UP Law F2021 029 People vs.

Salangga
Evidence Rule 133, ROC 1994 Regalado

SUMMARY
Appellant Salangga was charged with rape and killing of 15-year old girl. The testimonies gathered by the
prosecution showed that the victim was seen walking a few meters behind the appellant Salangga. It was also
claimed by the prosecution that after a bodily search was made on the accused, the soldiers recovered the
victim’s underwear. There were also bodily marks and scratches found on the Salangga’s body. The trial court
found Salangga guilty of attempted rape and homicide. The Supreme Court however found that the warrantless
arrest of Salangga was not valid, which follows that the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution were
inadmissible. Moreover, even if the circumstantial evidence that Imelda was seen trailing behind the appellant
was used, it could not lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the appellant was the perpetrator of the
crime.

FACTS
 Accused-appellant Salangga and Lopez were charged with rape and killing of a 15-year old Imelda
Talaboc in Magsaysay, Davao del Norte.

 The records showed that Ricky Monterde, a friend of the Talaboc family, saw appellant Salangga
walking about 300 meters ahead of Imelda, who went to fetch water. According to Monterde, Salangga
kept glancing back towards Imelda.

 It was also noted on the records that Lenie Alingay, a 12-year old student, was on her way home when
she met Imelda who was walking behind appellant Salangga. Alingay also saw accused Lopez stood up
from the rice paddy and followed Imelda.

 Bernardo, the father of the victim, learned that Imelda was missing and searched for her. At 8pm that
day, they found the corpse of Imelda lying in the bushes about 20 meters away from where the water
containers were found. She was found with her clothes on but her underwear was missing. It was
evident she suffered blows and was stabbed by a knife.

 Based on the information given by Ricky and Lenie about what they had seen earlier that day, the
barangay captain ordered the arrest of appellant Sanggala and accused Lopez. The soldiers of the
Philippine Army took them into custody.

 The suspects were bodily searched. The soldiers recovered a piece of lady’s underwear from appellant
Sanggala, which was later identified by Bernardo to be owned by his daughter, Imelda. The suspects
were also ordered to undress. Appellant Sanggala’s body bore marks and scratches but none was found
on the body of Lopez.

 The defense on the other hand claimed that both appellant Sanggala and accused Lopez were in their
homes when they were informed that the barangay captain was requesting their presence in his house.
When they denied their participation in the alleged crime, both Sanggala and Lopez were brought to the
army headquarters and were allegedly subjected to severe physical beatings by the soldiers. As a result,
they were forced to admit the earlier accusations against them.

 The trial court found appellant Salangga guilty of attempted rape with homicide while accused Lopez
was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 RATIO

W/N there was a valid warrantless arrest of appellant Salangga - NO

Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the ROC provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person when:

a. In his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
b. An offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c. The person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped.

Applying the said provision, it is evident that the appellant was arrested in violation of his fundamental
right against unjustified warrantless arrest for the following reasons:

1. He was arrested in his house while attending to some domestic chores. It cannot be suggested that
he was in any way committing a crime or attempting to commit one.
2. The soldiers had no personal knowledge of the crime he was being charged with.
3. He was not a fugitive from the law.

W/N the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution are admissible – NO

1. Underwear in Sanggala’s possession:
 The underwear allegedly taken from the accused is inadmissible in evidence, being a so-called “fruit
of a poisonous tree.” Since Sanggala’s arrest did not fall under the cases of valid warrantless arrest,
he was protected against any unreasonable searches on and seizure of his own body.

 It would have been the height of stupidity for appellant to be keeping an incriminating piece of
evidence which common sense dictates should have been destroyed or disposed of.

2. Marks and sratches on Sanggala’s body:

 It was strange that such vital evidence could be omitted in the sworn statement of the barangay
captain, which was taken four days after the alleged discovery. Moreover, such allegation was
mentioned in the trial court only after about two and a half years from the arrest of appellant. Such
delay in the barangay captain’s disclosure bolsters the suspicion that such testimony is biased, if not
fabricated.

3. Absence of counsel during the appellant’s custodial investigation

 The rule is that no in-custody investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel
engaged by the person arrested, by any person in his behalf or appointed by the court upon petition
either of the detainee himself or by someone in his behalf.

 As such, appellant’s supposed incriminatory statement is inadmissible.

[MAIN ISSUE] W/N there is insufficient circumstantial evidence to convict appellant Salangga – YES

Sec. 5, Rule 133 of the ROC provides that when no direct evidence is available, circumstantial evidence will
suffice when the following requirements are present:

a. There are more than one circumstance

b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
 doubt.

Furthermore, before conviction can be had upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved should
constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to
the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime.

In the present case, there was one sole circumstance which the trial court relied on its decision: Imelda was
seen trailing behind appellant by a few meters on the path towards her house. All other circumstance under
the prosecution’s theory, such as the underwear allegedly found in appellant’s pocket, the supposed
scratches and bite marks on his body, and his dubious confession are all products of an illegal process.

The court is guided by a rule of long standing and consistency that if the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of one or more explanations, one of which is consistent with innocence of the
accused and the other inconsistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of the court a quo is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Loreto
Salangga is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered to be immediately released unless there are other grounds for his
continued detention, with cost de oficio. SO ORDERED.