PEOPLE V. CHAVEZ proceeded to go inside his house and sleep.
The next day he was awakened
September 22, 2014| Leonen, J. | Waiver of Rights (Voluntary Surrender)
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Mark Jason Chavez
SUMMARY: Chavez was convicted by the RTC and CA guilty for the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide of Barbie in his parlor. The
prosecution presented Peñamante who saw Chavez leaving the salon of Barbie
and the autopsy report. The facts also revealed that Chavez with his mother
voluntary surrendered to the police station. His mother narrated that Chavez
confessed to her what he did. This was made without the presence a lawyer. On
appeal, Chavez argued that his mother’s statement could not be used against
him because his mother was never presented before the court. Hence, the
statement was hearsay. The Court modified the ruling and convicted Chavez
with homicide only. The circumstantial evidence failed to prove that Chavez
actually had the criminal design to rob Barbie. Moreover the Court ruled that
since the law expanded the definition of custodial investigation where Miranda
rights may be invoked by adding investigation conducted via police invitation,
those who voluntarily surrender to the police can likewise enjoy Miranda rights.
DOCTRINE:
Republic Act 7438 “expanded the definition of custodial investigation to
“include the practice of issuing an ‘invitation’ to a person who is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, w/o prejudice to
the liability of the ‘inviting officer of any violation of law.” This means even
those who voluntary surrendered before a police officer must be apprised
of their Miranda rights.
FACTS:
1. Chavez was convicted guilty of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide for robbing and killing “Barbie” Duque in the latter’s
parlor.
2. The stolen items were: a) 1 nokia cellphone; b) 1 motorolla cellphone; c) 6
pcs Ladies ring; d) 2 pcs necklace and; e) 1 pc bracelet
3. The prosecution presented Peñamante who is a janitor in Eastwood City.
According to him, on October 28, 2006, he arrived home in Sampaloc
Manila from work at around 2:45 am. Their house is just 6 meters across
the house/parlor of Barbie. He noticed that Chavez went out from the parlor
and had hard time closing the door. Peñamante was able to see Chavez’ face
and clothes as the light at the left side of the parlor was on. Moreover, he
notices that Chavez dropped something and fell. Chavez then picked the
object and left. However, Peñamante didn’t see what the object was and
by his landlord who informed him that Barbie was found dead around
9:00am. He then told the landlady what he saw earlier.
4. Dr. Salen conducted the autopsy at around 1:00pm that day and the cause
of death was identified as 21 stab wounds and the approximate time of
death was 12 hours from the autopsy. The day after, the police invited
Peñamante for questioning.
5. On November 5, 2006, Chavez, accompanied by his mother, surrendered to
the police. Chavez is 22 years old. According to his mother, she wants to
help his son who might be involved in the killing of Barbie.
6. The police has informed the mother the consequences of her statement
without the assistance of a lawyer. However, the latter still gave her
statement. According to her:
a. Chavez confessed to him that he did the crime.
b. Chavez gave the two mobile phones to her mother. According to him,
he took it after he killed Barbie (the mother surrendered these to the
police)
c. The knife used was their kitchen knife which he dropped in the
manhole in front of their house (this was retrieved later on)
d. Chavez loaned the missing necklace in a pawnshop in Quezon City
e. Chavez left footprints in the crime scene. He also obtained wounds
from the incident.
f. Chavez did not have the intention to kill Barbie but only to rob him.
7. The next day, the police asked Peñamante to come to the station and to
identify among the line up of men if he recognizes the killer of Barbie. To
which he was able to do.
8. Chavez’ defense: He went to the parlor of Barbie at 1am after the latter
failed to reply. According to him, they were having misunderstanding
regarding Barbie’s boyfriend named Maki. He said that they only talked
about it then he went home.
9. The RTC convicted him and so did CA.
10. On appeal, Chavez argued: a) circumstantial evidence of the prosecution
does not overcome his presumption of innocence; b) his mother’s statement
was never presented in Court and hence it is hearsay; c) the autopsy shows
the possibility of having two assailants.
11. People argued that the circumstantial evidence showed unbroken chain of
events leading to the crime. As for the mother’s statement, the RTC did not
rely on this and did not even mention it. Dr. Salen also mentioned that
possibility that there was only one assailant.
ISSUE:
1.WoN Chavez is guilty of special complex crime of robbery with homicide (NO,
only homicide)
2. WoN people who voluntary surrender still enjoy Miranda rights (YES)
Page 1 of 2

RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court DENIED the petition.
RATIO:
Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide
1. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove elements for robbery in
this case and thus the crime committed is simply homicide.
2. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence (Chavez going to the parlor
at 1 am; the victim’s two mobiles phones were surrendered without sim
cards and batteries; Peñamante’s testimony and the approximate time of
death based on the autopsy corroborates the testiominy of Peñamante)by the
prosecution failed to establish that Chavez had the intention to rob Barbie.
The Court pointed out that the Chavez’ admission to his mother cannot be
used against him since the mother was never presented as a witness in court.
Thus, the confession is hearsay. Aside from this, nothing from the evidence
establishes Chavez’ intent to take personal property.
3. An original criminal design of taking property is inconsistent to the 21 stab
wounds in various parts of Barbie’s body. Clearly, the intent was only to
kill. The number of stab wounds and their locations were indicator of the
crime committed. In the case at bar, the stab wounds inflicted manifest the
intent to kill and not merely to defend one’s self that would likely be the
case if the original design was to rob.
4. The Court acknowledged that there is a presumption that one is guilty of
theft when he was found to be in possession of something he does not own.
However, that presumption does not hold in the case at bar absence of more
conclusive evidence. The Court held that since Barbie and Chavez are
friends there might be a possibility that Barbie actually lent the mobile
phones to Chavez. As for the other missing items, they were no longer
found. No evidence was presented to conclude that Chavez stole them.
Again, the testimony of Chavez’ mother can’t be used because it is hearsay.
5. In any case, the penalty of theft is dependent on the value of the stolen
items, the value of the stolen items was not alleged in the RTC.
Voluntary Surrender (relevant in our topic)
1. The Court first emphasized that it is contrary to human nature that a mother
would voluntary surrender his son for a heinous crime. Equally doubtful is
the fact that the police interrogated Chavez’ mother but not him. The record
is also silent whether Chavez objected to the testimony of his mother.
2. On the witness stand, the police said that the mother was made aware of the
consequences of her confession absence of a lawyer and that the mother is
only with their neighbors when they went to the station.
3. The book report which was recorded two days after Chavez’ surrender
states, “when the accused was appraised of his constitutional rights and
nature of charges imputed against him, accused opted to remain silent.”
4. Miranda rights are enshrined in our constitution. What was modified was
the inclusion of “the statement that any waiver of the right to counsel
must be made “in writing and in the presence of counsel.”
5. This right applies during custodial investigation. This is when the police
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has
begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who
starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit
incriminating statements.
6. Republic Act 7438 “expanded the definition of custodial investigation to
“include the practice of issuing an ‘invitation’ to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed, w/o prejudice to the liability of the ‘inviting officer of any
violation of law.”
7. This means even those who voluntary surrendered before a police
officer must be apprised of their Miranda rights. In the case at bar, the
pressures of custodial investigation exist (Chavez being questioned by a
police officer in a police station) Additional pressure is he may have only
been compelled by his mother to surrender.
8. Lastly the Court laments how the prosecution handled the case. Reiterated
that life is at stake here and no amount of unprofessionalism should be
tolerated. The prosecution failed to conduct DNA testing on the strands of
hair and blood found with the knife and those in the clutches of Barbie.
Likewise, no finger print testing was done. These failures could have given
the conviction more credible. Life—whether accused’s or victim’s—is
valuable and held in high esteem by our Constitution and laws.
Page 2 of 2