[85] People v. Rodriguez (FRANCISCO) prison, unless held for another lawful cause.
unless held for another lawful cause. The Director of Prisons is directed to inform this
Oct 2, 2000 | Quisumbing, J. | Criminal Appeals
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Wilfredo Rodriguez and Larry Artellero
DOCTRINE: The evidence against and the conviction of both accused are inextricably
linked. Hence, Artellero’s acquittal, which is favorable and applicable to Rodriguez should
benefit the latter. Sec. 11 of Rule 122 provides the effect of appeal by any of several
accused: “An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who
did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
applicable to the latter”.
FACTS:
1. Artellero was employed as a cement mixer and helper of co-accused Rodriguez, a mason
in the construction of the upper floors of Far East Bank and Trust Company at Sta. Cruz,
Manila. A messenger discovered the lifeless body of Matias (bank security guard) inside
the bank premises, tied with a nylon cord and 32 stab wounds.
2. In a follow-up investigation, the police went to the barracks of the constructions workers
and saw Rodriguez packing his personal belongings stating that he has nothing more to do
there. They saw reddish stains on his shirt and on a pair of maong pants on the bed.
Rodriguez said he had a wound on his neck, but the police found none upon examination.
3. They arrested the two. Rodriguez executed a sworn statement confessing that he and
Artellero, along with Mendoza and two others killed Matias. Both were charged with
robbery with homicide for the killing of Matias.
4. Witnesses were presented by the prosecution and one testified that the reddish stains on
Rodriguez’s pants and shirt were positive for type O human blood, which was also the
blood type of Rodriguez.
5. Witnesses for the defense testified that the bank policy prohibits guards from allowing
persons from entering the bank after office hours except for official visitors from higher
banks and both accused.
6. Both admitted that they slept inside the building on the night before the incident but denied
killing Matias. Policemen allegedly mauled Rodriguez to confess and did not ask for the
statement of Artellero. The latter also denied owning the maong pants.
7. RTC: GUILTY of murder. Robbery with homicide was not the proper charge. Acquitted
from robbery due to insufficiency of evidence.
8. Both appealed, but Rodriguez withdrew his appeal for financial reasons. Artellero
contended that the trial court erred in:
a. giving credence to the extrajudicial confession of Rodriguez (implicating him as co-
conspirator)
b. finding the maong pants stained with blood type “O” belongs to him
c. admitting the fact that they worked and slept together for 6 months as part of
circumstantial evidence; and
d. rendering a decision more serious than charged in the information.
ISSUE: W/N the appeal taken by Artellero shall affect Rodriguez’s conviction despite the
withdrawal of his appeal– YES
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court convicting appellant LARRY ARTELLERO y
RICO and co-accused WILFREDO RODRIGUEZ y CULO is hereby REVERSED. Appellant
and Rodriguez are ACQUITTED of the crime of murder and ordered immediately released from
Court of his compliance, within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision. No costs.
RATIO:
1. An appeal in criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects,
including those not raised by the parties.
2. Rodriguez withdrew his appeal for financial reasons. However, Sec. 11 (a) of Rule 122 of
the Rules of Court provides that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall
not affect those who did not appeal, except if the judgment of the appellate court is
favorable and applicable to the latter.
3. Rodriguez’s confession is constitutionally flawed so it could not be used as evidence
against them at all. 4 fundamental requisites for the admissibility of a confession are:
e. voluntary
f. made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel
g. express
h. in writing
5. The second requisite is lacking. The accused were detained for 4 days, but the PAO lawyer
was called only on the 4th day when accused was about to put his confession in writing.
The moment that the 2 were arrested as suspects and brought to the police station, they
were already under custodial investigation and should be accorded their rights under the
Constitution (particularly the right to counsel).
- Records do not show that both were informed of their Miranda rights.
- They were not provided with competent and independent counsel during the custodial
investigation prior to the execution of the extrajudicial confession.
6. Admissions obtained during custodial investigation without the benefit of counsel,
although later reduced into writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed
under the Constitution.
7. The extrajudicial confession of Rodriguez is inadmissible and it was an error of the trial
court to use it in convicting the two.
- Rodriguez: relied on his confession (inadmissible)
- Artellero: relied on 2 pieces of circumstantial evidence which show conspiracy:
a. Extrajudicial confession of Rodriguez implicating him (inadmissible)
b. Maong pants allegedly belonging to him with type O blood stains (no probative
value since his blood type and that of the victim were not taken for purposes of
comparison
8. Assuming arguendo the extrajudicial confession was admissible, Rule 130 of ROC
provides that such can only be admissible against the confessant. There must be
independent evidence aside from the same to prove conspiracy. In this case, no other
evidence was presented.
9. The evidence against and the conviction of both accused are inextricably linked. Hence,
Artellero’s acquittal, which is favorable and applicable to Rodriguez, should benefit the
latter.