PEOPLE vs.
JOSE TAMPUS  Based on his on-the-spot investigation, Lahoz, the officer of the day,
Res Gestae | March 28, 1980 | Aquino, J.
Nature of the Case: Automatic Review
SUMMARY: Two members of the Oxo gang stabbed the victim, member
of the Batang Mindanao gang to avenge the killing of one Oxo gang
member by another Batang Mindanao gang member. Immediately after
emerging from the scene of the crime, the accused surrendered to the
first prison guard they encountered. They repeated their EJC to the
investigatot two days later, and again during trial after pleading guilty.
Counsel for one of the accused now questions the EJC but SC held that ↓
DOCTRINE: Even before Lahoz investigated the killing, Tampus and
Avila had already admitted it when, after coming out of the toilet, the
scene of the crime, the surrendered to Reynaldo S. Eustaquio, the first
guard whom they encountered, and they revealed to him that they had
committed an act of revenge. That spontaneous statement, elicited
without any interrogation, was part of the res gestae and at the same
time was a voluntary confession of guilt.
FACTS:
 When the victim, Saminado1 went to the toilet to answer a call of
nature and to fetch water, the accused, Tampus and Avila2 followed
Saminado to the toilet and, by means of their bladed weapons,
assaulted him.
o Tampus inflicted 8 incised wounds on Saminado while Avila
stabbed him 9 times.
o Saminado died upon arrival in the prison hospital on that same
morning.
o The motive for the killing was revenge for the death of one Oxo
gang member, Rosales, who was stabbed by a Batang Mindanao
gang member.
 Tampus and Avila surrendered with their knives to Eustaquio, the
first prison guard whom they encountered after emerging from the
toilet, saying “surrender po kami, sir. Gumanti lang po kami.”
1 Prisoners in the national penitentiary at Muntinlupa, member of Batang Mindanao gang, and a
patient in the emergency ward of the prison hospital.
2 Both members of the Oxo gang and were tubercular patients in the hospital.
3 Alevosia – committing a crime in a manner that prevents the victim from defending himself,
ensuring both its consummation and that the perpetrator remains unharmed.
4 Quasi-Recidivism = any crime + felony; a QR is one who has been convicted by a final judgment of
any crime whether the first conviction is for a felony or an offense punished by a special law. But
stated in his written report that Avila stabbed Saminado when the
latter was seated in the comfort room and his back was turned to
Avila, while Tampus stabbed the victim on the chest and neck.
 Two days later, Dela Cuesta, another prison guard, investigated
Tampus and Avila and obtained their extrajudicial confessions
wherein they admitted that they assaulted Saminado.
 At the arraignment, both pleaded guilty to the charge of murder
aggravated by treachery3, evident premeditation and quasi-
recidivism4.
 TC informed them that death penalty may be imposed on them but
they reiterated their plea of guilty. The fiscal was still required to
present evidence for the prosecution and both accused took the
witness stand, affirmed their confessions, and testified as to the
manner of stabbing the victim.
 After conviction, Avila did not appeal but counsel for Tampus
contends that the Tampus was denied the right to a public trial5 and
that the confession of Tampus was taken in violation of Sec. 20, Article
IV of the 1973 Constitution.6
ISSUE: W/N Tampus’ right to a public trial and right under Sec. 20,
Art. IV was violated – NO.
a) 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: Here,
TC in its resolution of a separate case where Avila was one of the
accused, refused to allow the latter to be brought to Makati for
security reasons.
i. 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.
after finality of judgment before serving the first sentence or while serving sentence he commits a
felony.
5 Trial was held at the state penitentiary instead of TC’s session hall in Makati.
6 1973 CONST Art. IV Sec. 20. 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, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in
violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.
 b) Sec. 20, Art. IV was not violated: The EJC was voluntarily made
despite the investigator’s endeavor, in taking the statement, to
comply with Sec. 20, Art. IV.
i. The court during the trial is not duty-bound to apprise the
accused that he has the right to remain silent. It is his
counsel who should claim that right for him. If he does not
claim it and he calls the accused to the witness stand, then
he waives that right.
ii. In any case, the accused themselves pleaded guilty and
executed an EJC.
c) Counsel for Tampus’ insisted that before the confession was taken by
de la Cuesta two days after the incident, Tampus was interrogated on
the day of the killing by the officer of the day, Lahoz, and that at that
alleged custodial interrogation, Tampus was not informed as to his
rights to have counsel and to remain silent.
i. Court ruled that even before Lahoz investigated the killing,
Tampus and Avila had already admitted it when, after
coming out of the toilet, the scene of the crime, the
surrendered to Reynaldo S. Eustaquio, the first guard whom
they encountered, and they revealed to him that they had
committed an act of revenge. That spontaneous statement,
elicited without any interrogation, was part of the res
gestae and at the same time was a voluntary confession of
guilt.
ii. Moreover, the two accused, by means of that statement given
freely on the spur of the moment without any urging or
suggestion, waived their right to remain silent and to have the
right to counsel. That admission was confirmed by their
extrajudicial confession, plea of guilty and testimony in court.
They did not appeal from the judgment of conviction.
iii. In any case, that, even without taking into account Tampus’
admission of guilt, confession, plea of guilty and testimony, the
crime was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of
the prosecution.
d) The crime was correctly characterized as murder: Treachery and
evident premeditation were present, and Tampus was a quasi-
recidivist since at the time of the assault, he was serving sentences for
homicide and evasion of service of sentence. The mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated, but for
lack of the requisite ten votes, the death penalty cannot be affirmed.
RULING: Judgment, AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION  Sentenced to
reclusion perpetua.
NOTES: Three requisites for the admission of evidence of res gestae:
(1) That the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence;
(2) That the statements were made before the declarant had time to
contrive or devise; and
(3) That the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances [People vs. Ricaplaza].
TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting: I have grave doubts as to the alleged waiver
by the accused of his constitutional right to counsel and to remain silent
given in the middle of his “voluntary” extra-judicial confession during his
custodial interrogation by the prison investigator, who at such late state
(in propounding question No. 6, not at the beginning of the interrogation)
purportedly took time out to admonish and inform the accused of his
rights to counsel and to silence. The fundamental rights of such
unfortunate disadvantaged persons as the accused should all the more be
clearly protected and observed. At the very least, such alleged waiver
must be witnessed by a responsible official of the penitentiary, if not by
the municipal judge of the locality. Moreover, After the prosecutor had
presented the State’s evidence at the hearing for the purpose, and when
counsel de oficio then called upon the accused to testify, it became the trial
court’s duty (contrary to the majority’s ruling) to apprise and admonish
him of his constitutional rights to remain silent and against self-
incrimination, i.e. the right not to be compelled to be a witness against
himself.
BARREDO, J., concurring: I concur, but I believe it is best that the court
should inform the accused of his right to remain silent and not wait for
the lawyer to make the objection.