Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People vs. Baoloy
People vs. Baoloy
Page 4 of 6
Barangay Captain Ceniza and Judge Dicon had an ulterior motive to implicate him in 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the commission of the crime. People vs. Baloloy
The OSG recommends that the civil indemnity of P50,000 awarded by the trial court tion. The fact remains that at that time JUANITO was already under the custody of the
be increased to P75,000; and that in line with current jurisprudence, moral damages in police authorities, who had already taken the statement of the witnesses who were then
the amount of P50,000 be awarded to the heirs of GENELYN. before Judge Dicon for the administration of their oaths on their statements.
We shall first address the issue of admissibility of JUANITO’s extrajudicial While Mosqueda claims that JUANITO was not arrested but was rather brought to
confession to Barangay Captain Ceniza. the police headquarters on 4 August 1996 for his protection, the records reveal that
It has been held that the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not JUANITO was in fact arrested. If indeed JUANITO’s safety was the primordial concern
apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities of the police authorities, the need to detain and deprive him of his freedom of action
but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed would not have been necessary. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order
the crime. Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in the that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense, and it is made by
commission of a crime before he is placed under investigation. What the Constitution an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the person
bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under making the arrest.29
Section 12 of the Constitution are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion At any rate, while it is true that JUANITO’s extrajudicial confession before Judge
by the state as would lead the accused to admit some- Dicon was made without the advice and assistance of counsel and hence inadmissible
43 in evidence, it could however be treated as a verbal admission of the accused, which
VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 43 could be established through the testimonies of the persons who heard it or who
People vs. Baloloy conducted the investigation of the accused.30
thing false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.26 JUANITO’s defense of alibi is futile because of his own admission that he was at
In the instant case, after he admitted ownership of the black rope and was asked the scene of the crime. Alibi is a defense that places an accused at the relevant time of
by Ceniza to tell her everything, JUANITO voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped a crime in a place other than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render
GENELYN and thereafter threw her body into the ravine. This narration was a it impossible for him to be the guilty party.31 Likewise, a denial that is unsubstantiated
spontaneous answer, freely and voluntarily given in an ordinary manner. It was given by clear and convincing evidence is a negative and self-serving evidence, which cannot
before he was arrested or placed under custody for investigation in connection with the be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who
commission of the offense. testify on affirmative matters.32
It may be stressed further that Ceniza’s testimony on the facts disclosed to her by Anent the alleged inconsistencies in the details surrounding the recovery of the
JUANITO was confirmed by the findings of Dr. Lumacad. GENELYN’s physical black rope, the same are irrelevant and trite and do not impair the credibility of the
resistance and biting of the right shoulder of JUANITO were proved by the wound on witnesses. Minor inconsistencies
JUANITO’s right shoulder and scratches on different parts of his body. His admission ______________
29 People v. Sequiño, 264 SCRA 79, 98-99 [1996].
that he raped GENELYN was likewise corroborated by the fresh lacerations found in
GENELYN’s vagina. 30
People v. Molas, 218 SCRA 473, 481 [1993].
31 People v. Maqueda, 242 SCRA 565, 592 [1995]; People v. Abella, 339 SCRA
Moreover, JUANITO did not offer any evidence of improper or ulterior motive on
the part of Ceniza, which could have compelled her to testify falsely against him. Where 129, 147 [2000].
32 People v. Villanueva, 339 SCRA 482, 501 [2000].
there is no evidence to show a doubtful reason or improper motive why a prosecution
witness should testify against the accused or falsely implicate him in a crime, the said 45
testimony is trustworthy.27 VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 45
However, there is merit in JUANITO’s claim that his constitutional rights during People vs. Baloloy
custodial investigation were violated by Judge Dicon when the latter propounded to him and honest lapses strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses, as they
incriminating questions without informing him of his constitutional rights. It is settled that erase doubts that such testimonies have been coached or rehearsed.33 What matters
at the moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to, or is arrested by, the police is that the testimonies of witnesses agree on the essential fact that JUANITO was the
officers, the custodial investigation is deemed to have started. So, he could not owner of the black rope and the perpetrator of the crime.
thenceforth be asked about his complicity in the offense without the assistance of Even if JUANITO’s confession or admission is disregarded, there is more than
counsel.28 Judge Dicon’s claim that no complaint has yet been filed and that neither enough evidence to support his conviction. The following circumstances constitute an
was he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant considera- unbroken chain proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was JUANITO who raped and
______________ killed GENELYN:
26 People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95, 110 [1997].
1. 1.At about 5:00 p.m. of 3 August 1996, Jose Camacho bid his daughter
27 People v. Leoterio, 264 SCRA 608, 618 [1996]; People v. Lagarto, 326 SCRA
GENELYN to borrow some rice from their neighbor Wilfredo Balogbog.
693, 744 [2000]. GENELYN did so as told, but failed to return home.
28 People v. Lim, 196 SCRA 809, 820 [1991].
44
Page 5 of 6
2. 2.About 7:30 p.m. of the same day, JUANITO arrived at Ernesto’s house 34 Section 4, Rule 133, Rules of Court; People v. Casingal, 243 SCRA 37, 44
bringing a sack and kerosene lamp, trembling and apparently weak. [1995].
3. 3.Thirty minutes thereafter, JUANITO returned to Ernesto’s house and told ** Three Members of the Court continue to maintain their view that R.A. No. 7659 is
Ernesto that he saw a foot of a dead child at the waterfalls, without disclosing unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; however, they submit to the
the identity of the deceased. ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully
4. 4.When JUANITO and Ernesto were at Jose’s house, the former told Jose imposed.
that it was GENELYN’s foot he saw at the waterfalls. 35 People v. Robles, Jr., 305 SCRA 274, 283 [1999]; People v. Tahop, 315 SCRA
5. 5.GENELYN was found dead at the waterfalls with fresh lacerations on her 465, 475 [1999]; People v. Paraiso, G.R. No. 131823, 17 January 2001, 349 SCRA
vaginal wall at 9 and 3 o’clock positions. 335.
36 People v. Robles, Jr., supra.
6. 6.At about 8:00 a.m. of 4 August 1996, Antonio Camacho, Andres Dolero and
Edgar Sumalpong recovered at the crime site a black rope, which they 47
turned over to Ceniza, who was then at GENELYN’s wake. VOL. 381, APRIL 12, 2002 47
7. 7.When Ceniza asked the people around as to who owned the black rope, People vs. Baloloy
JUANITO claimed it as his. pay the heirs of Genelyn Camacho P100,000 as indemnity and P50,000 as moral
8. 8.When Ceniza examined JUANITO’s body, she saw a wound on his right damages.
shoulder and scratches on different parts of his body. In consonance with Section 25 of R.A. No. 7659 amending Article 83 of the Revised
9. 9.Dr. Lumancad’s physical examination of JUANITO revealed abrasions, Penal Code, upon finality of this Decision, let the records of this case be forthwith
which could have been caused by scratches. forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
Guilt may be established through circumstantial evidence provided that the following Costs de oficio.
requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the inferences are based SO ORDERED.
on proven facts; and Davide,
______________ Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-
33 People v. Diaz, 262 SCRA 723, 732 [1996]; People v. Gutierrez, 339 SCRA 452,
Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.
460 [2000]. Mendoza, J., In the result.
46 Judgment affirmed with modification.
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Notes.—The single circumstance that the victim was seen with the appellant two
People vs. Baloloy days before she was found dead is clearly insufficient to overcome the presumption of
(3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable innocence in favor of the accused. (People vs. Bravo, 318 SCRA 812 [1999])
doubt of the guilt of the accused.34 All these requisites are present in the case at bar. The giving to a suspect of no more than a perfunctory recitation of his rights,
With JUANITO’s guilt for rape with homicide proven beyond reasonable doubt, we signifying nothing more than a feigned compliance with the constitutional requirements,
are constrained to affirm the death penalty** imposed by the trial court. Article 335 of is considered as merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, pertinently to the suspect, rendering any extrajudicial confession obtained invalid. (People vs.
provides: “When by reason or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the Samolde, 336 SCRA 632 [2000])
penalty shall be death.” ——o0o——
As to JUANITO’s civil liability, prevailing judicial policy has authorized the 48
mandatory award of P100,00035 as civil indemnity ex delicto in cases of rape with © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
homicide (broken down as follows: P50,000 for the death and P50,000 upon the finding
of the fact of rape). Thus, if homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of rape,
the indemnity in the amount of P100,000 is fully justified and properly commensurate
with the seriousness of the said special complex crime. Moral damages in the amount
of P50,000 may be additionally awarded to the heirs of the victim without the need for
pleading or proof of the basis thereof; the fact that they suffered the trauma of mental,
physical and psychological sufferings, which constitutes the basis for moral damages
under the Civil Code, is too obvious to still require the recital thereof at the trial.36
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Aurora,
Zamboanga Del Sur, in Criminal Case No. AZ-CC-96-156, finding accused-appellant
Juanito Baloloy guilty of the crime of rape with homicide and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of death is AFFIRMED with the modification that he is ordered to
______________
Page 6 of 6