dulang shall be cancelled upon his surrender for the execution of this judgment. Fortunato Pamon and Gerson Dulang made separate assignments of errors. the trial court also observed that only Fortunato Pamon could have known the identities of his co-conspirators and that he did not present evidence that the CIS knew them beforehand. judgment is hereby rendered declaring accused. He was held to be principal by induction because according to accused Fortunato Pamon's Confession. Any violation of said guarantees renders an extrajudicial confession inadmissible.000. intimidation. according to the trial court. Gerson Dulang. he induced co-accused John Doe alias "Dodo" to kill victim Robert Te.00. Revised Penal Code) by reason of his previous conviction for Murder in Criminal Case No. Quijano. 9 From this judgment of conviction. Robert Te. Upon application filed with the Court and after due notice to the prosecution. No. the Court sentenced them as follows: . Both appellants allege that the trial court erred in admitting the Confession as it was violative of Article III. . claims that the court err