You are on page 1of 132

4. PEOPLE VS. JOSE 4.

That means were employed or circumstances brought about which


added ignominy to the natural effects of the act; and

PER CURIAM: 5. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for the commission.
The amended complaint filed in this case in the court below, reads as follows:
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The undersigned complainant accuses JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, BASILIO
PINEDA, JR. Alias "BOY," EDUARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO alias "EDDIE" and Upon arraignment, Basilio Pineda, Jr. pleaded guilty to the charge imputed in the above-
ROGELIO CAÑAL Y SEVILLA alias "ROGER," as principals, WONG LAY quoted amended complaint; however, in an order dated July 11, 1967, the court reserved
PUENG, SILVERIO GUANZON Y ROMERO and JESSIE GUION Y ENVOLTARIO judgment "until such time as the prosecution shall have concluded presenting all of its
as accomplices, of the crime of Forcible Abduction with rape, committed evidence to prove the aggravating circumstances listed in the complaint." Upon the other
as follows: hand, the rest of the defendants went to trial on their respective pleas of not guilty. After the
merits, the court below rendered its decision on October 2, 1967, the dispositive portion of
That on or about the 26th day of June, 1967, in Quezon City, and within which reads as follows:
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named principal
accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Jaime Jose, Rogelio Cañal,
one another, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, Eduardo Aquino and Basilio Pineda, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
with lewd design, forcibly abduct the undersigned complainant against the crime of forcible abduction with rape as described under Art. 335 of
her will, and did, then and there take her, pursuant to their common the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences each of them
criminal design, to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, where each of the four to the death penalty to be executed at a date to be set and in the manner
(4) accused, by means of force and intimidation, and with the use of a provided for by law; and each to indemnify the complainant in the
deadly weapon, have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant amount of ten thousand pesos. On the ground that the prosecution has
against her will, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be failed to establish a prima facie case against the accomplices Wong Lay
awarded to her under the provisions of the civil code. Pueng, Silverio Guanzon y Romero, and Jessie Guion y Envoltario, the
Motion to Dismiss filed for and in their behalf is hereby granted, and the
That WONG LAY PUENG, SILVERIO GUANZON y ROMERO, and JESSIE case dismissed against the aforementioned accused.
GUION y ENVOLTARIO without taking a direct part in the execution of the
offense either by forcing, inducing the principal accused to execute, or Insofar as the car used in the abduction of the victim which Jaime Jose
cooperating in its execution by an indispensable act, did, then and there identified by pointing to it from the window of the courtroom and
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous pictures of which were submitted and marked as Exhibits "M" and "M-1,"
acts, that is, by cooperating, aiding, abetting and permitting the principal and which Jaime Jose in his testimony admitted belonged to him,
accused in sequestering the undersigned complainant in one of the pursuant to Art. 45 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires the
rooms of the Swanky Hotel then under the control of the accused Wong confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime,
Lay Pueng, Silverio Guanzon y Romero and Jessie Guion y Envoltario, thus the Court hereby orders its confiscation.
supplying material and moral aid in the consummation of the offense.
This case is now before us by virtue of the appeal interposed by Basilio Pineda, Jr., Edgardo
That the aforestated offense has been attended by the following Aquino, and Jaime Jose, and for automatic review as regards Rogelio Cañal. However, for
aggravating circumstances: practical purposes all of them shall hereafter be referred to as appellants.

1. Use of a motor vehicle. The complainant, Magdalena "Maggie" de la Riva, was, at the time of the incident, 25 years
old and single; she graduated from high school in 1958 at Maryknoll College and finished the
2. Night time sought purposely to facilitate the commission of the crime secretarial course in 1960 at St. Theresa's College. Movie actress by profession, she was
and to make its discovery difficult; receiving P8,000.00 per picture. It was part of her work to perform in radio broadcasts and
television shows, where she was paid P800.00 per month in permanent shows, P300.00 per
month in live promotional shows, and from P100.00 to P200.00 per appearance as guest in
3. Abuse of superior strength;
other shows.
So it was that at about 4:30 o'clock in the morning of June 26, 1967, Miss De la Riva, The latter was told not to shout or else she would be stabbed or shot with a Thompson. Not
homeward bound from the ABS Studio on Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, was driving her bantam car long after, the car came to a stop at the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City The blindfolded lady was
accompanied by her maid Helen Calderon, who was also at the front seat. Her house was at led out of the car to one of the rooms on the second floor of the hotel.
No. 48, 12th Street, New Manila, Quezon City. She was already near her destination when a
Pontiac two-door convertible car with four men aboard (later identified as the four Inside the room Miss De la Riva was made to sit on a bed. Her blindfold was removed. She
appellants) came abreast of her car and tried to bump it. She stepped on her brakes to avoid saw Pineda and Aquino standing in front of her, and Jose and Cañal sitting beside her, all of
a collision, and then pressed on the gas and swerved her car to the left, at which moment she them smiling meaningfully. Pineda told the complainant: "Magburlesque ka para sa amin."
was already in front of her house gate; but because the driver of the other car (Basilio The other three expressed their approval and ordered Miss De la Riva to disrobe. The
Pineda, Jr.) also accelerated his speed, the two cars almost collided for the second time. This complainant ignored the command. One of the appellants suggested putting off the light so
prompted Miss De la Riva, who was justifiably annoyed, to ask: "Ano ba?" Forthwith, Pineda that the complainant would not be ashamed. The idea, however, was rejected by the others,
stopped the car which he was driving, jumped out of it and rushed towards her. who said that it would be more pleasurable for them if the light was on. Miss De la Riva was
told to remove her stocking in order, according to them, to make the proceedings more
The girl became so frightened at this turn of events that she tooted the horn of her car exciting. Reluctantly, she did as directed, but so slowly did she proceed with the assigned task
continuously. Undaunted, Pineda opened the door of Miss De la Riva's car and grabbed the that the appellants cursed her and threatened her again with the Thompson and the acid.
lady's left arm. The girl held on tenaciously to her car's steering wheel and, together with her They started pushing Miss De la Riva around. One of them pulled down the zipper of her
maid, started to scream. Her strength, however, proved no match to that of Pineda, who dress; another unhooked her brassiere. She held on tightly to her dress to prevent it from
succeeded in pulling her out of her car. Seeing her mistress' predicament, the maid jumped being pulled down, but her efforts were in vain: her dress, together with her brassiere, fell on
out of the car and took hold of Miss De la Riva's right arm in an effort to free her from the floor.
Pineda's grip. The latter, however, was able to drag Miss De la Riva toward the Pontiac
convertible car, whose motor was all the while running. The complainant was now completely naked before the four men, who were kneeling in front
of her and feasting their eyes on her private parts. This ordeal lasted for about ten minutes,
When Miss De la Riva, who was being pulled by Pineda, was very near the Pontiac car, the during which the complainant, in all her nakedness, was asked twice or thrice to turn around.
three men inside started to assist their friend: one of them held her by the neck, while the Then Pineda picked up her clothes and left the room with his other companions. The
two others held her arms and legs. All three were now pulling Miss De la Riva inside the car. complainant tried to look for a blanket with which to cover herself, but she could not find
Before she was completely in, appellant Pineda jumped unto the driver's seat and sped away one.
in the direction of Broadway Street. The maid was left behind.
Very soon, Jose reentered the room and began undressing himself. Miss De la Riva, who was
The complainant was made to sit between Jaime Jose and Edgardo Aquino at the back seat; sitting on the bed trying to cover her bareness with her hands, implored him to ask his
Basilio Pineda, Jr. was at the wheel, while Rogelio Cañal was seated beside him. Miss De la friends to release her. Instead of answering her, he pushed her backward and pinned her
Riva entreated the appellants to release her; but all she got in response were jeers, abusive down on the bed. Miss De la Riva and Jose struggled against each other; and because the
and impolite language that the appellants and threats that the appellants would finish her complainant was putting up stiff resistance, Jose cursed her and hit her several times on the
with their Thompson and throw acid at her face if she did not keep quiet. In the meantime, stomach and other parts of the body. The complainant crossed her legs tightly, but her
the two men seated on each side of Miss De la Riva started to get busy with her body: Jose attacker was able to force them open. Jose succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the
put one arm around the complainant and forced his lips upon hers, while Aquino placed his complainant. He then left the room.
arms on her thighs and lifted her skirt. The girl tried to resist them. She continuously
implored her captors to release her, telling them that she was the only breadwinner in the The other three took their turns. Aquino entered the room next. A struggle ensued between
family and that her mother was alone at home and needed her company because her father him and Miss De la Riva during which he hit, her on different parts of the body. Like Jose,
was already dead. Upon learning of the demise of Miss De la Riva's father, Aquino remarked Aquino succeeded in abusing the complainant. The girl was now in a state of shock. Aquino
that the situation was much better than he thought since no one could take revenge against called the others into the room. They poured water on her face and slapped her to revive
them. By now Miss De la Riva was beginning to realize the futility of her pleas. She made the her. Afterwards, three of the accused left the room, leaving Pineda and the complainant
sign of the cross and started to pray. The appellants became angry and cursed her. Every now After some struggle during which Pineda hit her, the former succeeded in forcing his carnal
and then Aquino would stand up and talk in whispers with Pineda, after which the two would desire on the latter. When the complainant went into a state of shock for the second time,
exchange knowing glances with Cañal and Jose. the three other men went into the room again poured water on the complainant's face and
slapped her several times. The complainant heard them say that they had to revive her so
The car reached a dead-end street. Pineda turned the car around and headed towards she would know what was happening. Jose, Aquino and Pineda then left the room. It was
Victoria Street. Then the car proceeded to Araneta Avenue, Sta. Mesa Street, Shaw now appellant Canal's turn. There was a struggle between him and Miss De la Riva. Like the
Boulevard, thence to Epifanio de los Santos Avenue. When the car reached Makati, Aquino other three appellants before him, he hit the complainant on different parts of the body and
took a handkerchief from his pocket and, with the help of Jose, blindfolded Miss De la Riva. succeeded in forcing his carnal lust on her.
Mention must be made of the fact that while each of mention must be made the four some members of the family, went to the Quezon City Police Department Headquarters, filed
appellants was struggling with the complainant, the other three were outside the room, just a complaint and executed a statement (Exh. "B") wherein she narrated the incident and gave
behind the door, threatening the complainant with acid and telling her to give in because she descriptions of the four men who abused her. In the afternoon of the same day, the
could not, after all, escape what with their presence. complainant submitted herself ito a medico-internal examination by Dr. Ernesto Brion, NBI
Chief Medico-Legal Officer.
After the appellants had been through with the sexual carnage, they gave Miss De la Riva her
clothes, told her to get dressed and put on her stockings, and to wash her face and comb her During the physical examination of the complainant by Dr. Brion on June 29, 1967, Pat.
hair, to give the impression that nothing had happened to her. They told her to tell her Pascual was also at the NBI office. There he received a telephone call from the police
mother that she was mistaken by a group of men for a hostess, and that when the group headquarters to the effect that one of the suspects had been apprehended. That evening,
found out that she was a movie actress, she was released without being harmed. She was the complainant and Pat. Pascual proceeded to the headquarters where Miss De la Riva
warned not to inform the police; for if she did and they were apprehended, they would identified appellant Jaime Jose from among a group of persons inside the Office of the Chief
simply post bail and later hunt her up and disfigure her face with acid. The appellants then of Police of Quezon City as one of the four men he abducted and raped her. She executed
blindfolded Miss De la Riva again and led her down from the hotel room. Because she was another statement (Exh. "B-1") wherein she made a formal identification of Jose and related
stumbling, she had to be carried into the car. Inside the car, a appellant Jose held her head the role played by him.
down on his lap, and kept it in that position during the trip, to prevent her from being seen
by others. At about 9:00 o'clock of the same evening, appellant Jose executed a statement (Exh. "I")
before Pat. Marcos G. Viñas. In his statement, which was duly sworn. Jose admitted that he
Meanwhile, the four appellants were discussing the question of where to drop Miss De la knew about, and was involved in, the June 26 incident. He named the other line appellants as
Riva. They finally decided on a spot in front of the Free Press Building not far from Epifanio de his companions. Jose stated, among other things, that upon the initiative of Pineda, he and
los Santos Avenue near Channel 5 to make it appear, according to them, that the the other three waited for Miss De la Riva to come out of the ABS Studio; that his group gave
complainant had just come from the studio. Pineda asked Jose to alight and call a taxicab, but chase to the complainant's car; that it was Pineda who blindfolded her and that only Pineda
to choose one which did not come from a well-known company. Jose did as requested, and Aquino criminally assaulted the complainant.
letting several taxicabs pass by before flagging a UBL taxicab. After they warned again Miss
De la Riva not to inform anyone of what had happened to her, appellant Canal accompanied After Exh, "I" was executed by Jose, an informant furnished Pat. Vinas with a picture of
her to the taxicab. The time was a little past 6:00 o'clock. When Miss De la Riva was already appellant Edgardo Aquino. The picture was shown to Miss De la Riva, who declared in her
inside the cab and alone with the driver, Miguel F. Campos, she broke down and cried. She sworn statement (Exh. "B-3") that the man in the picture was one of her abductors and
kept asking the driver if a car was following them; and each time the driver answered her in rapists. The same picture was shown to Jose, who, in another sworn statement (Exh. "I-l"),
the negative. identified the man in the picture as appellant Aquino.

It was 6:30 o'clock — or some two hours after the abduction — when Miss De la Riva reached After the apprehension of Jose, the other three soon fell into the hands of the authorities:
home. Her mother, her brother-in-law Ben Suba, as well as several PC officers, policemen and Pineda and Cañal on July 1, 1967, in Lipa City, and Aquino on July 5, 1967, in the province of
reporters, were at the house. Upon seeing her mother, the complainant ran toward her and Batangas. On the evening of July 1, 1967. Miss De la Riva pointed to Pineda and Cañal as
said, "Mommy, Mommy, I have been raped. All four of them raped me." The mother brought among the four persons who abducted and raped her. She picked them out from among
her daughter upstairs. Upon her mother's instruction, the complainant immediately took a several person in the Office of the Chief of Police of Quezon City. Later in the same evening,
bath and a douche. The older woman also instructed her daughter to douche himself two or Miss De la Riva executed a sworn statement (Exh. B-2)wherein she made the same
three times daily with a strong solution to prevent infection and pregnancy. The family identification of the two appellants from among a group of persons in the Office of the Chief
doctor, who was afterwards summoned, treated the complainant for external physical of the Detective Bureau, adding that appellant Cañal had tattoo marks on his right hip. After
injuries. The doctor was not, however, told about the sexual assaults. Neither was Pat. Pablo the identification, one of the policemen took appellant Cañal downstairs and undressed him,
Pascual, the police officer who had been sent by the desk officer, Sgt. Dimla, to the De la Riva and he saw, imprinted on the said appellant's right hip, the words "Bahala na Gang."
residence when the latter received from a mobile patrol a report of the snatching. When
Miss De la Riva arrived home from her harrowing experience, Pat. Pascual attempted to
Appellant Cañal and Pineda executed and swore to separate statements on the day of their
question her, but Ben Suba requested him to postpone the interrogation until she could be
arrest. In his statement (Exh. "G"), appellant Cañal confirmed the information previously
ready for it. At that time, mother and daughter were still undecided on what to do.
given by Jose that the four of them waited for Miss De la Riva to come down from the ABS
Studio, and that they had planned to abduct and rape her. Appellant Cañal admitted that all
On the afternoon of June 28, 1967, the complainant family gathered to discuss what steps, if four of them participated in the commission of the crime, but he would make it appear that
any, should be taken. After some agonizing moments, a decision was reached: the authorities insofar as he was concerned the complainant yielded her body to him on condition that he
had to be informed. Thus, early on the morning of June 29, 1967, or on the fourth day after would release her. Pineda executed a statement (Exh. "J") stating that he and his other three
the incident, Miss De la Riva, accompanied by her lawyer, Atty. Regina O. Benitez, and by
companions wept to the ABS Studio, and that, on learning that Miss De la Riva was there, opened the door and started dragging the girl out. Both Jose and Aquino
they made plans to wait for her and to follow her. He admitted that his group followed her confirm the presence of another woman inside the girl's car, who helped
car and snatched her and took her to the Swanky Hotel. He would make it appear, however, the girl struggle to get free from Pineda's grip; and that the struggle
that the complainant voluntarily acceded to having sexual intercourse with him. lasted about ten minutes before Pineda finally succeeded in pushing the
girl into the red convertible. All the three accused insist they did nothing
In his medical report (Exh. "K"), Dr. Brion noted the presence of multiple contusions and to aid Pineda: but they also admit that they did nothing to stop him.
bruises on different parts of the complainant's body, as well as of genital injuries. On the
witness stand the doctor was shown several photographs of the complainant taken in his Now the defense contends that Pineda cruised around and around the
presence and under his supervision. With the aid of the photographs and the medical area just to scare the girl who was in truth so scared that she begged
reports, the doctor explained to the court that he found contusions or bruises on the them to let her be and return her to her home. She turned to Jose in
complainant's chest, shoulders, arms and fore-arms, right arm index finger, thighs, right knee appeal, but this one told her he could net do anything as the "boss" was
and legs. He also declared that when he was examining her, Miss De la Riva complained of Pineda. Aquino heard her plead with Jose "do you not have a sister
slight tenderness around the neck, on the abdominal wall and at the sites of the extragenital yourself?" but did not bear the other plea 'do you not have a mother?'
physical injuries, and that on pressing the said injuries, he elicited a sigh of pain or Then Pineda stopped at the corner of the street where he had forcibly
tenderness on the part of the subject. The injuries, according to Dr. Brion, could have been snatched the girl presumably to return her, but then suddenly changing
caused blows administered by a closed fist or by the palm of the hand, and could have been his mind he said, 'why don't you do a strip tease for us. I'll pay you
inflicted on the subject while she was being raped. It was the doctor's opinion that they could P1,000.00 and the girl taunted, 'are you kidding?': that after a little while
have been sustained on or about June 26, 1967. In connection with the genital examination, she consented to do the performance as long as it would not last too long
the doctor declared that he found injuries on the subject's genitalia which could have been and provided the spectators were limited to the four of them.
produced by sexual intercourse committed on June 26, 1967. He said that he failed to find
spermatozoa. He explained, however, that spermatozoa are not usually found in the vagina Pineda sped the car until they got to Swanky Hotel where he and Maggie
after the lapse of three days from the last intercourse, not to mention the possibility that the alighted first, but not before Maggie had borrowed a handkerchief from
subject might have douched herself. one of them to cover her face as she went up the Hotel. The three
followed, and when they saw the pair enter a room, they quickly caught
The three appellants who pleaded not guilty (Jose, Aquino and Cañal) took the witness stand. up. All the three accused testify that as soon as they got into the room,
We quote hereunder the portions of the decision under review relative to the theory of the Maggie de la Riva asked the boys to close the windows before she.
defense: undressed in front of them. They themselves also removed their clothing.
Two of them removed their pants retaining their briefs, while Boy Pineda
Their story is that they and their co-accused Pineda had gone to the Ulog and Cañal stripped to the skin "because it was hot." The three accused
Cocktail Lounge somewhere in Mabini street in Manila, and there killed declared that they saw Boy Pineda hand P100.00 to Maggie and they
time from 9:30 in the evening of June 25 until closing time, which was heard him promise her that he would pay the balance of P900.00 later.
about 3:30 in the early morning of the next day. At the cocktail lounge Whereupon, the show which lasted about 10 minutes began with the
they had listened to the music while enjoying some drinks. Between them naked girl walking back and forth the room about 4 to 5 times. This
they had consumed a whole bottle of whisky, so much so that at least accomplished, all of them dressed up once more and the three accused
Aquino became drunk, according to his own testimony. They had been (Jaime Jose, Eduardo Aquino and Rogelio Cañal) left the room to wait in
joined at their table by a certain Frankie whom they met only that night. the car for Boy Pineda and Maggie de la Riva who were apparently still
Come time to go home, their new acquaintance asked to be dropped at discussing the mode of payment of the balance. Three minutes later
his home in Cubao. The five men piled into the red-bodied, black topped Maggie de la Riva and Boy Pineda joined them. Now, the question of how
two-door convertible Plymouth (Pontiac) car of Jaime Jose, and with and where to drop Maggie came up and it is testified to by the accused
Pineda at the wheel repaired to Cubao After dislodging their new friend, that it was Maggie's idea that they should drop her near the ABS Studio
Pineda steered the car to España Extension to bring Aquino to his home so that it would appear as if she had just come from her work.
in Mayon Street. But somewhere in España Extension before the Rotonda
a small car whizzed to them almost hitting them. They saw that the driver Jaime Jose was picked by the police on the morning of June 29 along
was a woman. Pineda gave chase and coming abreast of the small car he Buendia Avenue. Aquino testifies how, on June 29 Pineda went to him
shouted, "Putang ina mo, kamuntik na kaming mamatay." The woman with a problem. He did not have the P900.00 with which to pay Maggie
continued on her way. Now Pineda saying "let us teach her a lesson," the balance of her "show" and he was afraid that if he did not pay,
sped after her and when she swerved ostensibly to enter a gate, Pineda Maggie would have her goons after him. He wanted Aquino to go with
stopped his car behind being hurriedly got down, striding to the small car, him to Lipa City where he had relatives and where he could help raise the
money. Aquino readily obliged, and to make the company complete they these man were, where they lived, whether they could be trusted with a
invited Cañal to join them. They used another car of Jaime Jose, different promise to pay later (!) whether she could ever find them again? If there
from the one they had used the day before. At Lipa, Aquino detached is anything that had struck the Court about the complaint, it is her
himself from his compassions and proceeded alone to the barrio allegedly courage, her intelligence and her alertness. Only a stupid woman, and a
to visit his relatives. In the meantime his two companions had remained most stupid one that, could have been persuaded to do what the defense
in the City and had, according to Canal, gone to live in a house very close want this Court to believe Maggie de la Riva consented to do.
to the municipal hall building. They later moved to another house where
the PC and Quezon City police posse found and arrested them. Aquino Finally, it is odd that not one of these men should have mentioned this
was the last to be apprehended, when having read in the newspapers circumstances during their interview with anyone, either the press, their
that he was wanted, he surrendered on July 5 to Mrs. Aurelia Leviste, police interrogator, the person who negotiated their surrender (as in the
wife of the governor of Batangas. case of Aquino) or even their counsel. One cannot escape the very strong
suspicion that this story is a last ditch, desperate attempt to save the day
The striptease-act-for-a-fee story on which the defense theory is anchored, defies one's for the accused. It truly underscores the hopelessness of their stand and
credulity and reason, and had utterly to counteract the evidence for the prosecution, projects all the more clearly their guilt.
particularly the complainant's testimony and Dr. Brion's medical report and testimony. We
quote with approval the able dissertion of the trial judge on this point: Then there is the incident of the men's stripping themselves. Why was
there need for this? The Court realizes that in its desperate need of an
As main defense in the charge of rape, the three accused advance the explanation for Maggie's positive identification of Cañal as the man with
proposition that nothing happened in Swanky Hotel except a strip-tease the tattoo mark on his right buttock, the defense concocted the
exhibition which the complaint agreed to do for them for fee of sickeningly incident story that the four men removed their underclothing
P1,000.00, P100.00 down and the balance to be paid "later." The flaw in in the presence of a woman simply "because it was hot." What kind of
this connection lies in its utter inverisimilitude. The Court cannot believe men were these who were so devoid of any sense of decency that they
that any woman exists, even one habitual engaged in this kind of thought nothing of adding insult to injury by not only inducing a woman a
entertainment (which Maggie de la Riva has not been proven to be) who strip before them, but for forcing her to perform before
would consent (and as easily and promptly as defense claims) to do a a naked audience? And then they have gall to argue that "nothing"
performance, not even for all money in the worlds after the rough happened. For males of cold and phlegmatic blood and disposition it
handling she experienced from these wolves in men's clothing who now could be credible, but not for men of torrid regions like ours where quick
hungered for a show. There is no fury to match a woman stirred to passions and hot tempers are the rule rather than the exception!
indignation. A woman's pride is far stronger than her yen for money, and
her revenge much more keen. The Court cannot believe that after the All of these consideration set aside, notwithstanding, it is quite obvious that the version of
rudeness and meanness of these men to her, Maggie would in so short an the defense has not been able to explain away a very vital piece of evidence of prosecution
interval of time forget her indignation and so readily consent to satisfy which, if unexplained, cannot but reduce any defense unavailing. The result of the physical
their immoral curiosity about her. The woman in her would urge her to (external and internal) examination conducted on the person of Maggie de la Riva in the
turn the men's hankering as a weapon of revenge by denying them their afternoon of June 29, the pertinent findings of which quoted earlier in this decision, establish
pleasure. beyond doubt that at the time that Maggie de la Riva was examined she bore on her body
traces of physical and sexual assault.
Besides, the manner of payment offered for the performance is again
something beyond even the wildest expectations. Assuming that the The only attempt to an explanation made by the defense is either one of
woman whom the accused had abducted was in this kind of trade the following: (1) the insinuation that when Maggie de la Riva and Boy
assuming that the price offered was to her satisfaction, whom woman Pineda were left behind in the hotel room the bruises and the sexual
would be willing to perform first and be paid later? It is simply attack could have taken place then. But then, the defense itself says that
preposterous to believe that Maggie de la Riva should have consent to do these two persons rejoined the three after three or four minutes! It is
a striptease act for a measly down-payment of P100.00 and the balance physically impossible, in such a short time, for Boy Pineda to have
to be paid God knows when. Since when are exposition of the flesh paid attacked the girl and inflicted on her all of these injuries; (2) it was
on the installment basis? By the very precautious nature of their pitiful suggested by the defense that Maggie de la Riva could have inflicted all of
calling, women who sell their attractions are usually very shrewed and it those injuries upon herself just to make out a case against the accused.
is to be expected that they could demand full payment before curtain The examining physician rules out this preposterous proposition, verily it
call. How was Maggie to collect later when she did not even know who does not take much stretch of the imagination to see how utterly
impossible this would be, and for what purpose? Was P900.00 which she line of defense has evidently leg no to stand on. The evidence is clear and overwhelming that
had failed to collect worth that much self-torture? And what about all the all the appellants participated in the forcible abduction. Miss De la Riva declared on the
shame, embarrassment and publicity she would (as she eventually did) witness stand, as well as in her sworn statements, that they helped one another in dragging
expose herself to? If she really had not been raped would she have gone her into the car against her will; that she did not know them personally; that while inside the
thru all of these tribulation? car, Jose and Aquino, between whom she was seated, toyed with her body, the former
forcing his lips on hers, and the latter touching her thighs and raising her skirt; that
A woman does not easily trump up rape charges for she has much more meaningful and knowing glances were in the meanwhile being exchanged among the four;
to lose in the notoriety the case will reap her, her honor and that of her and that all of them later took turns in ravishing her at the Swanky Hotel. This testimony,
family, than in the redress she demands (Canastre 82-480; Medina, C.A. whose evidentiary weight has not in the least been overthrown by the defense, more than
1943 O.G. 151; Medina y Puno, CA O.G. 338; CA 55 O.G. 7666; Galamito, suffices to establish the crimes charged in the amended complaint. In the light thereof,
L-6302, August 25, 1954); (3) it could also be argued that the contusions appellants' protestation that they were not motivated by lewd designs must be rejected as
and bruises could have been inflicted on Maggie during her struggle with absolutely without factual basis.
Pineda when the latter pulled and pushed her into the red convertible
car. The telltale injuries, however, discount this possibility, for the 2. The commission of rape by each of the appellants has, as held by the court below, likewise
location in which many of the bruises and traumas were located been clearly established. Jose, Aquino and Canal contend that the absence of semen in the
(particularly on the inner portion of her thighs) could not have been complainant's vagina disproves the fact of rape. The contention is untenable. Dr. Brion of the
cause by any struggle save by those of a woman trying to resists the NBI, who testified as an expert, declared that semen is not usually found in the vagina after
brutal and bestial attack on her honor. three days from the last intercourse, especially if the subject has douched herself within that
period. In the present case, the examination was conducted on the fourth day after the
In their Memorandum the accused contend that Maggie's sole and incident, and the complainant had douched herself to avoid infection and pregnancy.
uncorroborated testimony should not be rated any credence at all as Furthermore, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape, the
against the concerted declaration of the the accused. In the first place, it important consideration being, not the emission of semen, but penetration
is not correct to say that Maggie's declaration was uncorroborated — she (People vs Hernandez, 49 Phil., 980). Aquino's suggestion that the abrasions on the cervix
has for corroboration nothing less than the written extra-judicial were caused by the tough tip of a noozle deliberately used by the complainant to strengthen
statements of Jose and Canal. But even assuming that Maggie stood her alleged fabricated tale of rape, is absurd, if not cruel. It is difficult to imagine that any
alone in her statements, the cases cited by the accused in their sane woman, who is single and earning as much Miss Dela Riva did, would inflict injuries on
Memorandum notwithstanding which the Court does not consider in her genital organ by puncturing the same with a sharply-pointed instrument in order to strike
point anyway, jurisprudence has confirmed the ruling that numbers is the back at four strangers who allegedly would not pay her the sum of P900.00 due her for a
least vital element in gauging the weight of evidence. What is more striptease act. Besides, Dr. Brion testified that the insertion of such an instrument in the
important is which of the declarations is the more credible, the more genital organ would not result in the kind of injuries he found in the mucosa of the cervix.
logical, the more reasonable, the more prone to be biased or polluted.
(Ricarte 44 OG 2234; Damian CA-GR No. 25523, April 24, 1959). Besides, 3. Other evidence and considerations exist which indubitably establish the commission of
it should be borne in maid that in the most detestable crime of rape in successive rapes by the four appellants. Upon Miss De la Riva's arrival at her house in the
which a man is at his worst the testimony of the offended party most morning of June 26, 1967, she immediately told her mother, " Mommy Mommy, I have been
often is the only one available to prove directly its commission and that raped. All four of them raped me." This utterance, which is part of the res gestae, commands
corroboration by other eyewitnesses would in certain cases place a strong probative value, considering that it was made by the complainant to her mother who,
serious doubt as to the probability of its commission, so trial courts of in cases of this nature was the most logical person in whom a daughter would confide the
justice are most often placed in a position of having to accept such truth. Aquino and Canal would make capital of the fact that Miss De la Riva stated to the
uncorroborated testimony if the same is in regards conclusive, logical and reporters on the morning of June 26, that she was not abused. Her statement to the press is
probable (Landicho, VIII ACR 530). understandable. At that time the complainant, who had not yet consulted her family on a
matter which concerned her reputation as well as that of her family, and her career, was not
We shall now consider the points raised by the appellants in their briefs. then in a position to reveal publicly what had happened to her. This is one reason why the
complainant did not immediately inform the authorities of the tragedy that befell her.
Another reason is that she was threatened with disfiguration. And there were, of course, the
1. Appellants Jose, Aquino and Cañal deny having had anything to do with the abduction of
traumas found by Dr. Brion on different parts of the complainant's body. Could they, too,
Miss De la Riva. They point to Pineda (who entered a plea of guilty) as the sole author
have been self-inflicted? Or, as suggested, could they possibly have been inflicted by
thereof, but they generously contend that even as to him the act was purged at any taint of
appellant Pineda alone, when the story given by the other three is that Pineda and the
criminality by the complainant's subsequent consent to perform a striptease show for a fee, a
complainant were left in the hotel room for only three or four minutes, and that they came
circumstance which, it is claimed, negated the existence of the element of lewd design. This
out to join them in what they would picture to be a cordial atmosphere, the complainant the Rules of Court that "In all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall be entitled ... (b) to
even allegedly suggesting that she be dropped on a spot where people would reasonably be present and defend in person and by attorney at every stage of the proceedings, that is,
presume her to have come from a studio? Equally important is the complainant's public from the arraignment to the promulgation of the judgment." The only instances where an
disclosure of her tragedy, which led to the examination of her private parts and lay her open accused is entitled to counsel before arraignment, if he so requests, are during the second
to risks of future public ridicule and diminution of popularity and earnings as a movie actress. stage of the preliminary investigation (Rule 112, Section 11) and after the arrest (Rule 113,
Section 18). The rule in the United States need not be unquestioningly adhered to in this
4. Jose and Canal seek the exclusion of their extrajudicial statements from the mass of jurisdiction, not only because it has no binding effect here, but also because in interpreting a
evidence on the grounds that they were secured from them by force and intimidation, and provision of the Constitution the meaning attached thereto at the time of the adoption
that the incriminating details therein were supplied by the police investigators. We are not thereof should be considered. And even there the said rule is not yet quite settled, as can be
convinced that the statements were involuntarily given, or that the details recited therein deduced from the absence of unanimity in the voting by the members of the United States
were concocted by the authorities. The statements were given in the presence of several Supreme Court in all the three above-cited cases.
people and subscribed and sworn to before the City Fiscal of Quezon City, to whom neither
of the aforesaid appellants intimated the use of inordinate methods by the police. They are 5. Appellant Pineda claims that insofar as he is concerned there was a mistrial resulting in
replete with details which could hardly be known to the police; and although it is suggested gross miscarriage of justice. He contends that because the charge against him and his co-
that the authorities could have secured such details from their various informers, no appellants is a capital offense and the amended complaint cited aggravating circumstances,
evidence at all was presented to establish the truth of such allegation. While in their which, if proved, would raise the penalty to death, it was the duty of the court to insist on his
statements Jose and Canal admitted having waited — together with the two other appellants presence during all stages of the trial. The contention is untenable. While a plea of guilty is
— for Miss De la Riva at the ABS Studio, each of them attempted in the same statements to mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the
exculpate himself: appellant Jose stated that only Pineda and Aquino criminally abused the information, including the aggravating circumstances, and it matters not that the offense is
complainant; while appellant Canal would make it appear that the complainant willingly capital, for the admission (plea of guilty) covers both the crime and its attendant
allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her. Had the statements been prepared by the circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime (People vs. Boyles, et al., L-15308,
authorities, they would hardly have contained matters which were apparently designed to May 29, 1964, citing People vs. Ama, L-14783, April 29, 1961, and People vs. Parete, L-15515,
exculpate the affiants. It is significant, too, that the said two appellants did not see it fit to April 29, 1961). Because of the aforesaid legal effect of Pineda's plea of guilty, it was not
inform any of their friends or relatives of the alleged use of force and intimidation by the incumbent upon the trial court to receive his evidence, much less to require his presence in
police. Dr. Mariano Nario of the Quezon City Police Department, who examined appellant court. It would be different had appellant Pineda requested the court to allow him to prove
Canal after the latter made his statement, found no trace of injury on any part of the said mitigating circumstances, for then it would be the better part of discretion on the part of the
appellant's body in spite of the claims that he was boxed on the stomach and that one of his trial court to grant his request. (Cf. People vs. Arconado, L-16175, February 28, 1962.) The
arms was burned with a cigarette lighter. In the circumstances, and considering, further, that case of U.S. vs. Agcaoili (31 Phil., 91), cited by Pineda, is not in point, for there this Court
the police officers who took down their statements categorically denied on the witness stand ordered a new trial because it found for a fact that the accused, who had pleaded guilty, "did
that the two appellants were tortured, or that any detail in the statements was supplied by not intend to admit that he committed the offense with the aggravating circumstances"
them or by anyone other than the affiants themselves, We see no reason to depart from the mentioned in the information. We are not in a position to make a similar finding here. The
trial court's well-considered conclusion that the statements were voluntarily given. However, transcript of the proceedings during the arraignment shows that Pineda's counsel, Atty. Lota
even disregarding the in-custody statements of Jose and Canal, We find that the mass of prefaced his client's plea of guilty with the statement that .
evidence for the prosecution on record will suffice to secure the conviction of the two.
I have advised him (Pineda) about the technicalities in plain simple
The admissibility of his extrajudicial statements is likewise being questioned by Jose on the language of the contents of aggravating circumstances and apprised him
other ground that he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogations. He cites of the penalty he would get, and we have given said accused time to
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Messiah vs. U.S. (377 U.S. 201), think. After a while I consulted him — for three times — and his decision
Escobedo vs. Illinois (378 U.S. 478) and Miranda vs. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). was still the same.

The provision of the Constitution of the Philippines in point is Article III (Bill of Rights), Three days after the arraignment, the same counsel stated in court that he had always been
Section 1, par. 17 of which provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall ... enjoy averse to Pineda's idea of pleading guilty, because "I know the circumstances called for the
the right to be heard by himself and counsel ..." While the said provision is identical to that in imposition of the maximum penalty considering the aggravating circumstances," but that he
the Constitution of the United States, in this jurisdiction the term criminal prosecutions was acceded to his client's wish only after the fiscal had stated that he would recommend to the
interpreted by this Court, in U.S. vs. Beecham, 23 Phil., 258 (1912), in connection with a court the imposition of life imprisonment on his client. To be sure, any such recommendation
similar provision in the Philippine Bill of Rights (Section 5 of Act of Congress of July 1, 1902) does not bind the Court. The situation here, therefore, is far different from that obtaining in
to mean proceedings before the trial court from arraignment to rendition of the judgment. U.S. vs. Agcaoili, supra.
Implementing the said constitutional provision, We have provided in Section 1, Rule 115 of
6. Two of the appellants — Jose and Cañal — bewail the enormous publicity that attended When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed,
the case from the start of investigation to the trial. In spite of the said publicity, however, it the penalty shall be death.
appears that the court a quo was able to give the appellants a fair hearing. For one thing,
three of the seven (7) original accused were acquitted. For another thing, Jose himself admits As regards, therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, the first of the
in his brief that the Trial Judge "had not been influenced by adverse and unfair comments of crimes committed, the latter is definitely the more serious; hence, pursuant the provision of
the press, unmindful of the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence and to fair Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum
trial." period. Consequently, the appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death. In this
regard, there is hardly any necessity to consider the attendance of aggravating
We are convinced that the herein four appellants have conspired together to commit the circumstances, for the same would not alter the nature of the penalty to be imposed.
crimes imputed to them in the amended information quoted at the beginning of this
decision. There is no doubt at all that the forcible abduction of the complainant from in front Nevertheless, to put matters in their proper perspective and for the purpose of determining
of her house in Quezon City, was a necessary if not indispensable means which enabled them the proper penalty to be imposed in each of the other three crimes of simple rape, it
to commit the various and the successive acts of rape upon her person. It bears noting, behooves Us to make a definite finding in this connection to the effect that the commission
however, that even while the first act of rape was being performed, the crime of forcible of said crimes was attended with the following aggravating circumstances: (a) nighttime,
abduction had already been consummated, so that each of the three succeeding (crimes of appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these
the same nature can not legally be considered as still connected with the abduction — in crimes; (b) abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four
other words, they should be detached from, and considered independently of, that of appellants in conspiracy with one another (Cf. People vs. De Guzman, et al., 51 Phil., 105,
forcible abduction and, therefore, the former can no longer be complexed with the latter. 113); (c) ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her
complete nakedness for about ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a circumstance
What kind of rape was committed? Undoubtedly, it is that which is punishable by the penalty which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating; and (d) use of a motor
of reclusion perpetua to death, under paragraph 3, Article 335, as amended by Republic Act vehicle. With respect to appellants Jose, Aquino and Ca_¤_al, none of these aggravating
No. 4111 which took effect on June 20, 1964, and which provides as follows: circumstances has been offset by any mitigating circumstance. Appellant Pineda should,
however, be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, a factor
ART. 335. When and how rape committed.—Rape is committed by having which does not in the least affect the nature of the proper penalties to be imposed, for the
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: reason that there would still be three aggravating circumstances remaining. As a result,
appellants should likewise be made to suffer the extreme penalty of death in each of these
three simple crimes of rape. (Art. 63, par. 2, Revised Penal Code.)
1. By using force or intimidation;

In refusing to impose as many death penalties as there are offenses committed, the trial
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
court applied by analogy Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that "the
maximum duration of all the penalties therein imposed upon the appellant shall not be more
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed
the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall upon the appellant, which should not exceed forty years." The said court is of the opinion
be present. that since a man has only one life to pay for a wrong, the ends of justice would be served,
and society and the victim would be vindicated just as well, if only one death penalty were
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. imposed on each of the appellants.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly We cannot agree with the trial court. Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code can only be taken
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion into account in connection with the service of the sentence imposed, not in the imposition of
perpetua to death. the penalty (People vs. Escares, 55 Off. Gaz., 623). In holding that only one death penalty
should be imposed because man has only one life, the trial court ignored the principle
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become enunciated in the very case it cited, namely, U.S. vs. Balaba, 37 Phil., 260, where this Court, in
insane, the penalty shall be death. affirming the judgment of the trial court, found the accused guilty of two murders and one
homicide and imposed upon him two death sentences for the murders and a prison term for
the homicide. In not applying the said principle, the court a quo said that the case of Balaba is
When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed different from the present case, for while in the former case the accused was found to have
by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be likewise death. committed three distinct offenses, here only one offense is charged, even if complex. As We
have explained earlier herein, four crimes were committed, charged and proved. There is,
therefore, no substantial difference between the two cases insofar as the basic philosophy The imposition of multiple death penalties, far from being a useless
involved is concerned, for the fact remains that in the case of Balaba this Court did not formality, has practical importance. The sentencing of an accused to
hesitate to affirm the two death sentences imposed on the accused by the trial court. several capital penalties is an indelible badge of his extreme criminal
In People vs. Peralta, et al., L-19060, October 29, 1968, in which this Court imposed on each perversity, which may not be accurately projected by the imposition of
of the six accused three death penalties for three distinct and separate crimes of murder, We only one death sentence irrespective of the number of capital felonies for
said that "since it is the settled rule that once conspiracy is established, the act of one which he is liable. Showing thus the reprehensible character of the
conspirator is attributable to all, then each conspirator must be held liable for each of the convict in its real dimensions, the possibility of a grant of executive
felonious acts committed as a result of the conspiracy, regardless of the nature and severity clemency is justifiably reduced in no small measure. Hence, the
of the appropriate penalties prescribed by law." In the said case (which was promulgated imposition of multiple death penalties could effectively serve as
after the decision of the court a quo had been handed down) We had occasion to discuss at deterrent to an improvident grant of pardon or commutation. Faced with
length the legality and practicality of imposing multiple death penalties, thus: the utter delinquency of such a convict, the proper penitentiary
authorities would exercise judicious restraint in recommending clemency
The imposition of multiple death penalties is decried by some as a useless or leniency in his behalf.
formality, an exercise in futility. It is contended, undeniably enough, that
a death convict, like all mortals, has only one life to forfeit. And because Granting, however, that the Chief Executive, in the exercise of his
of this physiological and biological attribute of man, it is reasoned that constitutional power to pardon (one of the presidential prerogatives
the imposition of multiple death penalties is impractical and futile which is almost absolute) deems it proper to commute the multiple death
because after the service of one capital penalty, the execution of the rest penalties to multiple life imprisonments, then the practical effect is that
of the death penalties will naturally be rendered impossible. The the convict has to serve the maximum forty (40) years of multiple life
foregoing opposition to the multiple imposition of death penalties suffers sentences. If only one death penalty is imposed, and then is commuted to
from four basic flaws: (1) it fails to consider the legality of imposing life imprisonment, the convict will have to serve a maximum of only thirty
multiple capital penalties; (2) it fails to distinguish between imposition of years corresponding to a single life sentence.
penalty and service of sentence; (3) it ignores the fact that multiple death
sentences could be served simultaneously; and (4) it overlooks the We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the existence of conspiracy among them and
practical merits of imposing multiple death penalties. of our finding as regards the nature and number of the crimes committed, as well as of the
presence of aggravating circumstances, four death penalties should be imposed in the
The imposition of a penalty and the service of a sentence are two distinct, premises.
though related, concepts. The imposition of the proper penalty or
penalties is determined by the nature, gravity and number of offenses ————
charged and proved, whereas service of sentence is determined by the
severity and character of the penalty or penalties imposed. In the
Before Us is a petition for intervention filed by Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation
imposition of the proper penalty or penalties, the court does not concern
asking for reversal of that portion of the judgment of the court below ordering the
itself with the possibility or practicality of the service of the sentence,
confiscation of the car used by the appellants in abducting the complainant. The aforesaid
since actual service is a contingency subject to varied factors like the
car is a 1965 two-door Pontiac sedan with Motor No. WT-222410, Serial No. 2376752110777,
successful escape of the convict, grant of executive clemency or natural
Plate No. H-33284, File No. 11584171, alleged by the intervenor to be in the custody of Major
death of the prisoner. All that go into the imposition of the proper
Ernesto San Diego of the Quezon City Police Department. The car is registered in the name of
penalty or penalties, to reiterate, are the nature, gravity and number of
Mrs. Dolores Gomez.
the offenses charged and proved and the corresponding penalties
prescribed by law.
On April 4, 1967, Mrs. Dolores Gomez, mother of an appellant Jaime G. Jose, bought the car
from the Malayan Motors Corporation and simultaneously executed a chattel mortgage
Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because they will
thereon to secure payment of the purchase price of P13,200, which was stipulated to be
have to be executed simultaneously. A cursory reading of article 70 will
payable in 24 monthly installments of P550 beginning May 4, 1967 up to April 4, 1969. The
show that there are only two moves of serving two or more (multiple)
mortgage was duly registered with the Land Transportation Commission and inscribed in the
penalties: simultaneously or successively. The first rule is that two or
Chattel Mortgage Registry. The mortgage lien was annotated on the motor registration
more penalties shall be served simultaneously if the nature of the
certificate. On April 17, 1967, for value received and with notice to Mrs. Gomez, the Malayan
penalties will so permit. In the case of multiple capital penalties, the
Motors Corporation assigned its credit against Mrs. Gomez, as well as the chattel mortgage,
nature of said penal sanctions does not only permit but actually
necessitates simultaneous service.
to the intervenor. The assignment was duly registered with the Land Transportation commission of the crime if such "be the property of a third person not liable for the offense,"
Commission and annotated on the registration certificate. it is the sense of this Court that the order of the court below for confiscation of the car in
question should be set aside and that the said car should be ordered delivered to the
Mrs. Gomez failed to pay any of the installments due, in view of which the intervenor filed on intervenor for foreclosure as decreed in the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila
July 5, 1967, an action for replevin against her (Civil Case No. 69993, Court of First Instance of in the replevin case, Civil Case No. 69993.
Manila) as a preliminary step to foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. On July 7, 1967, the
court issued an order for the seizure of the car. The sheriff, however, could not enforce the ————
writ of replevin because the car was not in Mrs. Gomez' possession, the same having been
used by her son, appellant Jaime G. Jose, together with the other appellants in this case, in Before the actual promulgation of this decision, this Court received a formal manifestation on
the abduction of Miss De la Riva, as a result of which the car was seized by the Quezon City the part of the Solicitor General to the effect that Rogelio Cañal, one of the herein appellants,
police and placed in the custody of Major San Diego, who refused to surrender it to the died in prison on December 28, 1970. As a result of this development, this case is hereby
sheriff on the ground that it would be used as evidence in the trial of the criminal case. dismissed as to him alone, and only insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, with one-
fourth (1/4) of the costs declared de oficio.
During the pendency of that criminal case in the court below, or on July 26, 1967, the
intervenor filed with the said court a petition for intervention. The said petition was not, WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows: appellants Jaime G.
however, acted upon. On October 2, 1967, the trial court rendered its judgment in the Jose, Basilio Pineda, Jr., and Edgardo P. Aquino are pronounced guilty of the complex crime
present case ordering the car's confiscation as an instrument of the crime. Although not of forcible abduction with rape, and each and every one of them is likewise convicted of
notified of the said decision, the intervenor filed, on October 17, 1967, a motion for three (3) other crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof, each of them is hereby sentenced
reconsideration of the order of confiscation; but the same was denied on October 31, 1967, to four (4) death penalties; all of them shall, jointly and severally, indemnify the complainant
on the ground that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the case in view of the automatic of the sum of P10,000.00 in each of the four crimes, or a total of 40,000.00; and each shall
elevation thereof to this Court. The intervenor then filed a petition for relief from judgement, pay one-fourth (1/4) of the costs.
but the same was also denied.
Insofar as the car used in the commission of the crime is concerned, the order of the court a
On February 5, 1968, judgement was rendered in the replevin case ordering Mrs. Gomez to quo for its confiscation is hereby set aside; and whoever is in custody thereof is hereby
deliver the car to the intervenor so that the chattel mortgage thereon could be foreclosed, ordered to deliver its possession to intervenor Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation in
or, in the alternative, to pay the intervenor the sum of P13,200 with interest thereon at 12% accordance with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 69993
per annum from July 5, 1968, the premium bond, attorney's fees, and the costs of suit. The thereof.
judgment became final and executory. Attempts to execute the judgment against the
properties of Mrs. Gomez were unavailing; the writ of execution was returned by the sheriff
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Villamor and
unsatisfied. On July 26, 1968, the present petition for intervention was filed with this Court,
Makasiar, JJ., concur.
which allowed the intervenor to file a brief. In his brief the Solicitor General contends, among
others, that the court a quo having found that appellant Jose is the owner of the car, the
order of confiscation is correct. Barredo and Teehankee, JJ., took no part.

Considering that the car in question is registered in the name of Mrs. Dolores Gomez, who, in
the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, must be considered as the lawful owner
thereof; that the only basis of the court a quo in concluding that the said car belongs to
appellant Jose were the latter's statements during the trial of the criminal case to that effect;
that the said statement were not, however, intended to be, nor could constitute, a claim of
ownership over the car adverse to his mother, but were made simply in answer to questions
propounded in court for the sole purpose of establishing the identity of the defendant who
furnished the car used by the appellants in the commission of the crime; that the chattel
mortgage on the car and its assignment in the favor of the intervenor were made several
months before the date of commission of the crimes charged, which circumstance forecloses
the possibility of collusion to prevent the State from confiscating the car; that the final
judgement in the replevin case can only be executed by delivering the possession of the car
to the intervenor for foreclosure of the chattel mortgage; and the Article 45 of the Revised
Penal Code bars the confiscation and forfeiture of an instrument or tool used in the
5.Magtoto vs. Manguera of "their right to remain silent and to counsel," "and to be informed of such right," because,
We repeat, no such right existed at the time.
FERNANDEZ, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1
The argument that the second paragraph of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which was
The present cases involve an interpretation of Section 20, Article IV of the New added by Republic Act No. 1083 enacted in l954, which reads as follows:têñ.£îhqwâ£
Constitution, which reads:têñ.£îhqwâ£
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and
person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have confer at any time with his attorney or counsel.
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 impliedly granted to a detained person the right to counsel and to be informed of such right,
vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained is untenable. The only right granted by said paragraph to a detained person was to be
in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence, informed of the cause of his detention. But he must make a request for him to be able to
claim the right to communicate and confer with counsel at any time.
and specifically, the portion thereof which declares inadmissible a confession obtained
from a person under investigation for the commission of an offense who has not been The remark of Senator Cuenco, when Republic Act No. 1083 was being discussed in the
informed of his right (to remain silent and) to counsel.1 Senate, that the bill which became Republic Act No. 1083 provides that the detained person
should be informed of his right to counsel, was only the personal opinion of Senator Cuenco.
We hold that this specific portion of this constitutional mandate has and should be given a We grant that he was, as We personally knew him to be, a learned lawyer and senator. But
prospective and not a retrospective effect. Consequently, a confession obtained from a his statement could reflect only his personal opinion because if Congress had wanted
person under investigation for the commission of an offense, who has not been informed Republic Act No. 1083 to grant a detained person a right to counsel and to be informed of
of his right (to silence and) to counsel, is inadmissible in evidence if the same had been such right, it should have been so worded. Congress did not do so.
obtained after the effectivity of the New Constitution on January 17, 1973. Conversely,
such confession is admissible in evidence against the accused, if the same had been As originally worded, Senate Bill No. 50, which became Republic Act No. 1083, provided: "In
obtained before the effectivity of the New Constitution, even if presented after January 17, every case the person detained shall be allowed, upon his request, to have the services of an
1973, and even if he had not been informed of his right to counsel, since no law gave the attorney or counsel. In the period of amendment, the phrase "have the services of" was
accused the right to be so informed before that date. changed to the present wording "communicate and confer anytime with his." As the Solicitor
General points out in his able memorandum, apparently the purpose was to bring the
Accordingly, We hereby sustain the orders of the respondent Judges in G.R. No. provision in harmony with the provision of a complementary measure, Republic Act No. 857
L-37201-022 and G.R. No. L-374243 declaring admissible the confessions of the accused in (effective July 16, 1953), which provides:têñ.£îhqwâ£
said cases, and We hereby set aside the order of the respondent Judge challenged in G.R. No.
L-389294 which declared inadmissible the confessions of the accused in said case, although SECTION 1. Any public officer who shall obstruct, prohibit, or otherwise
they have not been informed of their right to remain silent and to counsel before they gave prevent an attorney entitled to practice in the courts of the Philippines
the confessions, because they were given before the effectivity of the New Constitution. from visiting and conferring privately with a person arrested, at any hour
of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night, said visit and conference being
The reasons for these rulings are as follows: requested by the person arrested or by another acting in his behalf, shall
be punished by arresto mayor.
Section 20, Article IV of the New Constitution granted, for the first time, to a person under
investigation for the commission of an offense, the right to counsel and to be informed of None of these statutes requires that police investigators inform the detained person of his
such right. And the last sentence thereof which, in effect, means that any confession "right" to counsel. They only allow him to request to be given counsel. It is not for this Court
obtained in violation of this right shall be inadmissible in evidence, can and should be given to add a requirement and carry on where both Congress and the President stopped.
effect only when the right already existed and had been violated. Consequently, because the
confessions of the accused in G.R. Nos. L-37201-02, 37424 and 38929 were taken before the The history behind the new right granted to a detained person by Section 20, Article IV of the
effectivity of the New Constitution in accordance with the rules then in force, no right had New constitution to counsel and to be informed of said right under pain of a confession taken
been violated as to render them inadmissible in evidence although they were not informed in violation thereof being rendered inadmissible in evidence, clearly shows the intention to
give this constitutional guaranty not a retroactive, but a prospective, effect so as to cover This rule was, however, changed by this court in 1953 in the case of People vs. Delos Santos,
only confessions taken after the effectivity of the New Constitution. et al., G.R. No. L-4880, citing the rule in Moncado vs. People's Court, et al., 80 Phil 1, and
followed in the case of People vs. Villanueva, et al. (G.R. No. L-7472, January 31, 1956), to the
To begin with, Section 29, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, provides:têñ.£îhqw⣠effect that "a confession to be repudiated, must not only be proved to have been obtained
by force or violence or intimidation, but also that it is false or untrue, for the law rejects the
confession when by force or violence, the accused is compelled against this will to tell a
Confession.—The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his
falsehood, not when by such force and violence is compelled to tell the truth." This ruling
guilt of the offense charged, may be given in evidence against him.
was followed in a number of cases.5

And according to Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court:


But the ruling in Moncado vs. People's Court et al., 80 Phil 1, which was the basis of the
leading case of People vs. Delos Santos, supra, was overruled in the case of Stonehill vs.
Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction.—An extrajudicial confession Diokno (20 SCRA 383, June 19, 1963), holding that evidence illegally obtained is not
made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by admissible in evidence. So, We reverted to the original rule. As stated by this Court, speaking
evidence of corpus delicti. thru Justice Teehankee in People vs. Urro (44 SCRA 473, April 27, 1972), "involuntary or
coerced confessions obtained by force or intimidation are null and void and are abhorred by
Extrajudicial confessions of the accused in a criminal case are universally recognized as law which proscribes the use of such cruel and inhuman methods to secure a confession." "A
admissible in evidence against him, based on the presumption that no one would declare coerced confession stands discredited in the eyes of the law and is as a thing that never
anything against himself unless such declarations were true. Accordingly, it has been held existed." The defense need not prove that its contents are false. Thus, We turned full circle
that a confession constitutes an evidence of a high order since it is supported by the strong and returned to the rule originally established in the case of U.S. vs. Delos Santos, 24 Phil.
presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a 323 and People vs. Nishishima, 42 Phil. 26. (See also People vs. Imperio, 44 SCRA 75).
crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. (U.S. vs. Delos Santos, 24 Phil. 329, 358).
It must be noted that all these Philippine cases refer to coerced confessions, whether the
The fundamental rule is that a confession, to be admissible, must be voluntary. And the first coercion was physical, mental and/or emotional.
rule in this connection was that before the confession could be admitted in evidence, the
prosecution must first show to the satisfaction of the Court that the same was freely and In the meantime, the United States Supreme Court decided the following cases: Massiah vs.
voluntarily made, as provided for in Section 4 of Act 619 of the Philippine Commission (U.S. United States (377 U.S. 201, 1964), Escobedo vs. Illinois (378 U.S. 478, 1964); and Miranda vs.
vs. Pascual, August 29, 1903, 2 Phil. 458). But with the repeal of said provision of law by the Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 1966). In Miranda vs. Arizona, it was held:têñ.£îhqwâ£
Administrative Code in 1916, the burden of proof was changed. Now, a confession is
admissible in evidence without previous proof of its voluntariness on the theory that it is
To summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or
presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved (5 Moran, Comments on the Rules of
otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant
Court, p. 264; People vs. Dorado, 30 SCRA 53, 57, citing U.S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil. 308; People vs.
way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-
Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64; People v. Singh, 45 Phil. 676; People v. Pereto, 21 SCRA 1469).
incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to
protect the privilege *[384 U.S. 479]* and unless other fully effective
And once the accused succeeds in proving that his extrajudicial confession was made means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to
involuntarily, it stands discredited in the eyes of the law and is as a thing which never existed. assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the
It is incompetent as evidence and must be rejected. The defense need not prove that its following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any
contents are false (U.S. vs. Delos Santos, 24 Phil. 329, 358; U.S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil. 325, questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says
November, 1921). The same rule was followed in People vs. Nishishima. "Involuntary can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the
confessions are uniformly held inadmissible as evidence — by some courts on the ground presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will
that a confession so obtained is unreliable, and by some on the ground of humanitarian be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
principles which abhor all forms of torture or unfairness towards the accused in criminal Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout
proceedings. ... ." (57 Phil. 26, 48, 51; 1932).4 * In the concurring opinion of Justice Butte, he the interrogation. After such warning have been given, and such
said: "Apart, from the fact that involuntary confessions will be declared incompetent and are opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently
therefore utterly futile, it is high time to put a stop to these (third degree) practices which waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make statement. But
are a blot on our Philippine civilization." unless and until such warning and waiver are demonstrated by the
prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can
be used against him. (Miranda vs. Arizona, supra, p. 478)[Emphasis Ours]
When invoked in this jurisdiction, however, the Miranda rule was rejected by this Court. In the Miranda-Escobedo cases." And We cannot agree with the insinuation in the dissenting
the cases of People vs. Jose (37 SCRA 450, February 6, 1971) and People vs. Paras 56 SCRA opinion of Justice Castro that the Delegates did not know of the existence of the second
248, March 29, 1974), We rejected the rule that an extrajudicial confession given without the paragraph of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence. This Court in the Jose case(as in the Paras
case), held:têñ.£îhqw⣠Hence, We repeat, this historical background of Section 20, Article IV of the New
Constitution, in Our considered opinion, clearly shows that the new right granted therein to a
The inadmissibility of his extrajudicial statements is likewise being detained person to counsel and to be informed of such right under pain of his confession
questioned by Jose on the other ground that he was not assisted by being declared inadmissible in evidence, has and should be given a prospective and not a
counsel during the custodial interrogations. He cites the decisions of the retroactive effect. It did not exist before its incorporation in our New Constitution, as We
Supreme Court of the United States in Massiah vs. U.S. (377 U.S. held in the Jose and Paras cases, supra.
201), Escobedo vs. Illinois (37 U.S. 478) and Miranda vs .Arizona (384 U.S.
436). The authors of the dissenting opinions ignore the historical fact that the constitutional and
legal guarantees as well as the legal precedents that insure that the confession be voluntary,
The provision of the Constitution of the Philippines in point is Article III underwent a slow and tedious development. The constitutional guarantee in question might
(Bill of Rights), Section 1, par. 17 of which provides: "In all criminal indeed have come late in the progress of the law on the matter. But it is only now that it had
prosecutions the accused shall ... enjoy the right to be heard by himself come under Section 20 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. That is all that our duty and
and counsel ... ." While the said provision is identical to that in the power ordain Us to proclaim; We cannot properly do more.
Constitution of the United States, in this jurisdiction the term criminal
prosecutions was interpreted by this Court in U.S. vs. Beechman, 23 Phil Furthermore, to give a retroactive effect to this constitutional guarantee to counsel would
258 (1912), in connection with a similar provision in the Philippine Bill of have a great unsettling effect on the administration of justice in this country. It may lead to
Rights (Section 5 of Act of Congress of July 1, 1902), to mean proceedings the acquittal of guilty individuals and thus cause injustice to the People and the offended
before the trial court from arraignment to rendition of the judgment. parties in many criminal cases where confessions were obtained before the effectivity of the
Implementing the said Constitutional provision, We have provided in New Constitution and in accordance with the rules then in force although without assistance
Section 1, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court that "In all criminal prosecutions of counsel. The Constitutional Convention could not have intended such a a disastrous
the defendant shall be entitled ... (b) to be present and defend in person consequence in the administration of justice. For if the cause of justice suffers when an
and by attorney at every state of the proceedings, that is, from the innocent person is convicted, it equally suffers when a guilty one is acquitted.
arraignment to the promulgation of the judgment." The only instances
where an accused is entitled to counsel before arraignment, if he so
Even in the United States, the trend is now towards prospectivity. As noted in the
requests, are during the second stage of preliminary investigation (Rule
memorandum of the Solicitor General:têñ.£îhqwâ£
112, Section 11) and after the arrest(Rule 113, Section 18). The rule in the
United States need not be unquestioningly adhered to in this jurisdiction,
not only because it has no binding effect here, but also because in ... That survey indicates that in the early decisions rejecting retroactivity,
interpreting a provision of the Constitution the meaning attached hereto the United States Supreme Court did not require "pure prospectivity;" the
at the time of the adoption thereof should be considered. And even there new constitutional requirements there were applied to all cases still
the said rule is not yet quite settled, as can be deduced from the absence pending on direct review at the time they were announced. (See
of unanimity in the voting by the members of the United States Supreme Linkletter vs. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965) (on admissibility of illegally-
Court in all the three above-cited cases. (People vs. Jose, supra, at page seized evidence); Tehan vs. Shott, 382 U.S. 406 (1966) (on the self-
472). incrimination rule of Griffin vs. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). But the
Court began a new course with Johnson vs. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719
(1966). It departed from Linkletter and Tehan and came closer to "pure
The Constitutional Convention at the time it deliberated on Section 20, Article IV of the New
prospectivity" by refusing to permit cases still pending on direct review to
Constitution was aware of the Escobedo and Miranda rule which had been rejected in the
benefit from the new in-custody interrogation requirements of Miranda
case of Jose. That is the reason why the Miranda-Escobedo rule was expressly included as a
vs. Arizona. As Chief Justice Warren observed in Jenkins vs. Delaware, 395
new right granted to a detained person in the present provision of Section 20, Article IV of
U.S. 213 (1969), "With Johnson we began increasing emphasis upon the
the New Constitution.
point at which law enforcement officials relied upon practices not yet
prescribed." "More recently," he continued, "we have selected the point
When Delegate de Guzman (A) submitted the draft of this Section 20, Article IV to the of initial reliance." That development began with Stovall vs. Denno, 388
October 26, 1972 meeting of the 17-man committee of the Steering Council, Delegate Leviste U.S. 293 (1967) (on the line-up requirements of United States vs. Wade,
(O) expressly made of record that "we are adopting here the rulings of US Supreme Court in
388 U.S. 218 (1967) and Gilbert vs. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967). These all the confessions involved in said cases are hereby declared admissible in evidence. No
new rulings were held applicable only in the immediate cases "and all costs.
future cases which involve confrontation for identification purposes
conducted in the absence of counsel after the dates of Wade and
Gilbert." The fact that Wade and Gilbert were thus the only beneficiaries
of the new rules was described as an "unavoidable consequence of the
necessity that constitutional adjudications not stand as mere dictum."
In Jenkins vs. Delaware itself, the Court held that the Miranda
requirement did not apply to a re-trial after June 13, 1966 — the cut-off
point set for the Miranda requirement by Johnson vs. New Jersey —
because Jenkins original trial had begun before the cut-off point.

Thus, the remarkable thing about this development in judge-made law is


not that it is given limited retroactive effort. That is to be expected in the
case of judicial decision as distinguished from legislation. The notable
thing is that the limited retroactivity given to judge-made law in the
beginning by Linkletter vs. Walker has been abandoned as the Supreme
Court in Johnson vs. New Jersey and in Jenkins vs. Delaware moved
toward "pure prospectivity" (pp. 26-28) (Respondents' memorandum,
Feb. 16, 1974).

The provision of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code that:têñ.£îhqwâ£

Retroactive effect of penal laws.—Penal laws shall have a retroactive


effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a
habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this
Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final
sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same,

is not applicable to the present cases: First, because of the inclusion We have arrived at that
the constitutional provision in question has a prospective and not a retrospective effect,
based on the reasons We have given; second, because the "penal laws" mentioned in Article
22 of the Revised Penal Code refer to substantive penal laws, while the constitutional
provision in question is basically a procedural rule of evidence involving the incompetency
and inadmissibility of confessions and therefore cannot be included in the term "penal
laws;"6 and third, because constitutional provisions as a rule should be given a prospective
effect.7

Even as We rule that the new constitutional right of a detained person to counsel and to be
informed of such right under pain of any confession given by him in violation thereof
declared inadmissible in evidence, to be prospective, and that confessions obtained before
the effectivity of the New Constitution are admissible in evidence against the accused, his
fundamental right to prove that his confession was involuntary still stands. Our present ruling
does not in any way diminish any of his rights before the effectivity of the New Constitution.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petitions for writs of certiorari in G.R. Nos. L-37201-02
and G.R. No. L-37424 are denied and that in G.R. No. L-38929 is granted. As a consequence,
6. Morales vs. Enrile 6. After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a confrontation arises
which at best may be termed unequal. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police
CONCEPCION, JR., J.: headquarters and there questioned and cross-examined not only by one but as many
investigators as may be necessary to break down his morale. He finds himself in a strange
and un familiar surrounding, and every person he meets he considers hostile to him. The
1. The petitions are without merit and are hereby DISMISSED.
investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their work. They employ all the methods and
means that experience and study has taught them to extract the truth, or what may pass for
2. Petitioners were arrested on April 21, 1982 at about 9:45 a.m. while they were riding it, out of the detainee. Most detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their
together in a motor vehicle on Laong-Laan Street, Quezon City, by elements of Task Force constitutional rights. And even if they were, the intimidating and coercive presence of the
Makabansa of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Since their arrest, they have been officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms them into silence. Section 20 of the
under detention. Petitioner Morales filed his petition for habeas corpus with this Court on Bill of Rights seeks to remedy this imbalance.
July 9, 1982, while petitioner Moncupa filed his on July 19, 1982. On July 20, 1982
petitioners, together with several others, were charged with rebellion (Art. 134, Revised
7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him
Penal Code) before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Criminal Case No. Q-21091 filed by
of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be
the City Fiscal of Quezon City. The trial of the case has yet to be terminated. The continued
informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement
detention of petitioners to answer for the offense charged is therefore legal.
he might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to
communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient
3. Petitioners allege that they were arrested without any warrant of arrest; that their means-by telephone if possible or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the
constitutional rights were violated, among them the right to counsel, the right to remain arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be
silent, the right to a speedy and public trial, and the right to bail. They also air the charge conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any
that they were subjected to maltreatment and torture; that they did not have the person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself
opportunity to present their defense before the inquest fiscal and therefore asked this or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be
Court to order the reinvestigation of the charges against them. Acting on such plea, this valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the
Court in a resolution en banc dated July 22, 1982 ordered the City Fiscal of Quezon City to procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
conduct such reinvestigation and at the same time appointed him "to act as commissioner inadmissible in evidence.
of this Court and receive evidence of the charges made by petitioners before this Court of
alleged torture and violation of their constitutional rights, particularly the right to counsel."
8. During the period of his detention, he shall have the right to confer with his counsel at any
On September 28, 1982, the City Fiscal submitted his report on the reinvestigation
hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night, alone and privately, in the jail or any other
affirming the existence of a prima facie case for rebellion against petitioners and several
place of custody. 3
others. And on February 8, 1983 he submitted to this Court the transcript of the notes
taken at the reception of the evidence on the charges of petitioners.
Arrest.
4. If petitioners had been arrested in a communist country, they would have no rights to
speak of. However, the Philippines is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people 9. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be forthcoming to answer
and all government authority emanates from them. 1 We have a Constitution framed by a for the commission of an offense.4
constitutional convention and duly ratified by the people. We subscribe to the rule of law.
We believe in human rights and we protect and defend them. Petitioners are entitled to the 10. An arrest may be made with or without a warrant.
full enjoyment of all the rights granted to them by law. And this Court stands as the
guarantor of those rights. SEC. 3. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
5. Our Constitution provides: whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
SEC. 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the
have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in seized. 5
violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. 2
11. Our Constitution clearly defines the persons who may issue a warrant of arrest and limits 16. After a person is arrested either without a warrant or by virtue of a warrant of arrest
them to a "judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law." It also lays issued by a judge or by virtue of a Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order, the proper
down in unmistakable terms the procedure required before a search warrant or warrant of complaint or information against him must be filed with the courts of justice within the time
arrest may issue. prescribed by law, to wit:

12. A Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order is a warrant of arrest issued by the FURTHER AMENDING ARTICLE 125 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS
President of the Philippines. 6Its issuance must therefore comply with the requirements of AMENDED (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1404)
the Constitution, in the same manner and to the same extent, as a warrant of arrest issued
by a judge issuance must therefore comply with the requirements of the Constitution, in the WHEREAS, the periods within which arrested persons shall be delivered
same manner and to the same extent, as a warrant of arrest by a judge. to the judicial authorities as provided in Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, are on occasions inadequate to enable the
13. An arrest may also be made without a warrant. government to file within the said periods the criminal information
against persons arrested for certain crimes against national security and
SEC. 6. Arrest without warrant — When lawful.— A peace officer or a public order.
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic
(a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence; Constitution, and in the interest of national security as well as public
safety and order, do hereby decree and order as part of the law of the
land the following amendment to Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code,
(b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable
as amended:
ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it;

SECTION 1. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby


(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
further amended to read as follows:
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.7 ART. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons. -
The penalties provided in the next preceding article
shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee
14. Care should be exercised in making an arrest without a warrant. Where there is no
who shall detain any person for some legal ground
justification for the arrest, the public officer could be criminally liable for arbitrary
and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper
detention8 or unlawful arrest 9 or for some other offense.
judicial authorities within the period of: six hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or
15. The petitioners claim they were arrested without a warrant. The Memorandum to the their equivalent; nine hours, for crimes or offenses
President dated April 21, 1982 from Gen. Fabian C. Ver, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of punishable by correctional penalties, or their
the Philippines, wherein he reported the arrest of petitioners, the subversive documents equivalent; and eighteen hours, for crimes or offenses
seized from them and the results of the ensuing tactical interrogation, with a punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their
recommendation for the issuance of a Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order, was equivalent; Provided, however, That the President
approved by the President only on April 23, 1982. Indeed, therefore, petitioners were may, in the interest of national security and public
arrested without a warrant. However, months before their arrest, petitioners were already order, authorize by Executive Order longer periods,
under surveillance on suspicion of committing rebellion. From the results of the said which in no case shall exceed 30 days, or for as long
surveillance, the evidence then at hand, and the documents seized from them at the time of as the conspiracy to commit the crime against
their arrest, it would appear that they had committed or were actually committing the national security and public order continues or is
offense of rebellion. Their arrest without a warrant for the said offense is therefore clearly being implemented, for the delivery of persons
justified. arrested for crimes or offenses against public order as
defined in Title III, Book 11 of this Code, namely:
Procedure after Arrest. Articles 134, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146
and 147, and for acts in violation of Republic Act No.
1700 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 885, SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
taking into consideration the gravity of the offense or without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
offenses, the number of persons arrested, the threat protection of the laws.
to national security or to public safety and order,
and/or the occurrence of a public calamity or other 20. In Lansang vs.Garcia, 42 SCRA 448,473,We said:
emergency situation preventing the early
investigation of the cases and the filing of the
In our resolution of October 5, 1972, We stated that 'a majority of the
corresponding information before the civil courts.
court 'had 'tentatively arrived at a consensus that it may inquire in order
to satisfy itself of the existence of the factual bases for the issuance of
In every case, the person detained shall be informed Presidential Proclamations Nos. 889 and 889A ... and thus determine the
of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed, constitutional sufficiency of such bases in the light of the requirements of
upon his request, to communicate and confer at any Article III, sec. 1, par. 14, and Article VII, sec. 10, par. 2, of the Philippine
time with his attorney or counsel, and to be visited by Constitution ...' Upon further deliberation, the members of the Court are
his immediate relatives. now unanimous in the conviction that it has the authority to inquire into
the existence of said factual bases in order to determine the
SEC. 2. All acts, executive order, proclamations, Presidential Decrees, constitutional sufficiency thereof.
General Orders, Letters of Instruction, rules and regulations, or parts
thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this decree are hereby 21. We reiterate this doctrine.
repealed or modified accordingly.
22. Furthermore, We hold that under the judicial power of review and by constitutional
SEC. 3. Transitory provision.-Pending the preparation and promulgation mandate, in all petitions for habeas corpus the court must inquire into every phase and
by the President of the Executive Order referred to in Section 1 hereof, aspect of petitioner's detention from the moment petitioner was taken into custody up to
the detention of persons arrested for any of the abovementioned the moment the court passes upon the merits of the petition. Only after such a scrutiny can
offenses against public order shall continue to be governed by the the court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution has in fact been
provisions of General Orders No. 2, dated September 22, 1972 as satisfied.
amended by General Order Nos. 60 and 62, dated September 24, 1977
and October 22, 1977, respectively.
23. The submission that a person may be detained indefinitely without any charges and the
courts cannot inquire into the legality of the restraint goes against the spirit and letter of the
SEC 4. This decree shall take effect immediately. Constitution and does violence to the basic precepts of human rights and a democratic
society.
Done in the City of Manila this 9th day of June, in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and seventy-eight." The Right to Bail.

17. Failure of the public officer to do so without any valid reason would constitute a violation 24. Next to life a man loves his freedom. Some men love their freedom even more than their
of Art. 125, Revised Penal Code, as amended. And the person detained would be entitled to life.
be released on a writ of habeas corpus, unless he is detained under subsisting process issued
by a competent court.10
25. In all criminal prosecutions the accused is presumed innocent. Because of this
presumption and inasmuch as every man has a natural desire to be free, our Constitution laid
Power of the Courts. down the right to bail in these words:

18. The writ of habeas corpus has often been referred to as the great writ of liberty. It is the SEC. 18. All persons, except those charged with capital offenses when
most expeditious way of securing the release of one who has been illegally detained. The evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended, but not the writ itself. sufficient sureties. Excessive bail shall not be required. 11

19. The Bill of Rights provides: 26. Although martial law was terminated on January 17, 1981, by virtue of Proclamation No.
2045 of the President of the Philippines, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus continues
to be suspended in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao and in all other places with The Charges of Torture.
respect to certain offenses, thus:
31. When petitioners charged in their petitions that they had been tortured and maltreated,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President/Prime Minister the Court decided to appoint the City Fiscal of Quezon City to hear the charges and to receive
of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the the evidence. Not because We are an investigating body. Nor are We a trier of facts. But
Constitution, do hereby revoke Proclamation No. 1081 (Proclaiming a because petitioners' charges are material and relevant to the petitions before Us.
State of Martial Law in the Philippines) and Proclamation No. 1104
(Declaring the Continuation of Martial Law) and proclaim the termination 32. As mentioned earlier, the Court Commissioner submitted the transcript of the
of the state of martial law throughout the Philippines; Provided, that the proceedings held before him. We will not pass upon the merits of the torture charges.
call to the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless However, they should be filed before the body which has jurisdiction over them as provided
violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion shall continue to be in for in Presidential Decrees Nos. 1822, 1822-A and 1850.
force and effect; and Provided that in the two autonomous regions in
Mindanao, upon the request of the residents therein, the suspension of
33. The present form of our government, to all intents and purposes, merged the executive
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall continue; and in all other
and legislative branches into one. Members of parliament are at the same time cabinet
places the suspension of the privilege of the writ shall also continue with
ministers. Under the system of checks and balances ordained by the Constitution, the
respect to persons at present detained as well as others who may
judiciary serves as the check and balance to the merged executive and legislative branches.
hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion,
The judiciary is therefore called upon to express its thoughts on areas outside the traditional
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and for all
and narrow confines of decision making, with the end in view that together we may explore
other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance of or on the
the free market of Ideas and arrive at what is best for our country and our people.
occasion therefore, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith. ...
(Presidential Proclamation No. 2045).
34. Our people cry out for a better life. They want more food in their stomachs, roofs over
their heads, health services for themselves and their families, education for their children,
27. Normally, rebellion being a non-capital offense is bailable. But because the privilege of
and other necessities that make life worth living. They cannot be denied. They want it and
the writ of habeas corpus remains suspended "with respect to persons at present detained as
they want it now. Timely indeed are the thrusts of the KKK and the BLISS programs.
well as other who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and for all other crimes
and offenses committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion thereof, or incident 35. However, we cannot lead them to a truly better life, unless we achieve complete peace in
thereto, or in connection therewith," the natural consequence is that the right to bail for the our land; and we cannot have complete peace unless we improve the administration of
commission of anyone of the said offenses is also suspended. To hold otherwise would justice.
defeat the very purpose of the suspension. Therefore, where the offense for which the
detainee was arrested is anyone of the said offenses he has no right to bail even after the 36. It was a wise man who once said: "Tell me how a country's poor receive their justice and I
charges are filed in court. will tell you how stable its government is." 12

28. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and 37. Whenever we speak of the administration of justice we refer to four principal areas: the
crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute preservation of peace and order which is the primary task of the Armed Forces of the
direct attacks on the life of the State. Philippines and the National Integrated Police, both under the Ministry of Defense; the
investigation and prosecution of offenses and the administration of our penal system which
29. Just as an individual has right to self-defense when his life is endangered, so does the are under the Ministry of Justice; the application and interpretation of laws and the trial and
State. The suspension of the privilege of the writ is to enable the State to hold in preventive adjudication of cases which fall under the jurisdiction of the courts; and appearance as
imprisonment pending investigation and trial those persons who plot against it and commit counsel for the government particularly in appealed criminal cases and as counsel for the
acts that endanger the State's very existence. For this measure of self-defense to be Commission on Elections, Securities and Exchange Commission, and others, which is the
effective, the right to bail must also be deemed suspended with respect to these offenses. responsibility of the Office of the Solicitor General. In everyone of these areas much can be
done to achieve our ultimate goal-that in this fair land of ours, no man, no matter how
humble, no matter how poor shall thirst for justice.
30. However, there is a difference between preventive and punitive imprisonment. Where
the filing of charges in court or the trial of such charges already filed becomes protracted
without any justifiable reason, the detention becomes punitive in character and the detainee 38. Our machinery of justice should be geared towards helping and protecting the poor
regains his right to freedom. among us. Not knowing their rights, not having the means to pay for the services of a lawyer,
possessing no influence whatsoever, they are invariably the victims of injustice. The affluent 44. The burdens of office fall heavily on their shoulders. Perhaps it is time we relieve them of
can take care of themselves. They are better aware of their rights, they have influence, and the additional burdens that being politicians entail. Our Constitution foresaw the need for
they can engage the services of the best counsel. But the poor can only pray to God and hope heads of ministries who are not active politicians in providing that ". . . . At least a majority of
to find relief in the system of justice established by their government. the Members of the Cabinet who are heads of ministries shall come from the Regional
Representations of the Batasang Pambansa. . . ." 13
39. We must open all avenues for complaints and keep them open so that the grievance
procedure may be made more readily available to the masses of our people. Only by knowing 45. The campaign against venality in office-malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfesance should
their needs can we give them what they rightfully deserve. be pursued with renewed vigor. For graft and corruption are like termites gnawing away the
foundation of government. The harm done is sometimes not realized; or even if realized,
40. It is undeniable that throughout the length and breadth of our land, lawlessness and under- estimated. In the process let us remember to stress preventive measures to save
disorder have increased and continue to increase to undesirable proportions. It is wishful public property from loss.
thinking to believe otherwise. An efforts must be exerted now to reverse the trend. We
cannot afford any delay. And we should begin by bringing to the bar of justice the culprits in 46. The communist threat remains a nagging problem of government. Whether Marxist,
particular who burned and destroyed public property, and attacked, kidnapped and killed Maoist, Leninist, aided by the New People's Army, rebels, radicals, and lawless elements,
public functionaries. For the questions may validly be asked: If the government cannot they all have but one aim-one single purpose-one defined objective: to bring down by
protect public property, how can it protect private property? If the government cannot violence the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and to forcibly seize political
guarantee the safety and lives of its officials, how can it guarantee the safety and lives of power in order that they may replace our existing political, social, economic, and legal order
private individuals? with an entirely new one based on communism.

41. The investigation and prosecution of cases should be further improved so that only 47. Once before, in the early fifties, communists threatened the established order. They were
meritorious cases shall reach the courts, thus contributing to the unclogging of court dockets. driven back by the Armed Forces, mainly because of the support of our people. We must
Many criminal cases initiated by complainants are just harassment suits and should never keep, strengthen and solidify the sympathy, faith, loyalty, and trust in the government of our
have been filed in court. In the process, it is required that all fiscals be appointed in a brothers in the rural areas. Guns and bullets alone will not do it. We can accomplish this only
permanent capacity. Their security of tenure is the foundation stone of their independence. by giving them better government. It is a condition sine qua non to achieve success in the
Our penal system should be further updated to make more effective the rehabilitation of fight against subversion.
criminals. Let us do away with instances of first offenders who serve sentence in order to be
reformed but who come out instead as hardened criminals. 48. By and large, the Armed Forces are composed of good and disciplined men. However,
there are those who are not worthy of the uniforms they wear. Not a few have enriched
42. And with the judicial revamp just effected under B.P. 129, the trial and decision making themselves by abusing the powers of their position. Some are involved in extortion,
process has been modified and vastly improved to achieve better results. But it must be smuggling, and kidnapping for ransom. There are others who maintain gambling, drug rings,
remembered that courts which are not filled are as good as no courts at all. Therefore, more and prostitution dens. And still others have committed robbery, rape, murder, and other
appointments to the existing vacancies should be made. offenses. The campaign to rid the organization of such misfits should be carried out with
missionary zeal. For indeed victims of abuse are often alienated from the government.
43. One lesson our people have learned-painfully but well-is that politics and a good
administration of justice-like oil and water-do not mix; that when politics infiltrates the 49. The Filipinos are a God-loving and a God-fearing people. We believe in peace and
administration of justice, injustice is often the outcome. In some jurisdictions of the United freedom. We believe in the family and its strong ties. We can never willingly accept
States, there are sheriffs (peace officers) and district attorneys (prosecutors) who are elected communism and what it stands for.
by the voters and who run for office as the candidates of a political party. In the Philippines
such a system would never work because in our culture we have values peculiarly our own- 50. While the government should continue to repel the communists, the subversives, the
value like "utang na loob", "compadre", "pakikisama", "tayu-tayo", "bigayan", "bata ko", rebels, and the lawless with all the means at its command, it should always be remembered
"amo ko", and the "god- father mentality". Values like these have derailed and may derail the that whatever action is taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and
administration of justice. Political followers commit abuses in the belief that come what may our laws.
their political bosses would shield them from punishment. Can you imagine how criminal
cases would be investigated and prosecuted if fiscals (prosecutors) were chosen by election?
51. When the judgment of history is written, as leaders of our people, we shall be asked to
How would our laws be enforced if policemen and members of the Armed Forces were
account not only for what we did, not only for what we did not do, but also for what visions
elected by the people? And yet the heads of the Ministries of Justice and Defense and the
we have today of our tomorrow.
Office of the Solicitor General are all active politicians.
52. What will be our answer? practice persists. Fortunately, such instances constitute the exception rather than the general
rule.
53. WHEREFORE, as aforestated, the petitions should be, as they are hereby, DISMISSED.
With costs against the petitioners. 5. Before Us for mandatory review is the death sentence imposed upon the accused
Francisco Galit by the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, in Crim. Case No. CCC-VII-2589 of
54. SO ORDERED. said court.

7. People vs. Galit 6. The record shows that in the morning of August 23, 1977, Mrs. Natividad Fernando, a
CONCEPCION, JR., J: widow, was found dead in the bedroom of her house located at Barrio Geronimo,
Montalban, Rizal, as a result of seven (7) wounds inflicted upon different parts of her body by
a blunt instrument. 2 More than two weeks thereafter, police authorities of Montalban
1. The prisoner was arrested for killing the victim oil the occasion of a robbery. He had been
picked up the herein accused, Francisco Galit, an ordinary construction worker (pion) living in
detained and interrogated almost continuously for five days, to no avail. He consistently
Marikina, Rizal, on suspicion of the murder. On the following day, however, September 8,
maintained his innocence. There was no evidence to link him to the crime. Obviously,
1977, the case was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further
something drastic had to be done. A confession was absolutely necessary. So the
investigation in view of the alleged limited facilities of the Montalban police station.
investigating officers began to maul him and to torture him physically. Still the prisoner
Accordingly, the herein accused was brought to the NBI where he was investigated by a team
insisted on his innocence. His will had to be broken. A confession must be obtained. So they
headed by NBI Agent Carlos Flores. 3 NBI Agent Flores conducted a preliminary interview of
continued to maltreat and beat him. 'They covered his face with a rag and pushed his face
the suspect who allegedly gave evasive answers to his questions. 4 But the following day,
into a toilet bowl full of human waste. The prisoner could not take any more. His body could
September 9, 1977, Francisco Galit voluntarily executed a Salaysay admitting participation in
no longer endure the pain inflicted on him and the indignities he had to suffer. His will had
the commission of the crime. He implicated Juling Dulay and Pabling Dulay as his companions
been broken. He admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and he signed
in the crime. 5 As a result, he was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide, in an
the confession they prepared. Later, against his will, he posed for pictures as directed by his
information filed before the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, committed as follows:
investigators, purporting it to be a reenactment.

That on or about the 23rd day of August 1977 in the municipality of


2. This incident could have happened in a Russian gulag or in Hitler's Germany. But no it did
Montalban, province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
not. It happened in the Philippines. In this case before Us.
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together with Juling Doe and Pabling Doe, whose true
3. The Revised Penal Code punishes the maltreatment of prisoners as follows: Identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and three of them
mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent of gain and by
ART. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. — The penalty of arresto mayor in means of force, intimidation and violence upon the person of one
its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, in Natividad Fernando while in her dwelling, did, then and there wilfully,
addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused, shall be unlawfully, and feloniously take, steal and carry away from the person of
imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall over do himself in said Natividad Fernando, cash money of an undetermined amount,
the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his belonging to said Natividad Fernando, thereby causing damage and
charge, by the imposition of punishments in a cruel and humiliating prejudice to the latter in an undetermined amount; that by reason or on
manner. the occasion of said robbery, and for purpose of enabling them (accused)
to take, steal and carry away the said cash money in pursuance of their
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain conspiracy and for the purpose of insuring the success of their criminal
some information from the prisoner, the offender shall be punished act, with intent to kill, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and
by prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special feloniously attack, assault and stab with a dagger said Natividad
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his Fernando on the different parts of her body, thereby inflicting multiple
liability for the physical injuries or damage caused. injuries on the head and extremities, which directly caused her death,
and the total amount of the loss is P10,000.00 including valuables and
cash.
4. This Court in a long line of decisions over the years, the latest being the case of People vs.
Cabrera, 1 has consistently and strongly condemned the practice of maltreating prisoners to
extort confessions from them as a grave and unforgivable violation of human rights. But the Trial was held, and on August 11, 1978, immediately after the accused had terminated the
presentation of his evidence, the trial judge dictated his decision on the case in open court,
finding the accused guilty as charged and sentencing him to suffer the death penalty; to
indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P110,000.00, and to pay the costs. Hence, the victim, where they found some money; that when the three accused left
present recourse. the room of the victim, they brought with them some papers and pictures
which they threw outside; that after killing and robbing the victim, the
7. The incriminatory facts of the case, as found by the trial court, are as follows: three accused went out of the premises of the house, using the same way
by which they gained entrance, which was through the back portion of
the wall; that the three accused walked towards the river bank where
From the evidence adduced in this case, it was gathered that in the early
they divided the loot that they got from the room of the victim; that their
morning of August 23, 1977, a 70-year old woman named Natividad
respective shares amount to P70.00 for each of them; and that after
Fernando, widow, in the twilight of her life, was robbed and then hacked
receiving their shares of the loot, the three accused left and went home.
to death by the accused and two others in her (victim's) own residence at
Montalban, Rizal.
When witness Florentino Valentino was in his room, which was adjoining
that of accused Francisco Galit, he overheard accused Galit and his wife
Prosecution witness Florentino Valentino testified that he heard accused
quarreling about the intention of accused Galit to leave their residence
Francisco Galit and his wife having an argument in connection with the
immediately; that he further stated that he overheard accused Galit
robbery and killing of the victim, Natividad Fernando. It appears that on
saying that he and his other two companions robbed and killed Natividad
August 18, 1977, accused Galit and two others, namely, Juling Dulay and
Fernando.
a certain "Pabling" accidentally met each other at Marikina, Rizal, and in
their conversation, the three agreed to rob Natividad Fernando; that it
was further agreed among them to enter the premises of the victim's As a result of the killing, the victim, Natividad Fernando, suffered no less
house at the back yard by climbing over the fence; that once inside the than seven stab wounds. There was massive cerebral hemorrhage and
premises, they will search every room, especially the aparador and filing the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage, as evidenced by
cabinets, with the sole aim of looking for cash money and other the Medico-Legal Necropsy Report (Exhs. 'C' and 'C-2'), and the pictures
valuables. taken of the deceased victim (Exhs. 'E', 'E-1' and 'E-2').

Witness Valentino further testified that on August 22, 1977, at around 8. The accused, upon the other hand, denied participation in the commission of the crime. He
6:00 o'clock in the afternoon, accused Francisco Galit and his two claimed that he was in his house in Marikina, Rizal, when the crime was committed in
companions, Juling Dulay and Pabling, as per their previous agreement, Montalban, Rizal. He also assailed the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession extracted
met at the place where they formerly saw each other in Mariquina, Rizal; from him through torture, force and intimidation as described earlier, and without the
that the three conspirators took a jeepney for Montalban and upon benefit of counsel.
passing the Montalban Municipal Building, they stopped and they waited
at the side of the road until the hour of midnight; that at about 12:00 9. After a review of the records, We find that the evidence presented by the prosecution
o'clock that night, the three repaired to the premises of the victim, does not support a conviction. In fact, the findings of the trial court relative to the acts
Natividad Fernando; that they entered the said premises through the attributed to the accused are not supported by competent evidence. The principal
back wall of the house; that while entering the premises of said house, prosecution witness, Florentino Valentino merely testified that he and the accused were
Juling Dulay saw a bolo, lying near the piggery compound, which he living together in one house in Marikina, Rizal, on August 23, 1977, because the mother of his
picked up and used it to destroy the back portion of the wall of the wife is the wife of the accused; that when he returned home at about 4:00 o'clock in the
house; that it was Juling Dulay who first entered the house through the morning from the police station of Marikina, Rizal, the accused and his wife were quarreling
hole that they made, followed by the accused Galit and next to him was (nagtatalo); that he heard that the accused was leaving the house because he and his
"Pabling", that it was already early dawn of August 23, 1977 when the companions had robbed "Aling Nene", the owner of a poultry farm and piggery in Montalban,
three were able to gain entrance into the house of the victim; as the Rizal; that the wife of the accused was imploring him not to leave, but the latter was
three could not find anything valuable inside the first room that they insistent; that he saw the accused carrying a bag containing about two handfuls (dakot) of
entered, Juling Dulay destroyed the screen of the door of the victim, coins which he had taken from Aling Nene; that upon learning of what the accused had done,
Natividad Fernando; that upon entering the room of the victim, the three he went to the Montalban police the next day and reported to the police chief about what he
accused decided to kill first the victim, Natividad Fernando, before had heard; and that a week later, Montalban policemen went to their house and arrested the
searching the room for valuables; that Juling Dulay, who was then holding accused. 6
the bolo, began hacking the victim, who was then sleeping, and accused
Galit heard a moaning sound from the victim; that after the victim was
killed, the three accused began searching the room for valuables; that
they helped each other in opening the iron cabinet inside the room of the
10. This Court, in the case of Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, 7 laid down the correct procedure for the supposed reenactment, again accused was not assisted by counsel of his choice. These
peace officers to follow when making an arrest and in conducting a custodial investigation, constitute gross violations of his rights.
and which We reiterate:
13. The alleged confession and the pictures of the supposed re-enactment are inadmissible
7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting as evidence because they were obtained in a manner contrary to law.
officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown
the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional 14. Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances surrounding the taking
rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might of any confession, especially where the prisoner claims having been maltreated into giving
make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right one. Where there is any doubt as to its voluntariness, the same must be rejected in toto.
to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the
most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or by letter or
15. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Minister of Justice for whatever action he may
messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it
deem proper to take against the investigating officers.
that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted
unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested,
by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition 16. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, SET ASIDE, and
either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to another one entered ACQUITTING the accused Francisco Galit of the crime charged. Let him
counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with be released from custody immediately unless held on other charges. With costs de oficio.
the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the
procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in 17. SO ORDERED.
whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
9. People vs. Ting Lan Uy,. Jr.
11. There were no eyewitnesses, no property recovered from the accused, no state
witnesses, and not even fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime. The only For allegedly diverting and collecting funds of the National Power Corporation (NPC)
evidence against the accused is his alleged confession. It behooves Us therefore to give it a intended for the purchase of US Dollars from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), Jose
close scrutiny. The statement begins as follows: Ting Lan Uy, Jr., Ernesto Gamus,1 Jaime Ochoa and Raul Gutierrez were indicted before the
Sandiganbayan for the complex crime of Malversation through Falsification of Commercial
Documents defined and penalized under Articles 217 and 171 (8), in relation to Article 48 of
I. TANONG: Ipinagbibigay-alam ko sa inyo ang inyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng Saligang-Batas ng Pilipinas na kung inyong
the Revised Penal Code, in an amended Information,2 docketed as Criminal Case No. 19558,
nanaisin ay maaaring hindi kayo magbigay ng isang salaysay, na hindi rin kayo maaaring pilitin o saktan at pangakuan upang
which alleges –
magbigay ng naturang salaysay, na anuman ang inyong sasabihin sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay maaaring laban sa inyo sa anumang
usapin na maaaring ilahad sa anumang hukuman o tribunal dito sa Pilipinas, na sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay maaaring katulungin
That sometime
mo ang isang manananggol at kung sakaling hindi mo kayang bayaran ang isang in July 1990, orayformaaaring
manananggol sometime priorka
bigyan orng
subsequent
isa thereto, in Quezon City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
ng NBI. Ngayon at alam mo na ang mga ito nakahanda ka bang magbigay ng isang kusang-loob na salaysay sa pagtatanong na Court, accused Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr.,
ito? a public accountable officer, being the Treasurer of National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR),
Ernesto Gamus and Jaime Ochoa, both public officers being the Manager of the Loan
Management and Foreign Exchange Division (LOMAFED) and Foreign Trader Analyst,
SAGOT: Opo. respectively, also of NAPOCOR, and accused Raul Gutierrez, alias Raul Nicolas, alias George
Añonuevo, alias Mara Añonuevo, a private individual being a foreign exchange trader, said
public officers taking advantage of their official positions, with grave abuse of authority and
12. Such a long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the
committing the offense in relation to their office, conspiring, confederating and mutually
requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights under the Constitution
helping one another, with their private co-accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and our laws. Instead there should be several short and clear questions and every right
and feloniously falsify or cause to be falsified the NPC’s application for managers checks with
explained in simple words in a dialect or language known to the person under investigation.
the Philippine National Bank (PNB), NPC Branch in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED
Accused is from Samar and there is no showing that he understands Tagalog. Moreover, at
EIGHTY THREE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY ONE
the time of his arrest, accused was not permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a relative,
PESOS and TWENTY FIVE CENTAVOS (P183,805,291.25), Philippine Currency, intended for the
or a friend. In fact, his sisters and other relatives did not know that he had been brought to
purchase of US dollars from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), by inserting the
the NBI for investigation and it was only about two weeks after he had executed
account number of Raul Gutierrez SA-111-121204-4, when in truth and in fact as the accused
the salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit him. His statement does not even contain
well knew that the Payment Instructions (PI) when signed by the NAPOCOR authorities did
any waiver of right to counsel and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by one. At
not indicate the account number of Raul Gutierrez, thereby making alteration or intercalation because of preponderance of evidence, he is CIVILLY LIABLE for the damages suffered by the
in a genuine document which changes its meaning, and with the use of the said falsified NPC in the amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE
commercial documents, accused succeeded in diverting, collecting and receiving the total THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY ONE PESOS AND TWENTY FIVE CENTAVOS
amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND TWO (P183,805,291.25) solidarily with accused Jaime Ochoa. The Hold Departure Order against
HUNDRED NINETY ONE PESOS AND TWENTY FIVE CENTAVOS (P183,805,291.75), Philippine the accused embodied in this Court’s Resolution dated April 18, 2002 is recalled.
Currency from the National Power Corporation, which they thereafter malverse, embezzle,
misappropriate and convert to their own personal use and benefit to the damage and Let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against Raul Gutierrez, alias Raul Nicolas, alias George
prejudice of the National Power Corporation in the aforementioned sum. Añonuevo, alias Mara Añonuevo with last known address at 1348 A. Mabini Street, Ermita,
Manila or Suite 603 VIP Building, Roxas Boulevard, Manila.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
SO ORDERED.5
Upon arraignment, Gamus, Uy and Ochoa pleaded not guilty to the charge, while Gutierrez
has remained at large. Aggrieved, Ochoa interposed this appeal alleging that the Sandiganbayan erred in –

On pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated – 1. convicting him based on the allegations in the information;

1. That accused Uy at the time stated in the information was a Treasurer at the NPC; 2. admitting and considering his alleged sworn statements;

2. That accused Ernesto Gamus was at the time mentioned in the information was (sic) the 3. considering the alleged transcripts of stenographic notes and the NBI Report.6
Manager of Loan Management and Foreign Exchange Division (LOMAFED);
The factual antecedents of the case, as summed by the Sandiganbayan, are not disputed by
3. That accused Jaime Ochoa was the Senior Financial Analyst, LOMAFED, at the time the parties:
mentioned in the information;
In July of 1990, the National Power Corporation ("NPC") became embroiled in a controversy
4. That accused Gamus does not have any custody to (sic) public funds; involving the disappearance of P183,805,291.25 of its funds which were originally on deposit
with the Philippine National Bank, NPC Branch ("PNB") but were subsequently used to
5. That accused Ochoa’s position as Sr. Financial Analyst did not require him to take custody purchase two (2) managers’/cashier’s checks (the first check was in the amount of
or control of public funds; P70,000,000.00 while the second was for P113,805,291.25) in order to comply with its loan
obligations to the Asian Development Bank ("ADB"). As NPC’s debt in favor of ADB was in
6. That the application forms for cashier’s check or Manager’s check are not accountable yen, NPC was obligated to follow an intricate and circuitous procedure of buying US dollars
forms of the NAPOCOR.3 from a local bank (in this case, United Coconut Planters Bank or UCPB T.M. Kalaw Branch),
which local bank was supposed to remit the US dollars to an off-shore bank. This off-shore
bank (in this case, the Credit Lyonnais, New York) was then supposed to remit the yen
Trial on the merits thereafter ensued. On May 28, 2002, the Sandiganbayan rendered its
equivalent of the US dollars to a third bank (in this case, the Bank of Japan, Tokyo Branch)
Decision,4 the dispositive portion of which reads:
which would then credit the funds to the account of the ADB. The contracts of NPC with the
concerned banks (embodied in three [3] "Payment Instructions") included a "value date"
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Jaime B. Ochoa is hereby found GUILTY beyond (which was July 13, 1990), the mere arrival of which would trigger the above-mentioned
reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation thru falsification of Commercial procedure, culminating in the payment to ADB of the NPC obligation in the foreign currency
Document and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine agreed upon.
equal to the amount malversed which is ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE MILLION EIGHT
HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY ONE PESOS AND TWENTY FIVE
On value date, per routing procedure, Credit Lyonnais (the second bank) remitted Japanese
CENTAVOS (P183,805,291.25) solidarily with accused Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr. Accused Ochoa
Yen 1,143,316,130.00 to the Bank of Japan, Tokyo Branch. Likewise, per routing procedure,
shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual disqualification. Costs against the accused.
UCPB T.M. Kalaw Branch was supposed to have remitted on said value date the amount of
US$7,740,799.80. UCPB T.M. Kalaw, however, despite the fact that the PNB had already
On the ground of reasonable doubt, accused JOSE TING LAN UY, Jr. is hereby ACQUITTED issued two (2) manager’s/cashier’s checks ("Manager’s check" for brevity) for such purpose,
of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Commercial Document. However, did not make the agreed remittance to Credit Lyonnais, so Credit Lyonnais received no
payment for the funds it had remitted to the Bank of Japan, Tokyo. Both the State and the Appellant’s contention lacks merit. Malversation may be committed either through a positive
accused have offered explanations for the failure of UCPB, T.M. Kalaw Branch to remit the act of misappropriation of public funds or property or passively through negligence by
dollar equivalent of P183,805,291.25 to Credit Lyonnais. Both explanations, naturally, were allowing another to commit such misappropriation.9To sustain a charge of malversation,
diametrically opposed.7 there must either be criminal intent or criminal negligence10 and while the prevailing facts of
a case may not show that deceit attended the commission of the offense, it will not preclude
The prosecution theorizes that the accused diverted the funds covered by the two PNB the reception of evidence to prove the existence of negligence because both are equally
Manager’s checks by falsifying a commercial document called an "Application for Cashier’s punishable in Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
Check" (ACC) by inserting an account number (A/C #111-1212-04) of a private individual after
the name of the payee, UCPB, T.M. Kalaw Branch. It claims that NPC did not authorize the More pointedly, the felony involves breach of public trust, and whether it is committed
insertion considering that the Payment Instruction (PI) issued by NPC instructing PNB to through deceit or negligence,the law makes it punishable and prescribes a uniform penalty
prepare a Manager’s check to be charged to NPC’s savings account did not contain any therefor. Even when the information charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation
account number. Through the insertion, the accused allegedly succeeded in diverting the through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves that mode of
funds from the UCPB, T.M. Kalaw Branch in favor of Raul Gutierrez @ Raul Nicolas @ George commission of the offense.11 Explicitly stated –
Añonuevo @ Mara Añonuevo, who is still at large.
Even on the putative assumption that the evidence against petitioner yielded a case of
In his defense, appellant asserts that there was no evidence that he committed any of the malversation by negligence but the information was for intentional malversation, under the
acts alleged in the information, particularly the intercalation on the ACC; that he deposited circumstances of this case his conviction under the first mode of misappropriation would still
the checks subsequently issued or that he received the proceeds thereof; or that he be in order. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or
conspired with any of his co-accused. He claims that his conviction was based on the alleged the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if
sworn statement and the transcript of stenographic notes of a supposed interview with the mode charged differs from mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved
appellant by the NPC personnel and the report of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). and conviction thereof is proper.12
Appellant maintains that he signed the sworn statement while confined at the Philippine
Heart Center and upon assurance that it would not be used against him. He was not assisted The question of whether or not an information charging the commission of the crime by
by counsel nor was he apprised of his constitutional rights when he executed the affidavit. means of deceit will preclude a conviction on the basis of negligence is neither novel nor of
first impression. In Samson v. Court of Appeals, et al.,13 we ruled that an accused charged
To be found guilty of malversation, the prosecution must prove the following essential with willful or intentional falsification can validly be convicted of falsification through
elements: negligence, thus:

a.] The offender is a public officer; While a criminal negligent act is not a simple modality of a willful crime, as we held in Quizon
vs. Justice of the Peace of Bacolor, … but a distinct crime in itself, designated as a quasi
b.] He has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; offense in our Penal Code, it may however be said that a conviction for the former can be
had under an information exclusively charging the commission of a willful offense, upon the
theory that the greater includes the lesser offense. This is the situation that obtains in the
c.] The funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable;
present case. Appellant was charged with willful falsification but from the evidence
and
submitted by the parties, the Court of Appeals found that in effecting the falsification which
made possible the cashing of the checks in question, appellant did not act with criminal
d.] He has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to, or through intent but merely failed to take proper and adequate means to assure himself of the identity
abandonment or negligence, permitted the taking by another person of, such funds or of the real claimants as an ordinary prudent man would do. In other words, the information
property.8 alleges acts which charge willful falsification but which turned out to be not willful but
negligent. This is a case covered by the rule when there is a variance between the allegation
Appellant insists that he could not be convicted under the allegations in the information and proof, and is similar to some of the cases decided by this Tribunal.
without violating his constitutional right to due process and to be informed of the accusation
against him. He points out that the information alleges willful and intentional commission of ....
the acts complained of while the judgment found him guilty of inexcusable negligence
amounting to malice.
The fact that the information does not allege that the falsification was committed with
imprudence is of no moment for here this deficiency appears supplied by the evidence
submitted by appellant himself and the result has proven beneficial to him. Certainly, having
alleged that the falsification has been willful, it would be incongruous to allege at the same investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their work. They employ all the methods and
time that it was committed with imprudence for a charge of criminal intent is incompatible means that experience and study has taught them to extract the truth, or what may pass for
with the concept of negligence. it, out of the detainee. Most detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their
constitutional rights. And even if they were, the intimidating and coercive presence of the
In People v. Consigna, et al.,14 we ruled that the afore-stated rationale also applies to the officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms them into silence....19
felony of malversation, that is, that an accused charged with willful malversation, in an
information containing allegations similar to the present case, can be validly convicted of the Clearly, therefore, the rights enumerated by the constitutional provision invoked by accused-
same offense of malversation through negligence where the evidence sustains the latter appellant are not available before government investigators enter the picture.20 Thus we held
mode of perpetrating the offense. in one case21 that admissions made during the course of an administrative investigation by
Philippine Airlines do not come within the purview of Section 12. The protective mantle of
Appellant next claims that he should be acquitted since his conviction was based on his the constitutional provision also does not extend to admissions or confessions made to a
sworn statement, transcript of stenographic notes from which the sworn statement was private individual,22 or to a verbal admission made to a radio announcer who was not part of
taken and the NBI Report, which are incompetent evidence. He contends that his sworn the investigation,23or even to a mayor approached as a personal confidante and not in his
statement was taken without the benefit of counsel, in violation of his constitutional right official capacity.24
under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Along the same vein, we held that a videotaped interview showing the accused unburdening
Paragraph 1, Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states that – his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen is not covered by the
provision although in so ruling, we warned trial courts to take extreme caution in further
admitting similar confessions because we recognized the distinct possibility that the police,
Section 12. (1). Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners, may attempt to legitimize coerced
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
extrajudicial confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
admit an offense on television.25
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
Neither does the constitutional provision on custodial investigation extends to a spontaneous
statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
The "investigation" under the above-quoted provision refers to a "custodial"
manner whereby the accused orally admits having committed the crime,26 nor to a person
investigation where a suspect has already been taken into police custody15 and the
undergoing an audit examination because an audit examiner is not a law enforcement
investigating officers begin to ask questions to elicit information and confessions or
officer.27
admissions from the suspect.16 More specifically –

Thus, the flaw in appellant’s argument in this regard becomes immediately apparent vis-à-
Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities
vis the foregoing legal yardsticks, considering that his statement was taken during
after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
the administrative investigation of NPC’s audit team28and before he was taken into custody.
significant manner. And, the rule begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation
As such, the inquest was still a general inquiry into an unsolved offense at the time and there
ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and direction is then aimed upon a
was, as yet, no specific suspect.
particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then
direct interrogatory question which tend to elicit incriminating statements.17
Much less can appellant claim that he was in police custody because he was confined at the
time at the Philippine Heart Center and he gave this statement to NPC personnel, not to
Succinctly stated, custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the
police authorities.29 Appellant can hardly claim that, under the prevailing circumstances at
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on
the time, whatever degree of compulsion may have existed went beyond the borders of the
a particular person as a suspect.18 Such a situation contemplated has been more precisely
unobjectionable where impermissible levels of duress would force him into making false and
described thus where –
incriminating declarations against his interest. While he may have been persuaded into doing
so, he cannot feign that he was intimidated in such a way as to bring his statements within
After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a confrontation arises which the ambit of the exclusionary constitutional provision.
at best may be termed unequal. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police
headquarters and there questioned and cross-examined not only by one but as many
The fact that an NBI investigation was being contemporaneously conducted at the time the
investigators as may be necessary to break down his morale. He finds himself in a strange
sworn statement was taken will not extricate appellant from his predicament. The essence of
and unfamiliar surrounding, and every person he meets he considers hostile to him. The
the constitutional safeguard is protection from coercion. The interview where the sworn
statement is based was conducted by NPC personnel for the NPC’s administrative evidentiary weight conferred upon such public document with respect to its execution, as
investigation. Any investigation conducted by the NBI is a proceeding separate, distinct and well as the statements and the authenticity of the signatures thereon, stand.42
independent from the NPC inquiry and should not be confused or lumped together with the
latter. In disclaiming the authenticity of his sworn statement, appellant insists that at the time he
signed the document, he was confined in the hospital and therefore not physically and
Appellant invokes Galman v. Pamaran30 in insisting that the constitutional safeguard should mentally fit to assess the significance of his signature. This pretext however collides with the
have been applied notwithstanding that he was not yet arrested or under detention at the testimony of his own witness, Dr. Teresita Sadava, who stated that appellant was confined
time. He also invites our attention to the pronouncements of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas31 that for three days and, who, when queried whether "ischemic heart disease" had any emotional
"the right to counsel is available if a person is in custody, even if he is not a suspect; or even if or psychological effect, gave the inconclusive reply that it "may or may not." Moreover, as
not yet in custody but he is a suspect." aptly observed by the Sandiganbayan, although supposedly violated and repulsed as he was
by the alleged falsity of the affidavit, it is strange that appellant, who is supposedly astute in
The contention is tenuous. Although we held in Galman that the constitutional protection business matters as he then occupied the position of Foreign Trader Analyst of the NPC,
covers not only confessions but admissions as well, we qualified the ruling with the nevertheless felt it unnecessary to execute another affidavit retracting the same after his
statement that what is being eschewed is the evil of "extorting" a confession from the mouth recovery from illness. Verily, evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth
of the person being interrogated. As defined, "extortion" is an act or practice of taking or of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself – such as the common experience and
obtaining anything from a person by illegal use of fear, whether by force, threats or any observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.43
undue exercise of power.32 In the context of obtaining an admission, "extorting" means
"compelling or coercing a confession or information by any means serving to overcome his Appellant finally contends that both the NBI Investigation Report and the transcript of
power of resistance, or making the confession or admission involuntary."33 In this case, we stenographic notes are hearsay for having been made extra-judicially. The record, however,
find nothing on record to support appellant’s claim that his statements were extorted from shows that the prosecution presented the team leader of the NBI investigators who
him. conducted the investigation, although his testimony was dispensed with as the parties
stipulated on the existence and due execution of the NBI Investigation report albeit without
Furthermore, while indeed Galman taken together with the 1986 deliberations on what was admitting the truth of its contents. If at all, the admission of the report’s existence is an
later to become Section 12 (1) of the 1987 Constitution may lead to the conclusion that the acknowledgment that it is neither spurious nor counterfeit.
rights are available when the person is already in custody as a suspect, or if the person is a
suspect even if he is not yet deprived in any significant way of his liberty, Fr. All told, given the paucity of substance in the arguments advanced by appellant to prop up
Bernas34 qualified this statement by saying that "[J]urisprudence under the 1987 his cause, his appeal must fall.
Constitution, however, hasconsistently held, following Escobedo, the stricter view, that the
rights begin to be available only when the person isalready in custody."35 WHEREFORE, the May 28, 2002 Decision of the Sandiganbayan is hereby AFFIRMED in all
respects.
Appellant next advances the argument that even if his sworn statement were admissible in
evidence, the contents thereof may not be sufficient to sustain a conviction. He contends SO ORDERED.
that although his statement was supposedly gathered from the transcript of stenographic
notes of the conversation between him and Atty. Bagcal, neither Atty. Bagcal nor the person
who actually prepared the sworn statement was presented. Therefore, the sworn statement
is hearsay.

The argument is puerile. It bears stressing that the prosecution presented as witness Atty.
Lamberto P. Melencio who saw appellant at the hospital to show him the prepared
statement and to verify from him the truth of its contents.36 Atty. Melencio testified that he
asked appellant to go over the document before affixing his signature thereto.37 He also
inquired whether or not appellant was coerced or intimidated by anybody when the
statement was taken.38 Appellant denied that he was coerced or intimidated,39 affirmed the
contents of the document as a true reflection of his statements,40 and signed the same.41 It
need not be overemphasized that the sworn statement is a duly notarized document which
has in its favor the presumption of regularity and, thus, it can be contradicted only by clear
and convincing evidence. Without that sort of evidence, the presumption of regularity, the
10. People vs. Reyes (grandchildren), and Jona Abagatnan and Josephine Ortea (housemaids). The Yao family
owns and operates a poultry farm in Barangay Santo Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
For review is the Decision,1 dated 14 August 2006, and Resolution,2 dated 18 October 2006,
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02301 affirming with modifications the On 16 July 1999, at about 11:00 p.m., the Yao family, on board a Mazda MVP van, arrived at
Decision,3 dated 26 February 2002, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Malolos, the their poultry farm in Barangay Sto. Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Yao San alighted
Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 1611-M-99 finding herein accused-appellants Domingo Reyes y from the van to open the gate of the farm. At this juncture, appellant Reyes and a certain
Paje (Reyes), Alvin Arnaldo y Avena (Arnaldo) and Joselito Flores y Victorio (Flores) guilty of Juanito Pataray (Pataray) approached, poked their guns at Yao San, and dragged him inside
the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide and imposing upon each the van. Appellant Reyes and Pataray also boarded the van. Thereupon, appellants Arnaldo
of them the capital punishment of death. and Flores, with two male companions, all armed with guns, arrived and immediately
boarded the van. Appellant Flores took the driver’s seat and drove the van. Appellants Reyes
The facts culled from the records are as follows: and Arnaldo and their cohorts then blindfolded each member of the Yao family inside the van
with packaging tape.6
On 11 August 1999, an Information4 was filed before the RTC charging appellants with the
special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide. The accusatory portion of the After about 30 minutes of traveling on the road, the van stopped. Per order of appellants and
information reads: their cohorts, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and Jona Abagatnan (Abagatnan)
stepped out of the van with appellants Reyes and Arnaldo, Pataray and one of their male
companions.7 Appellant Flores, with the other male companion, drove the van with the
The undersigned State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice hereby accuses Domingo
remaining members of the Yao family inside the vehicle.8
Reyes y Paje, Alvin Arnaldo y Avena and Joselito Flores y Victorio of the crime of kidnapping
for ransom with homicide defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, committed as follows: Later, the van stopped again. Appellant Flores and his male companion told Yao San to
produce the amount of five million pesos (₱5,000,000.00) as ransom in exchange for the
release of Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and Abagatnan. Thereafter, appellant Flores
That on or about 11:00 p.m. on July 16, 1999, at Sitio Lambakin, barangay Sto. Cristo, San
and his male companion left the van and fled; while Yao San, Lenny, Matthew, Charlene and
Jose del Monte, Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
Josephine remained inside the van. Upon sensing that the kidnappers had already left, Yao
above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and
San drove the van towards the poultry farm and sought the help of relatives.9
grouping themselves together with Juanito Pataray y Cayaban, Federico Pataray y Cabayan
and Rommel Libarnes y Acejo, who are still at large, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation and with use of firearms, carry away and Meanwhile, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and Abagatnan were taken on foot by
deprive Robert Yao, Yao San, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Raymond Yao, Ronald Matthew Yao, Lennie appellants Reyes and Arnaldo, Pataray and one male companion to a safe-house situated in
Yao, Charlene Yao, Jona Abagatnan ang Josephine Ortea against their will and consent on the mountainous part of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan where they spent the whole night.10
board their Mazda MVP van for the purpose of extorting money in the amount of Five Million
Pesos (₱5,000,000.00), that during the detention of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymong Yao, On the morning of the following day, at around 4:00 a.m., appellants and their cohorts tried
said accused with intent to kill, willfully and unlawfully strangled Chua Ong Ping Sim and to contact Yao San regarding the ransom demanded, but the latter could not be reached.
Raymond Yao to death to the damage and prejudice of their heirs in such amount as may be Thus, appellants instructed Abagatnan to look for Yao San in the poultry farm. Appellants
awarded to them by this Honorable Court. Reyes and Arnaldo and one male companion escorted Abagatnan in proceeding to the
poultry farm. Upon arriving therein, Abagatnan searched for Yao San, but the latter could not
During their arraignment,5 appellants, assisted by a counsel de oficio, pleaded "Not guilty" to be found. Appellants Reyes and Arnaldo told Abagatnan to remind Yao San about the ransom
the charge. Trial on the merits thereafter followed. demanded. Thereafter, appellants Reyes and Arnaldo and their male companion left
Abagatnan in the poultry farm and went back to the safe-house.11
The prosecution presented as witnesses Jona Abagatnan (Abagatnan), Robert Yao (Robert),
Yao San, Police Officer 3 (PO3) Alex Alberto, PO3 Roberto Jabien, Atty. Florimond Rous (Atty. In the safe-house, appellants told Robert that they would release him so he could help
Rous) and Atty. Carlo Uminga (Atty. Uminga). Their testimonies, taken together, attest to the Abagatnan in locating Yao San. Robert and appellants left the safe-house, and after 30
following: minutes of trekking, appellants abandoned Robert. Robert then ran towards the poultry
farm. Upon arriving at the poultry farm, Robert found Yao San and informed him about the
ransom demanded by the appellants. Robert also told Yao San that Chua Ong Ping Sim and
The Yao family is composed of Yao San (father), Chua Ong Ping Sim (mother), Robert and
Raymond were still held by appellants and their cohorts.12
Raymond (children), Lenny (daughter-in-law, wife of Robert), Matthew and Charlene
On 18 July 1999, appellants called Yao San through a cellular phone and demanded the liability and interposed alibis and the defense of frame-up. Their testimonies, as
ransom of ₱5 million for Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond. Yao San acceded to appellants’ corroborated by their witnesses, are as follows:
demand. Appellants allowed Yao San to talk with Chua Ong Ping Sim.13
Appellant Arnaldo testified that he was an "asset" of the PAOCTF. He narrated that on 25 July
On the morning of 19 July 1999, appellants again called Yao San via a cellular phone and 1999, while he was at the tricycle terminal of Brgy. Sto. Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, a
threatened to kill Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond because of newspaper and radio reports police officer named Liwanag of the PAOCTF approached and invited him to go to Camp
regarding the incident. Yao San clarified to appellants that he did not report the incident to Crame to shed light on a kidnapping case allegedly committed by a certain Brgy. Captain
the police and also pleaded with them to spare the life of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond. Ramos and by members of the Aguirre and Bautista families. He accepted the invitation.
Appellants then instructed Yao San to appear and bring with him the ransom of ₱5 million at Subsequently, he proceeded to Camp Crame and met therein Colonel Cesar Mancao III
3:00 p.m. in the Usan dumpsite, Litex Road, Fairview, Quezon City. Yao San arrived at the (Colonel Mancao) of the PAOCTF. Colonel Mancao told him that the PAOCTF would arrest
designated place of the pay-off at 4:00 p.m., but none of the appellants or their cohorts Brgy. Capt. Ramos and certain persons named Gerry Bautista and Dadie Bautista. Colonel
showed up. Yao San waited for appellant’s call, but none came. Thus, Yao San left.14 Mancao instructed him to identify said persons as responsible for the kidnapping of the Yao
family. He refused to do so because he feared Brgy. Capt. Ramos. The day after, Colonel
On 23 July 1999, the corpses of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were found at the La Mesa Mancao called appellant Arnaldo to his office. Upon arriving thereat, the latter saw Yao San.
Dam, Novaliches, Quezon City.15 Both died of asphyxia by strangulation.16 Yao San promised him that if their kidnappers would be apprehended through his
cooperation, he would give him ₱500,000.00. He accepted Yao San’s offer under the
condition that he would identify a different set of suspects. Later, Colonel Mancao gave him
On 26 July 1999, appellant Arnaldo surrendered to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime
₱30,000.00.31
Task Force (PAOCTF) at Camp Crame, Quezon City. Thereupon, appellant Arnaldo, with the
assistance of Atty. Uminga, executed a written extra-judicial confession narrating his
participation in the incident. Appellant Arnaldo identified appellants Reyes and Flores, Subsequently, he pointed to appellants Reyes and Flores as his cohorts in kidnapping the Yao
Pataray and a certain Tata and Akey as his co-participants in the incident. Appellant Arnaldo family. He implicated appellants Reyes and Flores to get even with them, since the two had
also described the physical features of his cohorts and revealed their whereabouts.17 previously mauled him after he sold their fighting cocks and failed to give them the proceeds
of the sale.32
Subsequently, appellant Reyes was arrested in Sto. Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
Thereafter, appellants Arnaldo and Reyes were identified in a police line-up by Yao San, He denied having met with Atty. Uminga. He was not assisted by the latter when he was
Robert and Abagatnan as their kidnappers.18 forced by the PAOCTF to make a written extra-judicial confession on the kidnapping of the
Yao family. Further, he claimed that while he was under the custody of PAOCTF, a certain
Major Paulino utilized him as a drug pusher. Upon failing to remit the proceeds of the drug
On 10 August 1999, agents of the PAOCTF arrested appellant Flores in Balayan, Batangas.
sale, he was beaten up by PAOCTF agents and thereafter included as accused with appellants
Afterwards, appellant Flores, with the assistance of Atty. Rous, executed a written extra-
Reyes and Flores for the kidnapping of the Yao family.33
judicial confession detailing his participation in the incident. Appellant Flores identified
appellants Reyes and Arnaldo, Pataray and a certain Tata and Akey as his co-participants in
the incident. Appellant Flores was subsequently identified in a police line-up by Yao San, On the other hand, appellant Reyes testified that he slept in his house with his family from
Robert and Abagatnan as one of their kidnappers.19 6:00 p.m. of 16 July 1999 until the morning of the next day; that on the early morning of 26
July 1999, five policemen barged into his house and arrested him; that the policemen told
him that he was a suspect in the kidnapping of the Yao family; that he was mauled by the
The prosecution adduced documentary evidence to bolster the aforesaid allegations, to wit:
policemen outside his house; that the policemen forcibly brought him to Camp Crame, where
(1) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Abagatnan (Exhibit A);20 (2) Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay of
he was subsequently tortured; that he knew the Yao family because he worked as a
Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San (Exhibit B);21 (3) sketch made by Abagatnan (Exhibit C);22 (4)
carpenter in the family’s poultry farm at Brgy. Sto. Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan; that
death certificates of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond (Exhibits D & E);23 (5) Sinumpaang
he had no involvement in the kidnapping of the family; and that appellant Arnaldo implicated
Salaysay of Robert (Exhibit F);24 (6) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Yao San (Exhibit H);25 (7) joint
him in the kidnapping of the family because appellant Arnaldo held a grudge against him.34
affidavit of Police Senior Inspector Loreto P. Delelis and PO3 Roberto Jabien (Exhibit I);26 (8)
joint affidavit of PO3 Alex Alberto and PO3 Leonito Fermin (Exhibit J);27 (9) written extra-
judicial confession of appellant Flores (Exhibit K);28 (10) written extra-judicial confession of For his part, appellant Flores testified that he stayed in his sister’s house at Antipolo City
appellant Arnaldo (Exhibit L);29 and (11) sketch made by appellant Arnaldo (Exhibit M).30 from 12 July 1999 up to 30 July 1999; that he went to her house on 12 July 1999 because it
was the birthday of her child; that he worked as a construction worker during his stay in his
sister’s house; that he was arrested in Batangas and thereafter brought to Camp Crame,
For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of appellants, Marina Reyes, Irene Flores
where he was beaten up by policemen for refusing to admit involvement in the kidnapping of
Celestino, Wilfredo Celestino, Jr., Rachel C. Ramos, and Isidro Arnaldo. Appellants denied any
the Yao family; that after three days of beating, he was forced to sign a document which he
later found out to be a written extra-judicial confession; that he never met nor did he know 2) the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is hereby reduced to ₱100,000; and
Atty. Rous; that he knew the Yao family because he lived near the family’s poultry farm, and
he used to work therein as a welder; that he had no participation in the kidnapping of the 3) accused-appellants are further ordered to pay private complainants the amount
family; and that appellant Arnaldo implicated him in the kidnapping of the family because he of ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages.41
and appellant Reyes had mauled appellant Arnaldo several years ago.35
Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ Decision but this was
The defense proffered documentary and object evidence to buttress their foregoing claims, denied. Hence, appellants filed their Notice of Appeal on 25 August 2006.
to wit: (1) prayer booklet of appellant Arnaldo (Exhibit 1 for appellant Arnaldo);36 (2) calling
card of Colonel Mancao (Exhibit 2 for appellant Arnaldo);37 and (3) pictures allegedly showing
In their separate briefs,42 appellants assigned the following errors:
appellant Flores working as a carpenter in Antipolo City (Exhibits 1 & 2 for appellant Flores).38

I.
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision dated 26 February 2002 convicting appellants of the
special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide and sentencing each of them
to suffer the supreme penalty of death. Appellants were also ordered to pay jointly and THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
severally the Yao family ₱150,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱500,000.00 as moral damages and PROSECUTION WITNESSES;
the costs of the proceedings. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
II.
WHEREFORE, finding herein three (3) accused DOMINGO REYES y PAJE, ALVIN ARNALDO y
AVENA, and JOSELITO FLORES y VICTORIO guilty as principals beyond reasonable doubt of the THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN APPELLANTS;
crime of KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH (DOUBLE) HOMICIDE as charged, they are hereby
sentenced each to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH as mandated by law, to jointly and III.
severally indemnify the heirs of deceased Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond Yao in the
amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱150,000.00), and all the private offended
parties or victims, including the heirs of the deceased, in the amount of Five Hundred THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL
Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00) as moral damages, subject to the corresponding filing fee as a CONFESSIONS OF APPELLANT ARNALDO AND APPELLANT FLORES;
first lien, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.39
IV.
By reason of the death penalty imposed on each of the appellants, the instant case was
elevated to us for automatic review. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TOTALLY IGNORING THE CORROBORATED EVIDENCE OF THE
Mateo,40 we remanded the instant case to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition. DEFENSE;

On 14 August 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming with V.
modifications the RTC Decision. The appellate court reduced the penalty imposed by the RTC
on each of the appellants from death penalty to reclusion perpetua without the possibility of THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD PROVEN APPELLANTS’
parole. It also decreased the amount of civil indemnity from ₱150,000.00 to ₱100,000.00. GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.43
Further, it directed appellants to pay jointly and severally the Yao family ₱100,000.00 as
exemplary damages. The fallo of the Court of Appeals’ decision states:
Anent the first assigned error, appellants assail the credibility of prosecution witnesses
Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,
Bulacan, Branch 12, dated February 26, 2002, in Criminal Case No. 1611-M-99 convicting
In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the
accused-appellants of the crime of Kidnapping For Ransom with (Double) Homicide, is hereby
following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that:
lower court, unless there is a showing that the latter overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of
1) accused-appellants are instead sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great
perpetua; respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they
testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and
convincing manner is a credible witness.44
After carefully reviewing the evidence on record and applying the foregoing guidelines to this Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San testified that even though the heads of appellants and their
case, we found no cogent reason to overturn the RTC’s ruling finding the testimonies of the cohorts were covered by T-shirts, their faces were, nonetheless, exposed and uncovered,
prosecution witnesses credible. Prosecution witnesses Abagatnan, Robert, and Yao San allowing them to see their faces.53 Robert and Yao San also declared that they recognized the
positively identified appellants and their cohorts as their kidnappers during a police line-up faces of appellants during the incident because the latter resided near the poultry farm of the
and also during trial. Abagatnan specifically testified during the trial that after appellants and Yao family, which used to hire them several times in the farm as carpenters/welders. 54
their cohorts forcibly entered the van where she and the Yao family were, appellant Flores
drove the van away from the poultry farm; that appellants Reyes and Arnaldo were among Appellants, however, insist that the testimonies of Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San that they
the kidnappers who guarded her, Robert, Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond in the safe-house; were able to recognize the kidnappers -- because although the kidnappers’ heads were
and that appellants Reyes and Arnaldo accompanied her in going to the poultry farm to covered with T-shirts, their faces were nevertheless exposed or uncovered -- are incredible.
search for Yao San and remind him about the ransom demanded. 45 Robert confirmed that Appellants argue that it is against human nature and experience that kidnappers would cover
appellants and their cohorts blindfolded them inside the van during the incident. He also only their heads and not their faces in concealing their identities.
recounted that appellants and their cohorts detained him and Chua Ong Ping Sim, Raymond
and Abagatnan in a safe-house. He was later instructed by appellants to find Yao San and
It is not illogical or against human nature for appellants and their cohorts to cover their heads
remind him about the ransom.46 Yao San declared that during the incident, appellant Reyes
with T-shirts, while leaving their faces exposed and uncovered when they kidnapped the Yao
and Pataray approached him, poked their guns at him, and dragged him into the van.
family. Perhaps, appellants and their cohorts thought that putting T-shirts on their heads
Appellant Flores took the driver’s seat and drove the van. Appellant Flores and his male
without covering their faces was sufficient to conceal their identities. Regardless of their
companion told him to produce ₱5 million as ransom money in exchange for the release of
reason, the fact remains that Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San positively identified appellants
Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and Abagatnan.47
as their kidnappers, and their said identification and testimonies were found by the RTC, the
Court of Appeals and by this Court to be credible. In People v. Barredo,55 the victim testified
Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San testified in a clear and candid manner during the trial. Their that he was able to identify the accused as his assailants because the latter took off their
respective testimonies were consistent with one another. They were steadfast in recounting masks during the assault. The accused argued that the victim’s testimony was incredible
their ordeal despite the grueling cross examination of the defense. Moreover, their because persons who wore masks would not take them off so casually in the presence of
testimonies were in harmony with the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. their victims, as doing so would reveal their identities. The trial court, nonetheless, ruled that
The RTC and the Court of Appeals found their testimonies credible and trustworthy. Both the victim’s testimony was credible and truthful. We sustained such ruling of the trial court
courts also found no ill motive for Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San to testify against and ratiocinated:
appellants.
Appellants dispute the plausibility of Enrico Cebuhano’s claim that he was able to identify the
Appellants, nonetheless, maintain that Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San could not have assailants because they took off their masks. Persons who wear masks would not take them
identified their kidnappers, because (1) the incident occurred in the darkness of the night; (2) off so casually in the presence of their victims, as doing so would thereby reveal their
they were blindfolded then; and (3) the heads of the kidnappers were covered by T-shirts. identities. x x x.

It appears that the crime scene was well-lighted during the incident. At that time, there was a The above arguments are untenable. In his testimony, Enrico Cebuhano clearly stated that
light from a fluorescent bulb hanging above the gate of the poultry farm wherein Yao San the men who entered his home removed their masks when he was brought downstairs. Why
was held at gunpoint by appellant Reyes and Pataray.48 The headlights of the van were also they did so was known only to them. It is possible that they thought that there was no one in
turned on, making it possible for Abagatnan and Robert to see the faces of appellant Reyes the vicinity who could identify them, or that they wanted Enrico to see who they were so as
and Pataray as the two approached and poked their guns at Yao San.49 Further, there was a to intimidate him. It is also possible that they felt secure because there were 14 of them who
bulb inside the van, which turned on when the door’s van was opened. This bulb lighted up were all armed. In any event, what is important is that the trial court found Enrico
when appellants and their cohorts forcibly boarded the van, thus, allowing Abagatnan, Cebuhano’s testimony to be both credible and believable, and that he was able to positively
Robert and Yao San to glance at the faces of appellants and their cohorts.50 identify appellants herein, because the men who entered his home removed their masks, x x
x.
Although the Yao family was blindfolded during the incident, it was, nevertheless, shown that
it took appellants and their cohorts about 10 minutes before all members of the Yao family It is significant to note that Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were brutally killed as a result of
were blindfolded.51 During this considerable length of time, Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San the kidnapping. It is difficult to believe that Robert and Yao San would point to appellants
were able to take a good look at the faces of appellants and their cohorts. In addition, and their cohorts as their kidnappers if such were not true. A witness’ relationship to the
Abagatnan and Robert narrated that their respective blindfolds loosened several times, victim of a crime makes his testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative
giving them the opportunity to have a glimpse at the faces of appellants and their cohorts.52 interested in vindicating a crime done to their family to accuse somebody other than the real
culprit.56 Relationship with a victim of a crime would deter a witness from indiscriminately
implicating anybody in the crime. His natural and usual interest would be to identify the real executed the kidnapping of the Yao family. Their extra-judicial confessions also detailed the
malefactor and secure his conviction to obtain true justice for the death of a relative.57 particular role/participation played by each of appellants and their cohorts in the kidnapping
of the family. Clearly, the foregoing individual acts of appellants and their cohorts
Appellants put in issue the failure of Robert and Yao San to immediately report the incident demonstrated their unity of purpose and design in kidnapping the Yao family for the purpose
and identify appellants to authorities despite their common claim that they recognized of extorting ransom.
appellants, as the latter used to work in the poultry farm.
Appellants, however, challenge the legality and admissibility of the written extra-judicial
Robert and Yao San cannot be blamed for not immediately reporting the incident to the confessions.
authorities. Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were still held by appellants and their cohorts
when the ransom was demanded for their release. Appellants and their cohorts were armed Appellant Reyes claims that his alleged participation in the kidnapping of the Yao family was
and dangerous. Appellants and their cohorts also threatened to kill Chua Ong Ping Sim and based solely on the written extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores. He
Raymond if Yao San and Robert would report the incident to the maintains, however, that said extra-judicial confessions are inadmissible in evidence, because
authorities.58 Understandably, Yao San and Robert were extremely fearful for the safety of they were obtained in violation of his co-appellants’ constitutional right to have an
their loved ones, and this caused them to refrain from reporting the incident. Robert and Yao independent counsel of their own choice during custodial investigation. Appellant Reyes
San cannot also be blamed for not reporting the incident to the police even after the corpses alleges that the agents of the PAOCTF did not ask his co-appellants during the custodial
of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond had already been found, and appellants and their investigation whether they had a lawyer of their own choice, and whether they could afford
cohorts had cut their communication with them. Certainly, the killings of Chua Ong Ping Sim to hire a lawyer; that the agents of the PAOCTF suggested the availability of Atty. Uminga and
and Raymond had a chilling/paralyzing effect on Robert and Yao San. Also, appellants and Atty. Rous to his co-appellants; and that Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous were associates of the
their cohorts were still at large then, and the possibility that they would harm the remaining PAOCTF. Appellant Reyes also asseverates that the extra-judicial confessions of appellants
members of the Yao family was not remote, considering that appellants and their cohorts Arnaldo and Flores cannot be utilized against him.
were familiar with the whereabouts of the Yao family. At any rate, we have held that failure
to immediately report the kidnapping incident does not diminish the credibility of the Appellant Flores argues that his written extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence,
witnesses.59 The lapse of a considerable length of time before a witness comes forward to because it was obtained in violation of his constitutional right to have an independent
reveal the identities of the perpetrators of the crime does not taint the credibility of the counsel of his own choice during custodial investigation. He insists that his written extra-
witness and his testimony where such delay is satisfactorily explained.60 judicial confession was elicited through force, torture and without the assistance of a lawyer.
He avers that he was not assisted by any lawyer from the time he was arrested until he was
Apropos the second assigned error, appellants contend that the prosecution failed to prove coerced to sign the purported confession; that he was forced to sign it because he could not
that they conspired in kidnapping the Yao family. anymore endure the beatings he suffered at the hands of the PAOCTF agents; and that he
never met or knew Atty. Rous who, according to the PAOCTF, had assisted him during the
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when two or more persons custodial investigation.
agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose
and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective among the accused.61 When the accused Appellant Arnaldo contends that his written extra-judicial confession should be excluded as
by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing evidence, as it was procured in violation of his constitutional right to have an independent
another part as to complete the crime, with a view to the attainment of the same object, counsel of his own choice during custodial investigation. He claims that he was not given
conspiracy exists.62 freedom to choose his counsel; that the agents of the PAOCTF did not ask him during the
custodial investigation whether he had a lawyer of his own choice, and whether he could
As can be gleaned from the credible testimonies and sworn statements of Abagatnan, Robert afford to hire a lawyer; and that the agents of the PAOCTF suggested the availability of Atty.
and Yao, appellant Reyes and Pataray63 approached and poked their guns at Yao San, and Uminga to him.
thereafter dragged the latter into the van. Appellant Flores then took the driver’s seat and
drove the van, while each member of the Yao family was blindfolded by appellants Reyes and An extra-judicial confession is a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion or
Arnaldo and their cohorts inside the van. Thereafter, appellant Flores instructed Yao San to inducement by a person under custodial investigation, stating or acknowledging that he had
produce the amount of ₱5 million as ransom money in exchange for the release of Chua Ong committed or participated in the commission of a crime.65 In order that an extra-judicial
Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and Abagatnan. Appellant Reyes and appellant Arnaldo were confession may be admitted in evidence, Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution
among the kidnappers who guarded Abagatnan, Robert, Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond in mandates that the following safeguards be observed66:
the safe-house. They also accompanied Abagatnan and Robert in going to the poultry farm to
search for and remind Yao San about the ransom demanded. Further, appellants Arnaldo and Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
Flores narrated in their respective extra-judicial confessions64 how they planned and the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he something false. The counsel should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the telling the truth.75
presence of counsel.1awphi.zw+
We have gone over the records and found that the PAOCTF investigators have duly apprised
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free appellants Arnaldo and Flores of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to have
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other competent and independent counsel of their own choice during their respective custodial
forms of detention are prohibited. investigations.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 shall be The Pasubali76 of appellants Arnaldo and Flores’s written extra-judicial confessions clearly
inadmissible in evidence against him. shows that before they made their respective confessions, the PAOCTF investigators had
informed them that the interrogation about to be conducted on them referred to the
Thus, we have held that an extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence if the following kidnapping of the Yao family. Thereafter, the PAOCTF agents explained to them that they had
requisites have been satisfied: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the a constitutional right to remain silent, and that anything they would say may be used against
assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be them in a court of law. They were also told that they were entitled to a counsel of their own
in writing.67 choice, and that they would be provided with one if they had none. When asked if they had a
lawyer of their own, appellant Arnaldo replied that he would be assisted by Atty. Uminga,
while appellant Flores agreed to be represented by Atty. Rous. Thereafter, when asked if they
The mantle of protection afforded by the above-quoted constitutional provision covers the
understood their said rights, they replied in the affirmative. The appraisal of their
period from the time a person is taken into custody for the investigation of his possible
constitutional rights was done in the presence of their respective lawyers and in the Tagalog
participation in the commission of a crime or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in
dialect, the language spoken and understood by them. Appellants Arnaldo and Flores and
the commission of the offense although not yet in custody.68
their respective counsels, Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous, also signed and thumbmarked the
extra-judicial confessions. Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous attested to the veracity of the afore-
The right of an accused to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel cited facts in their respective court testimonies.77 Indeed, the appraisal of appellants’
contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial constitutional rights was not merely perfunctory, because it appeared certain that appellants
and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.69 Such right contemplates had understood and, in fact, exercised their fundamental rights after being informed thereof.
effective communication which results in the subject understanding what is conveyed.70
Records reflect that appellants Arnaldo and Reyes were likewise accorded their right to
The right to counsel is a fundamental right and is intended to preclude the slightest coercion competent and independent counsel during their respective custodial investigations.
as would lead the accused to admit something false.71 The right to counsel attaches upon the
start of the investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
As regards appellant Arnaldo, Atty. Uminga testified that prior to the questioning of appellant
information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused.72 The lawyer called to be
Arnaldo about the incident, Atty. Uminga told the PAOCTF investigators and agents to give
present during such investigation should be, as far as reasonably possible, the choice of the
him and appellant Arnaldo space and privacy, so that they could freely converse. After the
accused. If the lawyer is one furnished in behalf of accused, he should be competent and
PAOCTF investigators and agents left them, he and appellant Arnaldo went to a cubicle
independent; that is, he must be willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the
where only the two of them were present. He interviewed appellant Arnaldo in the Tagalog
accused.73 A competent and independent counsel is logically required to be present and able
language regarding the latter’s personal circumstances and asked him why he was in the
to advice and assist his client from the time the latter answers the first question asked by the
PAOCTF office and why he wanted a lawyer. Appellant Arnaldo replied that he wanted to
investigator until the signing of the confession. Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that
make a confession about his participation in the kidnapping of the Yao family. Thereupon, he
the confession was made voluntarily, and that the person under investigation fully
asked appellant Arnaldo if the latter would accept his assistance as his lawyer for purposes of
understood the nature and the consequence of his extra-judicial confession vis-a-vis his
his confession. Appellant Arnaldo agreed. He warned appellant Arnaldo that he might be
constitutional rights. 74
sentenced to death if he confessed involvement in the incident. Appellant Arnaldo answered
that he would face the consequences because he was bothered by his conscience. He
However, the foregoing rule is not intended to deter to the accused from confessing guilt if inquired from appellant Arnaldo if he was harmed or intimidated into giving self-
he voluntarily and intelligently so desires, but to protect him from admitting what he is being incriminating statements to the PAOCTF investigators. Appellant Arnaldo answered in the
coerced to admit although untrue. To be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all negative. He requested appellant Arnaldo to remove his shirt for him to check if there were
the questions being propounded to his client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to torture marks on his body, but he found none. He also observed that appellant Arnaldo’s
stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him; but, rather, it was appearance and movements were normal. His conference with appellant Arnaldo lasted for
adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion on the accused to admit 15 minutes or more. Thereafter, he allowed the PAOCTF investigators to question appellant
Arnaldo.78
Further, Atty. Uminga sat beside appellant Arnaldo during the inquiry and listened to the PAOCTF. Atty. Rous, on the other hand, was a member of the Free Legal Aid Committee of
latter’s entire confession. After the taking of appellant Arnaldo’s confession, Atty. Uminga the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Quezon City at the time he rendered legal assistance to
requested the PAOCTF investigators to give him a copy of appellant Arnaldo’s confession. appellant Flores.85Part of Atty. Rous’ duty as member of the said group was to render legal
Upon obtaining such copy, he read it entirely and thereafter gave it to appellant Arnaldo. He assistance to the indigents including suspects under custodial investigation. There was no
instructed appellant Arnaldo to read and comprehend the same carefully. He told appellant evidence showing that Atty. Rous had organizational or personal links to the PAOCTF. In fact,
Arnaldo to ask him for clarification and comment if he did not agree or understand any part he proceeded to the PAOCTF office to assist appellant Flores, because he happened to be the
of his written confession. Appellant Arnaldo read his entire written confession and handed it lawyer manning the office when the PAOCTF called. 86 In People v. Fabro,87 we stated:
to him. Atty. Uminga asked him if he had objections to it. Appellant Arnaldo replied in the
negative. He then reminded appellant Arnaldo that the latter could still change his mind, and The Constitution further requires that the counsel be independent; thus, he cannot be a
that he was not being forced to sign. Appellant Arnaldo manifested that he would sign his special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney
written confession. Later, he and appellant Arnaldo affixed their signatures to the written whose interest is admittedly adverse to that of the accused. Atty. Jungco does not fall under
confession.79 any of said enumeration. Nor is there any evidence that he had any interest adverse to that
of the accused. The indelible fact is that he was president of the Zambales Chapter of the
With respect to appellant Flores, Atty. Rous declared that before the PAOCTF investigators Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and not a lackey of the lawmen.
began questioning appellant, Atty. Rous interviewed him in Tagalog inside a room, where
only the two of them were present. He asked appellant Flores about his personal Further, as earlier stated, under Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, an accused
circumstances. Appellant Flores replied that he was a suspect in the kidnapping of the Yao is entitled to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. The
family, and he wanted to give a confession regarding his involvement in the said incident. He phrase "preferably of his own choice" does not convey the message that the choice of a
asked appellant Flores whether he would accept his assistance as his lawyer. Appellant Flores lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent
affirmed that he would. He asked appellant Flores why he wanted to give such confession. and independent attorneys from handling the defense. Otherwise, the tempo of custodial
Appellant Flores answered that he was bothered by his conscience. Atty. Rous warned investigation would be solely in the hands of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct, the
appellant Flores that his confession would be used against him in a court of law, and that the progress of the interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer who, for one reason or another, is
death penalty might be imposed on him. Appellant Flores told him that he wanted to tell the not available to protect his interest.88While the choice of a lawyer in cases where the person
truth and unload the burden on his mind. He requested appellant Flores to lift his shirt for under custodial interrogation cannot afford the services of counsel – or where the preferred
the former to verify if there were torture marks or bruises on his body, but found none. lawyer is not available – is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the suspect has the
Again, he cautioned appellant Flores about the serious consequences of his confession, but final choice, as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A lawyer
the latter maintained that he wanted to tell the truth. Thereafter, he permitted the PAOCTF provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused when he does not raise any
investigators to question appellant Flores.80 objection to the counsel’s appointment during the course of the investigation, and the
accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of the statement before the swearing
Additionally, Atty. Rous stayed with appellant Flores while the latter was giving statements to officer.89 Appellants Arnaldo and Flores did not object to the appointment of Atty. Uminga
the PAOCTF investigators. After the taking of appellant Flores’ statements, he instructed and Atty. Rous as their lawyers, respectively, during their custodial investigation. Prior to
appellant Flores to read and check his written confession. Appellant Flores read the same and their questioning, appellants Arnaldo and Flores conferred with Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous.
made some minor corrections. He also read appellant Flores’ written confession. Afterwards, Appellant Arnaldo manifested that he would be assisted by Atty. Uminga, while appellant
he and appellant Flores signed the latter’s written confession.81 Flores agreed to be counseled by Atty. Rous. Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous countersigned the
written extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores, respectively. Hence,
It is true that it was the PAOCTF which contacted and suggested the availability of Atty. appellants Arnaldo and Flores are deemed to have engaged the services of Atty. Uminga and
Uminga and Atty. Rous to appellants Arnaldo and Flores, respectively. Nonetheless, this does Atty. Rous, respectively.
not automatically imply that their right to counsel was violated. What the Constitution
requires is the presence of competent and independent counsel, one who will effectively Since the prosecution has sufficiently established that the respective extra-judicial
undertake his client’s defense without any intervening conflict of interest.82 There was no confessions of appellant Arnaldo and appellant Flores were obtained in accordance with the
conflict of interest with regard to the legal assistance rendered by Atty. Uminga and Atty. constitutional guarantees, these confessions are admissible. They are evidence of a high
Rous. Both counsels had no interest adverse to appellants Arnaldo and Flores. Although Atty. order because of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately
Uminga testified that he was a former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent, he, and knowingly confess to a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience.90 Consequently,
nevertheless, clarified that he had been separated therefrom since 199483 when he went into the burden of proving that undue pressure or duress was used to procure the confessions
private practice. Atty. Uminga declared under oath that he was a private practitioner when rests on appellants Arnaldo and Flores.91
he assisted appellant Arnaldo during the custodial investigation.84 It appears that Atty.
Uminga was called by the PAOCTF to assist appellant Arnaldo, because Atty. Uminga’s In the case at bar, appellants Arnaldo and Flores failed to discharge their burden of proving
telephone number was listed on the directory of his former NBI officemates detailed at the that they were forced or coerced to make their respective confessions. Other than their self-
serving statements that they were maltreated by the PAOCTF officers/agents, they did not Appellants Arnaldo and Flores stated in their respective confessions that appellant Reyes
present any plausible proof to substantiate their claims.lawphil.net They did not submit any participated in their kidnapping of the Yao family. These statements are, therefore,
medical report showing that their bodies were subjected to violence or torture. Neither did admissible as corroborative and circumstantial evidence to prove appellant Reyes’ guilt.
they file complaints against the persons who had allegedly beaten or forced them to execute
their respective confessions despite several opportunities to do so. Appellants Arnaldo and Nevertheless, even without the extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores,
Flores averred that they informed their family members/relatives of the alleged evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a finding of culpability of appellant Reyes. As
maltreatment, but the latter did not report such allegations to proper authorities. On the earlier found, Abagatnan, Robert and Yao positively identified appellant Reyes as one of their
contrary, appellants Arnaldo and Flores declared in their respective confessions that they kidnappers. They specifically testified that during the incident, appellant Reyes (1)
were not forced or harmed in giving their sworn statements, and that they were not approached and pointed a gun at Yao San and dragged the latter inside the van; and (2)
promised or given any award in consideration of the same. Records also bear out that they accompanied Abagatnan and Robert in going to the poultry farm to search for and remind
were physically examined by doctors before they made their confessions.92Their physical Yao San about the ransom demanded. The RTC, Court of Appeals and this Court found such
examination reports certify that no external signs of physical injury or any form of trauma testimonies credible.
were noted during their examination.93 In People v. Pia,94 we held that the following factors
indicate voluntariness of an extra-judicial confession: (1) where the accused failed to present
Appellants argue that their alibis cast reasonable doubt on their alleged guilt. Appellant
credible evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on their persons; (2) where they failed
Reyes avers that he could not have been one of those who kidnapped the Yao family on the
to complain to the officers who administered the oaths; (3) where they did not institute any
night of 16 July 1999 at around 11:00 p.m., because he was sleeping with his family in their
criminal or administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment; (4)
residence during such time and date. Likewise, appellant Flores asseverates that he could not
where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies; and (5) where they did not
have been present at the crime scene on such date and time, as he was already sleeping in
have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim.
his sister’s house at Antipolo City. For his part, appellant Arnaldo asserts that he is a victim of
a police frame-up. He alleges that he was an asset of the PAOCTF, but was later utilized as a
It should also be noted that the extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores drug pusher by the said agency. Upon failing to remit the proceeds of a shabu sale to the
are replete with details on the manner in which the kidnapping was committed, thereby PAOCTF officers, he was beaten up and included as accused in the kidnapping of the Yao
ruling out the possibility that these were involuntarily made. Their extra-judicial confessions family.
clearly state how appellants and their cohorts planned the kidnapping as well as the
sequence of events before, during and after its occurrence. The voluntariness of a confession
Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove. Alibi must
may be inferred from its language if, upon its face, the confession exhibits no suspicious
be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence; otherwise it cannot prevail
circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it being replete with details which
over the positive testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. For
could only be supplied by the accused.95
alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was somewhere else when
the crime was committed. He must likewise prove that it was physically impossible for him to
With respect to appellant Reyes’s claim that the extra-judicial confessions of appellants be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.99
Arnaldo and Flores cannot be used in evidence against him, we have ruled that although an
extra-judicial confession is admissible only against the confessant, jurisprudence makes it
The defense of frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for
admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his co-
it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove. In order to prosper, the defense of frame-
accused.96 In People v. Alvarez,97 we ruled that where the confession is used as circumstantial
up must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence.100
evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator, that confession is
receivable as evidence against a co-accused. In People v. Encipido98 we elucidated as follows:
It should be observed that the family residence/house of appellant Reyes where he claimed
to have slept when the incident occurred is located within Brgy. Sto. Cristo, San Jose del
It is also to be noted that APPELLANTS’ extrajudicial confessions were independently made
Monte, Bulacan.101 This is the same barangay where the Yao family’s poultry farm is situated.
without collusion, are identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of
Appellant Reyes, in fact, admitted that the poultry farm is near his residence.102 There is a
the other. They are, therefore, also admissible as circumstantial evidence against their co-
huge possibility that appellant Reyes slept for a while, woke up before 11:00 p.m., and
accused implicated therein to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the
thereafter proceeded to the Yao family’s poultry farm to participate in the kidnapping of the
commission of the crime. They are also admissible as corroborative evidence against the
family. The same is true with appellant Flores. Wilfredo, appellant Flores’ nephew, testified
others, it being clear from other facts and circumstances presented that persons other than
that he and appellant went to bed and slept together in the house of appellant’s sister in
the declarants themselves participated in the commission of the crime charged and proved.
Antipolo City at about 8:00 p.m. of 16 July 1999.103 It is greatly possible that Wifredo did not
They are what is commonly known as interlocking confession and constitute an exception to
notice when appellant Flores woke up later at 9:00 p.m. and immediately proceeded to the
the general rule that extrajudicial confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence only
Yao family’s poultry farm to participate in the kidnapping of the family, arriving therein at
against the declarants thereof.
about 11:00 p.m. It is a fact that a person coming from Antipolo City may reach San Jose del
Monte, Bulacan in two hours via a motor vehicle, considering that there was no more heavy case at bar. First, appellants and their cohorts are private individuals. Second, appellants and
traffic at that late evening. Obviously, appellants Reyes and Flores failed to prove their cohorts kidnapped the Yao family by taking control of their van and detaining them in a
convincingly that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene during the secluded place. Third, the Yao family was taken against their will. And fourth, threats to kill
incident. were made and the kidnap victims include females.

Appellant Flores submitted two pictures which, according to him, show that he worked as a Republic Act No. 7659 provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if any of the two
construction worker from 12 July 1999 up to 30 July 1999 while staying in his sister’s house at qualifying circumstances is present in the commission of the kidnapping: (1) the motive of
Antipolo City. These pictures, however, do not clearly and convincingly support such claim, the kidnappers is to extort ransom for the release of the kidnap victims, although none of the
because (1) the pictures were undated; (2) the shots were taken from a far distance; and (3) circumstances mentioned under paragraph four of the elements of kidnapping were present.
the face of the man in the pictures which appellant Flores claims as his is blurred, Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or demanded for the redemption of a
unrecognizable and almost hidden, as such person is wearing a cap and is in a position where captured person that would release him from captivity.107 Whether or not the ransom is
only the right and back portions of his head and body are visible. actually paid to or received by the perpetrators is of no moment.108 It is sufficient that the
kidnapping was committed for the purpose of exacting ransom;109 and (2) the kidnap victims
Appellant Arnaldo also failed to prove with convincing evidence his defense of frame-up. were killed or died as a consequence of the kidnapping or was raped, or subjected to torture
Aside from his self-serving testimony that he was a former PAOCTF agent and that he was or dehumanizing acts. Both of these qualifying circumstances are alleged in the information
beaten and included as accused in the kidnapping of the Yao family by the PAOCTF agents and proven during trial.
because he failed to remit to the PAOCTF officers the proceeds of his sale of shabu, he did
not present convincing proof to support said allegations. He submitted the calling card of As testified to by Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San, appellants and their cohorts demanded the
Colonel Mancao, which appears to have been signed by the latter at the back portion, but amount of ₱5 million for the release of Chua Ong Pong Sim and Raymond. In fact, Yao San
there is nothing on it which indicates or verifies that appellant Arnaldo was indeed a former went to the Usan dumpsite, Litex Road, Fairview, Quezon City, to hand over the ransom
PAOCTF agent. He also submitted a prayer book containing his handwritten narration of money to appellants and their cohorts, but the latter did not show up. It was also apparent
torture he allegedly experienced at the hands of the PAOCTF agents, but this does not that Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were killed or died during their captivity. Yao San
conclusively show that he was beaten by the PAOCTF agents. As we earlier found, appellant declared that appellants and their cohorts called up and told him that they would kill Chua
Arnaldo did not produce any medical records/certificates or file any complaint against the Ong Ping Sim and Raymond who were still under their custody, because they heard the radio
PAOCTF agents to bolster his claim of maltreatment. report that the incident was already known to the police. True to their threats, the corpses of
Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were later found dumped in La Mesa Dam. Their respective
It is true that the alibis of appellants Reyes and Flores and the defense of frame-up of death certificates show that they died of asphyxia by strangulation.
appellant Arnaldo were corroborated on some points by the testimonies of some of their
relatives/friends. We have, however, held that alibi and the defense of frame-up become less Withal, the death penalty cannot be imposed on the appellants in view of the passage of
plausible when they are corroborated only by relatives and friends because of perceived Republic Act No. 9346 on 24 June 2006 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty in the
partiality.104 Philippines. In accordance with Sections 2 and 3 thereof, the penalty that should be meted
out to the appellants is reclusion perpetua without the possibility of parole. The Court of
Indeed, the positive and credible testimonies of Abagatnan, Robert and Yao San prevail over Appeals, therefore, acted accordingly in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
the alibis and defense of frame-up of appellants.105 the possibility of parole on each of the appellants.

We shall now determine the propriety of appellants’ conviction for the special complex crime The Court of Appeals was also correct in ordering appellants to jointly and severally pay civil
of kidnapping for ransom with homicide and the corresponding penalties imposed. indemnity and exemplary damages to the Yao family. Nonetheless, their corresponding
amounts should be modified. In People v. Quiachon,110 we explained that even if the death
penalty was not to be imposed on accused because of the prohibition in Republic Act No.
Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of kidnapping is committed with the
9346, the civil indemnity of ₱75,000.00 was still proper, as the said award was not dependent
concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps
on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances
or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention
warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. As
or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following
earlier stated, both the qualifying circumstances of demand for ransom and the double killing
circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b)
or death of two of the kidnap victims were alleged in the information and proven during trial.
it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted upon
Thus, for the twin deaths of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond, their heirs (Yao San, Robert,
the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person
Lenny, Matthew and Charlene) are entitled to a total amount of ₱150,000.00 as civil
kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.106 All of the foregoing elements
indemnity. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public
were duly establish by the testimonial and documentary evidences for the prosecution in the
good.111 In criminal offenses, exemplary damages may be recovered when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or
qualifying.112 Since both the qualifying circumstances of demand for ransom and the killing or
death of two of the kidnap victims (Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond) while in captivity were
alleged in the information and proven during trial, and in order to deter others from
committing the same despicable acts, the award of exemplary damages is proper. The total
amount of ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages should be modified. In several cases,113 we
awarded an amount of ₱100,000.00 to each of the kidnap victims. As in this case, the amount
of ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages should be awarded each to Yao San, Robert, Lenny,
Matthew, Charlene, Abagatnan and Ortea. This makes the total amount of exemplary
damages add up to ₱700,000.00.

The appellate court aptly held that the award of moral damages is warranted. Under Article
2217 of the New Civil Code, moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock and similar injury. Article 2219 of the same
Code provides that moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal detention. There is no
doubt that each member of the Yao family suffered physical and/or psychological trauma
because of the ordeal, especially because two of the family members were ruthlessly killed
during their captivity. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence,114 Yao San, Robert, Lenny,
Matthew, Charlene, Abagatnan and Ortea should each receive the amount of ₱100,000.00 as
moral damages. Per computation, the total amount of moral damages is ₱700,000.00 and not
₱500,000.00 as fixed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals.

Finally, we observed that the RTC and the Court of Appeals denominated the crime
committed by appellants in the present case as the special complex crime of kidnapping for
ransom with double homicide since two of the kidnap victims were killed or died during the
kidnapping. The word "double" should be deleted therein. Regardless of the number of
killings or deaths that occurred as a consequence of the kidnapping, the appropriate
denomination of the crime should be the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom
with homicide.

WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated 14 August 2006, and Resolution, dated 18 October 2006, of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02301 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS: (1) the total amount of civil indemnity is ₱150,000.00; (2) the total amount
of exemplary damages is ₱700,000.00; (3) the total amount of moral damages is
₱700,000.00; and (4) the appropriate denomination of the crime committed by appellants is
the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide.

SO ORDERED.
12. People vs. Chavez On October 28, 2006, Peñamante arrived home at around 2:45 a.m., coming from work as a
janitor in Eastwood City.4 When he was about to go inside his house at 1326 Tuazon Street,
Sampaloc, Manila, he saw a person wearing a black, long-sleeved shirt and black pants and
Every conviction for any crime must be accompanied by the required moral certainty that the holding something while leaving the house/parlor of Elmer Duque (Barbie) at 1325 Tuazon
accused has committed the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must Street, Sampaloc, Manila, just six meters across Peñamante’s house.5
prove "the offender's intent to take personal property before the killing, regardless of the
time when the homicide [was] actually carried out"1 !n order to convict for the crime of There was a light at the left side of the house/parlor of Barbie, his favorite haircutter, so
robbery with homicide. The accused may nevertheless be convi·cted of the separate crime of Peñamante stated that he was able to see the face of Chavez and the clothes he was
homicide once the prosecution establishes beyond reasonable doubt the accused's wearing.6
culpability for the victim's death.
Chavez could not close the door of Barbie’s house/parlor so he simply walked away.
In the information dated November 8, 2006, Mark Jason Chavez y Bitancor (Chavez) was However, he dropped something that he was holding and fell down when he stepped on
charged with the crime of robbery with homicide: it.7 He walked away after, and Peñamante was not able to determine what Chavez was
holding.8 Peñamante then entered his house and went to bed.9
That on or about October 28, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and means of force, Sometime after 10:00 a.m., the Scene of the Crime Office (SOCO) team arrived, led by PCI
violence and intimidation upon the person of ELMER DUQUE y OROS, by then and there, with Cayrel. She was joined by PO3 Rex Maglansi (photographer), PO1 Joel Pelayo (sketcher), and
intent to kill, stabbing the latter repeatedly with a kitchen knife, thereby inflicting upon him a fingerprint technician.10 They conducted an initial survey of the crime scene after
mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter, and coordinating with SPO3 Casimiro of the Manila Police District Homicide Section. 11
on the saidoccasion or by reason thereof, accused took, robbed and carried away the
following: The team noted that the lobby and the parlor were in disarray, and they found Barbie’s dead
body inside.12 They took photographs and collected fingerprints and other pieces of evidence
One (1) Unit Nokia Cellphone such as the 155 pieces of hair strands found clutched in Barbie’s left hand. 13 They
documented the evidence then turned them over to the Western Police District Chemistry
One (1) Unit Motorola Cellphone Division. Dr. Salen was called to conduct an autopsy on the body.14

Six (6) pcs. Ladies Ring At around 11:00 a.m., Peñamante’s landlady woke him up and told him that Barbie was
found dead at 9:00 a.m. He then informed his landlady that he saw Chavez leaving Barbie’s
house at 2:45 a.m.15
Two (2) pcs. Necklace

At around 1:00 p.m., Dr. Salen conducted an autopsy on the body and found that the time of
One (1) pc. Bracelet All of undetermined value and undetermined amount of money, all
death was approximately 12 hours prior to examination.16 There were 22 injuries on Barbie’s
belonging to said ELMER DUQUE y OROS @ BARBIE to the damage and prejudice of the said
body — 21 were stab wounds in various parts of the body caused by a sharp bladed
owner/or his heirs, in the said undetermined amount in Philippines currency.
instrument, and one incised wound was caused by a sharp object.17 Four (4) of the stab
wounds were considered fatal.18
Contrary to law.2
The next day, the police invited Peñamante to the Manila Police Station to give a statement.
Chavez pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on December 4, 2006. The court proceeded Peñamante described to SPO3 Casimiro the physical appearance of the person he saw leaving
to trial. The prosecution presented Angelo Peñamante (Peñamante), P/Chief Inspector Sonia Barbie’s parlor.19
Cayrel (PCI Cayrel), SPO3 Steve Casimiro (SPO3 Casimiro), Dr. Romeo T. Salen (Dr. Salen), and
Raymund Senofa as witnesses. On the other hand, the defense presented Chavez as its sole
Accompanied by his mother, Chavez voluntarily surrendered on November 5, 2006 to SPO3
witness.3
Casimiro at the police station.20 Chavez was then 22 years old.21 His mother told the police
that she wanted to help her son who might be involved in Barbie’s death.22
The facts as found by the lower court are as follows.
SPO3 Casimiro informed them ofthe consequences in executing a written statement without
the assistance of a lawyer. However, Chavez’s mother still gave her statement, subscribed by
Administrative Officer Alex Francisco.23She also surrendered two cellular phones owned by examination.40 He added that affidavits are generally rejected as hearsay unless the affiant
Barbie and a baseball cap owned by Chavez.24 appears before the court and testifies on it.41

The next day, Peñamante was again summoned by SPO3 Casimiro to identify from a line-up Chavez argued that based on Dr. Salen’s findings, Barbie’s wounds were caused by two sharp
the person he saw leaving Barbie’s house/parlor that early morning of October 28, bladed instruments, thus, it was possible that there were two assailants.42 It was also
2006.25 Peñamante immediately pointed to and identified Chavez and thereafter executed possible that the assailants committed the crime after Chavez had left Barbie’s
his written statement.26 There were no issues raised in relation to the line-up. house.43 Given that many possible explanations fit the facts,that which is consistent with the
innocence of Chavez should be favored.44
On the other hand, Chavez explained that he was athome on October 27, 2006, exchanging
text messages withBarbie on whether they could talk regarding their On the other hand, plaintiff-appellee argued that direct evidence is not indispensable when
misunderstanding.27 According to Chavez, Barbie suspected that he was having a relationship the prosecution isestablishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt of Chavez.45 The circumstantial
with Barbie’s boyfriend, Maki.28 When Barbie did not reply to his text message, Chavez evidence presented before the trial court laid down an unbroken chain of events leading to
decided to go to Barbie’s house at around 1:00 a.m. of October 28, 2006.29 Barbie allowed no other conclusion than Chavez’s acts of killing and robbing Barbie.46
him to enter the house, and he went home after.30
On the argument made by Chavez that his mother’s statement was inadmissible as hearsay,
On August 19, 2011, the trial court31 found Chavez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the plaintiff-appellee explained that the trial court did not rely on, and did not even refer to, any
crime of robbery with homicide: of the statements made by Chavez’s mother.47

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds accused MARK JASON CHAVEZ y Finally, insofar as Chavez’s submission that Dr. Salen testified on the possibility that there
BITANCOR @ NOY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with weretwo assailants, Dr. Salen equally testified on the possibility that there was only
Homicideand hereby sentences him to suffer the penaltyof reclusion perpetua without one.48 The sole issue now before us iswhether Chavez is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
eligibility for parole. the crime of robbery with homicide.

Further, he is ordered to pay tothe heirs of the victim, Elmer Duque y Oros the sum of We reverse the decisions of the lower courts, but find Chavez guilty of the crime of homicide.
75,000.00 as death indemnity and another ₱75,000 for moral damages.
I
SO ORDERED.32
Chavez was found guilty of the specialcomplex crime of robbery with homicide under the
On February 27, 2013, the Court of Appeals33 affirmed the trial court’s decision.34 Chavez Revised Penal Code:
then filed a notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 124, Section 13(c) of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended, elevating the case with this court.35 Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties. – Any person
guilty of robberywith the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
This court notified the parties tosimultaneously submit supplemental briefs if they so desire.
Both parties filed manifestationsthat they would merely adopt their briefs before the Court 1) The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
of Appeals.36 the crime of homicide shall have been committed. . . .49

In his brief, Chavez raised presumption of innocence, considering that the trial court Chavez invokes his constitutional right to be presumed innocent, especially since the
"overlooked and misapplied some facts of substance that could have altered its verdict."37 He prosecution’s evidence is purely circumstantial and a conviction must stand on a moral
argued that since the prosecution relied on purely circumstantial evidence, conviction must certainty of guilt.50
rest on a moral certainty of guilt on the part of Chavez.38 In this case, even if Peñamante saw
him leaving Barbie’s house, Peñamante did not specify whether Chavez was acting
The Rules of Court expressly provides that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to
suspiciously at that time.39
establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the conviction of an accused:

As regards his mother’s statement,Chavez argued its inadmissibility as evidence since his
SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. – Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
mother was not presented before the court to give the defense an opportunity for cross-
conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance; The circumstantial evidence relied on by the lower courts, as quoted previously, do not
satisfactorily establish an original criminal design by Chavez to commit robbery.
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
At most, the intent to take personal property was mentioned by Chavez’s mother in her
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction statement as follows:
beyond reasonable doubt.51
Na si Noy na aking anak ay nagtapat sa akin tungkol sa kanyang kinalaman sa pagkamatay ni
The lower courts found that the circumstantial evidence laid down by the prosecution led to Barbie at kasabay ang pagbigay sa akin ng dalawang (2) piraso ng cellular phones na pag/aari
no other conclusion than the commission by Chavez of the crime charged: [sic] ni Barbie na kanyang kinuha pagka/tapos [sic] ng insidente.

In the instant case, while there is no direct evidence showing that the accused robbed and Na ipinagtapat din sa akin ni Noy na ang ginamit na panaksak na isang kutsilyo na gamit
fatally stabbed the victim to death, nonetheless, the Court believes that the following namin sabahay ay inihulog niya sa manhole sa tapat ng aming bahay matapos ang insidente.
circumstances form a solid and unbroken chain of events that leads to the conclusion,
beyond reasonable doubt, that accused Mark Jason Chavez y Bitancor @ Noy committed the At ang isang piraso ng kwintas na kinuha rin nya mula kay Barbie ay naisanla niya sa isang
crime charged, vi[z]: first, it has been duly established, as the accused himself admits, that he sanglaan sa Quezon City.
went to the parlor of the victim at around 1:00 o’clock in the morning of 28 October 2006
and the accused was allowed by the victim to get inside his parlor as it serves as his residence Na ang suot niyang tsinelas ay nag/iwan [sic] ng bakas sa pinangyarihan ng insidente. At sya
too; second, the victim’s two (2) units of cellular phones (one red Nokia with model 3310 and rin ang nakasugat sa kanyang sariling kamay ng [sic] maganap ang insidente.
the other one is a black Motorola) without sim cards and batteries, which were declared as
partof the missing personal belongings of the victim, were handled to SPO3 Steve Casimiro by
Na sinabi niya sa akin na wala siyang intensyon na patayin [sic] si Barbie kundi ay
the mother of the accused, Anjanette C. Tobias on 05 November 2006 when the accused
pagnakawan lamang.56(Emphasis supplied)
voluntarily surrendered, accompanied by his mother, at the police station: third, on 28
October 2006 at about 2:45 o’clock in the morning, witness Angelo Peñamante, who arrived
from his work, saw a person holding and/or carrying something and about toget out of the However, this statement is considered as hearsay, with no evidentiary value, since Chavez’s
door of the house of the victim located at 1325 G. Tuazon Street, Sampaloc, Manila, and mother was never presented as a witness during trial to testify on her statement. 57
trying to close the door but the said person was not able to successfully do so. He later
positively identified the said person at the police station as MARK JASON CHAVEZ y An original criminal design to take personal property is also inconsistent with the infliction of
BITANCOR @ NOY, the accused herein; and finally, the time when the accused decided on 27 no less than 21 stab wounds in various parts of Barbie’s body.58
October 2006 to patch up things with the victim and the circumstances (Dr. Salen’s testimony
that the body of the victim was dead for more or less twelve (12) hours) when the latter was The number of stab wounds inflicted on a victim has been used by this court in its
discovered fatally killed on 28 October 2006 is not a co-incidence. determination of the nature and circumstances of the crime committed.

The prosecution has equally established, based on the same circumstantial evidence, that the This may show an intention to ensure the death of the victim. In a case where the victim
accused had indeed killed the victim.52 sustained a total of 36 stab wounds in his front and back, this court noted that "this number
of stab wounds inflicted on the victim is a strong indication that appellants made sure of the
Factual findings by the trial court on its appreciation of evidence presented by the parties, success of their effort to kill the victim without risk to themselves."59
and even its conclusions derived from the findings, are generally given great respect and
conclusive effect by this court, more so when these factual findings are affirmed by the Court This court has also looked into the number and gravity of the wounds sustained by the victim
of Appeals.53 as indicative ofthe accused’s intention to kill the victim and not merely to defend himself or
others.60
Nevertheless, this court has held that "[w]hat is imperative and essential for a conviction for
the crime of robbery with homicide is for the prosecution to establish the offender’s intent to In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, homicide is committed in order "(a)
take personal property before the killing, regardless of the time when the homicide is to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the
actually carried out."54 In cases when the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) to
homicide was committed for the purpose of robbing the victim, no accused can be convicted eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime."61 21 stab wounds would be overkill for
of robbery with homicide.55
these purposes. The sheer number of stab wounds inflicted on Barbie makes it difficult to This court has considered motive as one of the factors in determining the presence of an
conclude an original criminal intent of merely taking Barbie’s personal property. intent to kill,67 and a confrontation with the victim immediately prior to the victim’sdeath has
been considered as circumstantial evidence for homicide.68
In People v. Sanchez,62 this court found accused-appellant liable for the separate crimes of
homicide and theft for failure of the prosecution to conclusively prove that homicide was Second, the number of stab wounds inflicted on Barbie strengthens an intention to kill and
committed for the purpose of robbing the victim: ensures his death.The prosecution proved that there was a total of 22 stab wounds found
indifferent parts of Barbie’s body and that a kitchen knife was found in a manhole near
But from the record of this case, we find that the prosecution palpably failed to substantiate Chavez’s house at No. 536, 5th Street, San Beda, San Miguel, Manila.69
its allegations of the presence of criminal design to commit robbery, independent ofthe
intent to commit homicide. There is no evidence showing that the death of the victim The Court of Appeals’ recitation of facts quoted the statement of Chavez’s mother. This
occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The prosecution was silent on accused- provides, among others, her son’s confession for stabbing Barbie and throwing the knife used
appellant’s primary criminal intent. Did he intend to kill the victim in order to steal the cash in a manhole near their house:
and the necklace? Or did he intend only to kill the victim, the taking of the latter’s personal
property being merely an afterthought? Where the homicide is notconclusively shown to Na si Noy na aking anak ay nagtapat sa akin tungkol sa kanyang kinalaman sa pagkamatay ni
have been committed for the purpose of robbing the victim, or where the robbery was not Barbie at kasabay ang pagbigay sa akin ng dalawang (2) piraso ng cellular phones na pag/aari
proven at all, there can be no conviction for robo con homicidio.63 [sic] ni Barbie na kanyang kinuha pagka/tapos [sic] ng insidente.

II Na ipinagtapat din sa akin ni Noy na ang ginamit na panaksak na isang kutsilyo na gamit
namin sa bahay ay inihulog niya sa manhole sa tapat ng aming bahay matapos ang insidente.
This court finds that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Chavez for
the separate crime of homicide. At ang isang piraso ng kwintas nakinuha rin nya mula kay Barbie ay naisanla niya sa isang
sanglaan sa Quezon City.
First, the alibi of Chavez still placeshim at the scene of the crime that early morning of
October 28, 2006. Na ang suot niyang tsinelas ay nag/iwan [sic] ng bakas sa pinangyarihan ng insidente. At sya
rin ang nakasugat sa kanyang sariling kamay ng [sic] maganap ang insidente.
The victim, Elmer Duque, went by the nickname, Barbie, and he had a boyfriend named Maki.
Nevertheless, Chavez described his friendship with Barbie to be "[w]e’re like brothers." 64 He Na sinabi niya sa akin na wala siyang intensyon na patayin [sic] si Barbie kundi ay
testified during cross-examination that he was a frequent visitor at Barbie’s parlor that he pagnakawan lamang.70(Emphasis supplied)
cannot recall how many times he had been there.65 This speaks of a close relationship
between Chavez and Barbie.
Even if this statement was not taken into account for being hearsay, further investigation
conducted still led tothe unearthing of the kitchen knife with a hair strand from a manhole
Chavez testified that he went to Barbie’s house at 1:00 in the morning of October 28, 2006 to near Chavez’s house.71
settle his misunderstanding with Barbie who suspected him of having a relationship with
Barbie’s boyfriend:
Third, no reason exists to disturb the lower court’s factual findings giving credence to 1)
Peñamante’s positive identification of Chavez as the person leaving Barbie’s house that early
MARK JASON CHAVEZ was a friend to the victim, Barbie, for almost three (3) years and the morning of October 28, 200672 and 2) the medico-legal’s testimony establishing Barbie’s time
two (2) treated each other like brothers. The latter, however, suspected Mark Jason of having of death as 12 hours prior to autopsy at 1:00 p.m., thus, narrowing the time of death to
a relationship with Maki Añover, Barbie’s boyfriend for six (6) months, which resulted in a approximately 1:00 a.m. of the same day, October 28, 2006.73
misunderstanding between them. Mark Jason tried to patch things up with Barbie so thru a
text message he sent on the evening of 27 October 2006, he asked if they could talk. When
All these circumstances taken together establish Chavez’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for
Barbie did not reply, he decided to visit him at his parlor at around 1:00 o’clock in the
the crime of homicide.
morning. Barbie let him in and they tried to talk about the situation between them. Their rift,
however, was not fixed so he decided to gohome. Later on, he learned that Barbie was
already dead.66 III
There is a disputable presumption that "a person found in possession of a thing taken in the pawned one of Barbie’s necklaces ["At ang isang piraso ng kwintas na kinuha rin nya mula kay
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, Barbie ay naisanla niya sa isang sanglaan sa Quezon City"80 ], but, as earlier discussed, this
thatthing which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by statement is mere hearsay.
him."74 Thus, when a person has possession of a stolen property, hecan be disputably
presumed as the author of the theft.75 In any case, the penalty for the crime of theft is based on the value of the stolen items.81 The
lower court made no factual findings on the value of the missing items enumerated in the
Barbie’s missing cellular phones were turned over to the police by Chavez’s mother, and this information — one Nokia cellphone unit, one Motorola cellphone unit, six pieces ladies ring,
was never denied by the defense.76 Chavez failed to explain his possession of these cellular two pieces necklace, and one bracelet.
phones.77 The Court of Appeals discussed that "a cellular phone has become a necessary
accessory, no person would part with the same for a long period of time, especially in this At most, prosecution witness Raymund Senofa, a town mate of Barbie, testified that he could
case as it involves an expensive cellular phone unit, as testified by Barbie’s kababayan, not remember the model of the Motorola fliptype cellphone he saw used by Barbie but that
witness Raymond Seno[f]a."78 he knew it was worth 19,000.00 more or less.82 This amounts to hearsay as he has no
personal knowledge on how Barbie acquired the cellphone or for how much.
However, with Chavez and Barbie’s close relationship having been established, there is still a
possibilitythat these cellphones were lent to Chavez by Barbie. These circumstances create reasonable doubt on the allegation that Chavez stole the missing
personal properties of Barbie.
The integrity of these cellphones was also compromised when SPO3 Casimiro testified during
cross-examination that the police made no markings on the cellphones, and their SIM cards It is contrary to human nature for a mother to voluntarily surrender her own son and confess
were removed. that her son committed a heinous crime.

Q: But you did not place any marking on the cellphone, Mr. witness? Chavez was 22 years old, no longer a minor, when he voluntarily went to the police station
on November 5, 2006 for investigation,83 and his mother accompanied him. SPO3 Casimiro
A: No, sir. testified that the reason she surrendered Chavez was because "she wanted to help her
son"84 and "perhaps the accused felt that [the investigating police] are getting nearer to
Atty. Villanueva: No further questions, Your Honor. him."85 Nevertheless, during cross-examination, SPO3 Casimiro testified:

Court: When you received the items,there were no markings also? Q: Regarding the mother, Mr. witness, did I get you right that when the mother brought her
son, according to you she tried to help her son, is that correct?
Witness: No, Your Honor.
A: That is the word I remember, sir.
Court: The cellular phones, were they complete with the sim cards and the batteries?
Q: Of course, said help you do notknow exactly what she meant by that?
A: There’s no sim card, Your Honor.
A: Yes, sir.
Q; No sim card and batteries?
Q: It could mean that she is trying to help her son to be cleared from this alleged crime, Mr.
witness?
A; Yes, Your Honor.

A: Maybe, sir.86
Q: No markings when you receivedand you did not place markings when these were turned
over to the Public Prosecutor, no markings?
Chavez’s mother "turned-over (2) units of Cellular-phones and averred that her son Mark
Jason told her that said cellphones belong[ed] to victim Barbie. . . [that] NOY was wounded in
A: No markings, Your Honor.79
the incident and that the fatal weapon was put in a manhole infront[sic] of their
residence."87 The records are silent on whether Chavez objected to his mother’s statements.
The other missing items were no longer found, and no evidence was presented to conclude
that these weretaken by Chavez. The statement of Chavez’s mother mentioned that her son
The records also do not show why the police proceeded to get his mother’s testimony as The Miranda rightswere incorporated in our Constitution but were modified to include the
opposed to getting Chavez’s testimony on his voluntary surrender. statement thatany waiver of the right to counsel must be made "in writing and in the
presence of counsel."93
At most, the lower court found thatChavez’s mother was informed by the investigating
officer at the police station of the consequences in executing a written statement withoutthe The invocation of these rights applies during custodial investigation, which begins "when the
assistance of a lawyer.88 She proceeded to give her statement dated November 7, 2006 on police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun
her son’s confession of the crime despite the warning.89 SPO3 Casimiro testified during his tofocus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation
cross-examination: and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements." 94

Q: Do you remember if anybody assisted this Anjanette Tobias when she executed this It may appear that the Miranda rightsonly apply when one is "taken into custody by the
Affidavit you mentioned? police," such as during an arrest. These rights are intended to protect ordinary citizens from
the pressures of a custodial setting:
A: She was with some neighbors.
The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda are to ensure that the police do not
Atty. Villanueva coerce or trick captive suspects into confessing, to relieve the "inherently compelling
pressures" "generated by the custodial setting itself," "which work to undermine the
individual’s will to resist," and as much as possible to free courts from the task of scrutinizing
Q: How about a lawyer, Mr. Witness?
individual cases to try to determine, after the fact, whether particular confessions were
voluntary. Those purposes are implicated as much by in-custody questioning of persons
A: None, sir. suspected of misdemeanours as they are by questioning of persons suspected of
felonies.95 (Emphasis supplied)
Q: So, in other words, no lawyer informed her of the consequence of her act of executing an
Affidavit? Republic Act No. 743896 expanded the definition of custodial investigation to "include the
practice ofissuing an ‘invitation’ to a person who is investigated in connection with an
A: We somehow informed her of what will be the consequences of that statement, sir. offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the ‘inviting’
officer for any violation of law."97
Q: So, you and your police officer colleague at the time?
This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer must be
A: Yes, sir.90 apprised of their Miranda rights. For one, the same pressures of a custodial setting exist in
this scenario. Chavez is also being questioned by an investigating officer ina police station. As
an additional pressure, he may have been compelled to surrender by his mother who
The booking sheet and arrest report states that "when [the accused was] appraised [sic] of accompanied him to the police station.
his constitutional rights and nature of charges imputed against him, accused opted to remain
silent."91 This booking sheet and arrest report is also dated November 7, 2006, or two days
after Chavez, accompanied by his mother, had voluntarily gone to the police station. This court, thus, finds that the circumstantial evidence sufficiently proves beyond reasonable
doubt that Chavez is guilty of the crime of homicide, and not the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide.
The right to counsel upon being questioned for the commission of a crime is part of the
Miranda rights, which require that:
On the service of Chavez’s sentence, the trial court issued the order dated November 14,
2006 in that "as prayed for, the said police officer is hereby ordered to immediately commit
. . . (a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent; (b) anything he accused, Mark Jason Chavez y Bitancor @ Noy to the Manila City Jail and shall be detained
says can and will be used against him in a court of law; (c) he has the right totalk to an thereat pending trial of this case and/or untilfurther orders from this court."98 The order of
attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned; commitment dated September 28, 2011 was issued after his trial court conviction in the
and (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so decision dated August 19, 2011.
desires.92
Chavez has been under preventive detention since November 14, 2006, during the pendency victim. Neither was there a comparison made between these strands of hair and Chavez’s.
of the trial.1âwphi1 This period may be credited in the service of his sentence pursuant to There was no report regarding any finding of traces of blood on the kitchen knife recovered,
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended: and no matching with the blood of the victim or Chavez’s. The results of this case would have
been rendered with more confidence at the trial court level had all these been done. In many
ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment.– cases, eyewitness testimony may not be as reliable — or would have been belied — had
Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the object evidence been properly handled and presented.
service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which
they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in We deal with the life of a personhere. Everyone’s life — whether it be the victim’s or the
writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel to accused’s — is valuable. The Constitution and our laws hold these lives in high esteem.
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the Therefore, investigations such as these should have been attended with
following cases: greaterprofessionalism and more dedicated attention to detail by our law enforcers. The
quality of every conviction depends on the evidence gathered, analyzed, and presented
1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more before the courts. The public’s confidence on our criminal justice system depends on the
times of any crime; and quality of the convictions we promulgate against the accused. All those who participate in
our criminal justice system should realize this and take this to heart.
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have
failed to surrender voluntarily. WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Mark Jason
Chavez y Bitancor alias "Noy" is hereby declared GUILTYbeyond reasonable doubt of the
separate and distinct crime of HOMICIDE. Inasmuch as the commission of the crime was not
If the detention prisoner does notagree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
attended by any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, accused-appellant Chavez is hereby
convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel and shall be
SENTENCEDto suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of
credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has
prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
undergone preventive imprisonment.
temporal, as maximum.

Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted
Accused-appellant Chavez's period of detention shall be deducted if consistent with Article
from thirty (30) years.
29 of the Revised Penal Code.

Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the
SO ORDERED.
possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and
his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review.
Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under this
paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance:
Provided, however, That if the accused is absent without justifiable cause at any stage of the
trial, the court may motu proprio order the rearrest of the accused: Provided, finally, That
recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are
excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused
may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive
imprisonment.99

Finally, this court laments thatobject evidence retrieved from the scene of the crime were
not properly handled, and no results coming from the forensic examinations were presented
to the court. There was no examination of the fingerprints found on the kitchen knife
retrieved from the manhole near the house of Chavez.100 There were no results of the DNA
examination done on the hair strands found with the knife and those in the clutches of the
13. People vs. Olvis The four accused entered Identical "not guilty" pleas.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court to Zamboanga Del Norte sitting After trial, the court a quo rendered the decision under appeal, the dispositive portion
in Dipolog City. 1 The case was certified to this Court on January 19, 1985 following the death whereof reads as follows:
sentences imposed on each of the three accused-appellants, Romulo Villarojo, Leonardo
Cademas, and Dominador Sorela (the accused first-named, Anacleto Olvis, was acquitted), FOREGOING CONSIDERED, and on the part of accused ANACLETO Q.
over which, under the Constitution then in force, 2 we exercised exclusive appellate OLVIS, SR., there being no evidence, direct or indirect, whether
jurisdiction. 3 With the promulgation of the 1987 Charter, abolishing the death penalty and testimonial, documentary or physical evidence, that tend to establish his
commuting death penalties already imposed to reclusion perpetua 4 we, on May 14, 1987, complicity in this case, said accused has to be, as he hereby is,
issued a death penalty abolition resolution requiring the three accused-appellants to file a ACQUITTED.
statement, personally signed by them with the assistance of counsel, stating whether or not
they wished to continue with the case as an appealed case. 5 We have since observed this
On the part of the three (3) remaining accused ROMULO VILLAROJO,
procedure with respect to all pending capital cases.
LEONARDO CADEMAS, and DOMINADOR SORELA, the degree of moral,
certainty establishing their authorship of the crime is irreversibly positive.
In compliance with our resolution, the three accused-appellants, on May 28, 1987, filed a The three (3) accused conspired and confederated with one another to
statement informing us that they desire to continue with this case as an appealed case. 6 successfully achieve their ghastly, evil ends. Their guilt has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
This appeal stemmed from an information dated November 11, 1976 charging all four
accused with the murder of Discredit Bagon. The same reads as follows: Treachery and evident premeditation are qualifying circumstances in this
case of MURDER. But said offense was attended by the aggravating
xxx xxx xxx circumstances of superior strength and nighttime. No mitigating
circumstance has been shown to offset the two (2) aggravating
The undersigned First Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses ANACLETO Q. circumstances, as a consequence of which, the Court hereby renders
OLVIS, as principal by inducement, ROMULO VILLAROJO, LEONARDO judgment sentencing the accused ROMULO VILLAROJO, LEONARDO
CADEMAS and DOMINADOR SORELA, as principals by direct participation, CADEMAS, and DOMINADOR SORELA, to suffer the maximum penalty of
of the crime of murder, committed as follows: DEATH.

That in the evening on or about the 7th day of September 1975, in title SO ORDERED. 8
Municipality of Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, consprising and We come to the facts.
confederating with one another and acting upon the direction and
instruction of ANACLETO Q. OLVIS who mastermind the bizarre plot and On September 9, 1975, Alfredo and Estrella Bagon, brother and sister, arrived at the local
directly induced ROMULO VILLAROJO, LEONARDO CADEMAS and Integrated National Police station of Barrio Polanco, in Zamboanga del Norte, to report their
DOMINADOR SORELA to execute the conspiracy and who, armed with brother, Deosdedit Bagon, missing. The station commander, Captain Ruperto Encabo,
boloes and a hunting knife, with intent to kill by means of treachery and received their report.
evident premeditation, and for a consideration of a price or reward, did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack
Bagon had been in fact missing since two days before. He was last seen by his wife in the
and stab one DISCREDIT BAGON, thereby inflicting upon him multiple inc.
afternoon of September 7, 1975, on his way home to Sitio Sebaca where they resided. She
(hack) and stab wounds which caused his instantaneous death.
did three probable places, but her efforts were in vain.

CONTRARY TO LAW, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and


It was Captain Encabo himself who led a search party to mount an inquiry. As a matter of
evident premeditation and the generic aggravating circumstances of
police procedure, the team headed off to Sitio Sebaca to question possible witnesses. There,
superior strength, nighttime and in consideration of a price or reward. 7
Captain Encabo's men chanced upon an unnamed volunteer, who informed them that
Deosdedit Bagon was last seen together with Dominador Sorela, one of the accused herein.
xxx xxx xxx
Encabo then instructed one of his patrolmen to pick up Sorela.
Sorela bore several scratches on his face, neck and arms when the police found him. The investigation yielded several effects of the offense: a twenty-inch long bolo, the shovel
According to him, he sustained those wounds while clearing his ricefield. Apparently used to inter the victim's remains, a nylon rope with which the dead body was tied, and the
unconvinced. Captain Encabo had Sorela take them to the ricefield where he sustained his sack itself.
injuries. But half way there, Sorela illegally broke down, and, in what would apparently crack
the case for the police, admitted having participated in the killing of the missing Bagon. By Initial findings of investigators disclosed that the threesome of Solero, Villarojo, and Cademas
then, the police of Polanco knew that they had a murder case in their hands. Sorela allegedly executed Discredit Bagon on orders of Anacleto Olvis, then Polanco municipal mayor, for a
confessed having been with Deosdedit Bagon, a friend of his, in the evening of September 7, reward of P3,000.00 each.
1976 in Sitio Sebaca after some marketing. They were met by Romulo Villarojo and Leonardo
Cademas, Sorela's co-accused herein and likewise friends of the deceased, who led them to a
While in custody, the three executed five separate written confessions each. The first
secluded place in the ricefields. It does not appear from the records how the three were able
confessions were taken on September 9, 1975 in the local Philippine Constabulary
to have the deceased join them.
headquarters. The second were made before the Polanco police. On September 18, 1975, the
three accused reiterated the same confessions before the National Bureau of Investigation
It was then that Villarojo allegedly attacked Bagon with a bolo, hacking him at several parts Dipolog City sub-office. On September 21, 1975 and September 25, 1975, they executed two
of the body until he, Bagon, was dead. Moments later, Sorela fled, running into thick cogon confessions more, again before the Philippine Constabulary and the police of Polanco.
grasses where he suffered facial and bodily scratches.
In their confessions of September 9, 1975, September 14, 1975, September 21, 1975, and
The police soon picked up Villarojo and Cademas. Together with Sorela, they were turned September 25, 1975, the said accused again pointed to the then accused Anacleto Olvis as
over to the custody of Captain Encabo. principal by inducement, who allegedly promised them a reward of P3,000.00 each.

The police thereafter made the three re-enact the crime. Patrolman Dionisio Capito directed In their confessions of September 18, 1975, sworn before agents of the National Bureau of
Sorela to lead them to the grounds where Discredit Bagon was supposed to have been Investigation, however, they categorically denied Olvis' involvement in the knowing. We note
buried. But it was Villarojo who escorted them to a watery spot somewhere in the ricefields, that the three were transported to the Dipolog City NBI sub-office following a request on
where the sack-covered, decomposing cadaver of Bagon lay in a shallow grave. September 10, 1975 by Mrs. Diolinda O. Adaro daughter of Olvis, and upon complaint by her
of harassment against her father by his supposed political enemies.
The actual exhumation of the body of the victim was witnessed by Polanco policemen and
Civilian Home Defense Forces volunteers, numbering about thirty. The body was transported Based on these subsequent statements, the court a quo rendered separate verdicts on the
to the Polanco municipal hand the following day, September 10, 1975. It was displayed, three accused on the one hand, and Anacleto Olvis on the other. As earlier stated Olvis was
morbidly, in front of the building where Mrs. Catalina Bagon, widow of the deceased, and her acquitted, while the three were all sentenced to die for the crime of murder.
four children viewed it. The exhumation, as well as the transfer of Bagon's cadaver, were
captured by the lens of a photographer. (Exhibits "I", "J", "K", its "L", "M", and "N").
In acquitting Olvis, the trial court rejected the three accused's earlier confessions pointing to
him as the mastermind, and denied the admissibility thereof insofar as far as he was
The "ceremonies" continued in the parish church of the Polanco, where the body of the concerned. It rejected claims of witnesses that the three accused-appellants would carry out
victim was transferred. It was laid on the altar, in full public view. Again the proceedings were Olvis' alleged order to kill Bagon upon an offer of a reward when in fact no money changed
recorded by the camera of a photographer. (Exhibits "R", "S".) hands. It likewise noted that Olvis had, two days after the murder, been in Cebu City, and
who, upon arriving in Dipolog City, was in fact informed by the Philippine Constabulary that
But it was only later on that the body itself was uncovered from the sack that had concealed he was a "wanted" man, "to which said accused (Olvis) meekly complied" 9 (that is, he
it. (Exhibits "T", "U", "VIP.) Thereupon, it was readied for autopsy. assented, ambiguously, to the remark). According to the court, this was inconsistent with a
guilty mind.
The necropsy report prepared by the provincial health officer disclosed that the deceased
suffered twelve stab and hack wounds, six of which were determined to be fatal. The court repudiated claims that Olvis had motives to do away with the deceased arising
from alleged attempts on his (Olvis') part to eject the deceased from his landholding (the
In the re-enactment, the suspects, the three accused herein, demonstrated how the victim deceased having been a tenant of his), the case in fact having reached the then Ministry of
was boloed to death. Exhibit "Y," a photograph, shows the appellant Villarojo in the posture Agrarian Reform. It dismissed insinuations that his children had a score to settle with the
of raising a bolo as if to strike another, while Solero and Cademas look on. Exhibit "X", victim, who had earlier brought a physical injuries suit against the former, that case having
another photograph, portrays Villarojo in the act of concealing the murder weapon behind a been dismissed. It observed, furthermore, that he was not questioned by the police after the
banana tree, apparently after having done the victim in. killing, notwithstanding efforts by the three herein accused-appellants to implicate him. It
relied, finally, on the retraction of the accused themselves, absolving Olvis of any liability. It
was satisfied, overall, that he had a "clean bill of health" 10 in connection with the murder For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make
case. them aware of — the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as
to its exercise.
With the acquittal of Olvis, we are left with the murder cases against the three accused-
appellants. The accused-appellants subsequently repudiated their alleged confessions in More important, such a warning is an absolute pre-requisite in
open court alleging threats by the Polanco investigators of physical harm if they refused to overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere
"cooperate" in the solution of the case. They likewise alleged that they were instructed by
the Polanco police investigators to implicate Anacieto Olvis in the case. They insisted on their Further, the warning will show the individual that his interrogators are
innocence. The acused Romulo Villarojo averred, specifically, that it was the deceased who prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it . . .
had sought to kill him, for which he acted in self-defense.
The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the
The murder of Deosdedit Bagon was witnessed by no other person. The police of Polanco had explanation that anything said can and WW be used against the individual
but the three accused-appellants' statements to support its claiming. The fundamental issue in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of
then is whether or not these statements, as any extrajudicial confession confronting us, can the privilege, but also of the consequences of foregoing it . . .
stand up in court.
An individual need not make a pre-interrogation request for a lawyer.
We hold that, based on the recorded evidence, the three accused-appellants' extrajudicial While such request affirmatively secures his right to have one, his failure
confessions are inadmissible in evidence. to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver. No effective waiver of
the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless
It was on May 7, 1987 that we promulgated People v. Decierdo.11 In that decision, we laid specifically made after the warnings we here delineate have been given.
down the rule with respect to extrajudicial confessions: The accused who does not know his rights and therefore does not make a
request may be the person who most needs Counsel
xxx xxx xxx
If an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of counsel before
... Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a any interrogation occurs, the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny
right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as his request on the basis that the individual does not have or cannot
evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an afford a retained attorney . . .
attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant, may waive
effectuation of indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights
that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be under this system then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has
no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any the right to consult with an attorney, but also that ff. he is indigent a
manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not lawyer will be appointed to represent him . . .
question him The mere fact that he may have answered some questions
or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear, If the
right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during
converted with an attorney and thereafter consent to be questioned. questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation impose
cease. . . If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that
xxx xxx xxx he wants one before speaking to policy, they must respect his decision to
remain silent . . .
In People v. Duero, we added:
If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a
xxx xxx xxx statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to
demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his
privilege against self-incriminate tion and his right to retained or
At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation,
appointed counsel ... 12
he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the
right to remain silent.
xxx xxx xxx This should be distinguished, parenthetically, from mechanical acts the accused is made to
execute not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes
Like the Decierdo confessions, the confessions in the case at bar suffer from a Constitutional determinable by simple observation. This includes requiring the accused to submit to a test
infirmity. In their supposed statements dated September 9, 14, and 21, 1975, the accused- to extract virus from his body, 22 or compelling him to expectorate morphine from his
appellants were not assisted by counsel when they "waived" their rights to counsel. As we mouth 23 or making her submit to a pregnancy test 24 or a footprinting test, 25 or requiring
said in Decierdo, the lack of counsel "makes [those] statement[s], in contemplation of law, him to take part in a police lineup in certain cases." In each case, the accused does not speak
'involuntary,' even if it were otherwise voluntary, technically." 13 his guilt. It is not a prerequisite therefore that he be provided with the guiding hand of
counsel.
With reset to the confessions of September 18, 197 5, while it is stated therein that this
Office had just requested the services of Atty. NARVARO VELAR NAVARRO of the Citizens But a forced re-enactment is quite another thing. Here, the accused is not merely required to
Legal Assistance Office, Department of Justice, Dipolog District Office, are you wining to exhibit some physical characteristics; by and large, he is made to admit criminal responsibility
accept the legal assistance of Atty. NAVARRO to handle your case, 14 the same nonetheless against his will. It is a police procedure just as condemnable as an uncounselled confession.
call for a similar rejection. There is nothing there that would show that Atty. Navarro was the
accused-appellants' counsel of choice (specifically, the appellant Romulo Villarojo who Accordingly, we hold that all evidence based on such a re-enactment to be in violation of the
admitted therein having been the bolo-wielder). On the contrary, it is clear therefrom that Constitution and hence, incompetent evidence.
Atty. Navarro was summoned by the NBI. He cannot therefore be said to have been acting on
behalf of the accused-appellants when he lent his presence at the confession proceedings. It should be furthermore observed that the three accused-appellants were in police custody
What we said in People v. Galit, 15 applies with like force here: when they took part in the re-enactment in question. It is under such circumstances that the
Constitution holds a strict application. As for the accused Dominador Sorela, we cannot
No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence accept the trial judge's finding that he acted "with unexpected spontaneity" 27 when he
of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, allegedly "spilled the beans 28 before the law enforcers on September 9, 1975. What is to be
or appointed by the court upon petition either of the dead 16 trainee borne in mind is that Sorela was himself under custody. Any statement he might have made
himself or by anyone on his behalf. 16 thereafter is therefore subject to the Constitutional guaranty.

We cast aside, for the same reason, the confessions of September 25, 1975. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
But the accused-appellants were denied their right to counsel not once, but twice. We refer otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. 29
to the forced re-enactment of the crime the three accused were made to perform shortly
after their apprehension. We indeed doubt whether Sorela's admissions, under the circumstances, were truly his
voluntary statements Chavez v. Court of Appeals 30 tells us:
Forced re-enactments, like uncounselled and coerced confessions come within the ban
against self- incrimination. The 1973 Constitution, the Charter prevailing at the time of the Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use
proceedings below, says: of violence; it may be the product of unintentional statements. Pressure
which operates to overbear his will disable him from making a free and
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 17 rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our
opinion be sufficient. So is moral coercion "tending to force testimony
from the unwilling lips of the defendant. 31
This constitutional privilege has been defined as a protection against testimonial
compulsion, 18 but this has since been extended to any evidence "communicative in
nature" 19 acquired under circumstances of duress. Essentially, the right is meant to "avoid In such a case, he should have been provided with counsel.
and prohibit positively the repetition and recurrence of the certainly inhuman procedure of
competing a person, in a criminal or any other case, to furnish the missing evidence Indeed, the three accused-appellants had languished in jail for one year and two months
necessary for his conviction." 20 This was the lesson learned from the ancient days of the before the information was filed, and only after they had gone to court on an application
inquisition in which accusation was equivalent to guilt. 21 Thus, an act, whether testimonial or for habeas corpus. For if the authorities truly had a case in their hands, we are puzzled why
passive, that would amount to disclosure of incriminatory facts is covered by the inhibition of they, the accused, had to be made to suffer preventive imprisonment for quite an enormous
the Constitution. length of time.
What is more, there are striking aspects in the case that we find distressing. For one, there Villarojo's admission inflicting the fatal wounds upon the deceased is binding on him. 38 But it
was no trace of grief upon the faces of the deceased's bereaved relatives, more so his widow is still our business to see whether his defense can stand scrutiny.
and children, upon witnessing his cadaver-wrapped in a sack and all — although it was
supposedly the first time that they saw his remains after two days of frantic The records will disclose that the deceased suffered twelve assorted wounds caused by a
search. 32 Exhibits "K", "L", "M", "N", and "R", for another, depict the deceased's relatives in sharp instrument. The assault severed his right hand and left his head almost separated from
fixed poses, while the deceased's corpse lay in the foreground. 33 his body. This indicates a serious intent to kill, rather than self-defense. 39

Moreover, the victim was transferred to the municipal hand building and then subsequently, In finding that Villarojo did take the life of the victim, we cannot, however, appreciate
to the parish church, again, for a photographing session — unusual procedure — when the superior strength or nocturnity. These qualifying circumstances were considered by the
perfunctory police procedure should have been to bring the corpse to the health officer for court a quo on the basis of the extrajudicial statements executed by the accused, statements
autopsy. we reject for the reasons earlier discussed. In the absence of any other proof, the severity
and number of wounds sustained by the deceased are not, by themselves, sufficient proof to
It was in fact only on September 10, 1975 that Discredit Bagon's remains were unwrapped, at warrant the appreciation of the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
the parish church at that, as if pursuant to a script or as part of some eerie ceremony. strength. Hence, Villarojo should be liable for plain homicide.

To the mind of, this Court, the disposition of the case was characterized by unusual WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered modifying the Decision dated November 30,
grandstanding, for reasons as yet unclear to us. It leaves us with an uncomfortable 1984. The accused-appellants Leonardo Cademas and Dominador Sorela are ACQUITTED on
impression that each scene was an act in some contrived tragedy. the ground of reasonable doubt. The accused-appellant Romulo Villarojo is found guilty of
homicide, and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day
We likewise find the authorities' haste in securing the accused Anacleto Olvis' acquittal, at of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion
the expense of the present three accused, quite disconcerting. It should be noted that the temporal, as maximum. He is furthermore ordered to indemnify the heirs of Discredit Bagon
three appellants had initially implicated Olvis as the mastermind. Yet, Olvis was never invited in the sum of P30,000.00. No special pronouncement as to costs.
for the usual questioning.

To us, there is more to Exhibit "20," the request to transfer Olvis' case to the jurisdiction of
the National Bureau of Investigation for reinvestigation, than meets the eye. As it happened,
happily for Olvis, the three accused-appellants while under NBI custody, retracted their
earlier statements indicting him as a co-conspirator. Why the NBI should intervene in the
case when the Polanco police had apparently "solved" it, is, in the first place, suspicious
enough, but why the three appellants should, in an instant, make a turn-about there leaves
us even more disturbed.

15. People vs Ayson


While we do not challenge the verdict by acquittal rendered in favor of Olvis, for it is not
within our power to overturn acquittals, 34 what is our concern is the apparent design to use
three ill-lettered peasants, 35 the three herein accused, as fall guys in an evident network of What has given rise to the controversy at bar is the equation by the respondent Judge of the
political intrigue. right of an individual not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself" accorded by
Section 20, Article III of the Constitution, with the right of any person "under investigation for
the commission of an offense . . . to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such
Still, we are not prepared to hand down a judgment of acquittal upon all the three accused-
right," granted by the same provision. The relevant facts are not disputed.
appellants.

Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL),
In his counter-affidavit, 36 marked as Exhibit "44-A" for the defense, the accused Romulo
assigned at its Baguio City station. It having allegedly come to light that he was involved in
Villarojo admitted hacking the victim to death with a bolo. He stressed, however, that he did
irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, 1 the PAL management notified him of an
so in self- defense. He pulled out a hunting knife in order to stab me and in order also to
investigation to be conducted into the matter of February 9, 1986. That investigation was
defend my body, I hack[ed] him." 37 He completely absolved his co-accused Dominador
scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective
Sorela and Leonardo Cademas from any liability.
Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association
(PALEA) to which Ramos pertained.2
On the day before the investigation, February 8,1986, Ramos gave to his superiors a At the close of the people's case, the private prosecutors made a written offer of evidence
handwritten notes 3 reading as follows: dated June 21, 1988,6which included "the (above mentioned) statement of accused Felipe J.
Ramos taken on February 9, 1986 at PAL Baguio City Ticket Office," which had been marked
2-8-86 as Exhibit A, as well as his "handwritten admission x x given on February 8, 1986," also above
referred to, which had been marked as Exhibit K.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The defendant's attorneys filed "Objections/Comments to Plaintiff s Evidence."7 Particularly
as regards the peoples' Exhibit A, the objection was that "said document, which appears to
THE UNDERSIGNED WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT HE IS WILLING TO SETTLE IRREGULARITIES
be a confession, was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer." Exhibit K
ALLEGEDLY CHARGED VS. HIM IN THE AMT. OF P 76,000 (APPROX.) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
was objected to "for the same reasons interposed under Exhibits 'A' and 'J.'
AS MAY BE IMPOSED BY PAL ON OR BEFORE 1700/9 FEB 86.

By Order dated August 9, 1988, 8 the respondent judge admitted all the exhibits "as part of
At the investigation of February 9, 1986, conducted by the PAL Branch Manager in Baguio
the testimony of the witnesses who testified in connection therewith and for whatever they
City, Edgardo R. Cruz, in the presence of Station Agent Antonio Ocampo, Ticket Freight Clerk
are worth," except Exhibits A and K, which it rejected. His Honor declared Exhibit A
Rodolfo Quitasol, and PALEA Shop Steward Cristeta Domingo, Felipe Ramos was informed "of
"inadmissible in evidence, it appearing that it is the statement of accused Felipe Ramos taken
the finding of the Audit Team." Thereafter, his answers in response to questions by Cruz,
on February 9, 1986 at PAL Baguio City Ticket Office, in an investigation conducted by the
were taken down in writing. Ramos' answers were to the effect inter alia that he had not
Branch Manager x x since it does not appear that the accused was reminded of this
indeed made disclosure of the tickets mentioned in the Audit Team's findings, that the
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel, and that when he waived the same
proceeds had been "misused" by him, that although he had planned on paying back the
and gave his statement, it was with the assistance actually of a counsel." He also declared
money, he had been prevented from doing so, "perhaps (by) shame," that he was still willing
inadmissible "Exhibit K, the handwritten admission made by accused Felipe J. Ramos, given
to settle his obligation, and proferred a "compromise x x to pay on staggered basis, (and) the
on February 8, 1986 x x for the same reason stated in the exclusion of Exhibit 'A' since it does
amount would be known in the next investigation;" that he desired the next investigation to
not appear that the accused was assisted by counsel when he made said admission."
be at the same place, "Baguio CTO," and that he should be represented therein by "Shop
stewardees ITR Nieves Blanco;" and that he was willing to sign his statement (as he in fact
afterwards did). 4 How the investigation turned out is not dealt with the parties at all; but it The private prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration. 9 It was denied, by Order dated
would seem that no compromise agreement was reached much less consummated. September 14, 1988. 10 In justification of said Order, respondent Judge invoked this Court's
rulings in Morales, Jr. v. Juan Ponce Enrile, et al., 121 SCRA 538, People v. Galit, 135 SCRA
467, People. v. Sison, 142 SCRA 219, and People v. Decierdo, 149 SCRA 496, among others, to
About two (2) months later, an information was filed against Felipe Ramos charging him with
the effect that "in custodial investigations the right to counsel may be waived but the waiver
the crime of estafa allegedly committed in Baguio City during the period from March 12,
shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel," and the explicit precept in the
1986 to January 29, 1987. In that place and during that time, according to the
present Constitution that the rights in custodial investigation "cannot be waived except in
indictment, 5 he (Ramos) —
writing and in the presence of counsel." He pointed out that the investigation of Felipe
Ramos at the PAL Baguio Station was one "for the offense of allegedly misappropriating the
.. with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence, did then and there proceeds of the tickets issued to him' and therefore clearly fell "within the coverage of the
willfully ... defraud the Philippine Airlines, Inc., Baguio Branch, ... in the constitutional provisions;" and the fact that Ramos was not detained at the time, or the
following manner, to wit: said accused ... having been entrusted with and investigation was administrative in character could not operate to except the case "from the
received in trust fare tickets of passengers for one-way trip and round- ambit of the constitutional provision cited."
trip in the total amount of P76,700.65, with the express obligation to
remit all the proceeds of the sale, account for it and/or to return those
These Orders, of August 9, 1988 and September 14, 1988 are now assailed in the petition for
unsold, ... once in possession thereof and instead of complying with his
certiorari and prohibition at bar, filed in this Court by the private prosecutors in the name of
obligation, with intent to defraud, did then and there ... misappropriate,
the People of the Philippines. By Resolution dated October 26, 1988, the Court required
misapply and convert the value of the tickets in the sum of P76,700.65
Judge Ayson and Felipe Ramos to comment on the petition, and directed issuance of a
and in spite of repeated demands, ... failed and refused to make good his
"TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER . . . ENJOINING the respondents from proceeding further
obligation, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party .. .
with the trial and/or hearing of Criminal Case No. 3488-R (People ... vs. Felipe Ramos),
including the issuance of any order, decision or judgment in the aforesaid case or on any
On arraignment on this charge, Felipe Ramos entered a plea of "Not Guilty," and trial matter in relation to the same case, now pending before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
thereafter ensued. The prosecution of the case was undertaken by lawyers of PAL under the City, Br. 6, First Judicial Region." The Court also subsequently required the Solicitor General
direction and supervision of the Fiscal. to comment on the petition. The comments of Judge Ayson, Felipe Ramos, and the Solicitor
General have all been filed. The Solicitor General has made common cause with the
petitioner and prays "that the petition be given due course and thereafter judgment be The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning. 15 It prescribes an "option of
rendered setting aside respondent Judge's Orders . . . and ordering him to admit Exhibits 'A' refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry." 16 It simply
and 'K' of the prosecution." The Solicitor General has thereby removed whatever impropriety secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refue to answer any particular
might have attended the institution of the instant action in the name of the People of the incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for
Philippines by lawyers de parte of the offended party in the criminal action in question. some crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the specific question,
incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other
The Court deems that there has been full ventilation of the issue — of whether or not it was time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before
grave abuse of discretion for respondent Judge to have excluded the People's Exhibits A and the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness receiving a
K. It will now proceed to resolve it. subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be sworn and answer questions.
It is only when a particular question is addressed to him, the answer to which may
incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the
At the core of the controversy is Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, 11 to which
constitutional guaranty.
respondent Judge has given a construction that is disputed by the People. The section reads
as follows:
That first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution does not impose on the
judge, or other officer presiding over a trial, hearing or investigation, any affirmative
SEC. 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself Any
obligation to advise a witness of his right against self-incrimination. It is a right that a witness
person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
knows or should know, in accordance with the well known axiom that every one is presumed
the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such
to know the law, that ignorance of the law excuses no one. Furthermore, in the very nature
right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
of things, neither the judge nor the witness can be expected to know in advance the
vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in
character or effect of a question to be put to the latter. 17
violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.

The right against self-incrimination is not self- executing or automatically operational. It must
It should at once be apparent that there are two (2) rights, or sets of rights, dealt with in the
be claimed. If not claimed by or in behalf of the witness, the protection does not come into
section, namely:
play. It follows that the right may be waived, expressly, or impliedly, as by a failure to claim it
at the appropriate time. 18
1) the right against self-incrimination — i.e., the right of a person not to
be compelled to be a witness against himself — set out in the first
Rights in Custodial Interrogation
sentence, which is a verbatim reproduction of Section 18, Article III of the
1935 Constitution, and is similar to that accorded by the Fifth
Amendment of the American Constitution, 12 and Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution also treats of a second right, or better said,
group of rights. These rights apply to persons "under investigation for the commission of an
offense," i.e., "suspects" under investigation by police authorities; and this is what makes
2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e., the rights of every
these rights different from that embodied in the first sentence, that against self-incrimination
suspect "under investigation for the commission of an offense."
which, as aforestated, indiscriminately applies to any person testifying in any proceeding,
civil, criminal, or administrative.
Parenthetically, the 1987 Constitution indicates much more clearly the individuality and
disparateness of these rights. It has placed the rights in separate sections. The right against
This provision granting explicit rights to persons under investigation for an offense was not in
self- incrimination, "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," is now
the 1935 Constitution. It is avowedly derived from the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in
embodied in Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The lights of a person in custodial
Miranda v. Arizona, 19 a decision described as an "earthquake in the world of law
interrogation, which have been made more explicit, are now contained in Section 12 of the
enforcement." 20
same Article III.13

Section 20 states that whenever any person is "under investigation for the commission of an
Right Against Self-Incrimination
offense"--

The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
Constitution, is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under
informed of such right, 21
compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. 14 The right is
NOT to "be compelled to be a witness against himself"
2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which investigation for the commission of an offense," the statement is not protected. Thus, in one
vitiates the free will shall be used against him; 22 and case, 29 where a person went to a police precinct and before any sort of investigation could
be initiated, declared that he was giving himself up for the killing of an old woman because
3) any confession obtained in violation of x x (these rights shall be she was threatening to kill him by barang, or witchcraft, this Court ruled that such a
inadmissible in evidence. 23 statement was admissible, compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial
interrogation not being exigible under the circumstances.
In Miranda, Chief Justice Warren summarized the procedural safeguards laid down for a
person in police custody, "in-custody interrogation" being regarded as the commencement of Rights of Defendant in Criminal Case
an adversary proceeding against the suspect. 24
As Regards Giving of Testimony
He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that
anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the It is pertinent at this point to inquire whether the rights just discussed, i.e., (1) that against
presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for self-incrimination and (2) those during custodial interrogation apply to persons under
him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise those rights must be preliminary investigation or already charged in court for a crime.
afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, such
opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights It seems quite evident that a defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is not
and agree to answer or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waivers under custodial interrogation. His interrogation by the police, if any there had been would
are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a result of already have been ended at the time of the filing of the criminal case in court (or the public
interrogation can be used against him. prosecutors' office). Hence, with respect to a defendant in a criminal case already pending in
court (or the public prosecutor's office), there is no occasion to speak of his right while under
The objective is to prohibit "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police- "custodial interrogation" laid down by the second and subsequent sentences of Section 20,
dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statement without full warnings of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, for the obvious reason that he is no longer under
constitutional rights." 25 "custodial interrogation."

The rights above specified, to repeat, exist only in "custodial interrogations," or "in-custody But unquestionably, the accused in court (or undergoing preliminary investigation before the
interrogation of accused persons." 26 And, as this Court has already stated, by custodial public prosecutor), in common with all other persons, possesses the right against self-
interrogation is meant "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has incrimination set out in the first sentence of Section 20 Article IV of the 1973 Constitution,
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant i.e., the right to refuse to answer a specific incriminatory question at the time that it is put to
way." 27 The situation contemplated has also been more precisely described by this Court." 28 him. 30

.. . After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a Additionally, the accused in a criminal case in court has other rights in the matter of giving
confrontation arises which at best may be tanned unequal. The detainee testimony or refusing to do so. An accused "occupies a different tier of protection from an
is brought to an army camp or police headquarters and there questioned ordinary witness." Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is
and "cross-examined" not only by one but as many investigators as may entitled among others-
be necessary to break down his morale. He finds himself in strange and
unfamiliar surroundings, and every person he meets he considers hostile 1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself, 31 and 2) to testify as witness in his
to him. The investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their work. own behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other
They employ all the methods and means that experience and study have witness; however, his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or
taught them to extract the truth, or what may pass for it, out of the be used against him. 32
detainee. Most detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their
constitutional rights. And even if they were, the intimidating and coercive
The right of the defendant in a criminal case "to be exempt from being a witness against
presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms
himself' signifies that he cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal
them into silence. Section 20 of the Bill of Rights seeks to remedy this
case in which he is the accused, or one of the accused. He cannot be compelled to do so even
imbalance.
by subpoena or other process or order of the Court. He cannot be required to be a witness
either for the prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself. 33 In other words —
Not every statement made to the police by a person involved in some crime is within the unlike an ordinary witness (or a party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testify by
scope of the constitutional protection. If not made "under custodial interrogation," or "under
subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer a particular incriminatory question at the d) WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific
time it is put to him-the defendant in a criminal action can refuse to testify altogether. He question which tends to incriminate him for some
can refuse to take the witness stand, be sworn, answer any question. 34And, as the law crime other than that for which he is then
categorically states, "his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice prosecuted.
or be used against him." 35
It should by now be abundantly apparent that respondent Judge has misapprehended the
If he should wish to testify in his own behalf, however, he may do so. This is his right. But if nature and import of the disparate rights set forth in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
he does testify, then he "may be cross- examined as any other witness." He may be cross- Constitution. He has taken them as applying to the same juridical situation, equating one
examined as to any matters stated in his direct examination, or connected therewith . 36 He with the other. In so doing, he has grossly erred. To be sure, His Honor sought to substantiate
may not on cross-examination refuse to answer any question on the ground that the answer his thesis by arguments he took to be cogent and logical. The thesis was however so far
that he will give, or the evidence he will produce, would have a tendency to incriminate him divorced from the actual and correct state of the constitutional and legal principles involved
for the crime with which he is charged. as to make application of said thesis to the case before him tantamount to totally unfounded,
whimsical or capricious exercise of power. His Orders were thus rendered with grave abuse
It must however be made clear that if the defendant in a criminal action be asked a question of discretion. They should be as they are hereby, annulled and set aside.
which might incriminate him, not for the crime with which he is charged, but for some other
crime, distinct from that of which he is accused, he may decline to answer that specific It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under
question, on the strength of the right against self-incrimination granted by the first sentence custodial interrogation, as the term should be properly understood, prior to and during the
of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (now Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution). administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared
Thus, assuming that in a prosecution for murder, the accused should testify in his behalf, he to have had a hand. The constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation under
may not on cross-examination refuse to answer any question on the ground that he might be Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not therefore come into play, were of no
implicated in that crime of murder; but he may decline to answer any particular question relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that Ramos had voluntarily answered questions
which might implicate him for a different and distinct offense, say, estafa. posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation, February 9, 1986 and
agreed that the proceedings should be recorded, the record having thereafter been marked
In fine, a person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charged with its during the trial of the criminal action subsequently filed against him as Exhibit A, just as it is
commission in court, has the following rights in the matter of his testifying or producing obvious that the note (later marked as Exhibit K) that he sent to his superiors on February
evidence, to wit: 8,1986, the day before the investigation, offering to compromise his liability in the alleged
irregularities, was a free and even spontaneous act on his part. They may not be excluded on
the ground that the so-called "Miranda rights" had not been accorded to Ramos.
1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the public prosecutor, for
preliminary investigation), but after having been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant way, and on being His Honor adverts to what he perceives to be the "greater danger x x (of) the violation of the
interrogated by the police: the continuing right to remain silent and to right of any person against self-incrimination when the investigation is conducted by the
counsel, and to be informed thereof, not to be subjected to force, complaining parties, complaining companies, or complaining employers because being
violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free interested parties, unlike the police agencies who have no propriety or pecuniary interest to
will; and to have evidence obtained in violation of these rights rejected; protect, they may in their over-eagerness or zealousness bear heavily on their hapless
and suspects, whether employees or not, to give statements under an atmosphere of moral
coercion, undue ascendancy and undue influence." It suffices to draw attention to the
specific and peremptory requirement of the law that disciplinary sanctions may not be
2) AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT — 37
imposed on any employee by his employer until and unless the employee has been accorded
due process, by which is meant that the latter must be informed of the offenses ascribed to
a) to refuse to be a witness; him and afforded adequate time and opportunity to explain his side. The requirement entails
the making of statements, oral or written, by the employee under such administrative
b) not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him investigation in his defense, with opportunity to solicit the assistance of counsel, or his
by such refusal; colleagues and friends. The employee may, of course, refuse to submit any statement at the
investigation, that is his privilege. But if he should opt to do so, in his defense to the
c) to testify in his own behalf, subject to cross- accusation against him, it would be absurd to reject his statements, whether at the
examination by the prosecution; administrative investigation, or at a subsequent criminal action brought against him, because
he had not been accorded, prior to his making and presenting them, his "Miranda rights" (to
silence and to counsel and to be informed thereof, etc.) which, to repeat, are relevant only in
custodial investigations. Indeed, it is self-evident that the employee's statements, whether 16. People vs Patungan
called "position paper," "answer," etc., are submitted by him precisely so that they may be
admitted and duly considered by the investigating officer or committee, in negation or At about 10:00 p.m. of May 22, 1994, Antonio Altarejos and his girlfriend Antonia Eluzon with
mitigation of his liability. a few other friends were having a drinking spree beside the chapel along Laura Calderon St.,
Purok 2, Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City. Antonio and Antonia noticed the van of their
Of course the possibility cannot be discounted that in certain instances the judge's expressed neighbor Alejandro Patungan parked in front of the chapel and saw two men seated inside,
apprehensions may be realized, that violence or intimidation, undue pressure or influence be one is the accused Elmerto Pulga at the driver's seat and the other is the accused Edgar
brought to bear on an employee under investigation — or for that matter, on a person being Acebuche.1 Sometime that evening Elmerto Pulga drove the van away from the chapel and
interrogated by another whom he has supposedly offended. In such an event, any admission towards a vacant lot near Commonwealth Avenue to allow another car to park right in front
or confession wrung from the person under interrogation would be inadmissible in evidence, of the chapel. After the drinking spree, at about 3:00 to 3:30 a.m., the following morning, the
on proof of the vice or defect vitiating consent, not because of a violation of Section 20, lovers Antonio and Antonia went to the basketball court to talk. Moments later they saw
Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, but simply on the general, incontestable proposition that Alejandro Patungan and his wife Marietta come out of their house and walk toward the road.
involuntary or coerced statements may not in justice be received against the makers thereof, Marietta however, went back to their house while Alejandro proceeded without her.2
and really should not be accorded any evidentiary value at all.
At about 3:45 p.m. of May 24, 1994, the decomposing body of Alejandro Patungan was found
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted annulling and setting aside the Orders of the inside his van parked along Don Quixote St. Sampaloc, Manila. At 7:00 p.m. that day the
respondent Judge in Criminal Case No. 3488-R, dated August 9, 1988 and September 14, cadaver was autopsied at the WPD-PNP Medico-Legal Section. The report states as follows:
1988, and he is hereby ordered to admit in evidence Exhibits "A" and "K" of the prosecution
in said Criminal Case No. 3488-R, and thereafter proceed with the trial and adjudgment "The body was bloated and in the state of decomposition . The face was dark
thereof. The temporary restraining order of October 26, 1988 having become functus officio, colored, eyeballs, bulging, tongue half protruding and thick upper and lower lips.
is now declared of no further force and effect. Bullae formation in the chest, abdomen and extremities with greenish discoloration
in the inguinal regions spreading towards the abdomen. The abdomen was
distended with gas.

"The following external injuries were noted.

1. Stab wound, with the point of entry at the left cheek, 59 inches from
heel, 8 cm. From anterior midline, measuring 4 x 2 cm. And exited at the
left sub-mandibular region, 54 inches from heel, 4 cm. From anterior
midline measuring 2 x 0.6 cm.

2. Ligature mark around the neck measuring 0.5 cm.

3. 8 stab or punctured wounds, oval in shape, in the base of the left


lateral neck, supra and infra-clavicular region, with the average
measurement of 0.3 x 0.5 cm.

4. 51 stab or punctured wounds, evenly distributed in the entire


abdomen, oval in shape and with the average measurement of 0.3 x 0.5
cm.

"INTERNAL FINDINGS:

1. Lacerations of the sub-cutaneous tissues in the left cheek base of the


left lateral neck, infra and supraclavicular regions. Three (3) stab or
punctured wounds in the upper lobe of the left lung with massive "T. Bakit ka narito sa loob ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines, at nagbibigay ng
bleeding in the left thoracic cavity. malaya at kusang loob na salaysay?

2. Injuries to the liver, stomach, spleen, small and large intestines, S. Ako po ay kusang sumuko sa mga pulis hinggil sa nalalaman ko sa
kidneys, inferior vena cava and abdominal aorta, with massive bleeding in pagkamatay ng aking bayaw na si ALEJANDRO PATUNGAN at kaya po ako'y nandito
the peritoneal cavity. ay upang sabihin ko ang aking nalalaman at katotohanan sa mga pangyayari.

3. About 1 ½ glassful of partially digested rice with meaty materials and T. Sino ba itong si ALEJANDRO PATUNGAN at kailan, saan ba siya namatay o
without alcoholic odor was recovered from the stomach." pinatay?

CAUSE OF DEATH: Multiple stab wounds and ligature strangulation."3 S. Siya po ay aking bayaw, asawa po siya ng aking kapatid na si MARIETTA
PATUNGAN y PULGA at siya po ay pinatay ng ika 13 ng Mayo 1994, doon sa loob ng
On August 16, 1994 an Information was filed against Marietta Patungan for parricide and DAIHATSU VAN ng dalawang tao.
against Elmerto Pulga and Edgar Acebuche for murder, to wit:
T. Anong oras ba ito naganap?
"The undersigned accuses MARIETTA PATUNGAN Y PULGA of the crime of
PARRICIDE and EDGAR ACEBUCHE Y CERVITO and ELMERTO PULGA Y ACEBUCHE of S. Humigit kumulang po sa alas 3:30 ng madaling araw ng petsa 23 ng Mayo
the crime of MURDER, as committed as follows: 1994.

That on or about the 22nd day of May, 1994 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said T. Papaano mong nalaman ang mga bagay na ito?
accused, Marietta Patungan Y Pulga being the legal wife of victim ALEJANDRO
PATUNGAN Y RANGEL, conspiring and confederating together with her co-accused S. Kaya ko po alam ang mga bagay na ito ay sapagkat kasama po ako dito sa
EDGAR ACEBUCHE Y CERVITO and ELMERTO PULGA Y ACEBUCHE and another pangyayaring ito, pero ito po ay nagawa ko lang dahilan sa inutusan ako ng aking
person whose true name, identity and whereabouts have not as yet been kapatid na si MARIETTA upang patayin ang aking bayaw dahilan sa siya ay may
ascertained and helping one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, kalaguyo na si JUNE ACEBUCHE na kaniyang kakutsaba at ang nakasama ko pa po
treachery and with the use of motor vehicle, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully dito ay ang aming pinsan na si EDGAR ACEBUCHE y Cervito na siyang sumaksak kay
and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of ALEJANDRO PATUNGAN.
ALEJANDRO PATUNGAN Y RANGEL by then and there strangling him with an electric
wire and stabbing him with a bladed weapon on the different parts of his body,
T. Maari mo bang isalaysay sa akin ang mga buod ng pangyayaring to?
thereby causing upon him multiple stab wounds which were the immediate and
direct cause of his death thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the
victim. S. Ako po ay kinausap ng aking kapatid na si MARIETTA ng mga buwan ng
Nobyembre 1993 at ang sabi sa akin ay mayroon siyang problema sa buhay, at
tinanong ko nga siya kung ano, ang sagot niya sa akin ay tungkol sa kaniyang
Contrary to law."4
kalaguyo na si JUNE ACEBUCHE at ang problema niyang talaga ay kung papaano
silang magsasamang dalawa eh mayroong siyang asawa, (si ALEJANDRO
On September 6, 1994 the three accused pleaded "not guilty" to the offense charged.5 PATUNGAN) at pilit niya akong kinukumbinsi na kung maari ay iligpit ko si bayaw @
ALEX (ALEJANDRO) ayaw ko pong pumayag dahil sa takot po ako, pero tuwing
In addition to the testimonies of Antonio and Antonia, the prosecution presented the extra- magkikita kaming magkapatid ay lagi niya itong idinadaing sa akin at palagi na lang
judicial confession of the accused Elmerto Pulga, the testimonies of the police officers who sinasabi na kung pwede ay patayin ko si ALEJANDRO na aking bayaw, at isang araw
took the statement, of the lawyer from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Quezon City nga po ng buwan ng Abril 1994 ay kinausap na muli ako at sila na ngang pong
Chapter, Atty. Pedro Rudio, who allegedly assisted the accused Elmerto Pulga during the dalawa na (MARIETTA AT JUNE ACEBUCHE) doon sa may JOLLIBEE sa Farmers Plaza,
custodial investigation and of the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy. The extra- Cubao, at pilit ng po akong sinasabihan na iligpit si bayaw dahilan sa balakid ito sa
judicial confession6 of accused Elmerto Pulga dated August 11, 1994 linked Marietta to the kanila. At minsan pa sinabi sa akin ni MARIETTA na kung pwede ay magbayad na
killing of her husband. It states as follows: lang kami ng hired killer pero wala naman siyang pera kaya hindi ito natuloy,
hanggang sabihin na lang niya sa akin na ako na lang ang gumawa at isama ko ang
aming pinsan na si EDGAR ACEBUCHE. At ang plano nga po eh natuloy na, at kami
nga eh nagpasya na yariin si bayaw ng ika 15 ng Mayo 1994, pero ito po ay hindi Marietta. Her brother allegedly found out about the affair and dismissed Jun from work but
natuloy dahilan sa may mga tao doon sa aming pinagbalakang lugar kaya ito po ay he forgave Marietta for the sake of their children.8
inulit namin sa utos na muli nina MARIETTA at JUNE kaya ng sumapit ang ika 22 ng
Mayo 1994, doon kami pinapunta ni MARIETTA sa Flower shop sa Farmers Plaza The mother of the victim testified to establish the amount of funeral expenses incurred at
Market, at binigyan pa nga kami niya ng pera at ang susi ng DAIHATSU VAN para P80,000.00, which amount the defense admitted.9
pagpunta namin doon sa Calderon kung saan sila nakatira ay madali kaming
makakapasok doon sa loob ng sasakyan. Dumating nga po kami doon sa Calderon
For the defense, accused Marietta Patungan admitted in court that she was with her husband
at sumakay kami ni EDGAR ACEBUCHE doon sa loob at nagintay sa aking bayaw sa
at early dawn of May 23, 1994 and were on their way to buy flowers for their flower shop but
paglabas niya sa madaling araw, pero habang iniintay namin siya ay may dumaang
she went back to their house to get a betamax tape and that her husband proceeded without
isang pulang kotse at ng hindi nakadaan ay minabuti ko na lang na ilagay sa Hi-way
her.10 On August 9, 1994 she was invited by the police for questioning and that she was in
ang Van sa utos ni EDGAR ACEBUCHE. Maya-maya nga po eh dumating na si
fact questioned about her complicity in her husband's death at the police station without the
ALEJANDRO PATUNGAN kasama ang aking kapatid na ang weapon namin sa utos
assistance of counsel.11 The other accused Edgar Acebuche denied participation in the
niya (MARIETTA) na kapag dumating na sila ay uuwi siya kunyari sa kanila at
murder of the victim and stated that sometime on August 8, 1994 he went to his cousin
maiiwan si bayaw, at ganun na nga ang nangyari, naiwan si bayaw doon sa labas
Marietta's flower shop in Cubao to look for a job when the police mistook him for Jun
hanggang sa magtungo na siya sa loob ng Van at nagulat pa nga siya ng makita
Acebuche and arrested him. He was also subjected to custodial investigation without the
kaming dalawa doon sa loob, pero nagtanong pa siya kung sasama kaming dalawa
assistance of counsel.12
sa kanilang mag-asawa, at ang sabi ko naman ay oo, at ganun na nga, ng nakaupo
na si bayaw sa manubela ay inatasan akong palihim ni EDGAR na sakalin ko si
ALEJANDRO ng dala kong kable (Electric wire) at ganun na nga po ang ginawa ko, In court, accused Elmerto Pulga repudiated his extra-judicial confession and stated that he
sinakal ko si ALEJANDRO at habang sakal ko siya, nagpapapalag ay sinaksak siya ni was coerced by the police to admit participation in the murder of Alejandro Patungan and to
EDGAR ng isang beses sa tagilirang leeg, at ng hindi mamatay-matay at implicate his sister Marietta as mastermind and cousin Edgar as co-conspirator. He narrated
pinagsasaksak na niya ng todo (madaming beses) at nalugmok si bayaw ay agad na that he was arrested at around 9 a.m., August 9, 1994 and that he was detained and tortured
hinila ni EDGAR sa bandang likuran ng Van at ako naman ay kaniyang inatasan na by electrocution by the police until the following day, August 10, 1994, when he agreed to
magmaneho at dadalhin namin ang bangkay sa Maynila (Sa sign a prepared document. On August 11, 1994 he was brought to the IBP office where he
DANGWA/DIMASALANG) ayon sa utos nina MARIETTA at JUNE ACEBUCHE na met Atty. Rudio who signed the prepared extra-judicial confession as counsel for the
naayon sa plano nila, na papalabasin na ito'y hinoldap sa pamimili ng bulaklak. At accused.13 A motion to withdraw the plea of "not guilty" to the offense charged to a plea of
ganun na nga po, iniwan ko ang sasakyan sa may Don Quijote St, sa Maynila, "guilty" to a lesser offense i.e., homicide, was filed by counsel for the accused. The trial court
(Sampaloc) at kami ni EDGAR ACEBUCHE ay umuwi na at naghiwalay lang kami sa denied the motion and treated it instead as a motion to recall the accused Elmerto Pulga for
aming bahay sa INC compound, tangay ang relo ni ALEJANDRO. further testimony.14 On recall, accused Elmerto Pulga, admitted stabbing the deceased three
times until he fell unconscious, after which he lost control of himself and stabbed the victim
some more. He found a rope and pulled the victim by the neck to the back of the van. He
T. Kailan ka ba sumuko sa mga pulis?
stated that he alone was responsible for the death of his brother-in-law.

S. Ika 9 ng Agosto 1994 dahilan po sa nakukunsensiya ako sa mga pangyayaring


The trial court upheld the validity of the extra-judicial confession and rendered judgment
ito na kakagawan ng aking kapatid at kalaguyo niya.
convicting the three accused guilty of the crime charged. The March 16, 1999 decision of the
trial court reads as follows:
T. Nais ko lang ipabatid sa iyo na sa iyo'y walang sino mang pumilit, tumakot, o
nangako ng ano mang bagay, upang gawin ang salaysay na ito, naiintindihan mo
"WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment finding all accused guilty beyond
ba?
reasonable doubt as principal of the crime as charged, that is PARRICIDE for
MARIETTA PATUNGAN and MURDER for accused ELMERTO PULGA and EDGAR
S. Opo, naiintindihan ko po."7 ACEBUCHE, defined and penalized in Article 146 and Article 248, respectively, of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with the attendant circumstances of
To establish the alleged motive in the killing of Alejandro, the prosecution also presented treachery and evident premeditation alleged in the Information, sentencing them
Adelaida Patungan, the sister of the deceased, who testified that her sister-in-law, the therefor to death, and ordering them to pay jointly and severally to the heirs of
accused Marietta Patungan, had an affair with one of the helpers in the flower shop, who is Alejandro Patungan the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as indemnity
her own cousin Jun Acebuche. Thus, witness stated that she saw the two eating together for death, Eighty Thousand (P80,000.00) Pesos as actual damages, and P50,000.00
from the same plate and that she caught them holding hands. One time she saw Jun kiss as moral damages."15
The case is before us on automatic review. (1) No torture, force violence threat, intimidation or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
Counsel for the appellants assigns as error the trial court's appreciation of the testimonies of places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
the-prosecution witnesses and its finding in favor of the validity of the extra-judicial prohibited.
confession executed by Elmerto Pulga.
(2) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17
The Medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on the victim at 7 00 p.m. of May 24, hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him."
1994 stated that considering the advanced stage of decomposition of the cadaver the victim
must have been dead for thirty-six hours. Based on such findings it is submitted by the An extra-judicial confession to be admissible in evidence must be express and voluntarily
appellants that witnesses Antonio and Antonia could not have seen the deceased at 3:30 executed in writing with the assistance of an independent and competent counsel16 and a
a.m. of May 23, 1994. The medical findings as to the approximate time of death and the person under custodial investigation must be continuously assisted by counsel from the very
injuries sustained by the victim are in accord with the testimony of Elmerto Pulga who start thereof.17 The presence of counsel is intended to secure the voluntariness of the extra-
admitted that he killed the victim at around 10:00 p.m. of May 22, 1994 and that he stabbed judicial confession.18 The presence of a lawyer alone, will not suffice to fulfill the requirement
him thrice while he was seated at the driver's seat. In assailing the validity of the extra- of the constitutional provision. The assistance of counsel must be independent and
judicial confession, the appellants contend that the trial court failed to appreciate the competent that is, providing full protection to the constitutional rights of the accused.19 A
underlying admissions in the testimonies of SPO3 Villacorte and Atty. Rudio that the accused lawyer who simply goes through the motion of reciting the rights of the accused, or acts as a
Pulga was in fact denied the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation. The witness to a pre-prepared document containing the extra-judicial confession of the accused
appellants pray for the acquittal of accused Marietta Patungan and Edgar Acebuche and the or holds an interest contrary to that of the accused does not qualify as independent and
conviction of accused Elmerto Pulga for the lesser offense of homicide. competent counsel.20

The Solicitor-General filed appellee's brief praying for the affirmance of the decision of the To establish the validity of Pulga's extra-judicial confession, the police investigator PO3
trial court. It is maintained that the exact time of death of the victim is immaterial in view of Jovencio Villacorte testified that appellant Pulga voluntarily surrendered to the police and
the extra-judicial confession of Elmerto Pulga which dovetails with the findings in the autopsy told them the whole story of how his younger sister appellant Marietta Patungan
report. What the appellee considers material is the timing when Marietta lured her husband masterminded the murder of her husband to be able to marry her lover, and how he and his
into the van where the two co-conspirators were waiting to execute their murderous cousin appellant Edgar Acebuche accomplished Marietta's bidding.21 Atty. Pedro Rudio of the
scheme. Appellee maintains that Elmerto Pulga's belated repudiation of his extra-judicial IBP, Quezon City Chapter, who supposedly assisted Pulga during the taking of the extra-
confession, his failure to present any evidence to support his claim of torture in the hands of judicial confession, testified that Pulga expressed his consent to be assisted by said counsel
his investigators and his apparent unwillingness to file any administrative charge against and signified that his confession is voluntary. Atty. Rudio stated that he even raised Pulga's
them militates against his claim that his extra-judicial confession was obtained through shirt to check if he had been subjected to physical violence and found none.22
violence. The appellee asserts that confessions are presumed valid unless proven to have
been obtained through violence, intimidation, threat or reward and that in view of the However, a closer examination of the transcript of stenographic notes regarding Pulga's
appellants' failure to prove any of the aforementioned circumstances that vitiate consent, extra-judicial confession is rather disturbing. PO3 Villacorte testified as follows:
the trial court did not err in upholding the validity of Pulga's extra-judicial confession.
"Q. And the person of Elmer Pulga was taken in custody or apprehended
Considering the totality of the evidence, it appears that the principal evidence presented by because that is the term used, arrested. That was the term used by Gacute on
the prosecution to establish the alleged conspiracy among the appellants to commit murder August 9, 1994, correct sir?
is the extra-judicial confession of accused Elmerto Pulga. The rest of the evidence presented
is at most circumstantial to establish motive and the presence of the appellants at or near
A. In our blotter, sir, it was August 10,
the place of the commission of the crime.

Q. August 10?
Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution provides:

A. Yes, sir.
"SECTION 12(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably his own choice. If the person Q. And it was on August 10 that you propounded questions to Elmer Pulga
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights when he was referred to you by Gacute, correct, sir?
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
A. Yes, sir. COURT:

Q. And do you know that once a suspect is arrested or surrendered for that You answer.
matter, assuming that he surrendered, that custodial investigation will start
immediately? A. Because when I questioned Elmer Pulga, he denied to us, sir. (emphasis
supplied).
A. Yes, sir.
COURT:
Q. Do you know that a person who is undergoing custodial investigation is
entitled to counsel? Q. But did you give him a lawyer?

A. Yes, sir. A. No, sir.

Q. Did you provide him with a counsel when you talked to him? Q. How come that there was a lawyer assisting Elmerto Pulga? How come?

A. No, sir. First of all, when I conducted the investigation on August 10, he A. Later in the morning when he tell us that he has already the evidence and
denied to us because he pointed to us . . . (emphasis supplied). then he is telling us the truth and then later I brought him to IBP to get a counsel
there.
COURT:
Q. Who requested you to bring him to IBP?
Ang tinatanong kung may abogado?
A. The block commander including Pulga, your Honor.
WITNESS:
Q. So, the IBP provided the accused a counsel?
No, sir, Without any counsel.
A. Yes, your Honor.
ATTY. PRADO:
Q. Did he object to the nomination given by IBP?
Q: Do you know that a person under custodial investigation is entitled to
counsel to assist him? A. No, sir.

A. yes, sir. COURT:

Q. Why did you not provide or why did you not make it sure that this Elmer Go ahead.
Pulga was assisted by counsel when you were conducting the custodial
investigation on August 10, 1994?
ATTY. PRADO:

PROSECUTOR BAUTISTA:
Q. So, in short, Mr. Witness, from August 10 up to 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon
or August 11, 1994, accused Elmerto Pulga was not assisted by counsel more
Objection, your Honor please, there is no showing that the police specifically of his own choice, correct, sir?
investigator, our witness, mentioned or investigated accused Elmerto
Pulga on August 10. The questioning and interviewing was done in the
A. Yes, sir.
office of the IBP on August 11 when he executed an extra-judicial
confession.
Q. Do you know that once a person is under custodial investigation, he is and uncounselled custodial investigation. We are inclined to believe that when he was
immediately entitled to a counsel especially of his own choice? brought to the IBP office his body and his will were in no position to raise any objection much
less to complain to the IBP lawyer about what he has gone through. The situation was not at
A. Yes, sir. all alleviated by the counsel who was supposed to assist Pulga at the taking of the extra-
judicial confession. Said lawyer admitted that he was working on an appeal in another case
two to three meters away from the police investigator who was then taking Pulga's
Q. And why did you not make it sure that from August 10 up to August 11 up to
statement. He stated that he was "not totally concentrated on the appealed case because he
2:00 o'clock in the afternoon considering that this Elmer Pulga was already under
could still hear the investigation being conducted then."28 Villacorte testified that while he
custodial investigation he was not provided with counsel?
was taking Pulga's statement the IBP lawyer was working on something else using two other
tables four meters apart.29 The mere presence of a lawyer is not sufficient compliance with
A. Because, as I said, when he surrendered, he lied to us. He said he will the constitutional requirement of assistance of counsel. Assistance of counsel must be
confess but he even pointed one alleged suspect."23 effective, vigilant and independent.30 A counsel who could just hear the investigation going
on while working on another case hardly satisfies the minimum requirements of effective
Contrary to PO3 Villacorte's assertion that Pulga was taken into custody on August 10, 1994, assistance of counsel. Not only was Pulga subjected to custodial investigation without
the police officer who actually took all three appellants into custody, SPO2 Orlando Gacute, counsel, he was likewise denied effective assistance of counsel during the actual taking of his
testified that the appellants were all "invited" to the police station on August 9, 1994 and extra-judicial confession.
that they were all subjected to custodial investigation without counsel.24This means that the
appellants, and appellant Pulga, in particular, were in police custody and subjected to For the reasons above stated, We find that the extra-judicial confession of appellant Elmerto
custodial investigation for two and a half days without the assistance of counsel before he Pulga is inadmissible in evidence for having been obtained without effective assistance of
decided to confess. Villacorte himself admitted that Pulga at first did not want to confess and counsel.
pointed to another suspect as the perpetrator of the crime. This statement negates the
police's claim of voluntary surrender and places in serious doubt the voluntariness of Pulga's
The other pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution fail to establish the charge of
extra-judicial confession.
conspiracy among the appellants to murder the deceased. The prosecution relied heavily on
Pulga's extra-judicial confession but the rest of the evidence presented fail to satisfy the
Pulga testified that he was arrested on August 9, 1994. He narrated in court that during required quantum of proof to establish conspiracy. The prosecution evidence simply
custodial investigation he was blindfolded with hands tied behind him and was electrocuted establishes the presence of Pulga and Acebuche near or at the place where the victim was
by the police investigators while he was either sitting on a steel bar or had a piece of wet last seen alive. It is observed that Antonio and Antonia allegedly saw Pulga and Acebuche
cloth placed on his feet, to compel him to admit commission of the crime charged. He simply inside the van at around 10:00 p.m. and that the victim was last seen with Marietta at around
cried and could not do anything else but to accede to his tormentors demand. He stated that 3:30 a.m. the following morning. There is no proof that Pulga and Acebuche were still inside
he signed a pre-prepared document at the precinct before he was taken to the IBP office the van at 3:30 a.m. and the only circumstance that might indicate that Marietta may have
near the Sulo Restaurant in Quezon City on August 11, 1994.25 He explained that he narrated lured her husband to go inside the van to enable Pulga and Acebuche to kill him that morning
his ordeal only for the first time in court because he could not complain to the IBP lawyer, was her alleged motive to get rid of her husband to marry her lover. It is on record that
the fiscal nor to the medical officer out of fear of his police investigators and when he was Marietta and her husband run a flower shop and it is not uncommon, much less suspicious,
taken to a medical officer for examination, the police escort answered the questions for him. for them to buy flowers before dawn.31The estimated time of death of the victim is nothing
None of his relatives visited him in jail and he only saw his lawyer in court.26 Until he was but such, an estimate. Due to the advanced stage of decomposition of the body of the victim
brought to court he had no one to confide to and he was at the mercy of the police when it was autopsied at around 7:00 p.m. of May 24, 1994, the medico-legal officer who
investigators while he was detained at the Quezon City Jail.27 As a detention prisoner he was conducted the autopsy testified that the victim must have been dead for about thirty-six
always escorted by the police when he was before the IBP lawyer, the fiscal and the medical hours.32
officer and Pulga did not find the opportunity to complain to the authorities. To our mind,
appellant Pulga's fear of his police escorts is well founded and his delay in revealing what he
In an apparent attempt to show Marietta's implied admission of guilt, the prosecution
underwent during custodial investigation does not cast doubt on its veracity, as the
presented one of the police officers who "invited" the appellants for questioning who
prosecution suggests.
testified that appellant Marietta tried to commit suicide after the investigation, i.e., that
Marietta stabbed herself with a Batangas knife in the bathroom at the police precinct when
We also note from the above testimonies that it was only after appellant Pulga verbally she found out that her brother Elmerto pointed to her as the mastermind of the murder of
confessed at the police precinct, without the assistance of counsel, when he was brought to her husband.33However, no medical record was presented to substantiate this testimony and
the IBP office allegedly for the actual transcription of his confession in writing in the presence we note that the police officer did not testify that he saw Marietta stab herself. Marietta
of a lawyer. It would appear to us that whatever statement Pulga allegedly gave to the police denied that she tried to commit suicide and testified that she woke up in the
for transcription in the presence of counsel is the product of two and a half days of coercive hospital.34 Whether or not she stabbed herself is not proven by the prosecution and can by
no means be considered as an implied admission of guilt of appellant Marietta. We may add Q. Are you telling the court, Mr. Witness that you recall having stabbed your
that even if she did attempt to commit suicide a female suspect under custodial investigation brother-in-law three times and the rest you do not know anymore?
in a police-dominated atmosphere and without the assistance of counsel, Marietta cannot be
expected to act rationally. A. I cannot remember, sir how many times I stabbed him."35

The evidence as it stands, without the extra-judicial confession of appellant Pulga, is not ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, Pulga testified:
sufficient to support conviction for parricide against appellant Marietta nor for murder
against appellant Acebuche. For this reason we are constrained to acquit them of the crimes
Q. How many times did you stab Alejandro Patungan?
charged.

A. Three times, I stabbed him and then after he fell unconscious, I was not able
Only the judicial admission of Elmerto Pulga remains on record for consideration of the court.
to control myself.
He testified as follows:

Q. And so after stabbing him three times you left the place?
Q. When you said you agreed to leave at 10:00 o'clock in the evening on May
22, 1994, what did you actually do with your brother-in-law then?
A. No, ma'am. I lost control and "binanatan ko siya ng binanatan."
A. I was the one driving the car in going to Dangwa and while the car was
running he told me, "Bakit ka nakikialam pag sinasaktan ko ang asawa ko. Nakikisali Q. And you kept stabbing him?
ka."
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Aside from you brother-in-law, who was with you then in that van you were
driving? Q. And then you left the place, the premises?

A. We were only two. A. And I saw a rope that I put around his neck and pulled him back.

Q. What happened after your brother-in-law told you that statement, "Bakit ka Q. So which occurred first, the stabbing or the strangulation?
nakikialam pag sinasaktan ko ang asawa ko. Nakikisali ka."
A. The stabbing, ma'am."36
A. Nauwi po yan sa pagtatalo dahil ayaw siyang pumayag sa aking paliwanag.
Pulga's admission that he stabbed the victim thrice coincides with the autopsy report that
Q. After that pagtatalo or verbal tussle, what happened next? the victim sustained three stab wounds. Pulga's statement that he was seated at the driver's
seat while the victim sat at the passenger's seat which means that Pulga was at the left side
A. When we arrived at Dangwa, I turned over the key to him and I told him of the victim also coincides with the medical finding which states that the stab wounds,
that, "Ikaw na lang ang umuwi." And after that, my brother-in-law got a except those on the victim's abdomen, were all on the left side of the body of the victim. The
screwdriver and stabbed me and I was able to grapple. prosecution tried to establish the impossibility of Pulga pulling the victim by himself to the
back of the van but no competent evidence was presented to prove the theory. The autopsy
report reveals that the victim was 63 inches tall37 and Pulga testified that he stands 5 feet 4
Q. After that, when you were able to grapple that screwdriver from your
inches tall.38 The alleged impossibility was not proven by the prosecution with moral
brother-in-law, what did you do?
certainty. At any rate, we hold that there is no other evidence on record to show that Pulga
was not alone in the commission of the crime.
A. I stabbed him, sir.
Pulga's admission can be sustained but he cannot be convicted for murder in the absence of
Q. How many times, Mr. Witness? proof of any of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the information, i.e., treachery and
evident premeditation. The number of stab wounds sustained by the victim, fifty-one in the
A. Three times. After I stabbed him three times, I remember what he was doing abdomen and three in the upper part of his body, by itself is not aggravating unless it was
to my sister and "nawala ako sa aking sarili." shown, and it was not herein shown, to have been intentionally inflicted to add suffering to
the victim.39 On the contrary, Pulga testified that he countlessly stabbed the victim after he
fell unconscious. Accordingly, Pulga is hereby convicted of homicide and to suffer the penalty
of reclusion temporal.40 In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the
said penalty is to be imposed in its medium period41 of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17
years and 4 months.

This court is not blind to the suffering of the victim's family arising from his untimely death,
but we are bound to uphold the constitutional rights of the accused. Let this be a stern lesson
to the police authorities and to the prosecution to perform their sworn tasks with utmost
regard to the mandates of the Constitution. Criminals cannot be apprehended, prosecuted
and punished under the law by resorting to non-legal means.

WHEREFORE, appellants Marietta Patungan and Edgar Acebuche are acquitted of the crimes
charged against them and the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court is hereby
reversed and set aside. The judgment of conviction for murder against appellant Elmerto
Pulga is hereby likewise set aside and a new one entered convicting him of the crime of
homicide, and imposing the indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor in its medium
period, as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
maximum. This Court affirms the pecuniary awards given by the trial court and orders the
appellant Pulga to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity for death,
P80,000.00 for actual damages and P50,000.00 for moral damages.

SO ORDERED.

s
)

F
e
l
i
p
e

R
a
m
o
s

(
P
r
i
n
t
e
"3. In Crim. Cases Nos. Q-96-64617 and Q-96-65072, the Court finds the accused
17. People vs. Suela Nerio Suela y Hembra, Edgar Suela y Hembra and Edgardo Batocan NOT GUILTY of
the Crime of Carnapping as defined in and penalized by Rep. Act. 6539, as amended
In this Decision, the Court visits and applies existing jurisprudence on the right to competent by Rep. Act 7659, and hereby ACQUITS them for failure of the prosecution to prove
and independent counsel of persons under custodial investigation. It also reiterates the long- the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
standing judicial policy that procedural laws which are favorable to the accused shall be given
retroactive effect. Inasmuch as the aggravating circumstance of disguise was not alleged in "The Sony TV set (Exh. 'E') and the Citizen gold wrist watch (Exh. 'T-1') are hereby
the Information, it cannot now be appreciated to increase the penalty to death, ordered returned to John Doe (not his real name) upon the final disposition of the
notwithstanding the fact that the new rule requiring such allegation was promulgated only cases.
after the crime was committed and after the trial court had already rendered its Decision.
"The motorcycle (Exh. 'FF') under the name of the accused Edgardo Batocan shall
The Case be kept by the Court until the final disposition of the cases.

For automatic review by this Court is the Decision1 dated January 26, 1998 of the Regional "All the three (3) accused are ordered to pay the costs.
Trial Court of Quezon City, (Branch 95), finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
robbery with homicide and simple robbery. The decretal portion of the Decision reads as "IT IS SO ORDERED."2
follows:
The Information3 against Nerio Suela and Edgar Suela in Criminal Case No. Q-96-64616 reads
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in the following: as follows:

"1. In Crim. Cases Nos. Q-96-64616 and Q-96-65071, the Court finds the accused "That on or about the 26th day of July 1995, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-
Nerio Suela y Hembra and Edgar Suela y Hembra and Edgardo Batocan GUILTY named accused, conspiring, confederating with another person whose true name,
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide defined in and identity and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping
penalized by paragraph I, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by one another, by means of force upon things, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
R.A. 7659, and, there being one aggravating circumstance of disguise (par. 14, Art. and feloniously rob one GERONIMO GABILO Y HOSTALLERO in the following
14, Revised Penal Code) and no mitigating circumstance to offset the same, each of manner, to wit: on the date and place aforementioned said accused managed to
them is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and are ordered to enter the house of complainant located at No. 95 B-5 A. Melchor St., Xavierville
indemnify the heirs of the late Geronimo Gabilo y Hostallero the amount of Subd., Loyola Heights, this City, by barging into the door of said house and once
₱50,000.00, as death indemnity; ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages; ₱125,250.00, inside took, robbed and carried away the following, to wit:
as actual and compensatory damages; and ₱2,8[8]0,000.00, as loss of earnings
based on the formula (2/3 x (80-44) or 24 years life expectancy by ₱120,000.00
reasonable average net annual earnings. one (1) 14" Sony Trinitron colored TV ₱1

"The three accused are further ordered to return to John Doe (not his real name)
three (3) cameras 2
the three (3) cameras worth ₱25,000.00; assorted jewelry worth ₱120,000.00 and
cash money in the amount of ₱500,000.00. If the three (3) cameras and the
assorted jewelry can no longer be returned, the three (3) accused are hereby assorted jewelries 12
ordered to instead pay the value thereof in the total amount of ₱145,000.00;
cash money 50
"2. In Crim. Case No. Q-96-64618, the Court finds the accused Edgar Suela y
Hembra GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Robbery defined
in and penalized by paragraph 5, Article 294, of the Revised Penal Code and is all in the total amount of ₱657,000.00, Philippine Currency, and on the occasion of
hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of from six (6) months and said Robbery, the said accused pursuant to their conspiracy, with intent to kill,
one (1) day of prision correccional minimum, as the minimum penalty to four (4) attacked, assaulted and employed personal violence upon the person of said
years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional maximum, as the GERONIMO GABILO Y HOSTALLERO, by stabbing him, thereby inflicting upon him
maximum penalty; and, serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his
untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Geronimo Gabilo y of ₱200,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said
Hostallero, in the total amount aforementioned." offended party."

The Information4 against Edgardo Batocan in Criminal Case No. Q-96-65071 reads as follows: When arraigned on September 24, 1996, appellants, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded
"not guilty."6 In due course, they were tried and found guilty by the court a quo.
"That on or about the 26th day of July, 1995, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-
named accused, conspiring and confederating with NERIO SUELA Y HEMBRA and
EDGAR SUELA Y HEMBRA who are being charged with the same offense at Regional
Trial Court Branch 79 and docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-64616, and mutually
helping one another, by means of force upon things, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously rob one John Doe (not his real name) in the following
manner, to wit: on the date and place afor[e]mentioned said accused entered the
house of complainant located at 95 Melchor St. Xavierville Subd., Loyola Heights,
this City, by barging into the door of said house and inside took, robbed and carried The Facts
away the following, to wit:
Version of the Prosecution

one (1) 14" Sony Trinitron colored TV ₱ 12,000.00


The Office of the Solicitor General summarized the evidence for the prosecution in this wise:7

three (3) cameras 25,000.00 "On July 26, 1995, between 11:00 P.M. and 12:00 midnight, private complainant
John Doe (not his real name) was at the master's bedroom located at the second
assorted jewelries 120,000.00 floor of his townhouse residence at #95 B-5 A. Melchor Street, Xavierville
Subdivision, Loyola Heights, Quezon City. He was watching television thereat,
together with his adopted son, Norman Rosas, and his former co-teacher and good
cash money 500,000.00 friend, Geronimo 'Gerry' Gabilo, who at that time was engaged in the real estate
business. Suddenly, three persons sporting ski masks, bonnets and gloves,
brandishing handguns and a knife, barged into the room. The tallest of the three,
all in the total amount of ₱657,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the damage and
with a height of about five feet and five inches, reached for the light switch and
prejudice of John Doe (not his real name) in the aforementioned amount of
turned it off. The three intruders then shouted 'dapa, dapa.' So John Doe (not his
₱657,000.00, and on the occasion of said Robbery, the said accused pursuant to
real name), Gerry Gabilo, and Norman Rosas dropped to the floor with their faces
their conspiracy, with intent to kill, attacked, assaulted and employed personal
facing the bed. Two of the malefactors turned off the television set, and tied their
violence upon the person of said GERONIMO GABILO Y HOSTALLERO, by stabbing
hands at their backs, with the use of hankies and telephone cord. The room
him, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct
remained illuminated by the light coming from a walk-in closet and from the lamp
and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the
post outside fronting the room, and from the lights of the neighboring townhouses.
heirs of said Geronimo Gabilo y Hostallero."

"The shortest of the three malefactors, about five feet tall, poked the barrel of his
The Information5 against Edgar Suela in Criminal Case No. Q-96-64618 reads as follows:
gun on the chin of John Doe (not his real name), then inside John Doe (not his real
name)' mouth. At the same time, using his free hand, the same malefactor poked a
"That on or about the 18th day of January 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said knife on the right side of John Doe (not his real name)' neck. The other man, who
accused, with intent to gain, and by means of intimidation against person, did then was the second to the tallest, with a height of about five feet three inches, while
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob/extort one John Doe (not his real holding a penlight in one hand, and a gun on the other, threateningly told John Doe
name) in the manner as follows: on the date and place aforementioned, the said (not his real name), 'Nakikita mo ba iyan? Nararamdaman mo ba iyan?', to which
accused called up by phone the Executive Secretary of said complainant and John Doe (not his real name) replied 'Opo, opo.' The two then ordered John Doe
demanded the amount of ₱200,000.00, Philippine Currency, in exchange for the (not his real name) to 'ilabas ang iyong mga pera.' All that time, while the two were
information regarding the robbery case and slaying of Geronimo Gabilo on July 26, with John Doe (not his real name), the other man, the tallest of them, stood in front
1995, as in fact said accused, took, robbed and carried away the aforesaid amount of the mirror by the side of the door, facing and brandishing a gun towards Norman
Rosas. John Doe (not his real name) did not heed the order to bring out the money
even though Gabilo advised him, saying 'John Doe (not his real name) ilabas mo na.' death of Gerry Gabilo, Captain Alejandro Casanova, SPO3 Jesus Patriarca, and SPO2
However, Gabilo stood up, and even with his hands tied at the back, went towards Reynato Resurrecion, all of the Quirino District Police Station, Station 9, Anonas
the second compartment of the television rack and reached for an envelope Road, Quezon City, proceeded to the crime scene. SPO3 Jesus Patriarca was
containing his money. He handed the envelope to the shortest of the three fellows, assigned as lead investigator of the case. The autopsy conducted on Gabilo showed
who, upon seeing the money inside the envelope, closed it. John Doe (not his real that he died of hemorrhage due to multiple (five) stab wounds. To shed light on the
name) knew that the envelope contained ₱200,000.00 as Gabilo had informed him incident, several persons, including private complainant John Doe (not his real
of the amount earlier that evening. Forced to reveal that his money was in the name), his adopted son, Norman Rosas, his brother, Romulo Rosas, their
walk-in closet, the second tallest of the three malefactors poked a gun on John Doe housemaid, Pinky Mañalac, William Hostillero, Ruben Pacuntad, Joven Mañalac and
(not his real name)' neck, forced him to get up, kicked and pushed him towards the Rodito Gabilo, were summoned and interviewed by the police. The same, however,
closet. When the fellow could not open the closet, he asked John Doe (not his real did not result to any breakthrough for the case. When they were subjected to a lie
name) for the key. When he was informed that the key was inside his wallet which detector test by the NBI, the results were negative.
was on top of the drawer beside his bed, the fellow opened the wallet and took all
the money he found in it: two (2) $100.00 bills and ten (10) ₱1,000.00 bills. With "Gabilo's Nissan Sentra vehicle was recovered by the operatives of the Western
the key, he thereafter opened the closet. He then asked where the money was. Police District as it was found abandoned at P. Florentino Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila.
When John Doe (not his real name) told him that it was inside his suitcase, the At the back seat floor of the car, a black bonnet was found.
fellow tried opening it but failed. So he ordered John Doe (not his real name) to
open it but the latter also failed as he had difficulty doing so since his hands were
"After almost five (5) months of no leads towards solving the case, on January 15,
still tied at his back. The fellow, however, subsequently opened the suit case
1996, Araceli Tubaga, John Doe (not his real name)' executive secretary at his DECS
himself and got all the money in it amounting to ₱300,000.00. He also took the
office at Misamis Street, Bago Bantay, Quezon City, received a call from a male
valuables he found inside the suit case, viz., a gold-plated Citizen wristwatch
person who requested to speak with John Doe (not his real name). When Tubaga
engraved at the back with 'John Doe (not his real name)' and some rings and
requested to get his message as the director could not go to the phone, he told her
bracelet valued at ₱20,000.00, more or less. The malefactors also took with them
to relay to John Doe (not his real name) that he has information as to the identity
three (3) automatic cameras valued at ₱25,000.00 each, and bottles of cologne
and whereabouts of those responsible for the death of his friend, Gabilo. He told
costing about ₱10,000.00. While leaving John Doe (not his real name) lying on the
her that he is willing to give the information in writing in exchange for ₱200,000.00.
floor near the closet, the second tallest of the three, together with the shortest
He then said that he will call again for John Doe (not his real name)' response to his
fellow, went to Gabilo and dragged and pushed him. They demanded that Gabilo
offer. In reaction, John Doe (not his real name), accompanied by Tubaga, went to
give them his car key, which he did. They then dragged Gabilo out of the room and
the Quirino District Police Station to inform Capt. Casanova about the call. Capt.
proceeded downstairs. The second tallest fellow went back to John Doe (not his
Casanova came up with the plan to entrap the caller. At noon the following day
real name) and said 'Mabait ka, mabait ka' but warned him not to follow them
(January 16, 1996), the unidentified caller called again. When told that John Doe
downstairs because 'puputok ang granada sa daanan mo.' He then placed a gag
(not his real name) was accepting his offer, he instructed Tubaga to meet him the
inside John Doe (not his real name)' mouth, tying it with a piece of cloth. Upon
following day (January 17, 1996) at noon at the Ninoy Aquino Park, Quezon
sensing that the three were already downstairs, John Doe (not his real name) tried
Avenue, Quezon City. He told her to bring with her the amount of ₱200,000.00
to follow them but his adopted son, Norman Rosas, pleaded 'Daddy, daddy, huwag
which should be placed in a plastic bag, and to bring flowers with her so he could
kang sumunod, baka patayin ka nila.' After about two (2) minutes, a long moaning
easily identify her. John Doe (not his real name) informed Capt. Casanova about the
sound was heard coming from downstairs, which sound resembled Gabilo's voice.
conversation.
After a while, he heard the engine of Gabilo's car, a Nissan Sentra car with plate no.
TEB-258, running and he later found out that they had also carted away his Sony
Trinitron colored television set. Sensing that the malefactors had left, he went "On January 17, 1996, about 10:00 A.M. Tubaga went to the Max's Restaurant at
downstairs and saw Gabilo slump[ed] on the floor in his blood. When he saw that the Quezon City Circle and met Capt. Casanova and the other policemen, in
Gabilo was motionless, he went back to the second floor and told his son to rouse preparation for the entrapment. Carrying with her the boodle money in a Unilane
their housemaid, Pinky Mañalac, who was asleep on the third floor of their Food Mart plastic bag, she proceeded to the Ninoy Aquino Park and waited but the
townhouse. They then sought help from their neighbors. The first to assist them caller did not appear. About 5:00 P.M. that afternoon, the caller called her at the
was a medical doctor who, upon examining Gabilo, informed them that the latter office and informed her that he will meet her the following day (January 18, 1996)
was already dead. At the Quezon City Medical Center where Gabilo was at the same time and place. Thus, the following day, she waited for him at the
subsequently brought, he was pronounced dead-on-arrival.1âwphi1.nêt designated spot. Shortly after, a male person approached her and asked if she was
the one with whom he talked with over the phone. When she answered in the
affirmative, he handed her an envelope while she handed him the plastic bag
"Early morning, the following day, July 27, 1995, upon receiving the report from the
containing the boodle money. While he was untying the plastic bag to check its
Quezon City Medical Center regarding the stabbing incident which resulted to the
contents, the police officers who were posted in the vicinity pounced on him and
effected his arrest. He was brought to Police Station 9. This person was later "In their extra-judicial confessions, the Suelas mentioned appellant Edgardo
identified as appellant Edgar Suela.1âwphi1.nêt Batocan, their townmate, as a participant in the crime. Thus, his name was
included in the criminal informations, and a warrant of arrest was issued against
"While on board the vehicle on their way to the police station, in the presence of him.
appellant Edgar Suela, Capt. Casanova, and the other policemen, SPO3 Patriarca
opened the envelope which Tubaga had earlier received from appellant Edgar "Sometime in the second week of March 1996, a team composed of SPO3
Suela. It contained a handwritten note which reads: Patriarca, Capt. Nestor Abalos, and SPO2 Jesus Casica, together with the father of
the Suela brothers, went to Jaro, Leyte, to serve the warrant of arrest on appellant
1. Nerio Suela – ang utak nang pag-paslang Batocan. In coordination with Sr./Insp. Benjamin Labadia, the Chief of Police in
Jaro, Leyte, the arrest of appellant Batocan was effected. He was immediately
brought to Manila and was detained at the Quezon City Police Station 9. The
2. TV color and ibedensia nasa bahay niya. Ang tunay na pangalan
operatives were able to recover the gold-plated Citizen watch of John Doe (not his
National ngayon ay pinalitan nang Panasonic.
real name) from Batocan's girlfriend at Barangay San Agustin, Jaro, Leyte. The
brand-new Honda motorcycle registered in appellant Batocan's name was shipped
3. Ang knife na ginamit nasa bahay niya 8 [sic]. from Leyte to Quezon City as Batocan had admitted that he had bought it
sometime in July 1995 with his share from the loot of the robbery. While in police
When he asked Edgar Suela who wrote it, he answered 'Ako po, sir.' When he custody, appellant Batocan also indicated his desire to give an extra-judicial
further asked as to who is Nerio Suela, Edgar answered that he is his brother and is confession. Thus, on March 31, 1996, about 3:30 P.M., he was brought by SPO2
the driver of John Doe (not his real name). Reynato Resurreccion to the same IBP office and gave his confession in the
presence and with the assistant of Atty. Flormind [sic] Rous, which statement he
"With that information, appellant Nerio Suela was immediately arrested at John subscribed before an Assistant City Prosecutor and later re-affirmed before an
Doe (not his real name)' office. When Nerio confirmed the contents of his brother inquest Fiscal." (Citations omitted)
Edgar's letter, Capt. Casanova directed SPO1 Carlos Nicolas and PO2 Orlin Comia to
accompany Nerio to his residence at Kaibigan Street Street, Kalayaan B, Barangay Version of the Defense
Batasan Hills, Quezon City. Thereat, they recovered the Sony Trinitron TV, and a
knife with a wooden scabbard. On the other hand, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) summarized appellants' version of the
incident as follows:8
"While under detention, the Suelas expressed their desire to give an extra-judicial
confession. Hence, on January 19, 1996, between 4:00 to 5:00 o'clock in the "On July 26, 1995, Edgardo Batocan was in his hometown in Jaro, Leyte where he
afternoon, SPO3 Patriarca, together with Capt. Casanova and another police officer, worked as a farmer. Sometime in March 1996, and while on board his motorcycle,
brought the Suelas to the office of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), he was arrested by the police. He bought the motorcycle from an uncle with the
located at the second floor, Hall of Justice, Quezon City. When they arrived there, money that his sister gave him. No citizen gold wristwatch was seized from him
Atty. Confesor Sansano and Atty. Florimond Rous were manning the IBP office. upon his arrest.
When the police informed them of their purpose, Atty. Sansano separately
interviewed each of the Suelas first, informed them of their constitutional rights,
"After his arrest he was brought to Quezon City and investigated. He had no
insured that they understood the import of their confession, physically examined
knowledge nor any participation in the crime that occurred on July 26, 1995, at the
them for any sign of maltreatment or force, and after satisfying himself that the
residence of John Doe (not his real name). He was forced and threatened by the
suspects' intention was voluntary on their part and that it was his legal assistance
police officers to admit and confess to the crimes. He was also forced to sign a
that they were willing to secure, he allowed the police to take down their individual
typewritten extrajudicial confession, the contents of which he did not know as he
extra-judicial confessions. Atty. Sansano was present all throughout the time that
was not allowed to read it nor was it read to him. No lawyer was present at that
the Suelas were individually propounded with questions. Thereafter, both were
time and he only met Atty. Rous for the first time in court. He recalled however,
brought before the Assistant City Prosecutor where they affirmed their confessions
that during his brief visit at the IBP-Quezon City Chapter office, in the afternoon of
under oath in the presence of Atty. Sansano who assisted them. The following
March 13, 1996, he saw, but did not talk to Atty. Rous, the one who limps, whom
morning, January 20, 1996, the Suelas were again brought before Assistant City
he recognized when the latter testified in Court. He was brought before the
Prosecutor Ibuyan for inquest investigation where they again affirmed under oath
Assistant City Prosecutor for inquest but the fiscal did not explain to him the
the contents of their extra-judicial confessions.
contents of his written statement. He was not adept at reading because he only
reached first year high school. No copy of his supposed statement was given him.
He did not complain to the fiscal nor to any government agency about the alleged time. He was playing chess with his neighbor Mang Tancio during the time of the
coercion and threats of the police. He only told his lawyer, Atty. Tabang and his incident.
brother Jimmy Batocan about it. He is not angry at the Suelas for falsely implicating
him. In jail, he confronted the brothers and was told that they were merely forced "While inside the prison cell, he was convinced by his officemates at the DECS-NCR
by the police officers so that they could be freed. The Suelas had many friends but and by Capt. Casanova to write John Doe (not his real name) a letter on January 31,
they pointed to him because they thought that the police will no longer bother to 1996. The contents of this letter was merely dictated to him by the police.
pursue him because he lived in a very far place in Leyte. He knew the Suela
brothers because they were his barriomates in San Agustin, Jaro, Leyte. Although
"Edgar Suela admits to having called up the office of John Doe (not his real name)
he came to Manila in 1992 to work until 1994, he did not visit the Suelas or any of
and in proposing a trade off of ₱200,000.00 in exchange for the information he
his friends from his barrio. He could not recall his exact Manila address.
would give about the identities and whereabouts of the robbers. He learned from
his brother Nerio that John Doe (not his real name) placed a reward money for
"Nerio Suela worked as a driver of John Doe (not his real name) at DECS 1993 up to whoever can provide such an information. At the agreed time and date of the
1995. Geronimo Gabilo was formerly his co-employee thereat as the latter was the 'trade off', the police apprehended him and changed the original note he gave with
one responsible for his employment with John Doe (not his real name). In the another written note the contents of which, the police forced and dictated to him.
months of June and July 1995, he was mostly at home because he was recuperating During his investigation, the police employed threats, intimidation and physical
from an operation (for appendectomy). He was on leave and reported back to work force to make him admit to the crime, and to sign a statement or confession.
only on July 30, 1995. It was then that he learned about the untimely demise of Together with his brother, he was brought to the office of the IBP in Quezon City, a
Gerry Gabilo. The police and the NBI did not investigate him, not until after his lawyer talked to him and he identified this person in court as Atty. Sansano. At the
arrest on January 18, 1996 by the Quezon City police. IBP office, he was asked to sign his supposed extrajudicial confession. Later on, he
executed a Counter-Affidavit wherein he assailed the voluntariness of his forced
"He had no knowledge nor participation in the killing of Gerry Gabilo nor in the confession and recanted the contents thereof.
robbery that occurred at the residence of John Doe (not his real name) on the night
of July 26, 1995. After his arrest, he was brought to Danarra Hotel where he was "He has no knowledge about the killing of Gerry Gabilo nor about the robbers who
manhandled and boxed and his head submerged in the toilet bowl. He was forced invaded John Doe (not his real name)' house.
to sign a piece of paper. He also met his brother Edgar at the same hotel. He was
not allowed to read the paper which he was forced to sign. He found out later on
"On July 26, 1995, he was on his tour of duty as security guard of Hoctagon Security
that this was the statement or his supposed extra-judicial confession. From the
Agency at his assigned post at Northridge Elementary School, along Mother Ignacia
hotel, he was brought to his house where the police took away his television set
Street, Timog Avenue, Quezon City. Edgardo Batocan was his acquaintance since
(TV) and a knife with scabbard. John Doe (not his real name) gave him the tv set
childhood and the last time he saw the latter was in 1990 at Jaro, Leyte. He did not
after Gabilo's death. At that time, he did not notice why the 'Sony' brand name was
see Batocan in his hometown when he got married in November 1995. He did not
scrapped and replaced by the name 'National'. The next day, he was brought to the
implicate Batocan. He learned about the death of Gerry Gabilo when he came back
City Hall where he was given a lawyer whom he does not know and whose name he
to Manila after his wedding.
could not even recall. The lawyer showed him a paper and asked him if the
signature thereon was his. The lawyer did not ask him anything more. The former
did not explain to him that said paper was his alleged admission to the crimes for "Joselito Jacinto testified that Nerio Suela wanted him to repair the latter's
which he was arrested and detained. He met Atty. Sansano for the first time in the television set. The defect of said tv, pertain only to the channeling. He asked Suela
court room during the hearing of these cases and not on January 19, 1996. He for money to buy the spare parts. On August 19, 1995, he met Nerio Suela and his
could not recall if Atty. Sansano was the same one who was presented to him when boss, John Doe (not his real name) at the SM parking lot. John Doe (not his real
he was brought to the City Hall after his arrest. After this, he was brought before name) gave Nerio some money which the latter in turn gave him for the TV spare
the Assistant City Prosecutor. parts and repair.

"He sustained hematomas (pasa) from the man-handling by his police captors but "Dionesio Ador had seen Edgardo Batocan in Jaro, Leyte on July 26, 1995. The
he did not show them to the Assistant City Prosecutor or the lawyer at the IBP, motorbike of Batocan is an old red Honda. He saw Batocan used a new motorbike
Quezon City office nor did he file any complaint against the police. He recanted his in December 1995 in their barrio. He does not know the Suela brothers. Batocan
confession in his counter-affidavit. had been in their barrio all his life and had not left their place." (Citations omitted)

"He knew Edgardo Batocan well because they grew up together in the same town Ruling of the Trial Court
in Leyte. On July 26, 1995, he was at home at Batasan Hills, Quezon City, the whole
The court a quo ruled that appellants had been assisted by competent and independent homicide; and (4) whether Edgar Suela is guilty of robbery for demanding ₱200,000 as
counsel during the execution of their extrajudicial confessions. It gave credence to the payment for information on the robbery-slay case.
testimonies of Atty. Sansano and the police officers and thus admitted in evidence the said
confessions.

The letter of Nerio Suela addressed to John Doe (not his real name) asking for forgiveness, as The Court's Ruling
well as the discovery of the stolen TV set and knife in the former's house, further convinced
the trial court of appellants' guilt. Finding the presence of one aggravating circumstance
The appeal is partly meritorious.
(disguise) with no mitigating circumstance to offset it, the trial court sentenced them to
death.
First Issue:
Hence, this automatic review before us.9
Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions
Assignment of Errors
Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
In his Brief, Appellant Edgardo Batocan ascribes to the trial court the following alleged
errors:10 "(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
"I. The trial court gravely erred in considering Edgardo Batocan's extra judicial
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
confession as admissible evidence against him.
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

"II. The trial court erred in admitting and appreciating the wristwatch as evidence
"(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
against Edgardo Batocan.
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incomunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
"III.The trial court erred in convicting Appellant Batocan of robbery with homicide."
"(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding
Appellants Nerio and Edgar Suela, on the other hand, fault the trial court with the following section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
supposed errors:11
xxx xxx x x x."
"I. The court a quo erred in considering the extr[a]-judicial confessions of Edgar
Suela and Nerio Suel[a] are admissible against them;
In People v. Labtan,12 we explained that "[t]he right to counsel is a fundamental right and
contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer beside the accused." Furthermore, an
"II. The court a quo erred in considering the letter of Nerio Suela to John Doe (not effective and vigilant counsel "necessarily and logically [requires] that the lawyer be present
his real name) as evidence against him; and able to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first
question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession.
"III. The court a quo erred in convicting Edgar Suela for simple robbery under Art. Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the confession is made voluntarily and that the
294, no. 5, of the Revised Penal Code. person under investigation fully understands the nature and the consequence of his
extrajudicial confession in relation to his constitutional rights. A contrary rule would
"IV. The court a quo erred in convicting Edgar Suela and Nerio Suela [of] robbery undoubtedly be antagonistic to the constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel and to
with homicide." be presumed innocent."13

Basically, the assigned errors boil down to four: (1) whether the extrajudicial confessions of True, counsel does not necessarily have to dissuade the person under investigation from
appellants are admissible in evidence; (2) whether the wristwatch and the letter (of Nerio confessing. But his bounden duty is to properly and fully advise his clients on the nature and
Suela) are admissible in evidence; (3) whether appellants can be convicted of robbery with consequences of an extrajudicial confession.
In People v. Deniega,14 the Court explained: A: I did not have the opportunity to inform them about the nature of their
charge because at that time, when they introduced to me, I have not yet informed
"The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered them what they are going to do and what being took their statement.
meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a
meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the Q: In other words, Mr. Witness, you did not inform the[m] that the [imposable]
advice given is so cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired. If the lawyer's penalty in this crime is death?
role is reduced to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared
document albeit indicating therein compliance with the accused's constitutional A: Well, during my personal interview as I said, at that time, I don't even know
rights, the constitutional standard guaranteed by Article III, Section 12(1) is not that they are charged for Murder and Homicide.
met. The process above-described fulfills the prophylactic purpose of the
constitutional provision by avoiding the 'pernicious practice of extorting false or
Q: But anyway, Mr. Witness, when this case was brought to you by the police
coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing
officer, you really informed that the crime charged was robbery-homicide,
interrogation for the commission of the offense' and ensuring that the accused's
Carnapping and extortion?
waiver of his right to self incrimination during the investigation is an informed one
in all aspects."
A: Nobody informed me about the nature of the charge as they stated. They
were just brought before me there. I was asked to provide the free legal assistance
The modifier competent and independent in the 1987 Constitution is not an empty rhetoric. It
other than the investigation conducted by the police officer.
stresses the need to accord the accused, under the uniquely stressful conditions of a
custodial investigation, an informed judgment on the choices explained to him by a diligent
and capable lawyer.15 Q: Did you not ask the police why these people were brought to you?

With respect Edgardo Batocan, we hold that his extrajudicial confession was obtained in A: They told me that they are going to be asked questions, to be investigated in
violation of his constitutional rights. This appellant did not finish first year high school.16 Yet connection with that incident in John Doe (not his real name) home.
Atty. Rous, who is touted by the prosecution as a competent and independent counsel,
interviewed Batocan -- before the latter gave his confession -- for only around "five Q: And did you not ask the police what was that incident?
minutes."17 After this initial interview, Atty. Rous just listened nonchalantly to the questions
propounded by the police and to the answers given by Batocan. Counsel was not even sure A: The police told me already that the two boys were going to give statement in
that he had explained to appellant the consequences of his extrajudicial confession. connection with that incident in John Doe (not his real name) house where one was
Furthermore, Atty. Rous' attention was divided while attending the custodial investigation as killed in the house of John Doe (not his real name).19
he was also looking over another paper work on his desk.18

xxx xxx xxx


In view of these proven circumstances, we are not convinced that counsel had fully explained
to Batocan his constitutional rights and what they entailed or the nature and the
consequences of an extrajudicial confession -- explanations that would have enabled him to Q: But, nevertheless, Mr. Witness, it was the policeman who choose you to be
make an informed judgment on whether to confess; and if so, on what matters. There is no the lawyer to assist?
showing that Atty. Rous properly explained the choices or options open to appellant, a duty
expected of any counsel under the circumstances. In sum, he did not turn out to be the A: No, sir, the police only thru their duties, to suggest or provide where counsel
competent and independent counsel envisioned by the Constitution. can be sought, now, it happened that under our agreement, with the police, if the
two boys were going to give their statement and if the declarant got no lawyer that
We now go to the extrajudicial confessions of Edgar and Nerio Suela. Atty. Sansano they will bring them to the IBP because we even provide the assistance that are
supposedly stood as counsel for the Suela brothers during their custodial investigation. He needed in order to be able to conduct an investigation."20 (Italics supplied)
testified on how he discharged his duties as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
"Q: Did you also inform them of the nature of the charge against them and the
circumstances s[u]rrounding the taking of their statement? "Q: Anyway, you already knew that the incident of robbery and killing of a
person was involved, is that right?
A: Yes sir, after the investigation. Where the prosecution failed to discharge the State's burden of proving with clear and
convincing evidence that the accused had enjoyed effective and vigilant counsel before he
Q: So when you already knew the possible charge based on the testimony of the extrajudicially admitted his guilt, the extrajudicial confession cannot be given any probative
two declarants? value.23

A: Yes sir, it was robbery with homicide. The extrajudicial confessions of all three appellants are thus inadmissible in evidence.

Q: You said a while ago that your duty as assisting counsel was only to advise Second Issue:
the suspects one of which is to advise them that they can if they do not want to
answer those questions that they would think damaging then they can do that? Admissibility of Wristwatch and Letter

A: Yes sir, and the best evidence is the evidence that they gave in their Wristwatch
statements.
Edgardo Batocan allegedly confessed in Leyte that the stolen Citizen wristwatch had been
Q: Now, since you advised them about damaging testimonies, did you not given to his girlfriend. When he rendered this confession, he did not execute any written
advise them that to make a confession would be damaging to themselves as waiver of his right to remain silent or of his right to counsel. "Any admission wrung from the
assisting counsel? accused in violation of his constitutional rights is inadmissible in evidence against
him."24 Therefore, his alleged statement as to the location of the wristwatch is inadmissible.
A: The confession became clearly damaging only after the answers were given
following the question but as I said, at that stage I did not stop the declarant from Furthermore, the prosecution's claim that the wristwatch was recovered from his girlfriend is
giving his answer because if I objected then that would be an obstruction in the hearsay and hence, has limited probative value.25 The prosecution did not present anyone
investigation itself."21 who had actually witnessed the alleged recovery of the wristwatch from the girl. S/Insp.
Benjamin Labadia recounted the incident in this plainly insufficient manner:
Evidently, Atty. Sansano did not understand the exact nature of appellants' rights to counsel
and to remain silent during their custodial investigations. He viewed a refusal to answer as an "Q: Alright Mr. Witness, you said that a wrist watch was also a part of the loot
obstruction in the investigation. This shows that he was incapable or unwilling to advise and that Batocan told your team that it was in the custody of his sweetheart. When
appellants that remaining silent was a right they could freely exercise without fear of any so informed that this wrist watch was in the custody of his sweetheart, what did
untoward consequence. As counsel, he could have stopped his clients from answering the the police operatives do?
propounded questions and advised them of their right to remain silent, if they preferred to
do so. That the process of investigation could have been "obstructed" should not have A: The police operatives together with Edgardo Batocan went to the place and
concerned him because his duty was to his clients and not to the prosecution or to the police when they came back, I did not go with them, the wrist watch was already in the
investigators.1âwphi1.nêt possession of the Quezon City Police operative, Sir.

Moreover, when he interviewed appellants, he did not even bother to find out the gist of Q: Did you actually see, Mr. Witness when the team proceeded to the place
their proposed statements in order to be able to inform them properly of the nature and where the sweetheart of accused Edgardo Batocan was staying, give this wrist
consequences of their extrajudicial confessions. Clearly and sadly, appellants were not watch to the Quezon City Police operatives?
accorded competent and independent counsel whom they could rely on to look after their
interests.
A: I said, Sir. I did not accompany them."26

"In People v. dela Cruz, we stated that 'a confession made in an atmosphere
As for the wristwatch itself, we agree with appellant that its seizure, if it was really taken
characterized by deficiencies in informing the accused of all rights to which he is
from Batocan's girlfriend, was irregular. As succinctly explained in Batocan's Brief:
entitled would be rendered valueless and inadmissible, perforated, as it is, by non-
compliance with the procedural and substantive safeguards to which an accused is
entitled under the Bill of Rights and as now further implemented and ramified by "x x x. Clearly, the watch was taken without a search warrant and not as an incident
statutory law.'"22 of a valid arrest. The seizure was irregular. There is also no evidence on record that
it was taken under any of the exempting circumstances where a warrantless seizure
is permissible. It was not shown if the girlfriend voluntarily and validly consented to namana siya ang may baril siya and nanotok si Edgardo Batokan siya ang komoha
the taking x x x. Lacking such evidence, no presumption of regularity can be ng pira tapos omalis na kami ako ang ng drive ng kotse. Tapos inewan namin sa
assumed. Ricto tapos ng hiwalay hiwa na kame yon tike. Dian ng kapatid ko.

'Where the search was conducted with irregularity, i.e. without a "Sir patawarin mo na ako hinde naman akong masamang tao na pasama lang ako.
warrant, the Court cannot appreciate consent based merely on the
presumption of regularity of the performance of duty.' (People vs. "Sana po & sir babaan mo naman ang aking sintinesia ayaw ko pang mamatay.
Encinada, 280 SCRA 72).

"The wristwatch is clearly a fruit of a 'fruit of a poisonous tree.' As such, it should Nerio Suela
not have been admitted and appreciated against the accused."27 (signed)
Quezon City Jail
Letter
Sir. Sagotin mo naman
Nerio Suela also contends that his January 31, 1996 letter to John Doe (not his real name) is itong sulat ko
inadmissible in evidence. The letter reads as follows: (signed)"28

"Jan-31-96 This letter was properly identified. Nerio was no longer under custodial investigation when
he wrote it. In open court, he admitted having written it. Thus, contrary to his contention,
the fact that he was not assisted by counsel when he wrote it will not make the letter
inadmissible in evidence. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to
"Dearest Sir John Doe (not his real name)
a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities.29 Hence, the
letter is admissible in evidence.
"Sir matagal kona sana ito ipagtapat sa iyo dahil tuwing kitay nakikita na lumoloha
ka parang hindi ako maka hinga ng sisikip and aking dibdib. Tuwing tayo'y nasa
Third Issue:
simbahan homihinge ako ng tawad sa panginoon ang nagawa kong ito
nararamdaman ko na parabang hinde niya tinatanggap.
Liability for Robbery with Homicide
"Sir napakalaki ng nagawa kong kasalanan sa iyo at sana bigyan mo pa ako ng isang
pagkakataon pagsisihan ko lahat ang pagkakasala sa iyo babagohin ko na ang buhay Without the wristwatch and the uncounseled extrajudicial confessions, are the remaining
ko maglilingkod ako sa diyos. pieces of evidence still sufficient to prove appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Fortunately for the prosecution, our answer is "Yes."
"Sir nandito ako sa likod ng bakal na rihas halos lahat ng oras ng dadasal ako bigyan
mo pa ako ng isang pagkakataon patawaring mo ako. Excluding the wristwatch and the written extrajudicial confessions, the material evidence on
record are as follows:
"Sir alam ng diyos na hindi ako ang kriminal may kinalaman lang ako inamin ko na
lang. Para naman magkaroon ng lonas yong problima mo hindi narin ako makatiis 1) The testimony of the medicolegal officer in conjunction with the medico legal
hindi pa makatolog. Lalo na nakikita kita na ng hihirap ang inyong katawan lalo na Report30 which proved the existence of five stab wounds on the cadaver of
ang in kalooban sana sir bigyan mo pa ako ng isang pagkakataon patawarin mo ako Geronimo Gabilo;
isa rin ako na anak ng diyos na naligaw ng langdas ngayon pinagsisihan ko lahat ang
nagawa kong kasalanan sir ayaw ko pang mamatay maliliit ang aking mga anak 2) The stolen colored Sony television set and the knife used in stabbing Geronimo
mahal ako ng aking asawa. Gabilo, which were recovered from the house of Nerio Suela;

"Sir. Edgardo Batokan ang pumatay kay Sir JERRY sangayon nandoon siya sa Jaro 3) The handwritten letter of Nerio Suela asking for forgiveness and admitting his
Leyte Bo. San Agostin. Sir hinde ko maggawang pomatay ng tao somama lang ako participation in the crime;
dahil baka kayo ang patayin nang doon lang ako sa may pito. Yung kapatid ko
4) The handwritten tip on the identity of the malefactors voluntarily handed by A: I met him in the second floor of station 9 along Anonas Street.
Edgar Suela to Araceli Tubaga, which -- in open court -- he admitted having written.
It states: Q: Under what circumstances were you able to meet him?

'1. Nerio Suela – ang utak ng pagpaslang A: Upon his arrest on March 13, 1996 at around 3:00 in the afternoon, I was
called by the Station Commander of Station 9 to meet Mr. Edgardo Batocan and
'2. TV color and evidencia nasa bahay niya ang tunay na pangalan present also during that time were the relatives of Gerry Gabilo, sir.
national ngayon ay pinalitan ng Panasonic
Q: What transpired when you met Edgardo Batocan in the office of the Station
'3. Ang knife na ginamit nasa bahay niya 8 inc.' Commander of Station 9?

5) The testimony of John Doe (not his real name) who narrated how three hooded A: We talked about the crime and he mentioned to us that it was Nerio Suela
men brandishing guns and a knife barged into his room on the night of January 18, who planned the whole thing at their place and the plan was hatched three days
1996, and hogtied him, Gabilo and Norman.31 They were then threatened and before the commission of the crime on July 26, 1995.
intimidated into giving the location of their money and valuables, which the
criminals eventually took.32 The malefactors then dragged Gabilo Q: What else did he tell you, Mr. Witness, at that time?
downstairs.33 Shortly, thereafter, he followed them and found Gabilo in a pool of
his own blood.34 He observed that the height and built of the three malefactors
xxx xxx xxx
were the same as those of appellants;35

A: He insisted that it was actually Mr. Nerio Suela who masterminded because
6) The oral admissions made by Nerio Suela and Edgardo Batocan to John Doe (not
on the way down from the second floor, Mr. Gerry Gabilo was pleading with him
his real name) and his officemates. John Doe (not his real name) testified as
for them not to harm him and felt quite remorseful when he was already about to
follows:
stab my friend but it was Nerio Suela who pushed him to kill Gerry and then one of
my staff even asked him "how many times did you stab, Mr. Gabilo?"
"Q After Nerio Suela was told that somebody will be talking with him thru the
phone, what happened next, if any?
xxx xxx xxx

A Nerio Suela pale faced, admitted the commission of the crime and he was
Q: What did Edgar Batocan answer to one of your staff?
very apologetic to me and he said: "Sir, patawarin mo po ako sa aking nagawa,
nagkamali lang po ako, tulungan naman po ninyo ako", those were the statements
of Mr. Nerio Suela as he was being interrogated by Mr. Patriarca. A: He answered that he hit him five times, sir.

Q What else did he tell you? COURT:

A Those were the only statements that I actually heard from Nerio Suela.36 Q: You were present when your staff member asked Edgardo about the
question?
xxx xxx xxx
A: Yes, I was there.
Q Again, do you know a person by the name of Edgardo Batocan?
Q: You were also present when Edgardo Batocan gave the answer?
A I learned about him only from the letter of Nerio Suela and also when I met
him on March 13, 1996, sir. A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: Where did you meet this Edgardo Batocan for the first time, Mr. Witness? xxx xxx xxx
Q: Was there any investigation being conducted by the police at that time you The evidence showing the identity of Edgar Suela are circumstantial in character. It is basic
were talking with Edgardo Batocan? that an accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone, provided
that: (a) there is more than one circumstance, (b) the facts from which the inferences are
A: There was none, Your Honor. derived are proven, and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.42 In the present case, all these requirements are
satisfied.
Q: Or you were alone with Edgardo Batocan together with your staff member?

These circumstances may be summarized, thus: (1) Edgar's intimate personal knowledge of
A: We were left alone at the second floor with some of my staff member
the details of the crime which he wrote down as tips; (2) as a security guard, he possessed a
together with the family of Gerry Gabilo, so we were asking him the circumstances
gun on the night of the incident; (3) he was the brother of one of the malefactors and a
on how he did it and so forth and so on.
friend of the other; (4) the interlocking admissions to John Doe (not his real name) of Batocan
and his brother Nerio point to Edgar as their cohort; (5) John Doe (not his real name) also
Q: Did he ask for forgiveness? identified him as one of the malefactors. These are duly proven circumstances which
sufficiently establish beyond reasonable doubt his identity as one of the malefactors.
A: No, he did not Your Honor.37
Conspiracy
Edgardo Batocan's confession to John Doe (not his real name) who is not a police officer is
admissible in evidence.38 The Rules state that "the declaration of an accused acknowledging The three malefactors arrived together at the house of John Doe (not his real name). They
his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given were all wearing ski masks and were all sporting weapons. While one was threatening John
in evidence against him."39 Batocan's verbal declarations are not covered by Sections 12 (1) Doe (not his real name), the other was intimidating Gabilo and the third was pointing his
and (3) of Article III of the Constitution,40 because they were not extracted while he was weapon on Norman. After getting the money and valuables of Gabilo and John Doe (not his
under custodial investigation. real name), all three went downstairs together, two of them dragging Gabilo with them.
Upon the instruction of Nerio, Batocan stabbed Gabilo five times. They finally left together in
In People v. Tawat,41 the Court declared: the same car, with Nerio driving. These acts of the three appellants before, during and after
the crime clearly indicate a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.
"The rule is that "any person, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a
confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard is he heard common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is
and understood all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.43
such case it must be given in its substance."
Hence, although Nerio and Edgar Suela did not themselves stab Gerry Gabilo, they are still
"Proof of the contents of an oral extrajudicial confession may be made by the liable for his death as principals because the existence of conspiracy makes the act of one the
testimony of a person who testifies that he was present, heard, understood, and act of all.44 Moreover, whenever the complex crime of robbery with homicide is proven to
remembers the substance of the conversation or statement made by the accused." have been committed, all those who took part in the robbery are liable as principals even
though they did not actually take part in the killing.45

These pieces of evidence sufficiently prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the
crime of robbery with homicide. Proper Penalty

Identities of Appellants As Malefactors The current Rules on Criminal Procedure require that even generic aggravating circumstances
must be alleged in the Information. Thus, Section 9 of new Rule 110 states:

Edgardo Batocan's oral admission to John Doe (not his real name) that he stabbed Gabilo five
times dovetails on material points with the letter of Nerio. In turn, Nerio's letter to John Doe "Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as
(not his real name) asking for forgiveness and admitting his participation in the crime, taken constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
together with the recovery from his house of the stolen TV and knife used in killing Gabilo; stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in
plus the oral admission of Batocan and the written tip of Edgar Suela pointing to him as the the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to
mastermind prove beyond reasonable doubt his identity as one of the malefactors. know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
In People v. Mauricio,46 the Court elucidated: ₱200,000.00 (TSN, November 4, 1996, pp. 5-17; ibid., Decision, p. 15). In fact, the
money was delivered not due to fear but for the purpose of possibly having a lead
"The use of the word 'must' indicates that the requirement is mandatory, therefore in solving the case and to possibly bring the culprit to justice (ibid.). As such, the
failure to comply with Sec. 9, Rule 110, means that generic aggravating elements of simple robbery have not been established in the instant case, hence,
circumstances, although proven at the trial, cannot be appreciated against the appellant Edgar Suela should be acquitted of that charge."48
accused if such circumstances are not stated in the information. It is a cardinal rule
that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive application insofar as they WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED and the appealed
benefit the accused." Decision MODIFIED. We AFFIRM the judgment insofar as it refers to Criminal Case Nos. Q-96-
64616 and Q-96-65071 but REDUCE the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The award of civil
In the present case, the aggravating circumstance of disguise which was appreciated by the indemnities is also AFFIRMED. In Criminal Case No. Q-96-64618 for simple robbery, Edgar
court a quo was not alleged in the Informations against appellants. Following the above-cited Suela y Hembra is ACQUITTED.
new rule and current jurisprudence, we cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstance of
disguise against appellants. The special complex crime of robbery with homicide carries the No pronouncement as to costs.
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. There being no appreciable aggravating circumstance,
the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua. SO ORDERED.

Furthermore, in People v. Catubig,47 we held that while a non-alleged but proven aggravating 18. People vs. Januario
circumstance cannot be used to increase the penalty, nonetheless it can be the source of civil
awards. Hence, we retain the trial court's civil grants in this regard. The 1987 Constitution was crafted and ordained at a historic time when our nation was
reeling from ghastly memories of atrocities, excesses and outright violations of our peoples
rights to life, liberty and property. Hence, our bill of rights was worded to emphasize the
sanctity of human liberty and specifically to protect persons undergoing custodial
investigations from ignorant, overzealous and/or incompetent peace officers. The
Fourth Issue: Constitution so dearly values freedom and voluntariness that, inter alia, it unequivocally
guarantees a person undergoing investigation for the commission of an offense not only the
Robbery services of counsel, but a lawyer who is not merely (a) competent but also (b) independent
and (c) preferably of his own choice as well.
On the trial court's sentence of robbery in Criminal Case No. Q-96-64618, we agree with the
In the case before us, the main evidence relied upon for the conviction of appellants
recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General that Edgar Suela should be acquitted.
were their own extrajudicial confessions which admittedly were extracted and signed in the
The OSG explained:
presence and with the assistance of a lawyer who was applying for work in the NBI. Such
counsel cannot in any wise be considered independent because he cannot be expected to
"Simple robbery is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of work against the interest of a police agency he was hoping to join, as a few months later, he
persons as distinguished from the use of force upon things, but the extent of the in fact was admitted into its work force. For this violation of their constitutional right to
violence or intimidation does not fall under pars. 1 to 4 of Article 294 (Revised independent counsel, appellants deserve acquittal. After the exclusion of their tainted
Penal Code) [p. 175, Criminal Law, Book II, Vol. IV, Ambrosio Padilla, 1990]. confessions, no sufficient and credible evidence remains in the Courts records to overturn
another constitutional right: the right to be presumed innocent of any crime until the
"Unfortunately, in the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove that appellant contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Edgar Suela employed force or intimidation on private complainant John Doe (not
his real name) by instilling fear in his mind so as to compel the latter to cough out This is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch XVIII
the amount of ₱200,000.00. Instead, what was established was that he had agreed in Tagaytay City, disposing of Criminal Case No. TG-1392-89, viz.:
to give the ₱200,000.00 in exchange for information regarding the identity and
whereabouts of those who robbed him and killed his friend (TSN, November 4, WHEREFORE, and premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused:
1996, p. 7; TSN, November 5, 1996, pp. 4-9). There was no showing that appellant
Edgar Suela had exerted intimidation on him so as to leave him no choice but to (1) RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN
give the money. Instead, what is clear was that the giving of the money was done and-
not out of fear but because it was a choice private complainant opted because he (2) EFREN CANAPE Y BAYOT
wanted to get the information being offered to him for the consideration of
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 14 last sentence of R.A. Vicente Dilanco Pons, Andrew Patriarca, Sr., Juliana Malibago, Atty. Magno Toribio, and Atty.
No. 6539, otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Law and as charged against them in the Carlos Saunar, documentary and other evidence tending to prove the following:
Information and pursuant to the said law, this Court hereby imposes upon the said accused,
the supreme penalty of Reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment. Sometime in March 1988, Santiago Cid went to the house of prosecution witness
Vicente Dilanco Pons, a farmer engaged in the buy and sell business, in Camarines Sur. Cid,
Pons' cousin, asked Pons if he wanted to buy a jeepney. Pons replied that he had no money
Further, they are ordered to pay jointly and severally, but separately, the heirs of their but that he could help him find a buyer for the jeepney for the price of P50,000.00. With
victims, namely, Geronimo Malibago and Andrew Patriarca, Jr., the sums of: Amador Alayan, one of the drivers of his son who was around, Pons offered to look for a
buyer of the jeepney provided that Cid would entrust the vehicle to them. Cid agreed to the
(a) P50,000.00 for moral damages; proposal. At that time, Pons did not know who owned the jeepney, but he eventually offered
(b) P50,000.00 for exemplary damages; it for sale to Myrna Temporas who agreed to the purchase price of P65,000.00. However,
(c) P25,000.00 for actual damages, and to pay the costs Temporas paid Pons only the amount of P48,500.00.[6]
of this proceeding.
Myrna Temporas had a slightly different story. According to her, Pons said that the
jeepney was owned by his niece, Doris Wolf. Pons, purportedly acting upon the instructions
There being no evidence to warrant a finding of conviction beyond reasonable doubt,
of Doris Wolf, borrowed from Myrna Temporas the amount of P48,500.00 and used the
judgment is hereby rendered ACQUITTING Accused SANTIAGO CID of the crime charged.
jeepney as a collateral. The amount was given to Pons in P10,000.00 cash and the balance in
Being a detention prisoner, the City Warden of Tagaytay City is hereby ordered to
a check payable to Doris Wolf. The check was encashed as it was cleared from Myrna
immediately release said person from his prison cell, unless he is therein detained for any
Temporas' account. It bore a signature supposedly of Doris Wolf at its back portion and a
other cause. is
second endorsement by Pons who subsequently deposited it in his account.

SO ORDERED. On September 11, Temporas asked Pons to secure a special power of attorney from
Doris Wolf. Pons promised to comply in one or two weeks. But Pons failed to pay the
indebtedness. So, Myrna Temporas repeatedly went to his house in Digmaan, Camarines Sur
to collect the amount borrowed but Pons always promised that he himself would go to her
The Antecedents house to pay.[7]

Inasmuch as Pons also failed to produce a deed of sale covering the jeepney, Temporas
On November 7, 1988, an Information signed by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jose M. lodged a complaint against him for estafa before the NBI.[8] Acting on the complaint, the NBI
Velasco, Jr., was filed against accused-appellants Rene Januario and Efren Canape, and their contacted the relatives of the owner of the jeepney who went to Camarines Sur, identified
co-accused Santiago Cid, Eliseo Sarita @ Toto and Eduardo Sarinos @ Digo charging them the jeepney and informed the NBI that its driver (deceased Geronimo Malibago) and
with violation of Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Law)[2] allegedly commited as conductor (deceased Andrew Patriarca, Jr.) had been killed by carnappers.[9]
follows:
Patriarca's widow also filed a complaint with the NBI. Upon investigation, an NBI team
led by Supervising Agent Magno Toribio found out that the carnapping of the jeepney and
"That on or about September 4, 1987, at Barangay Bulihan, Municipality of Silang, Province of the killing of Patriarca and Malibago were the "handiwork" of a group of four (4) persons
Cavite, the above-named accused, together with Eliseo Sarita @ Toto and Eduardo Sarinos named Rene Januario, Efren Canape, Eliseo Sarita alias Toto, and Eduardo Sarinos alias
who (sic) still at-large, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one Digo. The team also discovered that the jeepney was disposed of through Cid.[10]
another, with intent to gain, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did, then and
there, willfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously, after stabbing to death the driver Gernonimo Appellants Januario and Canape, as well as Cid, were arrested in Camarines Sur. The
(sic) Malibago and conductor Andrew Patriarca, take, steal and carry away and carnap, one NBI then invited Pons and Temporas to shed light on the carnapping incident. The jeepney
Isuzu passenger type jeepney, with plate No. DFB-550, owned by Doris and Victor Wolf, to was recovered in an auto shop with its engine partly dismantled. Upon being informed by
their damage and prejudice in the total amount of P124,000.00. the NBI that the jeepney had been found, an insurance company brought it back to Manila.

From the "oral investigation" they conducted at the Naga City NBI office on March 27,
CONTRARY TO LAW."[3] 1988, the team learned that Sarita and Sarinos took Patriarca and Malibago inside a sugar
plantation where presumably they were killed. Because appellants volunteered that their
Arraigned on February 7, 1989, appellants Januario and Canape, assisted by counsel de companions were their neighbors in Paliparan, Dasmarias, Cavite who could be in Manila
oficio, pleaded not guilty.[4] On May 30, 1989, Cid, assisted by counsel de parte, likewise already, the NBI team decided to take down their statements at the NBI head office in
entered a plea of not guilty.[5] Sarita and Sarinos remained at large. At the trial, the Manila. The team traveled with appellants to Manila, arriving there at around 1:00 o'clock in
prosecution presented the following witnesses: Myrna Temporas, NBI Agent Arlis S. Vela, the afternoon of March 28, 1988.
At the Taft Avenue head office of the NBI, the team took the statements of appellants After that drinking spree, the group agreed to fetch appellants Januario and Canape at
one at a time. They asked Atty. Carlos Saunar, who was "just around somewhere," to assist 4:00 o'clock the following morning. It was Digo Samera who fetched appellants before they
appellants during the investigation. Agent Arlis Vela took the statement of appellant went to the house of Toto Sarita. Together, they went to GMA town in Cavite. It was around
Januario while Supervising Agent Toribio took that of Canape. The first portion of the 5:00 o'clock in the morning when they hailed a jeep from the "looban." Thereafter, the
statement, Exhibit C, taken from appellant Januario reads: following allegedly transpired:

"18. T Ano na ang nangyari noong kayo ay sumakay sa jeep?


"SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NA IBINIGAY NI RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN SA HARAP NI
NBI AGENT ARLIS E. VELA NGAYONG IKA-28 NG MARSO 1988 SA NBI, NCR, MANILA. S Ako ang naunang sumakay pagtigil noong jeep. Bago maka-alis ang
jeep nagsalita si TOTO SARITA na nasa baba pa kasama sina EFREN CANAPE
xxx xxx at DIGO na `HINTAY ka muna may naiwanan pa ako.' Sumakay si Digo sa
xxx tapat ng conductor na nasa loob ng jeep samantalang si TOTO ay pumuesto
sa bandang kanan sa unahan ng jeep at si EFREN ay sa bandang kaliwa rin
1. TANONG Mr. RENE JANUARIO ipina-aalam namin sa iyo na ikaw ay aming ng jeep tapat ng driver at sabay si EFREN at TOTO na sumakay sa unahan ng
inuusig sa salang pagnakaw ng isang jeepney at pagkapatay sa driver at jeep at mabilis na tinulak ni EFREN ang driver patungo kay TOTO na siyang
conductor nito. Gusto naming malaman mo na ikaw ay hindi maaring pilitin tumutok, (sic) sa driver ng isang sandata balisong 29. Habang nangyayari
na magbigay ng salaysay at kong (sic) sakaling magbibigay ka ng salaysay, iyon ay tinutukan naman ni DIGO na nasa loob ng jeep ang conductor na
ano mang sasabihin mo rito ay pueding (sic) gamitin laban sa iyo sa ano pinasubsub ang ulo habang tinutukan ng 29. Ang sabi sa akin ni DIGO ay
mang caso. Nauunawaan mo ba ito? REN igapos mo ito' at inabutan niya ako ng isang panyong panali. Sa aking
kabiglaanan ako ay napasunod at tinali ko iyong conductor.
SAGOT Naiintiendihan (sic) ko.
19. T Ano na ang sumunod na nangyari matapos matalian mo ang
2. T Kailangan mo ba ang tulong ng abogado sa pagtatanong na ito?
conductor?
S Magsalaysay (sic) lang ako pag-may abogado ako.
S Napansin ko na lang na maneho na ni TOTO Sarita ang jeep na
3. T May abogado ka ba sa ngayon? kanyang pinasibad habang ang driver ay nakatali na rin at ako naman ay
sinabihan ni DIGO na hawakan iyong conductor sa balikat habang tinutukan
S Mayroon po si Atty. CARLOS SAUNAR ay nandito para tulongan (sic) ng patalim ni DIGO. Ang conductor ay nagsasalita na siya ay nasasaktan
ako. dahil nakatusok na ang patalim sa kanyang leeg o batok.
4. T Nanunumpa ka na magsasabi ng katotohanan, buong katotohanan at 20. T Ano ang nangyari matapos na matutukan ang conductor at driver at
wala ng iba kungdi katotohanan lamang sa pagtatanong na ito? habang nagmamaneho si TOTO?
S Opo. S Mula sa lugar na iyon pagkaraan ng ilang minuto ay biglang iniliko sa
isang maliit na lupang kalsada na napapaligiran ng tubo at talahib at doon
5. T Sabihin mo ang iyong pangalan at iba-ibang bagay tungkol sa iyong
ay hininto ang sasakyan.
pagkatao?
21. T Ano na ang sumonod (sic) na nangyari sa lugar na iyon matapos na
S RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN, 26 taong gulang, binata, isang (sic) buy
maihinto ang jeep?
and sell hanapbuhay at naninirahan sa Puro Batya, Libmanan, Camarines
Sur. S Unang bumaba po ay si TOTO na hawak ang driver pababa at itinulak
ang driver sa may tobohan (sic). Si EFREN ay sumonod (sic)hanggang sa
xxx xxx
may gilid ng karsada habang si TOTO ay tuloy sa tobohan (sic) na dala ang
xxx."[11]
driver. Si DIGO naman ay tinulak ang conductor hawak-hawak sa buhok at
According to appellant Januario, two weeks before September 1987, he was already in ang sabi naman sa akin ay hawakan ko ang balikat. Kinuha sa akin ang
the house of appellant Canape in Bgy. Palapala, Dasmarias, Cavite to procure chicken and conductor ni DIGO at dinala sa may tubuhan (sic) at akin na lang narinig na
"kalawit" for his business. He also went there because his new friends named Toto Sarita ang pag-ungol ng conductor dahil malapit lang iyon sa sasakyan.
and Digo Samera (sic), as well as appellant Canape, wanted him to look for a buyer of a
22. T Nakikita mo ba sila DIGO at ang conductor habang siya ay umuungol?
jeep. Appellant Januario asked for a photograph of the jeep to assist him in making a canvass
of buyers in Bicol but he was told that he would have it later at night because they were then S Hindi ko na po nakita kasi nasa tubohan na.
having drinks in the house of Toto.
23. T Sila TOTO at ang driver nasaan sila habang naririnig mong umuungol Septembyre (sic) 1988. Bago ka namin tanungin aming ipinaalam sa iyo ang
ang conductor? iyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas. Una, ikaw ay may
karapatan na huwag magbigay ng salaysay sa imbistigasyon na ito, at
S Pumasok po sa tubohan hindi ko na sila makita. manahimik. Ano mang sabihin mo dito ay puweding gamitin laban sa iyo sa
24. T Ano na ang nangyari matapos na dalhin ni TOTO ang driver at ni DIGO asunto kriminal o civil. Ikalawa, ikaw ay may karapatan na kumuha ng
naman ang conductor sa tobohan (sic)? iyong abogado upang tulungan ka sa imbistigasyon na ito. At kung gusto
mo pero wala kang pambayad sa sirbesyon (sic) nito, ikaw ay bibigyan ng
S Mga ilang minuto lang po ay bumalik na sila sa sasakyan at kami NBI ng libre. Matapos mong malaman ang iyong mga karapatan, ikaw ba ay
sumakay na at si TOTO ang nagmaneho ng sasakyan at tuloy-tuloy na kami nakahandang magbigay ng kusang loob na salaysay?
sa Bikol, sa Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
ANSWER Opo, sir.
25. T Noong kayo ay umalis sa tubohan na iyon, nasaan na noon ang driver
at ang conductor? 2. T Kung ganoon sabihin mo ang iyong buong pangalan, tirahan at iba
pang mga bagay-bagay na pweding pagkakakilalanan sa iyong pagkatao?
S Wala na po.
S Ako si EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT, 31 anyos ang idad (sic), kasal kay
26. T May napansin ka ba kina DIGO at TOTO noong sila ay sumakay sa jeep AIDA ROLDAN, isang mag-sasaka (sic), nakatapos ng ika-limang baitang sa
galing sa tubuhan (sic)? elemantarya, at sa kasalukuyan ay naninirahan sa Bgy. Sibuho, Libmanan,
Camarines Sur.
S Humihingal sila po na parang pagod at napansin ko na may dugo ang
kamay ni DIGO at ang damit at pantalon naman ni TOTO ay may tilamsik 3. T Ikaw ba ay may nalalaman sa pagkanakaw ng isang Malaguea type
(sic) ng dugo. jeepney sa Bulihan, Silang, Cavite noong buwan ng Septyembre 1988?
xxx xxx S Opo, sir.
xxx."[12]
4. T Kung ganoon sabihin mo sa mga imbistigador na ito kung paano ang
Appellant Januario described the driver as more than fifty years old, of medium build, buong pangyayari?
and with gray hair and a fine nose. Upon reaching Libmanan, they went directly to Santiago
Cid with whom appellant Januario had earlier conferred regarding the sale of the S Kasi nuong (sic) minsan ako ay mapasyal sa Bgy. Crossing, sakop ng
jeep. Appellant Januario did not know to whom the jeep was sold but he knew that Cid Dasmarias, Cavite noong mga buwan ng Agosto 1987, kami ay nagkita ng
approached Vicente Pons. The latter gave appellant Januario P1,000 cash and rice and eggs aking kaibigan na si TOTO' SARETA at ang kanyang kasama na si DIGO
worth around P600. A second jeep was brought by Toto and Digo to Roger Abajero. Cid (complete name unknown) at ako ay kanyang sinabihan na humanap ng
brought both appellants to the house of Roger. Later, the jeep was impounded at the NBI buyer ng isang jeep. Kaya, ng (sic) ako ay umuwi na ng Libmanan,
Naga City office. Camarines Sur ako ay humananp (sic) ng taong interesado na bumili ng
nasabing jeep, katulung si RENE JANUARIO na taga bayan ng
Appellant Januario signed and thumbmarked his statement which was sworn before Libmanan. Ang aming nakitang interesado sa jeep ay si SANTIAGO
NBI Executive Director Salvador R. Ranin. It was also signed by Atty. Carlos Saunar "as CID. Kaya ang aming ginawa ni RENE ay bumalik sa Bgy. Crossing,
counsel." Dasmarias, Cavite para ipaalam kina TOTO SARETA na kami ay nakakuha na
ng buyer. Ng gabing yaon na kami ay dumating kami ay niyaya nina TOTO
Appellant Canape's sworn statement, Exhibit I, was taken by Atty. Magno V. Toribio, a na mag inuman at habang kami ay nag-iinuman sinabi ni TOTO na may
supervising NBI Agent. Quoted in full, the statement reads: makukuha na kami na jeep. Mga bandang alas kuwatro ng madaling araw,
kami ay niyaya na nina TOTO na kunin na ang jeep. Kami ay lumakad na
"SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NI IBINIGAY NI EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT KAY AGENTS papuntang Bulihan, Silang, Cavite. Pagdating namin doon, kami ay
MAGNO V. TORIBIO AND TOMAS C. ENRILE, MGA AHENTE NG NBI DITO SA NCR, NBI, naghintay ng mga ilang minuto. Ng (sic) dumaan ang isang jeep na wala
MANILA, NGAYONG IKA 27 NG MARSO 1988. pnag (sic) pasahero, ito ay pinara ni DIGO at kami ay sumakay. Mga ilang
minuto naman ang lumipas, habang ang diyep (sic) ay tumatakbo
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x papuntang Alabang ay naglabas ng patalim sina TOTO at DIGO at tinutukan
ang driver at ang kundoktor. Tapos kami ni RENE ay sinabihan (sic) din nila
1. TANONG Ginoong EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT, ikaw ay aming na maglabas ng patalim at tutukan din ang driver at ang kundoktor
iniimbistigahan ngayon tungkol sa pagkanakaw ng isang Izuzu (sic) type (sic). Pagdating namin sa Bgy. Maguyam, sakop din ng Silang, sapilitana
jitney sa Silang, Cavite at sa pagkamatay ng conductor nito noong buwan ng (sic) ibinaba nina TOTO, DIGO at RENE ang driver at ang kundoktor (sic) at
dinala sa loob ng tubuhan. Ako ay naiwan sa loob ng jeep. Hindi naman 14. T Ito bang si SANTIAGO CID at si VICENTE PONS ay alam kung saan at
natagalan ay lumabas na ang tatlo galing sa loob ng tubuhan, hindi na paano ninyo nakuha ang jeep?
kasama ang driver at and kundoktor (sic). Tapos, narining ko kay TOTO na
`ayos na daw'. Ang sunod naming ginawa ay pinatakbo na namin ang jeep S Opo, sir.
papuntang Libmanan. Pagdating namin sa Libmanan kami ay dumerretso 15. T Nasaan na ngayon sina TOTO SARETA at DIGO?
(sic) kay SANTIAGO CID at ibinigay na namin sa kanya ang jeep. Ang sabi
naman ni SANTIAGO ay dadalhin niya ang jeep kay VICENTE PONS na taga S Sa Dasmarias, Cavite ho.
Libmanan din.
16. T Hindi na ba sila napupuntang Libmanan?
5. T Alam mo ba ang nangyari sa driver at konduktor (sic) ng jeep na
inagaw niyo? S Bihira na ho sir. Pumupunta lang ho sila kung kukuha ng pera.

S Ang pag-kaalam ko ho sa sabi ni TOTO na ayos na' ang ibig sabihin ay 17. T Sa pagkaalam mo, mayroon pa ba silang ibang jeep na dinala sa
patay na sila. Libmanan?

6. T Sino naman ang VICENTE PONS na ito? S Mayroon pa ho akong nalaman kay SANTIAGO CID na may isa pang
jeep na dinala daw sina TOTO at DIGO sa kanya at kanya namang ibenenta
S Ang sabi sa amin ni SANTIAGO si VICENTE PONS ay ang kanyang kay Mr. ROGELIO ABAJERO, na taga Libmanan din.
nakuhang buyer ng jeep.
18. T Ano pa ang ibang alam mo tungkul (sic) dito sa pangalawang jeep na
7. Q Sa pagkaalam mo ba ay talagang binili ni VICENTE PONS and jeep? ibenenta (sic) nila kay Mr. ABAJERO?

A Opo, sir. S Wala na ho sir.

8. T Magkano naman ang pagkabili ni VICENTE PONS? 19. T Iyung tungkol sa unang jeep na ibenenta kay Mr. VICENTE PONS, alam
mo ba kung nasaan na iyon ngayon?
A Hindi ko po alam kung magkano ang iksaktong halaga, pero ang
presyo sa amin ni SANTIAGO ay P25,000.00. S Hindi ko rin po alam kung saan dinala ni Mr. PONS.

9. T Nang dalhin ba ninyo ang jeep kay SANTIAGO ay agad ninyong dinala 20. T Ito bang sina TOTO SARETA at DIGO ay matagal mo nang kakilala?
at pinagbili rin kay VICENTE PONS?
S Matagal na ho sir, dahil sa ako ay ipinanganak din sa Dasmarias,
S Opo, ng araw din na iyon. Cavite at doon din lumaki. Sila ho ay aking mga kababayan at matalik kung
mga kaibigan.
10. T Magkano ba ang paunang bayad, kung mayroon man, na ibinigay ni
VICENTE PONS sa inyo? 21. T Nung ikaw ba ay sabihan nina TOTO na humanap ng buyer ng jeep
alam mo ba na ang jeep na iyon ay nanakawin lamang?
A Ang alam ko ho ay P4,000.00 ang ibinigay ni VICENTE PONS kay
SANTIAGO dahil siya ang kausap nito. S Opo, sir.

11. T Magkano naman ang halagang naparte mo? 22. T Pansamantala ay wala na muna akong itatanong sa iyo, ikaw ba ay
mayroon pa ibig sabihin?
S Ako ho ay binigyan ni SANTIAGO ng P1,000.00?
S Wala na po, sir. KATAPUSAN NG SALAYSAY.
12. T Ito bang pag-pabili ninyo ng jeep kay VICENTE PONS ay may kasulatan?
(
S Wala po. Signed and thumbmarked)
13. T Kailan pa ang mga sumunod na bayad na ibinigay sa inyo ni VICENTE E
PONS? FREN B. CANAPE
N
S Hindi ko na ho masyadong matandaan ang mga iksaktong oras na agsasalaysay
kanyang pagbayad at kung magkano, basta ang pag-kaalam ko ay mga
tatlong beses lang siyang nag-hulog at iyon ay kanyang ibinibigay kay SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
SANTIAGO. Si SANTIAGO naman ang siyang nag-bibigay (sic) sa amin.
(Illegible signature) (Illegible signature) Canope (sic) is now considered closed." It set the "partial promulgation of judgment" on
March 9, 1990 "insofar as the two (2) accused are concerned."[26]
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 27th day of March 1988 at On March 1, 1990, appellants' counsel filed their memorandum.[27]
NBI, National Capital Region, Manila. I likewise certify that I have carefully
examined the herein affiant and that I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed his On March 9, 1990, the trial court did not make a "partial promulgation of
statement and understood the same. judgment." Instead, it ordered the "continuation of proceedings for purposes of rebuttal
evidence."[28]
(
On the same day, the defense presented Santiago Cid as a witness. He testified that a
Signed)
certain Raul Repe, Toto Sarita and Digo Sarreal approached him about the sale of the
A
jeepney. He referred them to Vicente Pons who he thought would buy the vehicle. He knew
tty. ARLIS E. VELA
appellants were also from Libmanan but did not see them during the transaction for the sale
(By
of the jeepney.[29]
Authority of Rep. Act 157)"[13]
On March 27, 1990, the Court denied defense counsel Claro's motion to cancel the
After the investigation, appellants went with the NBI agents in searching for their
hearing scheduled for that day. Noting the presence of Atty. Carlos Saunar, a prosecution
companions.[14]
witness whose attendance during scheduled trial dates had been delayed, and citing the
Meanwhile, Andrew Patriarca, Sr. reported the disappearance of his son, Andrew, Jr., "imperatives of justice," the trial court issued an order directing that the testimony of said
the jeepney and its driver to the police detachment in Bulihan, Silang, Cavite and the police witness should be heard that day.[30] In the absence of the counsel of record for the defense,
stations in Silang and Imus, Cavite. Two weeks after September 4, 1987, the body of 23-year- the trial court reiterated the appointment of Atty. Oscar Zaldivar as counsel de oficio.
old Andrew Patriarca, Jr. was found in a sugarcane plantation in Maguyam. His head was
Atty. Saunar testified that he joined the NBI sometime in May or June 1988. On March
severed from his body.[15] The body of the driver, Geronimo Malibago, stepfather of Doris
1988, while still in private practice, he was at the NBI head office handling a client case when
Wolf, the owner of the jeepney,[16] was recovered after the harvest of sugarcane in the
Atty. Vela, an NBI agent, approached him. The latter and Atty. Toribio introduced him to
plantation[17] in Maguyam.[18]Malibagos widow identified his body from its clothing.[19]
appellants and Cid. Vela and Toribio told him that the three had verbally confessed to
On September 12, 1989, the prosecution formally offered its evidence, [20] which the participation in a crime and that they needed his assistance as they were about to execute
court duly admitted.[21] For its part, the defense, through counsel, manifested its intention to their sworn statements.[31] Saunar agreed to assist the three suspects and allegedly explained
file a demurrer to evidence. However, because the defense had not yet presented accused to them the consequences of their confession. He also supposedly told them individually and
Cid, the court on November 21, 1989, ordered the cancellation of his bailbond and gave his in Tagalog, their constitutional rights, like their rights to be silent and to counsel and that
surety thirty days within which to show cause why judgment against the bond should not be whatever they would say could be used against them.[32]
rendered. The defense counsel, Atty. Jose Claro, was likewise required to explain why he
Saunar identified his signature in the sworn statement of appellant Januario. However,
should not be held in contempt of court for his failure to file a demurrer to evidence. [22]
he could no longer recall which of the three accused was appellant Canape although he
For failure of the defense counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing dates and to file admitted that the latter's face was "familiar."[33] He was certain, however, that he
the promised demurrer to evidence, the court on December 22, 1989, issued an order stating participated in the taking of appellant Canape's sworn statement on March 28, 1988. He
that the "accused may no longer at this time be allowed to present their Demurrer to admitted that his signature does not appear on appellant Canape's sworn statement but he
Evidence." It scheduled dates for the presentation of defense evidence and appointed Atty. could "only surmise" that he did not sign the same sworn statement because either it was
Oscar Zaldivar as counsel de oficio for the defendants.[23] not presented to him immediately after the statement was taken or that it could have been
misplaced.[34]
Nevertheless, on December 26, 1989, counsel for the defense Claro mailed a "demurrer
to evidence or motion to dismiss on (sic) insufficiency of evidence." [24] On January 10, 1990, After receiving Saunar's testimony, the trial court asked the prosecution whether it
the trial court denied the motion finding that the demurrer did not "contain any reason was presented as rebuttal testimony. Answering in the positive, the prosecutor reminded
compelling enough to recall the previous order," disallowing the filing of said pleading. [25] the court that when Saunar could not be presented as a witness, he had made a reservation
to call him as "additional evidence for the prosecution and/or rebuttal" testimony. Clarifying,
On February 8, 1990, upon the manifestation of Atty. Claro that appellants would no the court said that as against Cid, the testimony was a principal one but a rebuttal as far as
longer present evidence, the trial court issued an order considering the case terminated as the appellants were concerned.[35]
far as appellants were concerned. However, it granted a "reservation" to present evidence
as regards Cid. The trial court further directed Atty. Claro to present Cid before the court on On May 11, 1990, the defense manifested that it was closing its case. The prosecution
March 9, 1990. It ordered the filing of memoranda "as the case of accused Januario and having waived its right to present "any rebuttal evidence," the trial court issued an order
requiring the filing of the parties' respective memoranda. [36] On June 27, 1990, the trial court (c) The parties may then respectively present rebutting evidence only, unless the court, in
rendered the herein questioned Decision.[37] the furtherance of justice, permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the
main issue.

The Issues (d) Upon admission of the evidence, the cases shall be deemed submitted unless the court
directs the parties to argue orally or to submit memoranda.

In their separate briefs filed by their respective counsel (Atty. Jose C. Claro for Januario (e) However, when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or
and Atty. Florendo C. Medina for Canape), appellants ascribe basically two errors against the information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified accordingly."
trial court: (Emphasis supplied.)

(1) The trial procedure, particularly the presentation and admission of the testimony of Atty. The trial procedure as outlined in this rule is ordinarily followed to insure the orderly
Carlos Saunar, was irregular and prejudicial to the appellants; and conduct of litigations to attain the magisterial objective of the Rules of Court to protect the
parties' substantive rights.[40] However, strict observance of the Rules depend upon the
(2) The extra-judicial confessions of the appellants are inadmissible in evidence for having circumstances obtaining in each case at the discretion of the trial judge. Thus, as early as
been extracted in violation of their constitutional right to counsel. 1917, this Court explained:

Insisting that his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, appellant "x x x. The orderly course of proceedings requires, however, that the
Januario contends that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence his sworn statement prosecution shall go forward and should present all of its proof in the first instance; but
before the NBI and the testimony of Atty. Saunar as rebuttal or additional witness after the it is competent for the judge, according to the nature of the case, to allow a party who
prosecution had rested its case, he (appellant Januario) had filed his memorandum, and the has closed his case to introduce further evidence in rebuttal. This rule, however,
decision had been scheduled for promulgation.[38] depends upon the particular circumstances of each particular case, and falls within the
sound discretion of the judge, to be exercised or not as he may think proper." [41]
For his part, appellant Canape also claims that his guilt had not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. He questions the trial court's having given "weight and sufficiency" to his Hence, the court may allow the prosecutor, even after he has rested his case or even
extra-judicial confession.[39] after the defense has moved for dismissal, to present involuntarily omitted evidence. [42] The
Appellant Januario contends that the trial court erred in allowing the presentation of primary consideration is whether the trial court still has jurisdiction over the case. Thus
Saunar as a witness after the prosecution had closed its case and offered its documentary
evidence. Saunar could not in any guise be considered as a rebuttal witness simply because "The claim that the lower court erred in allowing the prosecuting attorney to introduce new
there was no defense evidence to rebut. evidence is devoid of any merit, for while the prosecution had rested, the trial was not yet
terminated and the cause was still under the control and jurisdiction of the court and the
latter, in the exercise of its discretion, may receive additional evidence. Sec. 3(c), Rule 119 of
the Rules of Court clearly provides that, in the furtherance of justice, the court may grant
The Courts Ruling
either of the parties the right and opportunity to adduce new additional evidence bearing
The First Issue: Order of Trial
upon the main issue in question."[43]

The pertinent provisions of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court state: Saunars testimony was admitted in evidence before the trial court rendered its
Decision. Undoubtedly then, the court a quo retained its jurisdiction even though the
"Sec. 3. Order of trial.- The trial shall proceed in the following order: prosecution had rested its case. As to appellants, Saunar was an additional prosecution
witness, not a rebuttal witness, because the defense waived presentation of evidence after
the prosecution had rested its case.[44] Saunar was, therefore, a rebuttal witness with respect
(a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge, and in the proper case, the
to accused Cid.[45]
civil liability.

(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and damages, if any, arising from
the issuance of any provisional remedy in the case. The Second Issue: Appellants Right to Counsel
Proof of Saunar's presence during the custodial investigation of appellants is, however, xxx xxx xxx.
not a guarantee that appellants' respective confessions had been taken in accordance with
Article III, Section 12 (1) of the Constitution. This constitutional provision requires that a Q And Atty. Saunar is connected with the NBI?
person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have no less than A At that time, he was at the NBI Office. He was just somewhere around.
"competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice." Elucidating on this
particular constitutional requirement, this Court has taught: Q And it was the NBI who requested Saunar to assist Mr. Rene Januario in the
investigation?
It is noteworthy that the modifiers competent and independent were terms absent in all A We requested him, because he was just around, sir."[48] (Emphasis supplied.)
organic laws previous to the 1987 Constitution. Their addition in the fundamental law of
1987 was meant to stress the primacy accorded to the voluntariness of the choice, under the As regards Saunar's assistance as counsel for appellant Canape, investigating NBI Agent
uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation, by according the accused, deprived Magno Toribio testified as follows:
of normal conditions guaranteeing individual autonomy, an informed judgment based on the
choices given to him by a competent and independent lawyer. "Q Now, with regards to your advice that he has a right to counsel, and to
seek assistance of a counsel of his own choice if he does not have one, and
to remain silent, and if he does not have a lawyer, you will furnish one for
Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such investigation should be as far as reasonably him, now what was his answer?
possible, the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. If the lawyer were one
furnished in the accused's behalf, it is important that he should be competent and WITNESS:
independent, i.e., that he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused,
as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and According to him, he does not need a lawyer, but despite that refusal to have a
meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights. In People v. Basay, this Court lawyer . . .
stressed that an accused's right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel COURT:
`contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial
and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.' That is not refusal. That is manifestation that he does not need a lawyer. He did
not refuse. He said, he does not need a lawyer.
Ideally, therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial investigation (if the WITNESS: (con't.)
latter could not afford one) `should be engaged by the accused (himself), or by the latter's
relative or person authorized by him to engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper Although, he does not need a lawyer, we provided him a lawyer by the name of
petition of the accused or person authorized by the accused to file such petition. Lawyers Atty. Carlos Saunar, who was present during the investigation, and who
engaged by the police, whatever testimonials are given as proof of their probity and advised him of the consequences of the statements that he will give, and
supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many areas, the relationship between he did not refuse.
lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic."[46]
FISCAL VELAZCO:
We find that Saunar was not the choice of appellant Januario as his custodial Q Now, how did you know that Atty. Saunar gave him advice, gave accused
investigation counsel. Thus, NBI Agent Arlis Vela testified: Canape advice?
"Q Now, considering that they were then under your custody, and under A Because we were present.
investigation, were they represented by counsel during the time that you
took their statements? Q Now, when did Atty. Saunar give that advice to accused Canape, was it
before, during, or after the taking of this statement?
A Yes, sir. They were.
A Before, during, and after the taking of the statement.
Q Do you recall who was that counsel who represented them?
Q Now, may we know from you why Atty. Saunar was present there?
A Atty. Carlos Saunar, sir.
A He was present there because he was then applying for the position of NBI
Q Was he the counsel of their own choice, or was the counsel furnished by agent.
your office?

A Because they were not represented by counsel of their own choice, we got FISCAL VELAZCO:
the service of Atty. Carlos Saunar who helped them.[47]
Q Was he the only lawyer who was present there? confessants. In fact, he was actually employed by the NBI a few months after. As regards
appellant Januario, Saunar might have really been around to properly apprise appellant of his
A I remember, Atty. Claro, sometimes is there, representing another client.[49] constitutional right as reflected in the written sworn statement itself.
xxx xxx xxx. However, the same cannot be said about appellant Canape. Clearly, he was not
Q Now, Atty. Saunar is employed with the NBI office, am I right? properly informed of his constitutional rights. Perfunctorily informing a confessant of his
constitutional rights, asking him if he wants to avail of the services of counsel and telling him
A Yes, sir. that he could ask for counsel if he so desires or that one could be provided him at his
request, are simply not in compliance with the constitutional mandate. [51] In this case,
Q When was he employed at the NBI office? Tell us the exact date? appellant Canape was merely told of his constitutional rights and posthaste, asked whether
he was willing to confess. His affirmative answer may not, by any means, be interpreted as a
COURT: waiver of his right to counsel of his own choice.

Furthermore, the right of a person under custodial investigation to be informed of his


If you can.
rights to remain silent and to counsel implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police
investigator to explain and to contemplate an effective communication that results in an
WITNESS: understanding of what is conveyed.[52] Appellant Canape's sworn statement, which reads and
sounds so lifeless on paper, fails to reflect compliance with this requirement. Neither does
Maybe in September. the aforequoted testimony of NBI Agent Toribio. Bearing in mind that appellant Canape
reached only the fifth grade, the NBI agents should have exerted more effort in explaining to
ATTY. CLARO: him his constitutional rights.

Moreover, there is enough reason to doubt whether appellant Canape was in fact and
19? in truth assisted by counsel. Atty. Saunar affirmed on the witness stand that he assisted
appellants on March 28, 1988.[53] However, the sworn statement itself reveals that it was
A 1988. taken on March 27, 1988. No satisfactory explanation was made by the prosecution on this
discrepancy. All that Agent Vela stated was that they conducted an oral investigation in Naga
Q But he was always frequent in the NBI office because he was to be City on March 27, 1988 and that investigation at the NBI Manila head office was made in the
employed, is that what you mean? afternoon of March 28, 1988.[54]
A He was applying. The law enforcement agents' cavalier disregard of appellants' constitutional rights is
shown not only by their failure to observe Section 12 (1) of Article III of the
Q And from where is he?
Constitution. They have likewise forgotten the third paragraph of Section 12 of the same
A I think he is from Bicol. article which mandates that an admission of facts related to a crime must be obtained with
the assistance of counsel otherwise it would be inadmissible in evidence against the person
xxx xxx so admitting.[55]
xxx.
An admission, which, under Section 26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, is an "act,
Q Now, how many times have you requested Atty. Saunar to assist a person declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact" is different from a confession which,
under your investigation in the NBI office, other than this? in turn, is defined in Section 33 of the same Rule as the "declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included
A I cannot remember anymore.
therein." Both may be given in evidence against the person admitting or confessing.
Q You always ask him to assist if there is no lawyer available, or the person to In People vs. Lorenzo,[56] the Court explained that in a confession there is an
be investigated has no lawyer? acknowledgment of guilt while in an admission the statements of fact by the accused do not
directly involve an acknowledgment of guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense
A If he is around."[50] (Emphasis supplied.) with which the accused is charged.
Let us for the moment grant arguendo that Saunar's competence as a lawyer is beyond Appellants verbally intimated facts relevant to the commission of the crime to the NBI
question. Under the circumstances described by the prosecution however, he could not have agents in Naga City. This is shown by the testimony of NBI Agent Vela that, based on the
been the independent counsel solemnly spoken of by our Constitution. He was an applicant facts gathered from interviews of people in that city, they "invited" and questioned
for a position in the NBI and therefore it can never be said that his loyalty was to the appellants, thus:
"Q Now, tell us, what was your purpose in inviting these two (2) people? ATTY. CLARO:

A That was in connection with the vehicle I mentioned earlier, in connection By him, whom are you referring to:
with the carnapping incident mentioned earlier.
A The complainants and the witnesses, sir.
Q You invited them in connection with the carnapping because you want to
know from them actually what they know about the carnapping, am I Q All right. You were with Atty. Vela when you conducted an investigation to
correct? (sic) Mr. Canape, am I right? In Naga City?

A Precisely, that is right."[57] WITNESS:

Apparently attempting to avoid the questions on whether appellants admitted Yes, sir.
complicity in the crime, Agent Toribio testified: Q And Mr. Vela at that time, was also conducting an investigation to (sic) a
"ATTY. CLARO: certain Rene Januario in Naga City, is that right?

When you were conducting an investigation, and you saw me at the NBI building, A. No. We took the statement in Manila.
Naga City, you were referring to the investigation of Mr. Canape, am I COURT:
right?
You took the statement in Manila. How about in Naga, that is the question of
A Yes, sir. counsel?
Q And that investigation you were conducting was reduced to writing, and that A Naga, no statement yet.
is now Exhibit `G', am I right?
ATTY. CLARO:
A That is not.
Mr. Toribio, because you were with Mr. Vela, Mr. Vela did not conduct any
Q But you investigated Mr. Canape in Naga City at the NBI building, am I right, investigation to (sic) Mr. Januario, one of the accused in this case, in Naga
tell the Court? City? Tell the Court?
A At that time, we were taking the statement of the woman, the complainant, A Not yet at that time, because it was useless. The crime was committed in
in the estafa case, and the other witnesses. Silang, Cavite. They will have to be brought to Manila for the appropriate
COURT: Judge or Fiscal.

You mean, at the time you investigated that estafa complaint, that was the time COURT:
when you also investigated Canape, is that what you mean? So, you are claiming that you did not conduct any investigation of Canape?
FISCAL VELAZCO: A We conducted an investigation. When we took the statement of the other
No, your Honor. witnesses, complainant and witnesses .

COURT: COURT:

But there is a question of counsel. You better clarify that. Does that satisfy you?

WITNESS: ATTY. CLARO:

He was asking me if I had already taken the statement of Canape. No.

COURT: COURT;

That is it, sir, Naga City. That is the question. Please clarify the question.

WITNESS: WITNESS: (con't.)

Not yet. We were only asking him.


It is true that we were sometimes talking with those people, but not investigating them We can review the transcript of stenographic notes.
yet."[58] (Emphasis supplied.)
COURT:
Note should also be taken of the fact that according to Atty. Saunar, when he acceded
to be the custodial investigation counsel of appellants, the latter had What do you mean by that?
already confessed. Thus: A They were still confessing at that time, your Honor.
"COURT: ATTY. ZALDIVAR:
There is one thing that he would like to add, `that I talked to the accused one by I just want to manifest into the record that they have already confessed; that the
one,' you want to add something? witness has just repeated the word.
A And I confirmed with them whether they are confessing to their crime, and COURT:
they said yes. In fact, from what I observed, they have already confessed
to the NBI agents. But there is an explanation by him. Put that on record, all of them.

COURT: FISCAL VELAZCO:

All of them confessed? Now, did you verify whether that confession was only verbal or in writing?

A Yes, your Honor, because they also told me what happened. A That was only verbal that is why there is a need for the sworn statement to
be taken. That was the time that I was telling them that they can be put to
FISCAL VELAZCO: jail."[59] (Emphasis supplied.)
Now, when they informed you that they intend to confess, now, did you explain It is therefore clear that prior to the execution of the sworn statements at the NBI head
to them, to the accused or to the persons under investigation the office, appellants had already made verbal admissions of complicity in the crime. Verbal
consequences of confessing? admissions, however, should also be made with the assistance of counsel. Thus:
A Yes, that is basic. I informed them of their rights to remain silent and to
counsel, and whatever they will confess there will be used against them "The verbal admissions allegedly made by both appellants of their participation in the
during the trial of this case. crime, at the time of their arrest and even before their formal investigation, are
inadmissible, both as violative of their constitutional rights and as hearsay
Q How about that ultimate consequence of admission? evidence. These oral admissions, assuming they were in fact made, constitute
A Yes. I told them that if they confess, they will have to go to prison. uncounselled extrajudicial confessions within the meaning of Article III, Section 12 of
the Constitution."[60]
Q And what were their answers?
That appellants indeed admitted participation in the commission of the crime in Naga
A Actually, they have already confessed to their crime before I talked to
City is shown by the fact that the NBI agents brought them to Manila to facilitate
them.
apprehension of the other culprits who could be either in Cavite or Manila. Because their
xxx xxx xxx. uncounselled oral admissions in Naga City resulted in the execution of their written
confessions in Manila, the latter had become as constitutionally infirm as the
ATTY. ZALDIVAR: former. In People vs. Alicando,[61] this Court explained the ramifications of an irregularly
Your Honor, the witness has just answered during the preliminary question of the counselled confession or admission:
Fiscal that at the time his assistance was sought by the NBI, the accused
had in fact already confessed. "We have not only constitutionalized the Miranda warnings in our jurisdiction. We have also
adopted the libertarian exclusionary rules known as the `fruit of the poisonous tree,' a
COURT: phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone v. United
States. According to this rule, once theprimary source (the `tree') is shown to have been
I am now asking him, have you said that?
unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the `fruit') derived from it is also
A They have already confessed. inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the
illegal act, whereas the `fruit of the poisonous tree' is the indirect result of the same illegal
ATTY. ZALDIVAR: act. The `fruit of the poisonous tree is at least once removed from the illegally seized
evidence, but is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally kind of attitude condones law-breaking in the name of law enforcement. Ironically, it
obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally only fosters the more rapid breakdown of our system of justice, and the eventual
illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained." denigration of society. While this Court appreciates and encourages the efforts of law
enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society, we
Appellants might have indeed committed the crime in concert with Eliseo Sarita and nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set
Eduardo Sarinos. However, what could have been their valuable admissions and confessions by the Constitution and the law. Truly, the end never justifies the means.[67]
as far as the prosecution was concerned were sullied and rendered inadmissible by the
irregular manner by which the law enforcement agents extracted such admissions and WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 18
confessions from appellants. Without such statements, the remaining prosecution evidence - in Tagaytay City, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants Rene Januario and Efren
- consisting mostly of hearsay testimony and investigation reports -- is sorely inadequate to Canape are ACQUITTED. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director General,
prove appellants participation in the crime. Philippine National Police and the Director, National Bureau of Investigation in order that
Eliseo Sarita and Eduardo Sarinos, who are still at large, may be apprehended and this time
Notably, these law enforcers did not only defy the mandate of Section 12 of the Bill of properly investigated and prosecuted.
Rights but, after making "inquiries" from appellants about the crime, they likewise illegally
detained appellants as shown by the admission of one of the NBI agents that appellants were The accused-appellants are hereby ORDERED RELEASED immediately unless they are
deprived of their liberty while in their custody. [62] Appellants were even made to travel for being detained for some other legal cause.
ten (10) hours[63] from Naga City to Manila just so their formal confessions could be executed
in the latter city. According to NBI Agent Vela, they "actually arrested" the appellants when SO ORDERED.
the court issued the warrant for their arrest.[64] The records show however that the NBI
turned appellants over to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Silang-Amadeo in Cavite only on 19. People vs. Deniega
March 30, 1989. On the same day, the same court turned them back to the NBI for
"detention during pendency of the case."[65]
The naked body of Marlyn Canoy was found on a heap of garbage in an ill-frequented back
corner on the left side of the Mt. Carmel Church in New Manila, Quezon City. Her hands were
tied behind her back by a shoestring and pieces of her own clothing. The body bore thirty
Epilogue nine (39) stab wounds. There was evidence that she had been brutally assaulted, physically
and sexually, before she was murdered.

The Court understands the difficulties faced by law enforcement agencies in Police authorities investigating the gruesome crime on August 31, 1989, arrested Rey
apprehending violators of the law especially those involving syndicates. It sympathizes with Daniega y Macoy on information that the victim was last seen with Daniega,1 a waiter at the
the public clamor for the bringing of criminals before the altar of justice. However, quick Gathering Disco where Canoy used to work. Friends of Canoy volunteered the information
solution of crimes and the consequent apprehension of malefactors are not the end-all and that the former had just broken off from a stormy relationship with Daniega.2 The latter, it
be-all of law enforcement. Enforcers of the law must follow the procedure mandated by the was bruited,3 desperately tried to patch up the relationship.
Constitution and the law. Otherwise, their efforts would be meaningless. And their expenses
in trying to solve crimes would constitute needless expenditures of taxpayers money.
Following the latter's arrest, and on the basis of a confession obtained by police authorities
This Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic constitutional from him during custodial investigation (where he allegedly admitted raping and killing
rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative and prosecutory powers Canoy),4 appellant Hoyle Diaz y Urnillo was invited by the investigators for questioning. A
of government. The admonition given by this Court to government officers, particularly second sworn statement, substantially similar and corroborating many of the details of
those involved in law enforcement and the administration of justice, in the case of People vs. Daniega's sworn affidavit, was later extracted from Diaz. In the said statement, Diaz admitted
Cuizon,[66] where NBI agents mishandled a drug bust operation and in so doing violated the his participation in the rape of Canoy, but denied that he had something to do with the
constitutional guarantees against unlawful arrests and illegal searches and seizures, is again victim's death.5
called for and thus reiterated in the case at bench, to wit:
Armed with the said extra-judicial confessions, an Information was filed with the Regional
x x x In the final analysis, we in the administration of justice would have no Trial Court of Quezon City,6 charging petitioners with the crime of Rape with Homicide,
right to expect ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do not insist on the full committed as follows:
protection of their rights. Some lawmen, prosecutors and judges may still tend to gloss
over an illegal search and seizure as long as the law enforcers show the alleged That on or about the 29th day of August, 1989, in Quezon City, Metro
evidence of the crime regardless of the methods by which they were obtained. This Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and Hoyle Diaz confession essentially stated:
mutually helping each other, with lewd designs, did, then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, violence and/or He came to know of both Rey Deniega and Marlyn Canoy at Gathering
intimidation have sexual intercourse with MARLYN CANOY BENDO, House where Hoyle used to take drinks. He was courting Marlyn there
without her consent and against her will; and by reason of and on the and used to take her as a table partner.
occasion thereof, said accused, pursuant to their conspiracy, did, then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and
He saw Rey Deniega on a bridge near Broadway Avenue and Aurora
without any justifiable cause, attack, assault and employ personal
Boulevard, Quezon City on August 29, 1989 at around 2:00 in the
violence upon the person of said victim, by then and there stabbing her
morning. There Rey told Hoyle that he will teach Marlyn a lesson and will
with an icepick several times, thereby inflicting upon her serious and
hold her up. He asked Hoyle to accompany him. At between 3:00 and
mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her death,
4:00 that morning Marlyn arrived at the waiting shed where she and Rey
to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Marlyn Canoy Bendo, in
were supposed to meet and Rey took Marlyn to Mt. Carmel Church
such amount as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the
compound with Hoyle Diaz following behind.
New Civil Code.

The two talked for about 20 minutes. Then they had an altercation,
CONTRARY TO LAW.
hurling and hollering bad words at each other. Rey tried to undress
Marlyn who resisted. Rey boxed Marlyn and was finally able to take off
At trial, the confessions obtained by law enforcement authorities during their (separate) her clothes. Then Rey raped Marlyn. After Rey was through, Hoyle raped
custodial investigations formed the centerpiece of the prosecution's case for Rape with Marlyn.
Homicide against both accused.7 These confessions allegedly disclosed details of the killing,
summarized by the trial court in its Decision dated August 23, 1991, thus:
Afterwards, Rey told Hoyle that so that there will be no more trouble
(aberia) they better finish off Marlyn. Rey took out an icepick and
Rey Deniega's confession essentially stated: stabbed Marlyn. Then he handed the icepick to Hoyle and Hoyle stabbed
Marlyn too. Then Rey faced Hoyle (hinarap) and so Hoyle ran away as Rey
On August 28, 1989, he and Marlyn were at her house at Onyx Street, Sta. chased him. As Hoyle ran he threw away the icepick. He does not know if
Ana Manila. There they had an altercation because she wanted to break Rey returned to get the necklace, bag and wristwatch of Marlyn. Hoyle
up with her already. He accompanied Marlyn afterwards to Rolando's also stated that he saw that Rey was heavily influenced by drugs (sabog
Disco Pub where Marlyn works. They agreed however, to meet again sa gamot). Hoyle also recalled that on the way to Mt. Carmel a man
after she gets (sic) out of the Disco Pub to have a final talk about their followed them but the man was no longer in the vicinity when they
relationship. They agreed to see each other at 3:00 in the morning of reached the Mt. Carmel Church Compound.
August 29, 1989 at a waiting shed along Aurora Boulevard near San Juan.
He arrived there earlier than Marlyn. While waiting, Rey saw Hoyle Diaz When Rey ran after Hoyle, Rey was holding no weapon. Marlyn was
(a.k.a. Boyet) pass by. Rey told Hoyle that he is going to take Marlyn to raped right where she was found dead.8
the Mt. Carmel Church compound and if Boyet wants to take revenge on
Marlyn (makaganti) Boyet can hold-up her there.
In their defense, appellants, during the course of the trial, vehemently denied the claim that
they had voluntarily executed the said confessions.9 Appellants Daniega and Diaz went to the
When Marlyn and Rey were already at the Mt. Carmel Church compound, extent of seeking the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation, and there executed a
Boyet arrived with two companions. Boyet berated Marlyn for choosing sworn statement to the effect that their respective confessions were coerced and obtained
Rey as her boyfriend instead of Boyet despite the fact that he has already through
spent large sums for her. Then, suddenly the two companions of Boyet by torture.10 Both testified that they were subjected to electrocution and water treatment. They
the name of Tony and Carlos pulled with a jerk the apparel of Marlyn and contended that they were arrested without warrants of arrest and that the confessions
undressed her. The two tied Marlyn's hands and got her necklace and obtained from them immediately thereafter were made without the assistance of counsel.
wristwatch. Boyet then took off his T-shirt and pulled down his pants and
raped Marlyn. After the rape, Tony and Carlos stabbed Marlyn. Then
After the prosecution rested its case on December 14, 1990, the accused-appellants moved
Boyet gave Rey an icepick and ordered him to stab Marlyn whom he
for leave to file Demurrer to Evidence, which the trial court granted.11 In a demurrer
stabbed once in the stomach. Rey left leaving the three men behind.
submitted to the trial court on December 28, 1990, appellants moved for the dismissal of the
information for Rape with Homicide on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, stressing
that: 1) the confessions obtained by police authorities were acquired without the assistance confessions which form part of the record of the case at bench are an eloquent example of
of counsel in violation of their constitutional rights and were hence, inadmissible in evidence; facts deliberately ignored: the legal insufficiencies and inconsistencies in the documents in
2) the same (confessions) "were obtained through torture, force, threat and other means question are so glaring, even from a cursory examination of the confessions, that they should
which vitiat[ed] (their) free will;" and 3) except for the testimonies of the medico-legal officer not escape even the untrained eye.
and two IBP lawyers who alleged that they assisted the accused during their custodial
investigation, the prosecution presented no other evidence to warrant a conviction.12 The statements evidencing the interrogation, including those portions in which the
appellants purportedly were informed of their constitutional rights, were in typewritten
In an Order dated January 30, 1991, the Regional Trial Court denied the motion for Demurrer form. However, within the body of these documents, blank spaces were conspicuously left at
to Evidence.13Consequently, after hearing the appellants' testimonies, the lower court, on strategic areas (spaces) where the accused were supposed to sign and acknowledge that they
August 31, 1991 rendered its Decision convicting the accused-appellants of the crime of Rape were appraised of their rights and that they gave their statements voluntarily. These were
with Homicide and sentencing each of them to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. 14 They were spaces obviously provided for the accused to fill in the blank with the word "yes" ("opo")
likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Marlyn Canoy the amount of P50,000.00 in solidum.15 followed by another blank space for their respective signatures. In addition to these, the
header of the disputed documents indicates that the investigations were conducted at the
In dismissing appellant's principal defense that their confessions were obtained in violation police headquarters, contradicting the prosecution witnesses' declarations that the
of their constitutional rights, the trial court held that: confessions were obtained in the Quezon City IBP office.

The court finds it hard to believe that (Atty. Sansano and Atty. Rous), Apart from the defects evident on the face of the documents, there exists evidence indicating
both of whom are officers of the Legal Aid Committee of the IBP and are that the actual custodial investigation was conducted at the police headquarters in the
prominent practitioners of great integrity, would act as the accused said absence of counsel, as contended by appellants. While we have no dispute with the trial
they did. Over and beyond this it appears that the confessions were court's observation that the appellants were brought to the Quezon City IBP office during
executed during daytime and the accused themselves brought to the daytime when other individuals were holding office in the IBP floor (who may have witnessed
Quezon City IBP office at noontime during office hours when several the presence of the appellants in the area),17 it is one thing for appellants to be brought to
employees of that chapter were working, there are usually other lawyers the IBP office only for the purpose of signing the confessions in plain view of the other
there, and therefore, the accused, if their confession were really employees of the office, while compliance with the constitutional mandate requiring the
prevaricated beforehand, had ample atmosphere to tell Atty. Sansano presence of counsel during the actual custodial investigation is quite another.
and Atty. Rous, respectively, that their confession were coerced and
untrue. The two counsels testified that they precisely segregated the There is convincing proof18 that, while Attys. Sansano and Rous may have been present at the
accused from their police escorts to cull out the truth and the accused signing of the documents, they were not present at all during the actual custodial
volunteered to confess to the crime at bar; investigation of the accused in the police headquarters.

Rey Deniega was arrested at around 6:30 in the morning and Hoyle Diaz For instance, Atty. Sansano placed the time of arrival of appellant Deniega at the IBP Quezon
at around 9:30 in the morning. Rey was brought to the IBP at around City chapter office at "around 11:30 in the morning" of August 31, 1989.19 However,
11:00 in the morning and Hoyle at around 2:00 p.m. of the same day of Deniega's extrajudicial confession taken by Pat. Maniquis gives the time of its execution as
their arrest on August 31, 1990. Their confession were quite lengthily (4 11:20 A.M. also on August 31, 1989 or earlier than the time they allegedly arrived at the IBP
page each) and filled with details. There is nothing in the record to show office.
that the apprehending officers are clever and articulate enough to be
able to fabricate in a short a time the kind of confessions submitted here . Moreover, even assuming the possibility of error in recording the actual time of the
. . .16 investigation,20 there is conflict as to the place where the custodial investigation was actually
conducted. Atty. Sansano for instance, testified that Daniega's extrajudicial confession was
Considering that no eyewitnesses to the actual commission of the crime were presented taken at the QC-IBP office.21 An examination of the document's heading however reveals that
before the court, the issue of the voluntariness and due execution of the extrajudicial the confessions were given to the investigator (Maniquis) at the police headquarters of the
confessions of the appellants upon which their conviction was based, is pivotal in the SID, QCPS (sa himpilan ng homicide ng SID, QCPS) not in the IBP office of Atty. Sansano.
resolution of the instant appeal. Analyzing the appropriate provisions of law in relation to the
facts of the case at bench, we find for appellants. With respect to the extrajudicial confession of appellant Diaz, Atty. Rous' declaration that
"the custodial investigation was conducted by the policeman in the (IBP chapter)
It is a settled rule that this Court will not normally overturn factual conclusions of the trial office," 22 conflicts with the statement in the actual document (sinumpaang salaysay) that he
court, unless factual evidence has either been deliberately ignored or misapprehended. The
(appellant) executed his confession at the police headquarters of the SID, QCPS (himpilan The 1987 Constitution provided a stricter rule by mandating that waiver of the right to
ng homicide, SID, QCPS) and not the IBP office. counsel must be made not only in the presence of counsel but also in writing. Article III,
Section 12 provides:
Lastly, the probity of Pat. Maniquis, who testified in rebuttal was certainly not enhanced by
the information given the trial court by prosecution witness P/Sgt. Rogelio Barcelona that he 1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
(Maniquis) had been dismissed from the service for unspecified reasons.23 have the right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
A thorough reading of the transcripts of the testimonies of the two lawyers, Atty. Sansano person cannot afford the services of counsel he must be provided with
and Atty. Rous, indicates that they appeared less as agents of the accused during the alleged one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
investigation than they were agents of the police authorities. In the case before us, it was the of counsel.
police authorities who brought the accused, handcuffed, to the IBP headquarters where the
services of the lawyers were supposedly "engaged." No details of the actual assistance Section 33, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court requires, moreover, that a confession, to be
rendered during the interrogation process were furnished or alleged during the entire admissible, must be express.
testimony of the lawyers in open court. The bulk of the lawyers' oral testimonies merely gave
the trial court assurance that they supposedly explained to the appellants their constitutional Finally, Republic Act 7438 mandates that the entire confession must be in writing.28
rights, that the signatures present were their signatures and those of the accused, and that
the accused agreed to having the lawyers assist them during the process of custodial
In all, under rules laid down by the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence, a
investigation.24
confession to be admissible must satisfy all of four fundamental requirements: 1) the
confession must be voluntary 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of
Clearly, the standards utilized by police authorities (and the lawyers) to assure the competent and independent counsel; 3) the confession must be express and 4) the
constitutional rights of the accused in the case at bench fall short of the standards demanded confession must be in writing.
by our case law and the Constitution itself.
It is noteworthy that the modifiers competent and independent were terms absent in all
In Morales, Jr. v. Enrile,25 the Court defined the procedure which law enforcement officers organic laws previous to the 1987 Constitution. Their addition in the fundamental law of
must observe in custodial investigations as follows: 1987 was meant to stress the primacy accorded to the voluntariness of the choice, under the
uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation, by according the accused, deprived
At the time, a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting of normal conditions guaranteeing individual autonomy, an informed judgment based on the
officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown choices given to him by a competent and independent lawyer.
the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional
rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such investigations should be as far as
make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right reasonably possible, the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. If the lawyer were
to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the one furnished in the accused's behalf, it is important that he should be competent and
most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or by letter of independent, i.e., that he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused,
messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and
that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights. In People vs. Basay, this Court
unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, stressed that an accused's right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel
by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition "contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial
either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle."29
counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with
the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the
Ideally therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial investigation (if the
procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in
latter could not afford one) "should be engaged by the accused (himself), or by the latter's
whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.26
relative or person authorized by him to engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper
petition of the accused or person authorized by the accused to file such petition."30 Lawyers
The rules laid down in Morales were reiterated in 1985 case of People vs. Galit.27 engaged by the police, whatever testimonials are given as proof of their probity and
supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many areas, the relationship between
lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic.
Conditions vary at every stage of the process of custodial investigation. What may satisfy Q Who told you to sign this document?
constitutional requirements of voluntariness at the investigation's onset may not be
sufficient as the investigation goes on. There would be denial of the right to the assistance of A That paper, we made that at the headquarters.
competent and independent counsel if the investigation or, as in the case before us, during
the process of signing. The competent or independent lawyer so engaged should be present
Q Do you know who prepared this at the
from the beginning to end, i.e., at all stages of the interview, counseling or advising caution
headquarters?
reasonably at every turn of the investigation, and stopping the interrogation once in a while
either to give advice to the accused that he may either continue, choose to remain silent or
terminate the interview. A It was Pat. Maniquis.

The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless Q And Pat. Maniquis was typing this while he was
if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the asking you this question?
rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so cursory as to be useless,
voluntariness is impaired. If the lawyer's role is reduced to being that of a mere witness to A. I did not see that paper while he was investigating
the signing of a pre-prepared document albeit indicating therein compliance with the me, it was later, he showed that to me, maam.
accused's constitutional rights, the constitutional standard guaranteed by Article III, Section
12 (1) is not met. The process above-described fulfills the prophylactic purpose of the Q For how long a time more or less (did) Pat.
constitutional provision by avoiding "the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced Maniquis investigate(d) you?
admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the
commission of the offense"31 and ensuring that the accused's waiver of his right to self
incrimination during the investigation is an informed one in all aspects. A About one hour maam.

The process of assisting appellants in the case at bench as described by the lawyers in their Q And after that one hour, how long a time elapse(d)
testimony therefore hardly meets the standard of effective and meaningful communication before you were brought to the IBP Bldg.
required by the 1987 Constitution, when its framers decided to add the modifiers competent
and independent to the requirement for counsel during the process of custodial A Two or three in the afternoon.
investigations.
Q And when you were told to sign this document, at
The failure to meet the constitutional requirement for competent and independent counsel the IBP Bldg., Pat. Maniquis, who were the person(s)
and the glaring inconsistencies in documents purportedly executed under the trained and present aside from you and Pat. Maniquis?
watchful eyes of the lawyers who allegedly were of assistance to the accused during the
process of custodial investigation - taken together with the manner in which the signatures of Atty. Gojar:
the accused were affixed into the confessions — cast a serious doubt on their due execution,
and support the contention that the sworn statements executed by the appellants were
He did not sign that in the IBP, your Honor. It was at
already prepared and signed at the police headquarters before the statements were brought
the headquarters.
to the QC-IBP office for signing. During the trial, Daniega testified to the following:

A I signed that document(s) at the police


Q Was Atty. Sansano present when this alleged
headquarters.
sinumpaang salaysay was taken from you by
questions and answers which consist of 31 questions
and 32 answers? Q What time more or less was that, when you signed
that document?
A No, because this statement was signed by me at the
police station and then we brought it to the IBP A About lunch time.
office.32
Q Was that after Pat. Maniquis investigated you?
In his cross-examination, the other accused, Diaz likewise testified as follows:
A Yes maam. These facts lead us to the inevitable conclusion that the confessions of both defendants were
obtained in the absence of independent and competent counsel as mandated by the 1987
Q Who were present at the time Pat. Maniquis told Constitution and that the same may have been acquired under conditions negating
you to sign this? voluntariness, as alleged by the accused.34

A I don't know them, I only remember Pat. Maniquis. In fine, the likelihood for compulsion is forcefully apparent in every custodial investigation. A
person compelled under the circumstances obtaining in every custodial investigation is
surrounded by psychologically hostile forces and the threat of physical violence so that the
Q Did you have any occasion to read this before you
information extracted is hardly voluntary. In the oftentimes highly intimidating setting of a
sign(ed) this?
police investigation, the potential for suggestion is strong.

A No maam, he just asked me to sign it.


Every so often, courts are confronted with the difficult task of taking a hard look into the
sufficiency of extra-judicial confessions extracted by law enforcement authorities as the sole
Q But can you read tagalog? basis for convicting accused individuals. In cases of crimes notable for their brutality and
ruthlessness, the impulse to find the culprits at any cost occasionally tempts these agencies
A Yes maam. to take shortcuts and disregard constitutional and legal safeguards intended to bring about a
reasonable assurance that only the guilty are punished. Our courts, in the process of
Q And you did not take any opportunity to read this establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, play a central role in bringing about this
before you sign(ed) it? assurance by determining whether or not the evidence gathered by law enforcement
agencies scrupulously meets exacting standards fixed by the Constitution. If the standards
are not met, the Constitution provides the corresponding remedy by providing a strict
A Everything went fast, sir. exclusionary rule, i.e., that "[a]ny confession or admission obtained in violation of (Article III,
Section 12[1]) . . . hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence."35
Q After you signed this how long a time elapse(d)
before you went to Quezon City IBP? There is a distinct possibility that the confessions given by the appellants in the case at bench
might speak the truth. Judges face unimaginable pressures from all areas, including the
Atty. Gojar: pressure of their heavy dockets. They are on the forefront of the government's battle against
crime. Were it not for the defects inherent in the confessions, and the contradictions and
It was already answered, your honor. inconsistencies here noted, the trial court's well-written opinion in the case at bench — an
eloquent example of the earnest attempts judges make to battle crime, would have been
readily sustained by this Court. Yet again, there remains the possibility that the real assailants
Q What time did you sign this?
lurk free somewhere, thanking their luck. What can only be said, in relation to the
unfortunate circumstances of the case at bench has already been said, ad nauseam, in a
A I signed it about ten to eleven in the morning ad we number of cases before this. In People v. Javar, 36 for instance, we emphasized, conformably
went to IBP about two or three in the with Art. III, Sec. 12 of the Constitution that:
afternoon.33 (Emphasis supplied.)
Any statement obtained in violation of the constitutional provision, or in
Together with all the legal deficiencies pointed out so far, it would not be difficult for us to part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. Even if the confession speaks the
give credence to appellants' testimonies to the effect that the investigation was actually truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it becomes
conducted in the absence of counsel in one place (the QC SID headquarters) and signed in inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it
the presence of counsel in another (the QC IBP office). Appellants, who were not trained in had been voluntarily given.
the law, would not have understood the constitutional nuances of the fact that the
confessions and the signing of the documents evidencing the confessions were obtained in
We stress, once again, that the exclusionary rules adopted by the framers of the 1987
different places. Assuming they were couched, appellants were quite vehement as they were
Constitution were designed, not to vindicate the constitutional rights of lawbreakers but to
consistent in their separate oral testimonies, and one or both of them would have withered,
protect the rights of all citizens, especially the innocent, in the only conceivable way those
in any case, on intense cross examination.
rights could be effectively protected, by removing the incentive of law enforcement and
other officials to obtain confessions by the easy route, either by psychological and physical
torture, or by methods which fall short of the standard provided by the fundamental law. That on March 28, 1993, at more or less 10:30 o'clock in the evening
Allowing any profit gained through such methods furnishes an incentive for law enforcement while inside a motor vehicle in the national highway at Barangay Agusan
officials to engage in constitutionally proscribed methods of law enforcement, and renders up to the road at Camaman-an, all of Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines,
nugatory the only effective constitutional protections available to citizens. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named
with intent to gain and against the will of the owners, by means of
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, appellants Rey Daniega y Macoy and Hoyle Diaz y violence against and intimidation of persons, or force upon things with
Urnillo are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Rape with Homicide. Their immediate release the use of knives which they were conveniently provided with,
from custody is hereby ordered unless they are being held on other legal grounds. conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and criminally take,
rob and carry away money or cash amounting to P720.00, pioneer stereo,
SO ORDERED.
booster and twitters owned by and belonging to Roman S. Mercado, and
a Seiko Diver wristwatch owned by Ismael P. Ebon, all in all amounting to
20. People vs. Labtan P10,800,00, against their will, to the damage and prejudice of the said
offended parties in the total sum of P10,800.00 Philippine Currency.
Accused-appellant Henry Feliciano appeals the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25 1 convicting him of highway robbery and robbery with Contrary to and in violation of PD 532.
homicide on the basis of a sworn statement which he repudiated during the trial.
Only accused Feliciano pleaded not guilty to the two charges. Orlando Labtan had escaped
On April 23, 1993, an information 2 was filed against Henry Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, and the Maharlika Rehabilitation and Detention Center in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City where he
Jonelto Labtan charging them with robbery with homicide committed as follows: was detained while Jonelto Labtan has eluded arrest. The two cases were tried together.

That on or about April 16, 1993, at about 2:30 in the afternoon, more or The prosecution's case was mainly anchored on the three-page sworn statement executed by
less, at Buntong, Camaman-an, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and Feliciano, originally in Visayan language, before the Cagayan de Oro City Police station, viz: 4
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one
Preliminary: You Henry Feliciano y Lagura, I would like to inform you that
another, and with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there wilfully,
you are here in [the] Theft and Robbery Section of Cagayan de Oro City
unlawfully and feloniously and by means of violence, take, rob and carry
Police Station to be investigated regarding an incident wherein a certain
away P30.00/cash money to the damage and prejudice of the offended
driver whose name is Florentino Bolasito, a resident of Abellanoso St., of
party (Florentino Bolasito); that on the occasion of the said robbery and
this City (sic). Said driver was killed on April 13, 1993, whose body was
for the purpose of enabling them (accused) to steal, take and carry away
found at Tipolohan, Camaman-an of this City since you knew everything
the P30.00 money, the herein accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy,
about it.
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with evident
premeditation and taking advantage of their number and strength and
with intent to kill, accused Orlando Labtan y Daquihon, alias Bebot I would like to inform you that according to our law you have the
Labtan and Jonelto Labtan, treacherously attack, assault and use personal following rights:
violence upon Florentino Bolasito thereby inflicting upon him the
following injuries: "Shock due to multiple stab wounds heart", with the 1. You have the right to remain silent, and not to answer incriminating
use of a (sic) knives/bladed weapon which accused are conveniently questions which will be used as evidence against you.
provided, which directly caused the death of the said Florentino Bolasito.
2. You have the right to choose an attorney to defend you in this
Contrary to and in violation of Article 299 and 249 of the Revised Penal investigation.
Code.
3. That if you can't (sic) get a lawyer, I can give you a counsel de oficio to
Subsequently, another information 3 dated May 20, 1993 was filed against Henry Feliciano defend you.
and Orlando Labtan charging them with highway robbery committed as follows:
Certification A: Yes, sir [,] I understand everything.

This is to establish the fact that I myself voluntarily executed this Q: Will you get a lawyer of your own to defend you in
certification and hereby affix my signature hereunder on the this investigation?
_________________ day [of] April, [1993 in the] City of Cagayan de Oro,
Philippines. A: No, sir. I can't (sic) pay the services of lawyer.

S Q: Since you will not get your own lawyer, will you
g agree that I'll (sic) give you Atty. Pepito Chavez as
d your counsel de oficio in this investigation?
.
A: Yes, sir. I agree that Atty. Pepito Chavez will be my
H
lawyer for the ascertainment of the truth.
e
n
r Q: What is your highest educational attainment?
y
A: Grade 4 only at Baongca, Bukidnon.
F
e Q: In other words, you know how to read Visaya?
l
i
c A: I know[,] sir how to read Visaya including English
i but I can't (sic) understand deep English.
a
n Q: Tell me your name, age, occupation, residence and
o other personal circumstances?

y A: I, Henry Feliciano, 25 years old, married and a


resident of Kolambog, Lapasan of this city and I am [a]
L jeepney driver of this city.
a
g
Q: Up to this time, are you still driving?
u
r
a A: No more, sir.

( Q: What is then your work at this time?


A
f A: I go [to] work [with] my friends like Orlando
f Labtan alias Bebot Labtan who are residents of
i Kolambog, Lapasan of this City.
a
n Q: From what time did you go along with this [sic]
t persons?

Q: Before we (will) proceed [with] this investigation, did you understand all those rights I A: Since the month of February, 1993.
narrated to you?
Q: From the time you go (sic) with them, what have Q: After stabbing the driver, he died, and so Jonelto
you done, if any? Labtan drove the PU towards Tipolohon and we leave
(sic) behind the body of the driver, instead of me
A: On March 1993, I participated in a hold-up of a getting out from the car (sic), Jonelto did not stop the
certain driver Mr. Roman Mercado 5 of Tablan who car (sic), so we proceeded towards Aluba Subd. and
owned a jeep I use[d] to drive (before) and we got a we left the PU Minica there.
car stereo including the jeep. Then, we brought the
jeep to Buntong, Camaman-an and the driver, A: After you left the PU Minica at Aluba, where did
however, we freed the driver later. you go?

Q: What else? Q: I went home at Balolong of this City, and I do not


[know] where my companions proceeded.
A: On March 1993 we hold-up (sic) a collector of my
brother whose name is Carmen Tan y Feliciano 6 and Q: Who then stabbed the driver?
we were able to get cash of P2,080.00; [a]nd, there
was also [a] certain jeep, owned by Mr. Mangano that A: The one who stabbed [the driver] [,] sir[,] was
we carnapped and brought (it) to Aglayan, Jonelto Labtan and Bebot Labtan.
Malaybalay, Bukidnon.
Q: Did (sic) you able to get some money from the
Q: With the latest incident, what have you done? driver?

A: Last April 16, 1993, we held-up a certain driver of A: Jonelto Labtan was able to get P30.00, and we
[a] "PU Minica" whose name is Florentino Bolasito of brought (sic) a (sic) coconut wine at Kolambog,
Abellanosa St. Lapasan.

Q: Will you tell us how the driver was killed and who Q: With respect to this (sic) two (2) knives which were
killed them? taken from you and Bebot Labtan, what can you say
about this (sic) knives?
A: On April 16, 1993, at 2:30 in the afternoon, I, Bebot
Labtan and Jonelto Labtan [were] hang[ing] around A: These two (2) knives, sir, the sharp knife with a
outside Ororama Superstore at J.R. Borja St., of this knife case is owned by Bebot Labtan, this double
City, and the three of us went to a place where most blade is owned by Jonelto Labtan.
of PU Minica cars were parked. We were able to
board one PU Minica driven by an old man.
Q: Are these [the] knives which were used by Bebot
Labtan and Jonelto Labtan in stabbing the PU Minica
Q: As you boarded the PU Minica where did you go? driver if you know?

A: We ordered the driver to take us to Buntong, A: Yes, sir. Bebot Labtan used this knife with a knife
Camaman-an of this City. When we arrive[d] thereat, case, but this knife which is double bladed was not
Jonelto told us that he will visit his girlfriend while used, the other kitchen knife like a fan knife which
Bebot Labtan alighted, we remained inside the was left inside the PU was used by Jonelto in
vehicle. As [the] driver demanded for the fare, stabbing.
however, we have no money to pay. Suddenly, I saw
Bebot Labtan and Jonelto Labtan took a knife and
Q: When (was then) were you arrested by the police
stabbed the driver.
authorities of the Theft and Robbery Section?
A: On April 20, 1993, while we, I and Bebot Labtan
were at Tambo, Macasandig of this City waiting for
the truck of Mr. Aberrastori to ride to bring us to
Valencia, Bukidnon, we were apprehended by the
policemen near the store of Mrs. Carmen Tan. It was
then that time where Bebot Labtan was shot at his
feet and the two knives were confiscated.

Q: I have no other questions, do you have anything to


say.

A: No more. sir.

This is to certify that I have read the foregoing statements consisting of


In addition, the prosecution presented the testimony of Ismael Ebon that on March 28, 1993,
three (3) pages of which I have initiated and signed in the presence of
at 10:30 p.m., he was driving along Bugo Highway, when two (2) men boarded his jeepney.
Atty. Pepito Chavez, Attorney de Officio, and I state that it is true and
He identified the men as Henry Feliciano and Orlando Labtan. Suddenly, Bebot Labtan
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
pointed a double bladed knife on the right side of his neck. Feliciano then took the steering
wheel and proceeded to Bolonsori. When they were near the house of a certain Policeman
Lapis, FelicianoSstopped the jeep. The two then divested him of his watch, P700.00 cash, car
stereo, two (2) gtweeters and one (1) booster. They threatened to kill him should he report to
d
the police. However, when the two left, he proceeded to the Puerto Police Station and
.
reported the hold-up. He then went to the garage and told Roman Mercado, the owner of
the jeepney, that he was robbed. That night, the two of them reported the robbery to the
Cagayan de OroHCity Police Station. Ebon also stated that he knew Feliciano because the
e worked as driver of Roman Mercado. 8
latter previously
n
r
When the defense presented its case, only accused Henry Feliciano testified for his behalf.
y
His defense consisted of an alibi and a repudiation of his sworn statement. He told the court
that on March 28, 1993, when Ismael Ebon was held-up, he was in Maasin, Baungon,
F
Bukidnon, his birthplace. He did not deny Ebon's claim that they were acquainted for he used
e
to work as driver of Roman Mercado. However, when his driver's license expired on January
l
20, 1993, he went home to Bukidnon. On April 20, 1993, he went back to Cagayan de Oro
i
City and stayed at the residence of his sister, Carmen Tan, who lives in Macasandig, Cagayan
c
de Oro City. At 4:00 p.m. of the same day, Carmen asked him to buy snacks at a nearby store.
i
While buying the snacks, he heard a shot and when he looked around, he saw a man lying on
a
the ground. Two men in civilian clothes poked their guns at him. One of them asked him
n
whether he was a companion of the man lying on the ground. He said no. The two men
o
brought him to the police station. The man lying on the ground was brought to the hospital.
At the police station, the two men asked him to confess whether he was a companion of the
y
person who was shot. He said no. They asked him whether he was one of those who robbed
Ismael Ebon. Again, he said no. He was questioned for about an hour during which he was hit
L
"at the right and left breast, at the right and left ribs, and at the left side of [his] face."
a
Afterwards, he was locked up in jail. In the morning of the following day, he was investigated
g
and mauled for two hours. Again, he was asked whether Orlando Labtan was his companion.
u
He insisted that he was not Labtan's companion for he does not even know him. After the
r
investigation, a policeman approached him and brought a piece of paper for him to sign. He
a
asked whether it was possible for him to read the contents. The policeman answered, "No
need, just sign so that we can finish it." They then started to maul him. He was forced to sign III
the paper. At around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 22, 1993, he was brought to the
office of Atty. Pepito Chavez. He was told to sit down while Atty. Chavez signed the papers. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND
He did not know what was happening. Atty. Chavez did not even talk to him before signing REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE AND
the document. He was then brought back to jail. 9 HIGHWAY ROBBERY.

Finding the sworn statement executed by Feliciano credible, the trial court convicted him and The appeal is meritorious.
imposed the following penalties: 10
Under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, the rights of persons under custodial
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court hereby finds accused Henry investigation are provided as follows:
Feliciano guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct
participation in the crime of robbery with homicide and hereby sentences
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
the accused to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the offended party the sum of
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
P35,000.00 representing funeral expenses and to pay the cost.
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
This court hereby finds also the accused Henry Feliciano guilty beyond of counsel.
reasonable doubt of the crime of highway robbery committed on March
28, 1993 and sentences the accused to an indeterminate penalty of
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
twelve (12) years of prision mayor as the minimum term to fourteen (14)
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
years, eight (8) months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period as
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
the maximum term and to indemnify Roman S. Mercado the sum of
prohibited.
P8,000.00, representing the value of the P700.00 cash, stereo, booster,
and twitter and to indemnify Ismael Ebon the sum of P2,500.00, the value
of the Seiko Wrist watch divested from him and to pay the cost. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible against him.
SO ORDERED. 11
In People v. Macam 12, the rational for the guarantee, was explained in this wise —
Hence, this appeal where accused-appellant assigns the following errors committed by the
trial court: Historically, the counsel guarantee was intended to assure the assistance
of counsel at the trial, inasmuch as the accused "was confronted with
both the intricacies of the law and the advocacy of the public
I
prosecutor." However, as the result of the changes in the patterns of
police investigation, today's accused confronts both expert adversaries
ON THE CHARGE OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, THE COURT A and the judicial system well before his trial begins (U.S. v. Ash, 413 U.S.
QUO ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE, THE TAINTED EXTRA-JUDICIAL 300, 37 L Ed 2d 619, 93 S Ct 2568 [1973]). It is therefore appropriate to
CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED EXECUTED IN THE ABSENCE OF AN extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even
EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT COUNSEL. before the trial. The law enforcement machinery at present involves
critical confrontations of the accused by the prosecution at pre-trial
II proceedings "where the result might well settle the accused's fate and
reduce the trial itself to a mere formality."
ON THE CHARGE OF HIGHWAY ROBBERY, THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
BELIEVING THE COMPLAINANT DRIVER WHO, IT TURNED OUT, FROM THE Thus, in People v. Gamboa 13, we stated that:
POLICE BLOTTER, SAID THAT THE PERPETRATORS WERE INITIALLY
UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS THEN LATER IDENTIFIED ACCUSED FELICIANO [T]he right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e.
WHOM HE KNEW VERY WELL AS A FELLOW DRIVER. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information
and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. At such
point or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel Q: We will just use the word interview. Was he
to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions assisted by counsel when you interviewed him in the
or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for morning?
the commission of an offense. The moment there is a move or even urge
of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain A: None.
information which may appear innocent or inocuous at the time, from
said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he
Q: What was the subject matter of the interview in
waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the
the morning of April 22, 1993 to the accused Henry
presence of counsel.
Feliciano? (sic)

We find that accused-appellant Feliciano had been denied of his right to have a competent
A: About the PU driver that was killed.
and independent counsel when he was questioned in the Cagayan de Oro City Police Station.
SPO1 Alfonso Cuarez testified that he started questioning Feliciano at 8:00 a.m. of April 22,
1993 regarding his involvement in the killing of jeepney driver Florentino Bolasito, Q: Of course, he related to you everything that
notwithstanding the fact that he had not been apprised of his right to counsel. transpired regarding that alleged death of a PU
driver?
On cross-examination:
A: Yes, sir.
Atty. Carlo Mejia
Q: So that in the morning of April 22, 1993 you
already had an idea, more or less, who committed or
Q: What [time] did you report to your office on April
who killed the PU driver by the family name Bolasito,
22, 1993?
am I correct?

SPO1 Alfonso Cuarez


A: Yes, sir.

A: I reported at eight o'clock in the morning.


Q: All that time in the morning of April 22, 1993 the
accused was not assisted by a legal counsel.
xxx xxx xxx.
A: Not yet.
Q: What time was Henry Feliciano brought to your
office on April 22, 1993? What time did you start to
Q: What time did you decide to bring the accused to
investigate Henry Feliciano on April 22, 1993?
the office of Atty. Chavez on April 22, 1993?

A: In the morning, at 8:00 o'clock, when I reported for


A: About 10:00 o'clock in the morning of April 22,
work.
1993.

Q: You already investigated the accused in this case at


Q: Are you trying to impress us that in the morning of
8:00 o'clock in the morning on April 22, 1993?
April 22, 1993 you also brought the accused Henry
Feliciano to the office of Atty. Chavez?
A: Yes, sir.
A: At 8:00 in the morning, I just interviewed him and
Q: Of course, when you investigated the accused in at 10:00 o'clock in the morning I brought him to the
the morning, he had no counsel yet? office of Atty. Chavez.

A: I just interviewed him.


Q: Are you trying to impress [upon] us that you Q: Do you remember having assisted in the
brought accused Henry Feliciano to the office of Atty. investigation of one Henry Feliciano on April 22, 1993
Chavez at 10:00 o'clock in the morning and in the at about 3:30 in the afternoon when the said Henry
afternoon also you brought him to the office of Atty. Feliciano was (sic) investigated whose written
Chavez? statement was taken by SPO1 Cuarez in the presence
of Cabigon?
A: No more. In the afternoon Atty. Chavez was the
one who came to our office because that was what A: Yes, sir.
we agreed in the morning. 14
Q: Where was this statement taken?
At that point, accused-appellant had been subjected to custodial investigation without a
counsel. In Navallo v.Sandiganbayan 15, we said that a person is deemed under custodial A: At the office of the Theft and Robbery Section at
investigation where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved Operation Kahusay ug Kalinaw.
crime but has began to focus on a particular suspect who had been taken into custody by the
police who carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating
Q: How did you happen to assist Henry Feliciano in
statements.
the taking of his written statement?

When SPO1 Cuarez investigated accused-appellant Feliciano, the latter was already a suspect
A: Because SPO3 Cuarez approached me in my office
in the killing of jeepney driver Bolasito as shown by the joint affidavit of SPO4 Johny Salcedo
and requested me to assist Henry Feliciano in the
and SPO1 Florencio Bagaipo who were the ones who arrested Feliciano. In their affidavit
taking of his testimony.
dated April 21, 1993, the two police officers stated:

Q: What time was that when SPO1 Alfonso Cuarez


in the investigation conducted to (sic) Henry Feliciano, he
came to your office and requested you to assist Henry
admitted and confessed to us for (sic) his involvement of (sic)
Feliciano?
the death of the PU driver together with his companion Bebot
Labtan, and the same was identified by many victims of robbery
hold-up in this City. And also during the investigation, Henry A: If I can remember right, Police Officer Cuarez came
Feliciano admitted to us regarding their confiscated bladed to my office about three o'clock in the afternoon.
knife as the very weapon used in the stabbing of the PU minica
driver. Q: Where is your office in Cagayan de Oro City?

The prosecution tried to establish that Atty. Pepito Chavez provided effective and A: Located at Pabayo-Gomez.
independent counselling to accused-appellant Feliciano which cured the initial lack of
counsel. However, this is belied by the very testimony of Atty. Chavez showing he performed Q: What did you do after Alfonso Cuarez came to your
his duty in a lackadaisical fashion: office and requested you to assist in the taking of the
written statement or sworn statement of Henry
Assistant City Prosecutor Nicolas C. Caballero, Jr. Feliciano?

Q: Atty. Chavez, you stated that you are a practicing A: I told him I will follow later because at that time
lawyer in Cagayan de Oro City as well as in Misamis when he came to my office I was working on some
Oriental? paper works.

Atty. Pepito Chavez Q: When you said him, you were referring to Alfonso
Cuarez?
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What happened after you told him you will follow consideration or money where you promised of
later? release.

A: At about 3:25, if I remember right, I was able to Q: And what was the reaction of the said Henry
come to Operation Kahusay ug Kalinaw particularly Feliciano?
the office of the Theft and Robbery Section.
A: As far as I can remember, Henry Feliciano told me
Q: When you arrived at the Operation Kahusay ug that he is forced to testify only to tell the truth.
Kalinaw, who were there?
Q: While you were conferring with Henry Feliciano,
A: Police Officer Cabigon and Cuarez. where was Eleuterio Cabigon and Alfonso Cuarez?

Q: Who else were there? What about Henry A: Alfonso Cuarez was there listening to us.
Feliciano?
Q: How far away from you?
A: Yes, I have also seen Henry Feliciano.
A: About one armslength (sic).
Q: If you see again Henry Feliciano, will you be able to
identify him? Q: What about Eleuterio Cabigon?

A: Yes, sir. A: About three meters near.

Q: Look around if he is present in the courtroom? Q: Did Alfonso Cuarez participate in your discussions
or conference with Henry Feliciano?
A: (Witness pointing to a person with a green t-shirt
and when asked his name he answered Henry A: Yes. He sometimes clarified some answers
Feliciano.) propounded by Henry Feliciano in the course of the
investigation.
Q: What did you do after you arrived at the office of
the Theft and Robbery Section and saw Henry Q: For example, what answer?
Feliciano, Cabigon and Cuarez?
A: As far as I can remember, the question was
A: I started my investigation or confrontation with reduced into writing.
Henry Feliciano informing him, appraising him of his
constitutional right to counsel, that he has a right to
Q: Before that, I am referring to the point where you
remain silent and appraise him if it is his desire that I
had a conference with Henry Feliciano before the
be his lawyer because I told him if he has no desire
start of the investigation; where was Alfonso Cuarez?
that I will be his lawyer, then he can look for another.

A: He was listening to us.


Q: What else did you inform him or asked him aside
from what you testified already?
Q: Was there a participation of Alfonso Cuarez during
your discussion?
A: I told him did you come to confess or testify
because of fact that the police offered you some
A: Yes, he was the one typing the questions asked by Q: How did Alfonso Cuarez start the investigation?
me and the answers propounded by Henry Feliciano.
A: In the appraisal of Henry Feliciano of his
Q: And these questions were the ones you testified a constitutional rights.
while ago.
Q: After that, what happened?
A: Yes, sir.
A: As far as I can remember, he proceeded with the
Q: After that, what happened after you asked these incident where Henry Feliciano was involved in a
questions and you got the answer from him? What series of robberies.
did Alfonso Cuarez do to him?
Q: While these questions were being asked of Henry
A: Alfonso Cuarez told him that is it really his desire . . Feliciano, where were you?
. we are giving you Atty. Chavez as your counsel. Are
you willing? And he said yes. A: I was there.

Q: What was the answer of Henry Feliciano? Q: How many meters away from Henry Feliciano?

A: He answered in the affirmative. A: About one arm's length, I sat behind him.

Q: Exactly, how did he answer? Q: While these questions were asked of Henry
Feliciano, as you testified a series of robberies were
A: Yes, I am very much willing. committed, what did you do? What was your
reaction?
Q: After that, when did the investigation start?
A: At first, I interrupted with the answer of Henry
A: About 3:30 in the afternoon. Feliciano thinking that it was not the truth or it might
be that the testimony will be counted against him in
the court. So, I whispered to him if it is the truth, and
Q: After Henry Feliciano, as you said, answered in the
he insisted it is the truth.
affirmative, what happened then?

Q: When you whispered to him, you are referring to


A: Before I started the formal investigation to [sic]
Henry Feliciano?
him, I reiterated that question about his desire to
take me as his counsel, and he again answered in the
affirmative. A: Yes, sir.

Q: After that, for the second time, what happened? Q: Atty. Chavez, after the termination of the
investigation which was taken by SPO1 Alfonso
Cuarez in your presence of SPO4 Eleuterio Cabigon on
A: Then I started his investigation.
one Henry Feliciano, what happened after that?

Q: Were you the one who investigated him?


A: I examined the question and answer taken, then I
read it to Henry Feliciano, appraised him, translated
A: At first, it was Alfonso Cuarez. Sometimes, I to him, clarified to him after he testified.
interrupted in the investigation.
Q: What was the reaction of Henry Feliciano? contrary rule would undoubtedly be antagonistic to the
constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel and to be
A: He willingly listened to my explanation and presumed innocent.
clarification about what he confessed.
In People v. dela Cruz 18, an effective counsel was characterized as:
Q: And after listening to your explanation, what
happened? one who can be made to act in protection of his [accused's] rights, and
not by merely going through the motions of providing him with anyone
A: I required him to sign. Before finally requiring to who possesses a law degree.
sign, if you will change your mind about what you
confessed, you still have the right to. Again, about the only matter that bears out the presence of such counsel
at that stage of custodial interrogation are the signatures which she
Q: What did Henry Feliciano say? affixed on the affidavit. Withal, a cursory reading of the confession itself
and SPO1 Atanacio's version of the manner in which he conducted the
interrogation yields no evidence or indication pointing to her having
A: It is the truth; and after being clarified, he willingly
explained to the appellant his rights under the Constitution. Indeed, from
signed the confession.
our earliest jurisprudence, the law vouchsafes to the accused the right to
an effective counsel, one who can be made to act in protection of his
Q: After Henry Feliciano signed the same written rights, and not by merely going through the motions of providing him
statement of (sic) him, what did you do? with anyone who possesses a law degree.

A: After that, Alfonso Cuarez, Henry Feliciano and me Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of counselling required by the Constitution. He did not
(sic) went to my office to have that notarized, so that explain to accused-appellant the consequences of his action — that the sworn statement can
when I came to the Operation Kahusay ug Kalinaw for be used against him and that it is possible that he could be found guilty and sent to jail.
the taking of the confession of Henry Feliciano, I was
not bringing with me my bill and other paraphernalias
We also find that Atty. Chavez's independence as counsel is suspect — he is regularly engaged
(sic).
by the Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de officio for suspects who cannot avail the
services of counsel. He even received money from the police as payment for his services:
Q: When Henry Feliciano signed the written
statement, where were you, Cabigon and Alfonso
On cross-examination:
Cuarez?

Atty. Carlo Mejia


A: The same location at that time when Henry
Feliciano was taken his confession (sic). 16
Q: Mr. Alfonso Cuarez, how long have you known
Atty. Chavez?
The right to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not a mere presence of the
lawyer beside the accused. In People v. Bacamante 17, the term "effective and vigilant
counsel" was explained thus: A: I know him for a long time ago (sic).

necessarily and logically [requires] that the lawyer be present Q: How many times have you utilized Atty. Chavez to
and able to advise and assist his client from the time the assist prisoners under the custody of the Cagayan de
confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating Oro Police Department?
officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession.
Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the confession is A: As far as I can remember, three times already.
made voluntarily and that the person under investigation fully
understands the nature and the consequence of his
extrajudicial confession in relation to his constitutional rights. A
Q: Is Atty. Chavez being paid by your office to assist Ideally, therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial
detained prisoners? investigation (if the latter could not afford one) "should be engaged by
the accused (himself), or by the latter's relative or person authorized by
A: Sometimes we pay him P400.00 but if we have him to engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper petition of the
none, he will assist for free. accused or person authorized by the accused to file such petition.
Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever testimonials are given as proof
of their probity and supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in
Q: So Atty. Chavez is paid by the Cagayan de Oro
many areas, the relationship between lawyers and law enforcement
Police Station?
authorities can be symbiotic."

A: It is not the Cagayan de Oro Police who paid but it


In People v. Sahagun 20, we stated that the constitutional requirement that a lawyer should
is only my initiative to give him.
be independent was not complied with when a lawyer who just happened to be following-up
a case at the NBI was asked to counsel the accused:
Q: It is only on your own personal initiative to pay
Atty. Chavez?
[T]he counselling given by Atty. Dizon to Villareal was not sufficiently
protective of Villareal's rights as an accused as contemplated by the
A: Yes. Constitution. To start with, Atty. Dizon is not really known to Villareal. He
was requested to act as counsel because he happened to be at the NBI
Q: And, of course, Atty. Chavez, if you have the following-up a client's case. Given that circumstance, it cannot be
money, also accepts the money you pay to him? expected that Atty. Dizon would give an advice to Villareal that would
offend the agent conducting the investigation. Thus, it appears that Atty.
A: Yes, sir. Dizon did no more than recite to Villareal his constitutional rights. He
made no independent effort to determine whether Villareal's confessions
were free and voluntary. . . .. He did not inquire from Villareal how he
In People v. Deniega 19, expounding on the constitutional requirement that the lawyer was treated in the last 24-hours. He did not seek any of Villareal's
provided be "competent and independent", we stated that: relatives or friends to find out if he has any defense which Villareal was
not free to disclose due to his confinement.
It is noteworthy that the modifiers competent and independent were
terms absent in all organic laws previous to the 1987 Constitution. Their Atty. Dizon's lack of vigilance as a counsel is likewise underscored by the
addition in the fundamental law of 1987 was meant to stress the primacy fact that he himself testified that Villareal gave his confession under the
accorded to the voluntariness of the choice, under the uniquely stressful impression that he was only a witness and not an accused in the case.
conditions of a custodial investigation, by according the accused, This revelation should have jolted Atty. Dizon and should have driven him
deprived of normal conditions guaranteeing individual autonomy, an to exert extra efforts to find out whether Villareal was tricked in making
informed judgment based on the choices given to him by a competent his confession. Again, he did not take an extra effort.
and independent lawyer.
In People v. Januario 21, the main evidence relied upon for the conviction of appellants was
Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such investigation should be their own extrajudicial confessions which admittedly were extracted and signed in the
as far as possible, the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. If presence and with the assistance of a lawyer who was applying for work in the NBI. We held
the lawyer were one furnished in the accused's behalf, it is important that —
that he should be competent and independent, i.e., that he is willing to
fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished
from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and (s)uch counsel cannot in any wise be considered "independent" because
meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights. In People he cannot be expected to work against the interest of a police agency he
v. Basay, this Court stressed that an accused's right to be informed of the was hoping to join, as a few months later he in fact was admitted into its
right to remain silent and to counsel "contemplates the transmission of work force. For this violation of their constitutional right to independent
meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory counsel, appellants deserve acquittal. After the exclusion of their tainted
recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. confessions, no sufficient and credible evidence remains in the Court's
records to overturn another constitutional right: the right to be
presumed innocent of any crime until the contrary is proved beyond (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or in
reasonable doubt. his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the
commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to
Perfunctorily informing a confessant of his constitutional rights, asking and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have
him if he wants to avail of the services of counsel and telling him that he competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who
could ask for counsel if he so desires or that one could be provided him at shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested,
his request, are simply not in compliance with the constitutional detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford
mandate. In this case, appellant Canape was merely told of his the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent
constitutional rights and posthaste, asked whether he was willing to and independent counsel by the investigating officer.
confess. His affirmative answer may not, by any means, be interpreted as
waiver of his right to counsel of his own choice. (c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the
investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or
We also find the fact that Atty. Chavez notarized the sworn statement seriously thumbmarked if the person arrested does not know how to read and
compromised his independence. By doing so, he vouched for the regularity of the write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or
circumstances surrounding the taking of the sworn statement by the police. He cannot serve by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the
as counsel of the accused and the police at the same time. There was a serious conflict of language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person,
interest on his part. 22 otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no
effect whatsoever.
In People v. de Jesus 23, we stated that an independent counsel cannot be a special counsel,
public is private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is (d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or
admittedly adverse to the accused. under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a
valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers
We have examined the three-page sworn statement allegedly executed by Feliciano and we
and sisters, his spouses, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge,
failed to see any badge of spontaneity and credibility to it. It shows signs of what we call
district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by
stereotype advice to which we have already called the attention of police officers. In People
him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as
v. Jarra 24, we said:
evidence in any proceeding.

[T]he stereotyped "advice" appearing in practically all extrajudicial


(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of
confessions which are later repudiated has assumed the nature of "legal
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation,
form" or mode. Police investigators either automatically type it together
shall be in writing and signed by the person in the presence of his
with the curt "Opo" as the answer or ask the accused to sign it or even
counsel; otherwise such waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
copy it in their handwriting. Its tired, punctilious, fixed and artificially
stately style does not create an impression of voluntariness or even
understanding on the part of the accused. The showing of a spontaneous, (f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall
free and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing. be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate
family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him
or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any
Since April 27, 1992 when Republic Act No. 7438 25 was enacted, the constitutional rights of
national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
persons under custodial investigation have been further operationalized:
Commission on Human Rights or by any international non-governmental
organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's
Sec. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained, or Under Custodial immediate family shall include his or her spouse, fiance or fiancee, parent
Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt,
nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
(a) Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at
all times be assisted by counsel. Consequently, it is disappointing to see how up to now some police officers still sidestep the
constitutional mandate, the consequence of which is all too familiar — the inadmissibility of
the statement, confession, or admission taken. 26
In People v. dela Cruz 27, we stated that "a confession made in an atmosphere characterized used against him, and that he has the right to the presence of a counsel, either retained or
by deficiencies in informing the accused of all rights to which he is entitled would be appointed. In the language of Chief Justice Warren: 'Our holding will be spelled out with
rendered valueless and inadmissible, perforated, as it is, by non-compliance with the some specificity in the pages which follow, but briefly stated, it is this: the prosecution may
procedural and substantive safeguards to which an accused is entitled under the Bill of Rights not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial
and as now further implemented and ramified by statutory law." interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards
effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we
On the charge of robbery with homicide, the only evidence presented by the prosecution was mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
the sworn statement which we have found inadmissible. Thus, we are forced to absolve custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the
accused-appellant of this charge. With respect to the charge of highway robbery, the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to
prosecution presented the testimony of Ismael Ebon. However, Ebon failed to identify inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to
Feliciano as the perpetrator when he reported to the police immediately after the incident: exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be
warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does not make (sic) may
be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney,
CASE NO. 2143 dated 0030 H 29 March 93. Ismael Ibon y Petalcorin, 27 m
either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of those rights, provided
(sic), of Reyes Bugo, CDO, driver of PUJ Bugo Liner bearing Plate No. KBJ-
the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any
748, and Christopher Impoc y Amba, 16, s (sic), of Zone 4, Tablon, this
manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before
City, jointly came to this OKK-CIS and reported that they were allegedly
speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any
victimized by two unidentified robbers who was (sic) armed with a (sic)
manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere
knives and taken from the possession of the above driver his cash money
fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own
P700.00 and took our stereo Pioneer Brand with Booster and twitter. The
does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has
incident was (sic) occurred at Agusan, this City, and the suspect was
consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.'"
desembarked (sic) at Camaman-an, this City at 10:30 p.m., this date. 28

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY PEACE OFFICERS WHEN MAKING ARREST
Ismael Ebon and accused-appellant Feliciano are acquainted. There is no reason for Ebon to
AND WHEN CONDUCTING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION. — In Morales vs. Enrile, in the light of
withhold the identity of the perpetrator except for the fact that he was not certain of
the said Section 20, prescribed the procedure to be followed by peace officers when making
it. 29 Consequently, there is no evidence pointing to Feliciano as one of those who held-up
an arrest and when conducting a custodial investigation. Thus: "7. At the time a person is
Ebon.
arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest
and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the trial court is SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Henry rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used
Feliciano is ACQUITTED on both charges of robbery with homicide and highway robbery due against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a
to lack of evidence to sustain a conviction. The Director of the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) is relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or
directed to inform this Court compliance with the Decision within ten (10) days from its by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that
receipt. No costs. this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the
presence of counsel engaged by the reason arrested, by any person on his behalf, or
SO ORDERED. appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his
behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with
21. People vs. Basay the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid
down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in
evidence."
SYLLABUS
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PHRASE "RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF SUCH RIGHTS" EXPLAINED; CASE AT BAR.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO COUNSEL AND — In People vs. Nicandro, this Court declared that one's right to be informed of the right to
TO BE INFORMED OF SUCH RIGHTS; WAIVER THEREOF; CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION; remain silent and to counsel contemplates "the transmission of meaningful information
DEFINED; PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS TO BE EMPLOYED. — ". . . " . . . The landmark opinion rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
of Miranda vs. Arizona, decided in 1966, as noted above, the source of this constitutional principle." Thus, is not enough for the interrogator to merely repeat to the person under
provision, emphasized that statements made during the period of custodial interrogation to investigation the provisions of section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, now Section 12,
be admissible require a clear intelligent waiver of constitutional rights, the suspect being Article III of the 1987 Constitution; the former must also explain the effects of such provision
warned prior to questioning that he has a right to remain silent, that any utterance may be in practical terms — e.g., what the person under interrogation may or may not do - and in a
language the subject fairly understands. The right "to be informed" carries with it a 6. ID.; ID.; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; WHEN SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION; CASE AT BAR.
correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates — While it may be true that the appellant ran away when he first saw the armed law officers,
effective communication which results in the subject's understanding of what is conveyed. he did so merely out of fear of them. This act should not be considered as the flight which is
Since it is comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree of explanation required indicative of guilt. The appellant had not left his house or barangay since 4 March 1986, the
will necessarily vary and depend on the education, intelligence and other relevant personal day the crime was committed. If he were indeed one of the perpetrators and had the
circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. In further ensuring the right to intention to flee in order to avoid arrest, he should have vanished sooner and should not
counsel, it is not enough that the subject is informed of such right; he should also be asked if have remained in his house. Besides, if indeed his running away could be construed as flight,
he wants to avail of the same and should be told that he could ask for counsel if he so desired it could only be considered as circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would still be
or that one could be provided him at his request. If he decides not to retain counsel of his insufficient for a conviction. Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, in order that
choice or avail of one to be provided for him and, therefore, chooses to waive his right to circumstantial evidence may sustain a conviction, there must, inter alia, be more than one (1)
counsel, such waiver, to be valid and effective, must still be made with the assistance of circumstance. No other circumstance was established in this case.
counsel. That counsel must be a lawyer. . . . the kind of "advice" proffered by the unidentified
interrogator belongs to that stereotyped class — a long question by the investigator 21. People vs. Basay
informing the appellant of his right followed by a monosyllabic answer — which this Court
has condemned for being unsatisfactory. The investigator gave his advice perfunctorily or in a
DECISION
pro-forma manner, obviously to pay mere lip service to the prescribed norms. As this Court
observed in People vs. Newman, this stereotyped "advice": " . . . has assumed the nature of a
'legal form' or model. Its tired, punctilious, fixed and artificially stately style does not create DAVIDE, JR., J p:
an impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the accused. The
showing of a spontaneous, free and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing." Teodoro Basay and Jaime Ramirez were charged with Multiple Murder with Arson in a
criminal complaint 1 filed on 24 March 1986 with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRIMARY OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL STRESSED IN 1987 CONSTITUTION. — "SEC Pamplona-Amlan-San Jose in the Province of Negros Oriental for having allegedly killed the
12(1). Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to spouses Zosimo and Beatrice Toting and their six-year old daughter, Bombie, and for having
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel burned the said spouses' house to conceal the crime; as a consequence of such fire, the
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be spouses' other daughter, Manolita, was burned to death.
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof On 31 March 1986, the MCTC issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused; no bail was
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him." The adjectives competent and independent, recommended. 2 It appears, however, that the accused had earlier been apprehended on 6
which qualify the kind of counsel an accused is entitled to during investigation, were not March 1986 by elements of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) and Civilian Home Defense
found in the previous Constitution. Their incorporation in the 1987 Constitution was thus Forces (CHDF) and were detained at the Pamplona municipal jail.
meant to stress the primacy of this right to counsel.
On 15 April 1986, the accused filed a Waiver of Preliminary Investigation 3 which prompted
5. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES; IN CASE AT BAR, CONDITION OF the MCTC, the following day, to order the clerk of court to forward the records of the case to
WITNESS AT TIME SHE SUPPOSEDLY GAVE STATEMENT RENDERED EFFECTIVE the Office of the Provincial Fiscal. 4
COMMUNICATION IMPOSSIBLE. — We harbor very serious doubts about the alleged
statement given by Bombie Toting to Sgt. Tabanao and Jaime Saguban identifying the Meanwhile, on 14 August 1986, the Integrated National Police (INP) Station Commander of
appellant and Teodoro Basay as the perpetrators of the heinous crime. In the first place, the Pamplona amended the complaint by including therein the name of another victim, Manolo
trial court itself ruled that Bombie was not a competent witness. We agree with such a Toting, who suffered second and third degree burns because of the burning of the house. 5
conclusion, not necessarily because she was only six (6) years old, but because her condition
at the time she supposedly gave her statement made it impossible for her to have
communicated effectively. She suffered the following injuries: "Infected hack wound from On 11 December 1986, the Second Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Negros Oriental filed with the
the right anterior lumbar area transecting mid abdomen, inguinal area left to the medial Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental an Information for Multiple Murder and
thigh left through and through, with necrotic transected muscle." She was taken from the Frustrated Murder with Arson 6 against the accused. The accusatory portion of the
crime scene only on 6 March 1986, or two (2) days after the commission of the crime, and Information reads:
died in the hospital on 7 March 1986. The doctor who first attended to her when she arrived
at the Provincial Hospital, a certain Dr. Sy, was not presented as a witness. On the other xxx xxx xxx
hand, the doctor who attended to her before she died, Dr. Edgar Cantalao, testified that
when he last saw Bombie alive, she could not talk.
"That on or about March 4, 1986, at sitio Tigbao, Barangay Banawe, Pamplona, Negros WHEREFORE, the prosecution having failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named reasonable doubt for the crime of Multiple Murder, Frustrated Murder With Arson against
accused, conspiring and confederating together and acting in common accord, with intent to the accused Teodoro Basay, this Court hereby finds said accused Teodoro Basay NOT GUILTY
kill, evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and and orders his immediate release from detention.
feloniously assault, attack, stab and hack with the use of a bolo and sickle, with which the
accused were then respectively armed and provided, one ZOSIMO TOTING, SR., thereby The prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
inflicting upon the victim hack wound, neck posterior area 5" long, 3" depth, hack wounds, of Multiple Murder, Frustrated Murder With Arson against accused Jaime Ramirez (sic), this
left upper back 3" long, 4" depth, stab wound, thru and thru, lower abdomen, 4" width , exit Court finds him GUILTY to (sic) said crime and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
lower back 1" width, 90% 2nd and 3rd degree burns of the body, and which wounds caused life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of the victims in the sum of Thirty Thousand
the death of said Zosimo Toting, Sr., immediately thereafter; one BEATRICE TOTING, thereby (P30,000.00) Pesos as his civil indemnity.
inflicting upon the victim hacking (sic) wound, neck posterior area, 5" long, 6" depth, incised
wound, epigastric area 11" long, 4" depth, exposing vital organs, lower abdomen, 11" long,
SO ORDERED." 9
4" depth exposing intestines, 90% 2nd and 3rd degree burns of the body, and which wounds
caused the death of said Beatrice Toting immediately thereafter; one BOMBIE TOTING,
thereby inflicting upon the victim infected hack wound from the right anterior lumbar area The evidence for the prosecution upon which the decision is based is summarized in detail in
transecting mid-abdomen, inguial area left to the medial thigh left, through and through, the trial court's decision and is further condensed in the Appellee's Brief 10 as follows:
with necrotic transected muscle, and which wounds caused the death of said Bombie Toting
shortly thereafter; and in order to cover-up the heinous crime committed, the above-named "On March 6, 1986, Zosimo Toting Jr. reported to the Nabalabag Philippine Constabulary
accused, conspiring and confederating together and acting in common accord, did then and Patrol at Pamplona, Negros Oriental, that his parents had been killed and their house at
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously set to fire the house of the aforesaid victim (sic) Tigbaw, [Pamplona] Negros Oriental, burned. This prompted PC Sgt. Reynaldo Tabanao, Sgt.
spouses Zosimo Toting, Sr. and Beatrice Toting, thereby razing it to the ground, and as a Nestorio Rubia, Jaime Saguban and three members of the Civilian Home Defense Force to go
consequence thereto MANOLITA TOTING suffered Third degree burns, all burn (sic) body, to Tigbaw, [Pamplona] Negros Oriental, to investigate the incident (TSN, January 20, 1988, p.
head, extremities or 100% burns, and which wounds caused the death of said Manolita 5).
Toting immediately thereafter and also causing injuries to MANOLO TOTING, to wit: 20% 2nd
and 3rd degree burns on the upper extremity bilateral, posterior shoulder, left and back, and Upon arriving at Tigbaw, they found a burned house and several dead bodies. The trial court
which wounds would have caused the death of victim Manolo Toting, thus performing all the identified the four (4) fatalities and their injuries as follows:
overt acts of execution which would have produced the crime of Murder as a consequence,
but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator, that is, the timely medical assistance extended to said Manolo Toting which (1) Zosimo Toting, Sr., with hack wound neck, posterior area, . . . hack wound, left upper back
prevented his death. . . . stab wound, through and through, lower abdomen, . . . 90% second and third degree
burns of the body;
Contrary to Article 248 in relation to Articles 6, 48 and 50 of the Revised Penal Code."
(2) Beatrice Toting, hack wound, neck posterior are . . . incised wound, epigastric area . . .
exposing vital organs, lower abdomen . . . exist (sic) lower back, 90% second and third degree
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 7411 and was raffled off to Branch 40 of the said burns of the body;
court.

(3) Bombie Toting, inflicted hack wound from the anterior lumbar area transecting mid-
After both accused entered a not guilty plea during their arraignment on 23 February 1987, 7 abdomen, inguial area left to the medial thigh left, through and through, with necrotic
trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented Dr. Edgardo Barredo, MCTC Judge transected muscle;
Teopisto Calumpang, Jaime Saguban, Sgt. Reynaldo Tabanao, Dr. Edgar Gantalao and Dr.
Lucio Togonon as its witnesses for the evidence in chief, and Judge Calumpang and Elpedio
Catacutan in rebuttal; for its surrebuttal, Pfc. Urbano Cavallida was presented. On the other (4) Manolita Toting, third degree burns, all burned body, head, extrimities (sic) or 100%
hand, the accused testified for the defense together with witnesses Joven Lopez and Maxima burns;
Basay. Accused Ramirez took the witness stand again in surrebuttal.
Manolo Toting did not die but suffered 20% second and third degree burns on the upper
On 15 December 1988, the trial court promulgated its Decision, dated 14 December 1988, extremity bilateral, posterior shoulder, left and back (Records, p. 213).
acquitting accused Teodoro Basay but convicting accused Jaime Ramirez. 8 Its dispositive
portion reads: Zosimo Toting, Sr, Beatrice Toting, Manolita Toting and Manolo Toting were found near the
vicinity of the burned house. About forty (40) meters away, the investigating officers found
six year old Bombie Toting suffering from serious hack wounds (TSN, January 20, 1988, p. 18). He first saw Elpedio Catacutan in the Pamplona Municipal Hall when Elpedio was going
The young girl said that she had been in this condition for one and a half days already. upstairs. When he signed Exhibit "F", Catacutan was in front of him. They did not converse
with each others (sic). He did not engage Catacutan to assist him, nor solicit his services. He
Bombie Toting related to Sgt. Tabanao that on March 4, 1986 at 7:00 o'clock in the evening, does know (sic) any one who solicited Catacutan's services for him. He did not ask the Judge
appellant and Teodoro Basay killed her parents and burned their house (TSN, January 20, (Calumpang) that a lawyer be designated to help him in connection with the affidavit. The
1988, p. 18, Records, p. 9). Pamplona Judge did not offer to give him a lawyer to assist him in the execution of the
affidavit (TSN, October 4, 1988, p.4)." 12
On the same day the investigating officers went to the appellant's house. They saw appellant
fixing the roof of his house and when appellant saw them, he went down and tried to ran Jaime Ramirez is a farmer and at the time he testified on 8 March 1988, was nineteen (19)
(sic) away (TSN, January, 20, 1988, p. 22). Appellant was turned over to the Pamplona Police years old and single. 13 The prosecution did not rebut his claim that he had only finished
Station (TSN, January 20, 1988, p. 25). Grade II and that he does not know how to read. He, however, understands the Cebuano
dialect. 14
Bombie Toting was brought to the hospital but due to the gravity of her injuries she died on
March 7, 1986 at 1:40 P.M. (Records, p. 12, Exhibit I). The Exhibit "F" referred to above is the Sworn Statement, 15 in English, of accused Jaime
Ramirez taken in the Pamplona police station on 7 March 1986 and subscribed and sworn to
only on 14 March 1986 before Judge Teopisto L. Calumpang of the MCTC of Pamplona-
Appellant was brought into the chamber of Judge Teopisto Calumpang, the municipal circuit
Amlan-San Jose. The trial court described this document as the Extra-Judicial Confession 16
trial judge of Pamplona, Amlan, and San Jose, on March 14, 1986. He was accompanied by
of Ramirez.
Mr. Elpedio Catacutan who acted as appellant's counsel (TSN, June 6, 1988, p. 6). They
brought with them an affidavit previously typed by a police investigating officer. The Judge
then made the court interpreter translate the allegations of the sworn statement into the The Joint Waiver (Exhibit "G") mentioned the testimony of Jaime Ramirez is in the Cebuano
local dialect for appellant (TSN, June 6, 1988). Thereafter, in the presence of the Judge, dialect and was signed by accused Basay and Ramirez on 7 March 1986. Both accused state
appellant and Mr. Catacutan signed the affidavit. (TSN, January 20, 1988, p. 14). Appellant therein that for their safety and security, they voluntarily decided to be detained and that
and counsel also signed the vernacular translation of Exhibit F (Records, p . 12)." they killed the spouses Zosimo Toting and Betty Toting and thereafter burned the spouses'
house; this fire resulted in the death of one and the hospitalization of two Toting children. 17
Upon the other hand, the evidence for accused Jaime Ramirez is substantially summarized in
the Appellant's Brief 11 in this wise: The trial court disregarded this Joint Waiver insofar as it tended to incriminate the accused
"because when they signed said Joint Waiver, they were not represented by counsel;" thus,
the same was prepared in violation of "Section 12, Article 3 of the Bill of Rights of the 1987
"Evidence for the Defense:
Constitution." 18 There being no other evidence against Basay, the trial court acquitted him.
However, it admitted in evidence the so-called extra-judicial confession of Jaime Ramirez,
xxx xxx xxx considered as part of the res gestae the alleged statement given by Bombie Toting to PC Sgt.
Reynaldo Tabanao and Jaime Saguban identifying Ramirez and Basay as the perpetrators of
Accused Jaime Ramirez testified that he was cooking food for the pig when the armed the crime and considered as flight — which is indicative of guilt — Ramirez's running away
uniformed men arrested him on March 5, 1986 and was brought (sic) to the Nabalabag PC when he saw the law enforcers on 6 March 1986. It further ruled that the latter signed the
Detachment where he was maltreated. Later, he was brought to Municipal (sic) Jail where he extra-judicial confession voluntarily and in the presence of Elpedio Catacutan, the COMELEC
stayed for one month and 23 days. registrar of Pamplona — "a barister (sic) who appeared as counsel for accused Jaime
Ramirez;" hence it is admissible against the latter. 19
Queried on the 'Joint Waiver', this witness said he did not read it because he did not know
how to read. When it was read to him, he did not understand it because it was read in On the other hand, the trial court did not admit the statement of Bombie Toting as a dying
English. Elpedio Catacutan was not his lawyer and he did not know him (TSN, March 5, pp. 3, declaration but merely as part of the res gestae because the prosecution failed to prove two
5-6, 9-10). (2) of the requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration, viz., that the statement was
given under consciousness of an impending death and that Bombie Toting is a competent
On cross-examination, this witness said he reached Grade II and knows how to write his witness. 20
name. He was alone at the time he was arrested. He was arrested ahead of Teodoro Basay
and those who arrested him where (sic) not the same persons who arrested Teodoro Basay. Accused Jaime Ramirez neither filed a notice of appeal nor orally manifested his intention to
appeal. However, on 31 January 1983, the trial court handed down an order directing the
clerk of court to transmit to this Court the entire records of the case because in view of the
penalty imposed — life imprisonment — "such Decision is subject for automatic review by Togbao, Barangay Banawe, Pamplona, Negros Oriental. You are also informed that under our
the Supreme Court." 21 This of course is erroneous as, pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of new constitution you have the right to remain silent and not to answer questions which will
the Rules of Court, the automatic review of a criminal case is applicable only where the incriminate you and to have a counsel of your own choice to assist you in this investigation,
penalty of death has been imposed which, nevertheless, is now banned under Section 19(1), do (sic) you aware of this?
Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
ANSWER — Yes.
In the interest of justice, however, We accepted the appeal in the Resolution of 8 May 1989.
22 Q — You are also informed that whatever statement you may offer in this investigation it
(sic) might be used as evidence in your favor or against you in the future, do (sic) you aware
In his Appellant's Brief, 23 Jaime Ramirez, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant, imputes of this this (sic)?
upon the trial court the commission of this lone error:
A — Yes.
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY AS CHARGED ON THE BASIS OF
EXHIBIT "F" (AFFIDAVIT) WHICH WAS EXECUTED IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL Q — After you have informed (sic) of your rights are you willing to proceed with this
RIGHTS AND ON THE BASIS OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND ON THE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT." investigation of yours even if you have no counsel of your own choice that will assist you in
this investigation?
Appellant contends that his so-called extra-judicial confession, Exhibit "F", was executed in
blatant disregard of his constitutional right to counsel and to remain silent during custodial A — Yes. I don't need any counsel in this investigation because I will just tell the truth.
investigation. It is therefore inadmissible in evidence. 24 Without the said confession, the
only piece of evidence which seems to point to his guilt is the alleged statement of Bombie
1. Question — If so, please state your name, age and other personal circumstances?
Toting. Appellant asserts, however, that the said statement was "very doubtful and . . . no
reasonable mind would conclude that she was candidly truthful;" hence, her statement,
besides being hearsay as it came from a person who was not presented in court to testify, Answer — Jaime Ramirez y Tano, 19 years old, single, Filipino, farmer and a resident of sitio
should not have been taken at "face value against any of the accused, much less against the Palale, Barangay San Isidro, Pamplona, Negros Oriental.
appellant." 25 Besides, the appellant asserts that the same statement was not used against
his co-accused Basay who was, unlike him, acquitted by the trial court. As to his having run xxx xxx xxx
away upon seeing the armed law enforcers, appellant claims that he did so out of fear as the
latter were armed. 26 11. Q — What more can you say?

On the other hand, it is maintained by the People, in the Appellee's Brief 27 submitted by the A — No more. I proved that my statement is correct I signed this 7 March 1986 (sic), at
Office of the Solicitor General, that the appellant executed the extra-judicial confession Pamplona, Negros Oriental.
voluntarily and without duress; in signing such confession, he was accompanied by a certain
Mr. Catacutan, a non-lawyer, inside the chambers of Judge Calumpang — "an environment . .
. other than vindictive and oppressive which the courts desired to guard against in Miranda (Sgd.) JAIME T. RAMIREZ
vs. Arizona, 384 US 436." 28 As to Bombie's statement, it is claimed that the same should be
considered as a dying declaration. (TYP) JAIME T. RAMIREZ

We find merit in the appeal. Affiant

1. Jaime Ramirez's sworn statement or extra-judicial confession was prepared on 7 March NOTE: ASSISTED BY:
1986 at about 11:00 o'clock in the morning in the Pamplona police station. Pertinent portions
thereof read as follows: (Sgd.) ELPEDIO B. CATACUTAN

"PRELIMINARY — MR. JAIME RAMIREZ, you are now under investigation in connection with (TYP) ELPEDIO B. CATACUTAN
the death of the couple and the burning of their house, ZOSIMO TOTING and BEATRICE
TOTING alias BETTY TOTING on March 4, 1986 at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening at sitio
Counsel of the accused
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of March 1986, at Pamplona, Negros interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
Oriental, Philippines. been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are
(Sgd.) TEOPISTO L. CALUMPANG devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous
opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the
person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does not
(TYP) TEOPISTO L. GALUMPANG
make (sic) may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an
attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of those
Mun Trial Circuit Judge rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he
indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an
CERTIFICATION attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and
indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am satisfied that he question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered
voluntarily executed and understood his affidavit. some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any
further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be
questioned.'" (citations omitted).
(Sgd.) TEOPISTO L. CALUMPANG

Then, in Morales vs. Enrile, 32 in the light of the said Section 20, prescribed the procedure to
(TYP) TEOPISTO L. CALUMPANG be followed by peace officers when making an arrest and when conducting a custodial
investigation. Thus:
Mun Trial Circuit Judge" 29
"7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him
We do not hesitate to rule that this purported extra-judicial confession belonging to of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be
appellant Jaime Ramirez and obtained during custodial interrogation was taken in blatant informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement
disregard of his right to counsel, to remain silent and to be informed of such rights, he might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to
guaranteed by Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution — the governing law at that communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means
time. Said section reads: — by telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the
arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be
"SECTION 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the reason arrested, by any
under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself
to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be
other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the
violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence." procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
inadmissible in evidence."
The source of this provision is Miranda vs. Arizona, 30 in connection therewith, this Court
stated in People vs. Caguioa 31 that: This was reiterated in People vs. Galit. 33

" . . . The landmark opinion of Miranda vs. Arizona, decided in 1966, as noted above, the In People vs. Nicandro, 34 this Court declared that one's right to be informed of the right to
source of this constitutional provision, emphasized that statements made during the period remain silent and to counsel contemplates "the transmission of meaningful information
of custodial interrogation to be admissible require a clear intelligent waiver of constitutional rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
rights, the suspect being warned prior to questioning that he has a right to remain silent, that principle." Thus, is not enough for the interrogator to merely repeat to the person under
any utterance may be used against him, and that he has the right to the presence of a investigation the provisions of section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, now Section 12,
counsel, either retained or appointed. In the language of Chief Justice Warren: 'Our holding Article III of the 1987 Constitution; the former must also explain the effects of such provision
will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow, but briefly stated, it is this: in practical terms — e.g., what the person under interrogation may or may not do - and in a
the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming language the subject fairly understands. The right "to be informed" carries with it a
from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates
safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial effective communication which results in the subject's understanding of what is conveyed.
Since it is comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree of explanation required
will necessarily vary and depend on the education, intelligence and other relevant personal at the time that appellant was brought to the office of Judge Catacutan for the preparation of
circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. In further ensuring the right to the jurat. It was precisely for this reason that the following notations were inserted above
counsel, it is not enough that the subject is informed of such right; he should also be asked if the jurat of the so-called extra-judicial confession:
he wants to avail of the same and should be told that he could ask for counsel if he so desired
or that one could be provided him at his request. 35 If he decides not to retain counsel of his "NOTE: ASSISTED BY:
choice or avail of one to be provided for him and, therefore, chooses to waive his right to
counsel, such waiver, to be valid and effective, must still be made with the assistance of
(Sgd.) ELPEDIO B. CATACUTAN
counsel. 36 That counsel must be a lawyer. 37

(TYP) ELPEDIO B. CATACUTAN"


The foregoing pronouncements are now synthesized in paragraphs 1 and 3, Section 12,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:
In reality, Catacutan signed not as counsel, but only as a witness. Thus:
"SECTION 12(1). Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent "Q Do you recall having signed as a witness of an affidavit of one Jaime (sic) T. Ramirez which
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he affidavit is now marked as Exhibit "F"?
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel. A Yes.

xxx xxx xxx Q Can you tell the court where did you sign that Exhibit "F"?

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be A I signed this affidavit in the office of the Municipal Judge of Pamplona." 39
inadmissible in evidence against him."
Moreover, it is to be observed that the appellant does not even know the said Elpedio
The adjectives competent and independent, which qualify the kind of counsel an accused is Catacutan. 40
entitled to during investigation, were not found in the previous Constitution. Their
incorporation in the 1987 Constitution was thus meant to stress the primacy of this right to (e) Assuming arguendo that Elpedio Catacutan may have been summoned to act as
counsel. appellant's counsel, he was, nevertheless, not present during the custodial interrogation
which, by the way, was conducted exactly a week before he appeared —or more correctly,
A close scrutiny of the questioned extra-judicial confession in the case at bar reveals all was made to appear — before Judge Calumpang. His presence before the latter did not
possible violations of the appellant's right to remain silent, to counsel and to be informed of change the situation. As this Court stated in People vs. Burgos, 41 the securing of counsel to
such rights, and of the safeguards prescribed by this Court for the holding of custodial help the accused when the latter subscribed under oath to his statement at the Fiscal's Office
interrogations. was too late and had no palliative effect; it did not cure the absence of counsel at the time of
the custodial investigation when the extra-judicial statement was being taken.
(a) The interrogation was the conducted and the confession was written in English a language
the appellant, a farmer in a remote barangay of Pamplona, cannot speak and does not (f) Furthermore, Elpedio Calumpang is not a lawyer; according to the trial court, he is "a
understand; he only finished Grade II. There is no evidence to show that the interrogator, barister (sic)." In fact, he candidly admitted that he is not a lawyer but that he obtained a law
who was not even presented as a witness and remains unidentified, translated the questions degree from the Siliman University in 1959. Unfortunately, however, he failed in three Bar
and the answers into a dialect known and fairly understood by the appellant. Examinations. 42

(b) Appellant was not told that he could retain a counsel of choice and that if he cannot (g) There is no showing that the so-called extra-judicial confession, which is in English, was
afford to do so, he could be provided with one. correctly explained and translated to the appellant by Judge Calumpang. Although the latter
claimed in his testimony on direct examination that he translated the same in the local
(c) He did not sign any waiver of his right to remain silent and to counsel. dialect to the appellant before the latter affixed his signature thereto, 43 Elpedio Catacutan
categorically declared that it was the interpreter, one Pedro Rodriguez, who translated it to
the appellant. Thus:
(d) He was not assisted by any counsel during the investigation. Instead, a certain Elpedio
Catacutan, who claimed to have appeared for him as a "friend-counsel," 38 was present only
"Q Who is the interpreter who made the translation? " . . . Although persons of tender age are prone to tell the truth, however, the Court must be
cautious in appreciating said testimony where the person had a serious wound and had not
A Pedro Rodriguez. eaten for one day and one night. There is no evidence to show that Bombie Toting told the
doctor as to who were the perpetrators of the crime; neither did she tell her own brother,
Zosimo Toting, Jr. that it was the accused, Teodoro Basay and Jaime Ramirez who killed her
Q Were you there when the translation was made?
parents and her brother and sisters and burned their house. . . . The Court cannot understand
why P.C. Sgt. Tabano did not ask Bombie Toting questions concerning the commission of the
A Sure. crime by the accused. Neither did the P.C. or (sic) the police take any statement from her on
her way to the hospital or at the hospital. Surprisingly, Bombie Toting did not even tell her
Q So it was not the Judge who made the translation, is that what you mean? own brother, Zosimo Toting, Jr. that it was the accused who committed the crime. Had the
statement of Bombie Toting been made to the doctor or to the barangay captain or to any
A The translation was course (sic) through the interpreter." 44 reputable member of the community where the incident happened, the Court will have to
put weight and consider her statement as a dying declaration. Our experience has shown
that persons in authority are prone to fabricate or misrepresent the facts to serve their own
(h) Finally, the kind of "advice" proffered by the unidentified interrogator belongs to that purpose. Innocent people had been charged in Court simply by the false statements of peace
stereotyped class — a long question by the investigator informing the appellant of his right officers. The Court therefore has to be cautious when these peace officers testify in Court."
followed by a monosyllabic answer — which this Court has condemned for being 49
unsatisfactory. 45 The investigator gave his advice perfunctorily or in a pro-forma manner,
obviously to pay mere lip service to the prescribed norms. As this Court observed in People
vs. Newman, 46 this stereotyped "advice": In the second place, as a result of the foregoing observations, the trial court completely
disregarded Bombie Toting's so-called statement as against Teodoro Basay. We therefore see
neither rhyme nor reason for the trial court's admission of the same as against the appellant.
" . . . has assumed the nature of a 'legal form' or model. Its tired, punctilious, fixed and
artificially stately style does not create an impression of voluntariness or even understanding
on the part of the accused. The showing of a spontaneous, free and unconstrained giving up 3. While it may be true that the appellant ran away when he first saw the armed law officers,
of a right is missing." he did so merely out of fear of them. This act should not be considered as the flight which is
indicative of guilt. The appellant had not left his house or barangay since 4 March 1986, the
day the crime was committed. If he were indeed one of the perpetrators and had the
Consequently, Exhibit "F", which is indisputably an uncounselled confession or admission, is intention to flee in order to avoid arrest, he should have vanished sooner and should not
inadmissible in evidence. The trial court, therefore, committed a fatal error in admitting it. have remained in his house. Besides, if indeed his running away could be construed as flight,
it could only be considered as circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would still be
2. We harbor very serious doubts about the alleged statement given by Bombie Toting to Sgt. insufficient for a conviction. Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, in order that
Tabanao and Jaime Saguban identifying the appellant and Teodoro Basay as the perpetrators circumstantial evidence may sustain a conviction, there must, inter alia, be more than one (1)
of the heinous crime. In the first place, the trial court itself ruled that Bombie was not a circumstance. No other circumstance was established in this case.
competent witness. We agree with such a conclusion, not necessarily because she was only
six (6) years old, but because her condition at the time she supposedly gave her statement Hence, the appellant's guilt was not established with moral certainty. He should be acquitted.
made it impossible for her to have communicated effectively. She suffered the following
injuries:
We cannot, however, close this case without making some observations about the legal
conclusions of the trial court anent the crimes committed and the penalty imposed. The facts
"Infected hack wound from the right anterior lumbar area transecting mid abdomen, inguinal indisputably establish that Zosimo Toting, Sr., Beatrice Toting and Bombie Toting were
area left to the medial thigh left through and through, with necrotic transected muscle." 47 stabbed and hacked before their house was burned. Zosimo and Beatrice died immediately
while Bombie lived for a few days. As a matter of fact, the thesis of the prosecution is that
She was taken from the crime scene only on 6 March 1986, or two (2) days after the the house was burned to conceal the stabbing and hacking. As a result of this fire, Manolita
commission of the crime, and died in the hospital on 7 March 1986. The doctor who first Toting and Manolo Toting suffered burns which caused the death of the former; the latter,
attended to her when she arrived at the Provincial Hospital, a certain Dr. Sy, was not however, survived due to timely medical attention. Four (4) crimes were therefore
presented as a witness. On the other hand, the doctor who attended to her before she died, committed, viz.: three (3) separate murders under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code 50
Dr. Edgar Cantalao, testified that when he last saw Bombie alive, she could not talk. 48 It was for the deaths of Zosimo, Beatrice and Bombie, and arson as punished under Section 5 of P.D.
this inability to talk which led the trial court to express its doubts on the veracity of the No. 1613 51 for the death of Manolita and the injuries sustained by Manolo as a
latter's supposed statement: consequence of the burning of the house. The aforementioned Section 5 reads:
"SECTION 5. Where Death Results from Arson. — If by reason of or on the occasion of the When Barangay Chairman Bernardo returned to the Barangay Hall, he received a report from
arson death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed." pedicab driver Rolando Gruta, who was also a tanod, that shortly before the occurrence of
the fire, he saw a woman (the housemaid) coming out of the house at No. 172 Moderna
Also, the information that was filed is clearly duplicitous and thus vulnerable to a motion to Street, Balut, Tondo, Manila and he received a call from his wife telling him of a woman (the
quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. No such motion having been filed, same housemaid) who was acting strangely and suspiciously on Balasan Street. Barangay
appellant is deemed to have waived the defect. Chairman Bernardo, Rolando Gruta and the other tanods proceeded to Balasan Street and
found the woman who was later identified as the accused-appellant. After Rolando Gruta
positively identified the woman as the same person who left No. 172 Moderna Street, Balut,
Finally, We have time and again said that life imprisonment is not a penalty provided for in
Tondo, Manila, Barangay Chairman Bernardo and his tanods apprehended her and brought
the Revised Penal Code and is not the same as reclusion perpetua. 52 Unfortunately, the trial
her to the Barangay Hall for investigation. At the Barangay Hall, Mercedita Mendoza,
court still disregarded this pronouncement. It is hoped that it will not happen again.
neighbor of Roberto Separa, Sr. and whose house was also burned, identified the woman as
accused-appellant EDNA who was the housemaid of Roberto Separa, Sr. Upon inspection, a
WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision in Criminal Case No. 7411 of Branch 40 of the Regional disposable lighter was found inside accused-appellant EDNAs bag. Thereafter, accused-
Trial Court of Negros Oriental is REVERSED and appellant JAIME RAMIREZ alias "NEBOY" is appellant EDNA confessed to Barangay Chairman Bernardo in the presence of multitudes of
hereby ACQUITTED with costs de oficio. His immediate release from detention is hereby angry residents outside the Barangay Hall that she set her employers house on fire because
ordered. she had not been paid her salary for about a year and that she wanted to go home to her
province but her employer told her to just ride a broomstick in going home.
SO ORDERED.
Accused-appellant EDNA was then turned over to arson investigators headed by
22. People vs. Malngan S[F]O4 Danilo Talusan, who brought her to the San Lazaro Fire Station in Sta.
Cruz, Manila where she was further investigated and then detained.
For review is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01139
promulgated on 2 September 2005, affirming with modification the Judgment[2] of the When Mercedita Mendoza went to the San Lazaro Fire Station to give her sworn statement,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 41, in Criminal Case No. 01-188424 promulgated she had the opportunity to ask accused-appellant EDNA at the latters detention cell why she
on 13 October 2003, finding appellant Edna Malngan y Mayo (Edna) guilty beyond reasonable did the burning of her employers house and accused-appellant EDNA replied that she set the
doubt of the crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide or Arson resulting to the death of six (6) house on fire because when she asked permission to go home to her province, the wife of
people, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of death. her employer Roberto Separa, Sr., named Virginia Separa (sic) shouted at her: Sige umuwi ka,
pagdating mo maputi ka na. Sumakay ka sa walis, pagdating mo maputi ka na (TSN, January
The Facts 22, 2002, p.6) (Go ahead, when you arrive your color would be fair already. Ride a
broomstick, when you arrive your color would be fair already.) And when Mercedita
As summarized[3] by the Court of Appeals, the antecedent facts are as follows: Mendoza asked accused-appellant EDNA how she burned the house, accused-appellant
EDNA told her: Naglukotako ng maraming diyaryo, sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at
From the personal account of Remigio Bernardo, the Barangay Chairman in the area, as well hinagis ko sa ibabaw ng lamesa sa loob ng bahay (TSN, January 22, 2002, p. 7.) (I crumpled
as the personal account of the pedicab driver named Rolando Gruta, it was at around 4:45 newspapers, lighted them with a disposable lighter and threw them on top of the table inside
a.m. on January 2, 2001 when Remigio Bernardo and his tanods saw the accused-appellant the house.)
EDNA, one hired as a housemaid by Roberto Separa, Sr., with her head turning in different
directions, hurriedly leaving the house of her employer at No. 172 Moderna Street, Balut, When interviewed by Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of ABS-CBN Network, accused-appellant
Tondo, Manila. She was seen to have boarded a pedicab which was driven by a person later EDNA while under detention (sic) was heard by SFO4 (sic) Danilo Talusan as having admitted
identified as Rolando Gruta. She was heard by the pedicab driver to have instructed that she the crime and even narrated the manner how she accomplished it. SFO4 (sic) Danilo Talusan
be brought to Nipa Street, but upon her arrival there, she changed her mind and asked that was able to hear the same confession, this time at his home, while watching the television
she be brought instead to Balasan Street where she finally alighted, after paying for her fare. program True Crime hosted by Gus Abelgas also of ABS-CBN Network.

Thirty minutes later, at around 5:15 a.m. Barangay Chairman Bernardos group later The fire resulted in [the] destruction of the house of Roberto Separa, Sr. and other adjoining
discovered that a fire gutted the house of the employer of the housemaid. Barangay houses and the death of Roberto Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa together with their four (4)
Chairman Bernardo and his tanods responded to the fire upon hearing shouts from the children, namely: Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, Jr.
residents and thereafter, firemen from the Fire District 1-NCR arrived at the fire scene to
contain the fire. On 9 January 2001, an Information[4] was filed before the RTC of Manila, Branch 41, charging
accused-appellant with the crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide. The case was docketed as
Criminal Case No. 01-188424. The accusatory portion of said Information provides:
That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with A: On January 2 she was interviewed by the media, sir. The one who took the coverage was
intent to cause damage, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and deliberately Carmelita Valdez of Channel 2, ABS-CBN. They have a footage that Edna admitted before
set fire upon the two-storey residential house of ROBERTO SEPARA and family mostly made them, sir.
of wooden materials located at No. 172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, this city, by lighting
crumpled newspaper with the use of disposable lighter inside said house knowing the same Q: And where were you when Edna Malngan made that statement or admission to Carmelita
to be an inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place and as a consequence Valdez of ABS-CBN?
thereof a conflagration ensued and the said building, together with some seven (7) adjoining
residential houses, were razed by fire; that by reason and on the occasion of the said fire, the A: I was at our office, sir.
following, namely,
Q: Was there any other occasion wherein the accused made another confession relative to
1. Roberto Separa, Sr., 45 years of age the admission of the crime?
2. Virginia Separa y Mendoza, 40 years of age
3. Michael Separa, 24 years of age A: Yes, sir.
4. Daphne Separa, 18 years of age
5. Priscilla Separa, 14 years of age Q: When was that?
6. Roberto Separa, Jr., 11 years of age
A: Last Friday, sir. It was shown in True Crime of Gus Abelgas. She was interviewed at the City
sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death immediately thereafter.[5] Jail and she admitted that she was the one who authored the crime, sir.

Pros. Rebagay:
When arraigned, accused-appellant with assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded[6] Not And where were you when that admission to Gus Abelgas was made?
Guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial ensued.[7]
A: I was in the house and I just saw it on tv, sir.
The prosecution presented five (5) witnesses, namely, SPO4[8] Danilo Talusan, Rolando
Gruta, Remigio Bernardo, Mercedita Mendoza and Rodolfo Movilla to establish its charge Q: What was that admission that you heard personally, when you were present, when the
that accused-appellant Edna committed the crime of arson with multiple homicide. accused made the confession to Carmelita Valdez?

SPO4 Danilo Talusan, arson investigator, testified that he was one of those who responded to A: Naglukot po siya ng papel, sinidihan niya ng lighter at inilagay niya sa ibabaw ng mesa yung
the fire that occurred on 2 January 2001 and which started at No. 172 Moderna St., Balut, mga diyaryo at sinunog niya.
Tondo, Manila. He stated that the fire killed Roberto Separa, Sr. and all the other members of
his family, namely his wife, Virginia, and his children, Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, xxxx
Jr.; the fire also destroyed their abode as well as six neighboring houses. He likewise testified
that he twice heard accused-appellant once while the latter was being interviewed by Q: Aside from that statement, was there any other statement made by the accused Edna
Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of ABS-CBN, and the other time when it was shown on channel 2 Malngan?
on television during the airing of the television program entitled True Crime hosted by Gus
Abelgas confess to having committed the crime charged, to wit: A: Yes, sir. Kaya po niya nagawa yon galit po siya sa kanyang amo na si Virginia, hindi siya
pinasuweldo at gusto na po niyang umuwi na (sic) ayaw siyang payagan. Nagsalita pa po sa
Pros. Rebagay: kanya na, Sumakay ka na lang sa walis. Pagbalik mo dito maputi ka na. (sic) Yon po ang
Based on your investigation, was there any occasion when the accused Edna Malngan sinabi ng kanyang amo.
admitted to the burning of the house of the Separa Family?
Atty. Masweng:
xxxx That was a statement of an alleged dead person, your Honor.

Witness: Court:
Yes, sir. Sabi ni Valdes, ha?

Pros. Rebagay: Pros. Rebagay:


When was that? Sabi ni Edna Malngan kay Carmelita Valdez, Your Honor.
Q: How about this Edna, the one you just pointed (to) awhile ago? Do you know her prior
Court: to January 2, 2001?
Double hearsay na yon.
A: Yes, sir. I knew(sic) her for two years.
Pros. Rebagay:
No, Your Honor, the witness was present, Your Honor, when that confession was made by Court:
the accused to Carmelita Valdez.[9] Why?

Witness:
Rolando Gruta, the pedicab driver and one of the barangay tanods in the area, testified: Madalas ko po siyang maging pasahero ng aking pedicab.

Pros. Rebagay: Pros. Rebagay:


Mr. Witness, what is your profession? How about the Separa family? Why do you know them?

A: Sidecar driver, sir. A: They were the employers of Edna, sir.

Q: On January 2, 2001 at around 4:45 in the morning, do you recall where were (sic) you? Q: You said you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family. What happened
when you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family?
A: I was at the corner of Moderna Street, sir.
A: Wala pa pong ano yan naisakay ko na siya sa sidecar.
Pros. Rebagay:
And while you were at the corner of Moderna St., what happened if any, Mr. Witness? Q: And what did you observe from Edna when you saw her coming out from the house of the
Separa family?
A: I saw Edna coming out from the door of the house of Roberto Separa, sir.
A: Nagmamadali po siyang lumakad at palinga-linga.
Q: Do you know the number of the house of the Separa Family?
xxxx
A: 172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila, sir.
Q: After she boarded your pedicab, what happened, if any?
xxxx
A: Nagpahatid po siya sa akin.
Q: And you said you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family. How far is
that house from the place where you were waiting at the corner of Moderna and Paulino Q: Where?
Streets?
A: To Nipa Street, sir.
A: About three meters from Moderna and Paulino Streets where my pedicab was placed. My
distance was about three meters, sir. Q: Did you bring her to Nipa Street as she requested?

xxxx A: Yes, sir.

Q: And how did you know that the house where Edna came out is that of the house of the xxxx
Separa Family?
Q: You said that you brought her to Nipa Street. What happened when you go (sic) there
A: Mismong nakita po ng dalawang mata ko na doon siya galing sa bahay ng Separa Family. at Nipa Street, if any?

Q: How long have you known the Separa Family, if you know them? A: Nagpahinto po siya doon ng saglit, mga tatlong minuto po.

A: About two years, sir. Q: What did she do when she asked (you) to stop there for three minutes?
A: After three minutes she requested me to bring her directly to Balasan Street, sir. On January 2, 2001, do you recall if there is a fire that occurred somewhere in your area of
jurisdiction, particularly Moderna Street?
xxxx
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What happened after that?
Q: Now, where were you when this incident happened?
A: When we arrived there, she alighted and pay (sic) P5.00, sir.
A: Kasi ugali ko na po tuwing umagang-umaga po ako na pupunta sa barangay Hall mga
Q And then what transpired after she alighted from your pedicab? siguro 6:00 or 5:00 o clock, me sumigaw ng sunog nirespondehan namin iyongsunog eh me
dala kaming fire.
Witness:
I went home and I looked for another passenger, sir. Court:
You just answer the question. Where were you when this incident happened?
Pros. Rebagay:
After that, what happened when you were on you way to your house to look for passengers? Witness:
I was at the Barangay Hall, Your Honor.
A Nakita ko na nga po na pagdating ko sa Moderna, naglalagablab na apoy.
Pros. Rebagay:
Q: From what place was that fire coming out? And you said that there was a fire that occurred, what did you do?

A: From the house of Roberto Separa Family, sir. Witness:


Iyon nga nagresponde kami doon sa sunog eh nakita ko iyong sunog mukha talagang arson
xxxx dahil napakalaki kaagad, meron pong mga tipong Iyong namatay po contractor po iyon eh
kaya siguro napakaraming kalat ng mga pintura, mga container, kaya hindi
Pros. Rebagay: po namin naapula kaagad iyong apoy, nasunog ultimo iyong fire tank namin sa lakas, sir.
After you noticed that there was a fire from the house of Roberto Separa Family, what did
you do if any? Pros. Rebagay:
Now, will you please tell us where this fire occurred?
A: Siyempre po, isang Barangay Tanod po ako, nagresponde na po kami sa sunog. Binuksan
na po ng Chairman naming yung tangke, binomba na po naming yung apoy ng tubig. A: At the house of the six victims, sir.

Q: After that incident, Mr. Witness, have you seen Edna Again (sic). Q: Whose house is that?

A: No, sir. A: The house of the victims, sir.

Pros. Rebagay: xxxx


And after that incident, did you come to know if Edna was apprehended or not?
Pros. Rebagay:
xxxx You said that you responded to the place, what transpired after you responded to the place?

A: I was called by our Barangay Chairman in order to identify Edna, sir. A: Iyon nga po ang nagsabi may lumabas na isang babae po noon sa bahay na nagmamadali
habang may sunog, me isang barangay tanod po akong nagsabi may humahangos na isang
x x x x[10] babae na may dalang bag papunta po roon palabas ng sasakyan, sir.

Q: And so what happened?


Remigio Bernardo, Barangay Chairman of the area where the fire occurred, stated:
A: Siyempre hindi naman ako nagtanong kung sino ngayon may dumating galing na sa bahay
Pros. Rebagay: naming, may tumawag, tumawag po si Konsehala Alfonso na may isang babae na hindi
mapakali doon sa Calle Pedro Alfonso, ke konsehal na baka ito sabi niya iyong ganito ganoon libo iyong nakapaligid doon sa barangay hall napakahirap awatin. Gustong-
nirespondehan ko po, sir. gusto siyang kunin ng mga taong-bayan, nagalit dahil ang daming bahay hong nasunog.[11]

Q: Where did you respond?


For her part, Mercedita Mendoza, one of the neighbors of the Separa Family and whose
A: At Balasan, sir, but its not the area of my jurisdiction. house was one of those destroyed by the fire, recounted:

xxxx Pros. Rebagay:


Madam Witness, on January 2, 2001, do you recall where were you residing then?
Q: What happened when you reached that place?
A: Yes, sir.
A: Siya po ang nahuli ko doon, sir.
Q: Where were you residing at?
Court:
Witness pointing to accused Edna Malngan. A: At No. 170 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila, sir.

Pros. Rebagay: Q: Why did you transfer your residence? Awhile ago you testified that you are now residing
And what happened? at 147 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila?

A: I brought her to the barangay hall, sir. A: Because our house was burned, sir.

Q: And what happened at the barangay hall? Q: More or less, how much did the loss incurred on the burning of your house (sic)?

A: Inembestigahan ko, kinuha naming iyong bag niya, me lighter siya eh. Inamin niya po sa A: More or less, P100,000.00, sir
amin na kaya niya sinunog hindi siya pinasasahod ng more or less isang taon na eh. Ngayon
sabi ko bakit eh gusto ko ng umuwi ng probinsya ang sabi sa akin ng amo ko sumakay na lang Q: Do you know the accused in this case Edna Malngan?
daw po ako ng walis tingting para makauwi, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
Atty. Herman:
We would like to object, Your Honor on the ground that that is hearsay. Q: Why do you know her?

Pros. Rebagay: A: She is the house helper of the family who were (sic) burned, sir.
That is not a hearsay statement, Your Honor, straight from the mouth of the accused.
Q: What family?
Atty. Herman:
Its not under the exemption under the Rules of Court, Your Honor. He is testifying according A: Cifara (sic) family, sir.
to what he has heard.
Q: Who in particular do you know among Cifara (sic) family?
Court:
Thats part of the narration. Whether it is true or not, thats another matter. Let it remain. A: The woman, sir.

Pros. Rebagay: Q: What is the name?


Now, who were present when the accused are telling you this?
A: Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic), sir.
A: Iyon nga iyong mga tanod ko, mamamayan doon nakapaligid, siyempre may sunog
nagkakagulo, gusto nga siyang kunin ng mga mamamayan para saktan hindi ko maibigay Q: Are you related to Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic)?
papatayin siya gawa ng may namatay eh anim na tao and namatay, kaya iyong mga tao
kinokontrol siya madidisgrasya siya dahil pin-pointed po siya, Your Honor, iyong dami na iyon A: My husband, sir.
Q: What is the relationship of your husband to the late Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic)? A: I also asked her, Paano mo ginawa yung sunog? She told me, Naglukot ako ng maraming
diyaryo, sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at hinagis niya sa ibabaw ng lamesa sa loob ng
A: They were first cousins, sir. bahay. (sic)[12]

Q: How far is your house from the house of the Cifara (sic) family?
Lastly, the prosecution presented Rodolfo Movilla, owner of the house situated beside that
A: Magkadikit lang po. Pader lang ang pagitan. of the Separa family. He testified that his house was also gutted by the fire that killed
the Separa family and that he tried to help said victims but to no avail.
Q: You said that Edna Malngan was working with the Cifara (sic) family. What is the work of
Edna Malngan? The prosecution presented other documentary evidence[13] and thereafter rested its case.

A: Nangangamuhan po. House helper, sir. When it came time for the defense to present exculpatory evidence, instead of doing so,
accused-appellant filed a Motion to Admit Demurrer to Evidence[14] and the
Q: How long do you know Edna Malngan as house helper of the Cifara (sic) family? corresponding Demurrer to Evidence[15] with the former expressly stating that
said Demurrer to Evidence was being filed x x x without express leave of court x x x.[16]
A: I cannot estimate but she stayed there for three to four years, sir.
In her Demurrer to Evidence, accused-appellant asserts that the prosecutions evidence was
Q: Do you know who caused the burning of the house of the Cifara (sic) family? insufficient to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons:[17] (a) that
she is charged with crime not defined and penalized by law; (b) that circumstantial evidence
Witness: was insufficient to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (c) that the testimonies
Edna Malngan, sir. given by the witnesses of the prosecution were hearsay, thus, inadmissible in evidence
against her.
Pros. Rebagay:
Why do you know that it was Edna Malngan who burned the house of the Cifara (sic) family? The prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition to accused-appellants Demurrer to Evidence.

A: When the fire incident happened, sir, on January 3, we went to San Lazaro Fire Station and On 13 October 2003, acting on the Demurrer to Evidence, the RTC promulgated
I saw Edna Malngan detained there, sir. its Judgment[18] wherein it proceeded to resolve the subject case based on the evidence of
the prosecution. The RTC considered accused-appellant to have waived her right to present
Q: And so what is your basis in pointing to Edna Malngan as the culprit or the one who evidence, having filed the Demurrer to Evidencewithout leave of court.
burned the house of the Cifara (sic) family?
In finding accused-appellant Edna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arson with
A: I talked to her when we went there at that day, sir. Multiple Homicide, the RTC ruled that:

Q: What transpired then? The first argument of the accused that she is charged with an act not defined and penalized
by law is without merit. x x x the caption which charges the accused with the crime of Arson
A: I talked to her and I told her, Edna, bakit mo naman ginawa yung ganun? with Multiple Homicide is merely descriptive of the charge of Arson that resulted to Multiple
Homicide. The fact is that the accused is charged with Arson which resulted to Multiple
Q: And what was the answer of Edna? Homicide (death of victims) and that charge is embodied and stated in the body of the
information. What is controlling is the allegation in the body of the Information and not the
A: She answered, Kasi pag nagpapaalam ako sa kanyang umuwi ng probinsya, nagpapaalam title or caption thereof. x x x.
po siyang umuwi ng probinsya ang sinasabi daw po sa kanya ni Baby Cifara (sic) na,
(sic)Sige umuwi ka, pagdating mo maputi ka na. Sumakay ka sa walis pagdating mo maputi ka xxxx
na.
The second and third arguments will be discussed jointly as they are interrelated with each
Pros. Rebagay: other. x x x.
What is the basis there that she was the one who burned the house of the Cifara (sic) family?
xxxx
[W]hile there is no direct evidence that points to the accused in the act of burning the house Due to the death penalty imposed by the RTC, the case was directly elevated to this Court for
or actually starting the subject fire, the following circumstances that show that the accused automatic review. Conformably with our decision in People v. Efren Mateo y
intentionally caused or was responsible for the subject fire have been duly established: Garcia,[19] however, we referred the case and its records to the CA for appropriate action
and disposition.
1. that immediately before the burning of the house, the accused hurriedly and with head
turning in different directions (palinga-linga) went out of the said house and rode a pedicab On 2 September 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the
apparently not knowing where to go x x x; RTC, the fallo of which reads:

2. that immediately after the fire, upon a report that there was a woman in Balasan St. who WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed October 13, 2003 Judgment of the Regional
appears confused and apprehensive (balisa), the Barangay Chairman and his tanods went Trial Court of Manila, Branch 41, finding accused-appellant Edna Malngan y Mayo guilty
there, found the accused and apprehended her and brought her to the barangay hall as beyond reasonable doubt of Arson with multiple homicide and sentencing her to suffer the
shown by the testimony of Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo; and DEATH PENALTY is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that she is further ordered to
pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and another P50,000.00 as exemplary damages for each of
3. that when she was apprehended and investigated by the barangay officials and when her the victims who perished in the fire, to be paid to their heirs. She is ordered to pay Rodolfo
bag was opened, the same contained a disposable lighter as likewise shown by the testimony Movilla, one whose house was also burned, the sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damage.
of the Barangay Chairman.
Pursuant to Section 13 (a), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended by
[T]he timing of her hurried departure and nervous demeanor immediately before the fire A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15,
when she left the house and rode a pedicab and her same demeanor, physical and mental 2004, the Court of Appeals, after rendering judgment, hereby refrains from making an entry
condition when found and apprehended at the same place where she alighted from the of judgment and forthwith certifies the case and elevates the entire record of this case to the
pedicab and the discovery of the lighter in her bag thereafter when investigated indisputably Supreme Court for review.[20]
show her guilt as charged.
It is the contention of accused-appellant that the evidence presented by the prosecution is
If there is any doubt of her guilt that remains with the circumstantial evidence against her, not sufficient to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the perpetrator of the crime
the same is removed or obliterated with the confessions/admissions of the commission of charged. In support of said exculpatory proposition, she assigns the following errors[21]:
the offense and the manner thereof that she made to the prosecution witnesses Barangay
Chairman Remigio Bernardo, Mercedita Mendoza and to the media, respectively. I.

xxxx THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED; and
[H]er confessions/admissions are positive acknowledgment of guilt of the crime and appear
to have been voluntarily and intelligently given. These confessions/admissions, especially the II.
one given to her neighbor Mercedita Mendoza and the media, albeit uncounselled and made
while she was already under the custody of authorities, it is believed, are not violative of her THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING AND GIVING CREDENCE TO THE HEARSAY
right under the Constitution. EVIDENCE AND UNCOUNSELLED ADMISSIONS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN BY THE ACCUSED TO THE
WITNESSES BARANGAY CHAIRMAN REMIGIO BERNARDO, MERCEDITA MENDOZA AND THE
The decretal part of the RTCs Judgment reads: MEDIA.

WHEREFORE, the Demurrer to Evidence is hereby denied and judgment is hereby rendered
finding the accused EDNA MALNGAN Y MAYO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of THERE IS NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH (MULTIPLE) HOMICIDE.
Arson with Multiple Homicide or Arson resulting to the death of six (6) people and sentencing
her to suffer the mandatory penalty of death, and ordering her to pay the heirs of the victims The Information in this case erroneously charged accused-appellant with a complex
Roberto Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa and children Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, crime, i.e., Arson with Multiple Homicide. Presently, there are two (2) laws that govern the
Jr., the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos for each victim and the amount of One crime of arson where death results therefrom Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as temperate damages for their burned house or a amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7659,[22] and Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No.
total of Four Hundred Thousand (P400,000.00) Pesos and to Rodolfo Movilla the amount of 1613[23], quoted hereunder, to wit:
One Hundred [Thousand] (P100,000.00) Pesos.
Revised Penal Code:
ART. 320. Destructive Arson. x x x x From a reading of the body of the Information:
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under this Article, death
results, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed. [Emphasis supplied.] That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with
intent to cause damage, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and deliberately
Presidential Decree No. 1613: set fire upon the two-storey residential house of ROBERTO SEPARA and family mostly made
of wooden materials located at No. 172Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, this city, by lighting
SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson crumpled newspaper with the use of disposable lighter inside said house knowing the same
death results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. [Emphasis to be an inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place and as a consequence
supplied.] thereof a conflagration ensued and the said building, together with some seven (7) adjoining
residential houses, were razed by fire; that by reason and on the occasion of the said fire, the
following, namely,

Art. 320 of the RPC, as amended, with respect to destructive arson, and the provisions of PD 1. Roberto Separa, Sr., 45 years of age
No. 1613 respecting other cases of arson provide only one penalty for the commission of 2. Virginia Separa y Mendoza, 40 years of age
arson, whether considered destructive or otherwise, where death results therefrom. 3. Michael Separa, 24 years of age
The raison d'tre is that arson is itself the end and death is simply the consequence.[24] 4. Daphne Separa, 18 years of age
5. Priscilla Separa, 14 years of age
Whether the crime of arson will absorb the resultant death or will have to be a separate 6. Roberto Separa, Jr., 11 years of age
crime altogether, the joint discussion[25] of the late Mr. Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino and
Mme. Justice Carolina C. Grio-Aquino, on the subject of the crimes of arson and sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death immediately
murder/homicide, is highly instructive: thereafter.[29] [Emphasis supplied.]

Groizard says that when fire is used with the intent to kill a particular person who may be in a accused-appellant is being charged with the crime of arson. It it is clear from the foregoing
house and that objective is attained by burning the house, the crime is murder only. When that her intent was merely to destroy her employers house through the use of fire.
the Penal Code declares that killing committed by means of fire is murder, it intends that fire
should be purposely adopted as a means to that end. There can be no murder without a We now go to the issues raised. Under the first assignment of error, in asserting the
design to take life.[26] In other words, if the main object of the offender is to kill by means of insufficiency of the prosecutions evidence to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
fire, the offense is murder. But if the main objective is the burning of the building, the accused-appellant argues that the prosecution was only able to adduce circumstantial
resulting homicide may be absorbed by the crime of arson.[27] evidence hardly enough to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She ratiocinates that
the following circumstances:
xxxx
1. That immediately before the burning of the house , the accused hurriedly and with
If the house was set on fire after the victims therein were killed, fire would not be a head turning in different directions (palinga-linga) went out of the said house and rode a
qualifying circumstance. The accused would be liable for the separate offenses of murder or pedicab apparently not knowing where to go for she first requested to be brought to Nipa St.
homicide, as the case may be, and arson.[28] but upon reaching there requested again to be brought to Balasan St. as shown by the
testimony of prosecution witness Rolando Gruta;
Accordingly, in cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what
crime/crimes was/were perpetrated whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, 2. That immediately after the fire, upon a report that there was a woman in Balasan St.
it is de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main objective is who appears confused and apprehensive (balisa), the Barangay Chairman and his tanods
the burning of the building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, went there, found the accused and apprehended her and brought her to the barangay hall as
the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the other hand, shown by the testimony of Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo; and
the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a building or edifice, when fire
is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed is murderonly; 3. That when she was apprehended and investigated by the barangay officials and when her
lastly, (c) if the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has bag was opened, the same contained a disposable lighter as likewise shown by the testimony
already done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two of the Barangay Chairman.[30]
separate and distinct crimes committed homicide/murder and arson.
fall short of proving that she had any involvement in setting her employers house on fire,
Where then does this case fall under? much less show guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given that it is a fact that housemaids are the
first persons in the house to wake up early to perform routine chores for their
employers,[31] one of which is preparing and cooking the morning meal for the members of xxxx
the household; and necessity requires her to go out early to look for open stores or even
nearby marketplaces to buy things that will complete the early meal for the day.[32] She
then concludes that it was normal for her to have been seen going out of her employers We quote with approval the pronouncement of the RTC in discrediting accused-appellants
house in a hurry at that time of the day and to look at all directions to insure that the house aforementioned rationale:
is secure and that there are no other persons in the vicinity.[33]
[O]bviously it is never normal, common or ordinary to leave the house in such a disturbed,
We are far from persuaded. nervous and agitated manner, demeanor and condition. The timing of her hurried departure
and nervous demeanor immediately before the fire when she left the house and rode
True, by the nature of their jobs, housemaids are required to start the day early; however, a pedicab and her same demeanor, physical and mental condition when found and
contrary to said assertion, the actuations and the demeanor of accused-appellant on that apprehended at the same place where she alighted from the pedicab and the discovery of
fateful early morning as observed firsthand by Rolando Gruta, one of the witnesses of the the lighter in her bag thereafter when investigated indisputably show her guilt as
prosecution, belie her claim of normalcy, to wit: charged.[34]

Q: You said you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family. What happened
when you saw Edna coming out from the house of the Separa Family? All the witnesses are in accord that accused-appellants agitated appearance was out of the
ordinary. Remarkably, she has never denied this observation.
A: Wala pa pong ano yan naisakay ko na siya sa sidecar.
We give great weight to the findings of the RTC and so accord credence to the testimonies of
Q: And what did you observe from Edna when you saw her coming out from the house of the the prosecution witnesses as it had the opportunity to observe them directly. The credibility
Separa family? given by trial courts to prosecution witnesses is an important aspect of evidence which
appellate courts can rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe them, particularly
A: Nagmamadali po siyang lumakad at palinga-linga. their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, during the direct and cross-examination by
counsels. Here, Remigio Bernardo, Rolando Gruta and Mercedita Mendoza are disinterested
xxxx witnesses and there is not an iota of evidence in the records to indicate that they are
suborned witnesses. The records of the RTC even show that Remigio Bernardo,
Q: After she boarded your pedicab, what happened, if any? the Barangay Chairman, kept accused-appellant from being mauled by the angry crowd
outside of the barangay hall:
A: Nagpahatid po siya sa akin.
Pros. Rebagay:
Q: Where? Now, who were present when the accused are (sic) telling you this?

A: To Nipa Street, sir. A: Iyon nga iyong mga tanod ko, mamamayan doon nakapaligid, siyempre may sunog
nagkakagulo, gusto nga siyang kunin ng mga mamamayan para saktan hindi ko maibigay
Q: Did you bring her to Nipa Street as she requested? papatayin siya gawa ng may namatay eh anim na tao and namatay, kaya iyong mga tao
kinokontrol siya madidisgrasya siya dahil pin-pointed po siya, Your Honor, iyong dami na iyon
A: Yes, sir. libo iyong nakapaligid doon sa barangay hall napakahirap awatin. Gusting-gusto siyang kunin
ng mga taong-bayan, nagalit dahil ang daming bahay hong nasunog.[35]
xxxx

Q: You said that you brought her to Nipa Street. What happened when you go (sic) there Accused-appellant has not shown any compelling reason why the witnesses presented would
at Nipa Street, if any? openly, publicly and deliberately lie or concoct a story, to send an innocent person to jail all
the while knowing that the real malefactor remains at large. Such proposition defies
A: Nagpahinto po siya doon ng saglit, mga tatlong minuto po. logic. And where the defense failed to show any evil or improper motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses, the presumption is that their testimonies are true and thus entitled to
Q: What did she do when she asked (you) to stop there for three minutes? full faith and credence.[36]

A: After three minutes she requested me to bring her directly to Balasan Street, sir. While the prosecution witnesses did not see accused-appellant actually starting the fire that
burned several houses and killed the Separa family, her guilt may still be established through
circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and, (3) the combination of all the Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution in part provides:
circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[37]
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
facts in issue may be established by inference.[38] It is founded on experience and observed preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proven facts and provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
the facts sought to be proved.[39] In order to bring about a conviction, the circumstantial counsel.
evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain, which leads to one fair and
reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty xxxx
person.[40]
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this Section or Section 17 hereof
In this case, the interlocking testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, taken together, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
exemplify a case where conviction can be upheld on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. First, prosecution witness Rolando Gruta, the driver of the pedicab that accused- We have held that the abovequoted provision applies to the stage of custodial investigation
appellant rode on, testified that he knew for a fact that she worked as a housemaid of the when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to
victims, and that he positively identified her as the person hurriedly leaving the house of the focus on a particular person as a suspect.[41] Said constitutional guarantee has also been
victims on 2 January 2001 at 4:45 a.m., and acting in a nervous manner. That while riding on extended to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely
the pedicab, accused-appellant was unsure of her intended destination. Upon reaching the been invited for questioning.[42]
place where he originally picked up accused-appellant only a few minutes after dropping her
off, Rolando Gruta saw the Separas house being gutted by a blazing To be admissible in evidence against an accused, the extrajudicial confessions made must
fire.Second, Remigio Bernardo testified that he and his tanods, including Rolando Gruta, satisfy the following requirements:
were the ones who picked up accused-appellant Edna at Balasan Street(where
Rolando Gruta dropped her off) after receiving a call that there was a woman acting strangely (1) it must be voluntary;
at said street and who appeared to have nowhere to go. Third, (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;
SPO4 Danilo Talusan overheard accused-appellant admit to Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of (3) it must be express; and
Channel 2 (ABS-CBN) that said accused-appellant started the fire, plus the fact that he was (4) it must be in writing.[43]
able see the telecast of Gus Abelgas show where accused-appellant, while being interviewed,
confessed to the crime as well. The foregoing testimonies juxtaposed with the testimony
of Mercedita Mendoza validating the fact that accused-appellant confessed to having started Arguably, the barangay tanods, including the Barangay Chairman, in this particular
the fire which killed the Separa family as well as burned seven houses including that of the instance, may be deemed as law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Article III,
victims, convincingly form an unbroken chain, which leads to the unassailable conclusion Section 12(1) and (3), of the Constitution. When accused-appellant was brought to
pinpointing accused-appellant as the person behind the crime of simple arson. the barangay hall in the morning of 2 January 2001, she was already a suspect, actually the
only one, in the fire that destroyed several houses as well as killed the whole family of
In her second assigned error, accused-appellant questions the admissibility of her Roberto Separa, Sr. She was, therefore, already under custodial investigation and the rights
uncounselled extrajudicial confession given to prosecution witnesses, namely Remigio guaranteed by Article III, Section 12(1), of the Constitution should have already been
Bernardo, Mercedita Mendoza, and to the media. Accused-appellant Edna contends that observed or applied to her. Accused-appellants confession to Barangay Chairman Remigio
being uncounselled extrajudicial confession, her admissions to having committed the crime Bernardo was made in response to the interrogation made by the latter admittedly
charged should have been excluded in evidence against her for being violative of Article III, conducted without first informing accused-appellant of her rights under the Constitution or
Section 12(1) of the Constitution. done in the presence of counsel. For this reason, the confession of accused-appellant, given
to Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo, as well as the lighter found by the latter in her bag
Particularly, she takes exception to the testimony of prosecution witnesses Remigio Bernardo are inadmissible in evidence against her as such were obtained in violation of her
and Mercedita Mendoza for being hearsay and in the nature of an uncounselled admission. constitutional rights.

With the above vital pieces of evidence excluded, accused-appellant is of the position that Be that as it may, the inadmissibility of accused-appellants confession to Barangay Chairman
the remaining proof of her alleged guilt, consisting in the main of circumstantial evidence, is Remigio Bernardo and the lighter as evidence do not automatically lead to her acquittal. It
inadequate to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. should well be recalled that the constitutional safeguards during custodial investigations do
not apply to those not elicited through questioning by the police or their agents but given in
We partly disagree. an ordinary manner whereby the accused verbally admits to having committed the offense as
what happened in the case at bar when accused-appellant admitted to Mercedita Mendoza,
one of the neighbors of Roberto Separa, Sr., to having started the fire in Although intent may be an ingredient of the crime of Arson, it may be inferred from the acts
the Separas house. The testimony of Mercedita Mendoza recounting said admission is, of the accused. There is a presumption that one intends the natural consequences of his act;
unfortunately for accused-appellant, admissible in evidence against her and is not covered by and when it is shown that one has deliberately set fire to a building, the prosecution is not
the aforesaid constitutional guarantee. Article III of the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, bound to produce further evidence of his wrongful intent.[47]
solely governs the relationship between the individual on one hand and the State (and its
agents) on the other; it does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual The ultimate query now is which kind of arson is accused-appellant guilty of?
and another private individual as both accused-appellant and prosecution
witness Mercedita Mendoza undoubtedly are.[44] Here, there is no evidence on record to As previously discussed, there are two (2) categories of the crime of arson: 1) destructive
show that said witness was acting under police authority, so appropriately, accused- arson, under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659; and
appellants uncounselled extrajudicial confession to said witness was properly admitted by 2) simple arson, under Presidential Decree No. 1613. Said classification is based on the kind,
the RTC. character and location of the property burned, regardless of the value of the damage
caused,[48] to wit:
Accused-appellant likewise assails the admission of the testimony of
SPO4 Danilo Talusan. Contending that [w]hen SPO4 Danilo Talusan testified in court, his story Article 320 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, contemplates the malicious
is more of events, which are not within his personal knowledge but based from accounts of burning of structures, both public and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels,
witnesses who derived information allegedly from the accused or some other persons aircraft, factories and other military, government or commercial establishments by any
x x x. In other words, she objects to the testimony for being merely hearsay. With this person or group of persons.[[49]] The classification of this type of crime is known
imputation of inadmissibility, we agree with what the Court of Appeals had to say: as Destructive Arson, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The reason for the
law is self-evident: to effectively discourage and deter the commission of this dastardly
Although this testimony of SFO4 Danilo Talusan is hearsay because he was not present when crime, to prevent the destruction of properties and protect the lives of innocent people.
Gus Abelgas interviewed accused-appellant EDNA, it may nevertheless be admitted in Exposure to a brewing conflagration leaves only destruction and despair in its wake; hence,
evidence as an independently relevant statement to establish not the truth but the tenor of the State mandates greater retribution to authors of this heinous crime. The exceptionally
the statement or the fact that the statement was made [People v. Mallari, G.R. No. 103547, severe punishment imposed for this crime takes into consideration the extreme danger to
July 20, 1999, 310 SCRA 621 citing People v. Cusi, Jr., G.R. No. L-20986, August 14, 1965, 14 human lives exposed by the malicious burning of these structures; the danger to property
SCRA 944.]. In People vs. Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 132635 & 143872-75, February 21, 2001, 352 resulting from the conflagration; the fact that it is normally difficult to adopt precautions
SCRA 455, the Supreme Court ruled that: against its commission, and the difficulty in pinpointing the perpetrators; and, the greater
impact on the social, economic, security and political fabric of the nation. [Emphasis
Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, supplied.]
the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under Art. 320, death
and the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement should result, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be On the other hand, PD 1613 which repealed Arts. 321 to 326-B of The Revised Penal Code
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.[45] remains the governing law for Simple Arson. This decree contemplates the malicious burning
of public and private structures, regardless of size, not included in Art. 320, as amended by
RA 7659, and classified as other cases of arson. These include houses, dwellings, government
As regards the confession given by accused-appellant to the media, we need not discuss it buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and other
further for the reporters were never presented to testify in court. industrial establishments.[[50]] Although the purpose of the law on Simple Arson is to
prevent the high incidence of fires and other crimes involving destruction, protect the
As a final attempt at exculpation, accused-appellant asserts that since the identities of the national economy and preserve the social, economic and political stability of the nation, PD
burned bodies were never conclusively established, she cannot be responsible for their 1613 tempers the penalty to be meted to offenders. This separate classification of Simple
deaths. Arsonrecognizes the need to lessen the severity of punishment commensurate to the act or
acts committed, depending on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. [Emphasis
Such assertion is bereft of merit. supplied.]

In the crime of arson, the identities of the victims are immaterial in that intent to kill them To emphasize:
particularly is not one of the elements of the crime. As we have clarified earlier, the killing of
a person is absorbed in the charge of arson, simple or destructive. The prosecution need only The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple Arson by the degree of
prove, that the burning was intentional and that what was intentionally burned is an perversity or viciousness of the criminal offender. The acts committed under Art. 320 of the
inhabited house or dwelling. Again, in the case of People v. Soriano,[46] we explained that: Revised Penal Code (as amended) constituting Destructive Arson are characterized
as heinous crimes for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violate,
their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and x x x, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited.[57]
outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized
and ordered society.[51] On the other hand, acts committed under PD 1613 constituting There is, thus, a need to modify the penalty imposed by the RTC as Sec. 5 of PD No. 1613
Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and viciousness that the law categorically provides that the penalty to be imposed for simple arson is:
punishes with a lesser penalty. In other words, Simple Arson contemplates crimes with less
significant social, economic, political and national security implications than Destructive
Arson. However, acts falling under Simple Arson may nevertheless be converted into SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. - If by reason of or on the occasion of arson death
Destructive Arson depending on the qualifying circumstances present. [Emphasis results, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed. [Emphasis supplied.]
supplied.][52]

Accordingly, there being no aggravating circumstance alleged in the Information, the


Prescinding from the above clarification vis--vis the description of the crime as stated in the imposable penalty on accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.
accusatory portion of the Information, it is quite evident that accused-appellant was charged
with the crime of Simple Arson for having deliberately set fire upon the two-storey Apropos the civil liabilities of accused-appellant, current jurisprudence[58] dictate that the
residential house of ROBERTO SEPARA and family x x x knowing the same to be an inhabited civil indemnity due from accused-appellant is P50,000.00 for the death of each of the
house and situated in a thickly populated place and as a consequence thereof a conflagration victims.[59] However, the monetary awards for moral and exemplary damages given by the
ensued and the said building, together with some seven (7) adjoining residential houses, Court of Appeals, both in the amount of P50,000.00, due the heirs of the victims, have to
were razed by fire. [Emphasis supplied.] be deleted for lack of material basis. Similarly, the Court of Appeals award of exemplary
damages to Rodolfo Movilla in the amount of P50,000.00 for the destruction of his house,
The facts of the case at bar is somewhat similar to the facts of the case of People also has to be deleted, but in this instance for being improper. Moral damages cannot be
v. Soriano.[53] The accused in the latter case caused the burning of a particular award by this Court in the absence of proof of mental or physical suffering on the part of the
house. Unfortunately, the blaze spread and gutted down five (5) neighboring houses. The heirs of the victims.[60] Concerning the award of exemplary damages, the reason for the
RTC therein found the accused guilty of destructive arson under paragraph 1[54] of Art. 320 deletion being that no aggravating circumstance had been alleged and proved by the
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. This Court, through Mr. prosecution in the case at bar.[61]
Justice Bellosillo, however, declared that:
To summarize, accused-appellants alternative plea that she be acquitted of the crime must
x x x [T]he applicable provision of law should be Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613, which imposes a be rejected. With the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of
penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua for other cases of arson as the properties the RTC and the Court of Appeals. It is indubitable that accused-appellant is the author of
burned by accused-appellant are specifically described as houses, contemplating inhabited the crime of simple arson. All the circumstantial evidence presented before the RTC, viewed
houses or dwellings under the aforesaid law. The descriptions as alleged in the second in its entirety, is as convincing as direct evidence and, as such, negates accused-appellants
Amended Information particularly refer to the structures as houses rather than as buildings innocence, and when considered concurrently with her admission given
or edifices. The applicable law should therefore be Sec. 3, Par. 2, of PD 1613, and not Art. to Mercedita Mendoza, the formers guilt beyond reasonable doubt is twice as evident.Hence,
320, par. 1 of the Penal Code. In case of ambiguity in construction of penal laws, it is well- her conviction is effectively justified. More so, as it is propitious to note that in stark contrast
settled that such laws shall be construed strictly against the government, and liberally in to the factual circumstances presented by the prosecution, accused-appellant neither
favor of the accused. mustered a denial nor an alibi except for the proposition that her guilt had not been
established beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements of arson under Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613 are: (a) there is intentional burning;
and (b) what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Incidentally, these IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 2 September 2005, in CA G.R.
elements concur in the case at bar.[55] CR HC No. 01139, is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as the conviction of accused-appellant EDNA
MALNGAN Y MAYO is concerned. The sentence to be imposed and the amount of damages to
be awarded, however, are MODIFIED. In accordance with Sec. 5 of Presidential Decree No.
As stated in the body of the Information, accused-appellant was charged with having 1613, accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused-appellant is
intentionally burned the two-storey residential house of Robert Separa. Said conflagration hereby ordered to pay the heirs of each of the victims P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
likewise spread and destroyed seven (7) adjoining houses. Consequently, if proved, as it was
proved, at the trial, she may be convicted, and sentenced accordingly, of the crime of simple
arson. Such is the case notwithstanding the error in the designation of the offense in the SO ORDERED.
information, the information remains effective insofar as it states the facts constituting the
crime alleged therein.[56] What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the
23. People vs. Lauga
The following day, AAA submitted herself to physical examination.[27] Dra. Josefa Arlita L.
Before Us for final review is the trial courts conviction of the appellant for the rape of his Alsula, Municipal Health Officer of x x x, Bukidnon, issued the Medical Certificate, which
thirteen-year old daughter. reads:

Consistent with the ruling of this Court in People v. Cabalquinto,[1] the real name and the hyperemic vulvae with 4 oclock & 6 oclock freshly lacerated hymen; (+) minimal to moderate
personal circumstances of the victim, and any other information tending to establish or bloody discharges 2 to an alleged raping incident[28]
compromise her identity, including those of her immediate family or household members,
are not disclosed in this decision. On the other hand, only appellant testified for the defense. He believed that the charge
against him was ill-motivated because he sometimes physically abuses his wife in front of
The Facts their children after engaging in a heated argument,[29] and beats the children as a
disciplinary measure.[30] He went further to narrate how his day was on the date of the
In an Information dated 21 September 2000,[2] the appellant was accused of the crime of alleged rape.
QUALIFIED RAPE allegedly committed as follows:
He alleged that on 15 March 2000, there was no food prepared for him at
That on or about the 15th day of March 2000, in the evening, at Barangay xxx, municipality of lunchtime.[31] Shortly after, AAA arrived.[32] She answered back when confronted.[33] This
xxx, province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, infuriated him that he kicked her hard on her buttocks.[34]
the above-named accused, being the father of AAA with lewd design, with the use of force
and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally have carnal Appellant went back to work and went home again around 3 oclock in the
knowledge with his own daughter AAA, a 13 year[s]old minor against her will.[3] afternoon.[35] Finding nobody at home,[36] he prepared his dinner and went to sleep.[37]

On 12 October 2000, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.[4] During the pre-trial Later in the evening, he was awakened by the members of the Bantay Bayan headed by
conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated and admitted: (a) the correctness of Moises Boy Banting.[38] They asked him to go with them to discuss some matters.[39] He
the findings indicated in the medical certificate of the physician who examined AAA; (b) that later learned that he was under detention because AAA charged him of rape.[40]
AAA was only thirteen (13) years old when the alleged offense was committed; and (c) that
AAA is the daughter of the appellant.[5] On trial, three (3) witnesses testified for the On 8 July 2006, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, rendered its
prosecution, namely: victim AAA;[6] her brother BBB;[7] and one Moises Boy decision[41] in Criminal Case No. 10372-0, finding appellant guilty of rape qualified by
Banting,[8] a bantay bayanin the barangay. Their testimonies revealed the following: relationship and minority, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.[42] It also ordered him to indemnify AAA P50,000.00 as moral damages,
In the afternoon of 15 March 2000, AAA was left alone at home.[9] AAAs father, the and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity with exemplary damages of P25,000.00.[43]
appellant, was having a drinking spree at the neighbors place.[10] Her mother decided to
leave because when appellant gets drunk, he has the habit of mauling AAAs mother.[11] Her On 30 September 2008, the decision of the trial court was AFFIRMED with
only brother BBB also went out in the company of some neighbors.[12] MODIFICATIONS[44] by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00456-MIN.[45] The
appellate court found that appellant is not eligible for parole and it increased both the civil
At around 10:00 oclock in the evening, appellant woke AAA up;[13] removed his pants, slid indemnity and moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.[46]
inside the blanket covering AAA and removed her pants and underwear;[14] warned her not
to shout for help while threatening her with his fist;[15] and told her that he had a knife On 24 November 2008, the Court of Appeals gave due course to the appellants notice of
placed above her head.[16] He proceeded to mash her breast, kiss her repeatedly, and appeal.[47] This Court required the parties to simultaneously file their respective
inserted his penis inside her vagina.[17] supplemental briefs,[48] but both manifested that they will no longer file supplemental
pleadings.[49]
Soon after, BBB arrived and found AAA crying.[18] Appellant claimed he scolded her for
staying out late.[19] BBB decided to take AAA with him.[20] While on their way to their The lone assignment of error in the appellants brief is that, the trial court gravely erred in
maternal grandmothers house, AAA recounted her harrowing experience with their finding him guilty as charged despite the failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt
father.[21] Upon reaching their grandmothers house, they told their grandmother and uncle beyond reasonable doubt,[50] because: (1) there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of
of the incident,[22] after which, they sought the assistance of Moises Boy Banting.[23] AAA and her brother BBB;[51] (2) his extrajudicial confession before Moises Boy Banting was
without the assistance of a counsel, in violation of his constitutional right;[52] and (3) AAAs
Moises Boy Banting found appellant in his house wearing only his underwear.[24] He invited accusation was ill-motivated.[53]
appellant to the police station,[25] to which appellant obliged. At the police outpost, he
admitted to him that he raped AAA because he was unable to control himself.[26] Our Ruling
Also, it may be worthy to consider that pursuant to Section 1(g) of Executive Order No. 309
Appellant contests the admissibility in evidence of his alleged confession with issued on 11 November 1987, as amended, a Peace and Order Committee in
a bantay bayan and the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution. each barangay shall be organized to serve as implementing arm of the City/Municipal Peace
and Order Council at the Barangay level.[61] The composition of the Committee includes,
Admissibility in Evidence of an among others: (1) the Punong Barangay as Chairman; (2) the Chairman of the Sangguniang
Extrajudicial Confession before Kabataan; (3) a Member of the Lupon Tagapamayapa; (4) a Barangay Tanod; and (5) at least
a Bantay Bayan three (3) Members of existing Barangay-Based Anti-Crime or neighborhood Watch Groups or
a Non Government Organization Representative well-known in his community.[62]

Appellant argues that even if he, indeed, confessed to Moises Boy Banting, This Court is, therefore, convinced that barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature
a bantay bayan, the confession was inadmissible in evidence because he was not assisted by of watch groups, as in the case of the bantay bayan, are recognized by the local government
a lawyer and there was no valid waiver of such requirement.[54] unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at
the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken
The case of People v. Malngan[55] is the authority on the scope of the Miranda doctrine by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties and responsibilities delegated to
provided for under Article III, Section 12(1)[56] and (3)[57] of the a bantay bayan, particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any inquiry
Constitution. In Malngan,appellant questioned the admissibility of her extrajudicial he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of
confessions given to the barangay chairman and a neighbor of the private complainant. This a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the
Court distinguished. Thus: Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned.

Arguably, the barangay tanods, including the Barangay Chairman, in this particular We, therefore, find the extrajudicial confession of appellant, which was taken without a
instance, may be deemed as law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Article III, counsel, inadmissible in evidence.
Section 12(1) and (3), of the Constitution. When accused-appellant was brought to the
barangay hall in the morning of 2 January 2001, she was already a suspect, actually the only Be that as it may, We agree with the Court of Appeals that the conviction of the appellant
one, in the fire that destroyed several houses x x x.She was, therefore, already under was not deduced solely from the assailed extrajudicial confession but from the confluence of
custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by x x x [the] Constitution should have evidence showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[63]
already been observed or applied to her. Accused-appellants confession to Barangay
Chairman x x x was made in response to the interrogation made by the latter admittedly Credibility of the Witnesses for the Prosecution
conducted without first informing accused-appellant of her rights under the Constitution or
done in the presence of counsel. For this reason, the confession of accused-appellant, given Appellant assails the inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and her brother BBB. AAA
to Barangay Chairman x x x, as well as the lighter found x x x in her bag are inadmissible in testified that BBB accompanied her to the house of their grandmother. Thereafter, they,
evidence against her x x x. together with her relatives, proceeded to look for a bantay bayan. On the other hand, BBB
testified that he brought her sister to the house of their bantay bayan after he learned of the
[But such does] not automatically lead to her acquittal. x x x [T]he constitutional safeguards incident.
during custodial investigations do not apply to those not elicited through questioning by the
police or their agents but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused verbally admits Citing Bartocillo v. Court of Appeals,[64] appellant argues that where the testimonies of two
x x x as x x x in the case at bar when accused-appellant admitted to Mercedita Mendoza, one key witnesses cannot stand together, the inevitable conclusion is that one or both must be
of the neighbors x x x [of the private complainant].[58] (Emphasis supplied) telling a lie, and their story a mere concoction.[65]

The principle, however, is not applicable in the case at bar. In Bartocillo, the two testimonies
Following the rationale behind the ruling in Malngan, this Court needs to ascertain whether could not simply stand together because:
or not a bantay bayan may be deemed a law enforcement officer within the contemplation of
Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution. On one hand, if we are to believe Susan, Orlando could not have possibly seen the hacking
incident since he had accompanied Vicente home. On the other hand, if we are to accept the
In People of the Philippines v. Buendia,[59] this Court had the occasion to mention the nature testimony of Orlando, then Susan could not have possibly witnessed the hacking incident
of a bantay bayan, that is, a group of male residents living in [the] area organized for the since she was with Vicente at that time.
purpose of keeping peace in their community[,which is] an accredited auxiliary of the
x x x PNP.[60] Here, the testimony of AAA does not run contrary to that of BBB. Both testified that they
sought the help of a bantay bayan. Their respective testimonies differ only as to when the
help was sought for, which this Court could well attribute to the nature of the testimony of
BBB, a shortcut version of AAAs testimony that dispensed with a detailed account of the influence substitutes for violence and intimidation.[79] At any rate, AAA was actually
incident. threatened by appellant with his fist and a knife allegedly placed above AAAs head.[80]

At any rate, the Court of Appeals is correct in holding that the assailed inconsistency is too It may be added that the self-serving defense of appellant cannot prevail over the positive
trivial to affect the veracity of the testimonies.[66] In fact, inconsistencies which refer to and straightforward testimony of AAA. Settled is the rule that, alibi is an inherently weak
minor, trivial or inconsequential circumstances even strengthen the credibility of the defense that is viewed with suspicion because it is easy to fabricate.[81] Alibi and denial must
witnesses, as they erase doubts that such testimonies have been coached or rehearsed.[67] be supported by strong corroborative evidence in order to merit credibility.[82] Moreover,
for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish two elements (1) he was not at
Appellants contention that AAA charged him of rape only because she bore grudges against the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible
him is likewise unmeritorious. This Court is not dissuaded from giving full credence to the for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission.[83] Appellant failed in this wise.
testimony of a minor complainant by motives of feuds, resentment or revenge.[68] As
correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals: Aggravating/Qualifying Circumstances

Indeed, mere disciplinary chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino The presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship with the offender
family invent a charge that would not only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their in the instant case has likewise been adequately established. Both qualifying circumstances
families but also bring their fathers into the gallows of death.[69] The Supreme Court has were specifically alleged in the Information, stipulated on and admitted during the pre-trial
repeatedly held that it is unbelievable for a daughter to charge her own father with rape, conference, and testified to by both parties in their respective testimonies. Also, such
exposing herself to the ordeal and embarrassment of a public trial and subjecting her private stipulation and admission, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon
parts to examination if such heinous crime was not in fact committed.[70] No person, much this Court because they are judicial admissions within the contemplation of Section 4, Rule
less a woman, could attain such height of cruelty to one who has sired her, and from whom 129 of the Revised Rules of Court. It provides:
she owes her very existence, and for which she naturally feels loving and lasting
gratefulness.[71] Even when consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of
psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put her own the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
father to jail for the most of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family including herself contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
to a lifetime of shame.[72] It is highly improbable for [AAA] against whom no proof of sexual admission was made.
perversity or loose morality has been shown to fake charges much more against her own
father. In fact her testimony is entitled to greater weight since her accusing words were
directed against a close relative.[73] Penalty

Elements of Rape Finally, in increasing the amount of civil indemnity and damages each
from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, the Court of Appeals correctly considered controlling
Having established the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, We now examine the jurisprudence to the effect that where, as here, the rape is committed with any of the
applicability of the Anti-Rape Law of 1997[74] to the case at bar. qualifying/aggravating circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty, the
victim is entitled to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto[84] and P75,000.00 as moral
The law provides, in part, that rape is committed, among others, [b]y a man who shall have damages.[85] However, the award of exemplary damages should have been increased
carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat or intimidation.[75] The death penalty from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.[86] Also, the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death
shall be imposed if it is committed with aggravating/qualifying circumstances, which include, was correctly imposed considering that the imposition of the death penalty upon appellant
[w]hen the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent.[76] would have been appropriate were it not for the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, or An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.[87] We further affirm the
The consistent and forthright testimony of AAA detailing how she was raped, culminating ruling of the Court of Appeals on appellants non-eligibility for parole. Sec. 3 of Republic Act
with the penetration of appellants penis into her vagina, suffices to prove that appellant had No. 9346 clearly provides that persons convicted of offenses punished
carnal knowledge of her. When a woman states that she has been raped, she says in effect all with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusionperpetua by reason
that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[77] Further, when such testimony of the law, shall not be eligible for parole.
corresponds with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the essential
requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[78] WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 September 2008 in CA-G.R. CR
HC No. 00456-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED. Appellant Antonio Lauga is GUILTYbeyond
The Court of Appeals pointed out that the element of force or intimidation is not essential reasonable doubt of qualified rape, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
when the accused is the father of the victim, inasmuch as his superior moral ascendancy or perpetua without eligibility for parole and to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The case against accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin was established through the
SO ORDERED. testimony of Clara Agagas who said that she was with the victim Dennis Aquino standing
outside the Soundlab Recording Studio, a barhouse owned by him, when Galgarin suddenly
approached them and without any prior warning stabbed Dennis. Dennis tried to run away,
25. People vs. Endino but Edward, a spurned lover who harbored ill-feelings towards her and Dennis, shot
Dennis. She recognized Edward and Gerry because the street was sufficiently lighted.[2]

YIELDING to mans brutish instinct for revenge, Edward Endino, with the aid of Gerry The testimony of Clara Agagas was corroborated by Anita Leong, next-door neighbor of
Galgarin alias Toto, slew Dennis Aquino in the presence of a lady whose love they once Dennis, who testified that a little past six oclock in the evening of 16 October 1991 Gerry
shared. Galgarin together with a companion went to her house looking for Dennis. She instructed
them to proceed to the Soundlab Recording Studio as Dennis might still be there. But a few
On a busy street in Puerto Princesa City in the evening of 16 October 1991, an minutes later she heard a Instinctively, she instructed her two (2) young daughters to duck
emboldened Gerry Galgarin, uncle of accused Edward Endino, suddenly and without warning for cover while she anxiously waited for her seven (7)-year old daughter Josephine who was
lunged at Dennis and stabbed him repeatedly on the chest. Dennis girlfriend Clara Agagas out of the house for an errand for her. Soon enough she heard Josephine knocking at their
who was with him, stunned by the unexpected attack, pleaded to Galgarin to stop. Dennis door. She was crying because she said her Kuya Dennis had been shot and stabbed.[3]
struggled and succeeded momentarily to free himself from his attacker.Dennis dashed
towards the nearby Midtown Sales but his escape was foiled when from out of nowhere Josephine confirmed her mothers testimony and even said that she had seen Gerry
Edward Endino appeared and fired at Dennis. As Dennis staggered for safety, the two (2) Galgarin stab her Kuya Dennis and she could remember Gerry very well because of the mole
assailants fled in the direction of the airport. below his nose.[4]

Meanwhile, Dennis, wounded and bleeding, sought refuge inside the Elohim For his part, accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin disclaimed having taking part in the
Store where he collapsed on the floor. He was grasping for breath and near death. Clara with slaying of Dennis. Gerry asserted that on 14 October 1991 he was in Antipolo to help his
the help of some onlookers took him to the hospital but Dennis expired even before he could common-law wife Maria Marasigan give birth to their first born. He stayed with her until the
receive medical attention. According to the autopsy report of Dr. Josephine Goh-Cruz, cause 16th of October when she was discharged from the Pedragoza Maternity Clinic.[5]
of death was "cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock secondary to a stab
wound which penetrated the heart."[1] Clarita Florentino Pedragoza, the midwife who delivered his son, supported the alibi of
accused-appellant. However, she admitted that when she registered the childs birth on 13
On 18 October 1991, an Information for the murder of Dennis Aquino was filed against December 1993 or more than two (2) years after the delivery, she informed the civil registrar
Edward Endino and accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin and warrants were issued for their that the childs father was "unknown."[6] His story was also confirmed by Dolores Arciaga and
arrest. However, as both accused remained at large, the trial court issued on 26 December Maria Tomenio, his co-workers at the Kainan sa Kubo Sing Along Restaurant, who testified
1991 an order putting the case in the archives without prejudice to its reinstatement upon that accused-appellant was fetched by a neighbor from the restaurant in the early afternoon
their apprehension. of 14 October with the news that his wife was having labor pains. [7]

On 19 November 1992, Gerry Galgarin was arrested through the combined efforts of Accused-appellant disowned the confession which he made over TV Patrol and claimed
the Antipolo and Palawan police forces at a house in Sitio Sto. Nio, Antipolo, Rizal. He was that it was induced by the threats of the arresting police officers. He asserted that the
immediately taken into temporary custody by the Antipolo Police. Early in the evening of the videotaped confession was constitutionally infirmed and inadmissible under the exclusionary
following day, he was fetched from the Antipolo Police Station by PO3 Gaudencio Manlavi rule provided in Sec.12, Art. III, of the Constitution.[8]
and PO3 Edwin Magbanua of the Palawan police force to be taken to Palawan and be tried
accordingly. The trial court however admitted the video footages on the strength of the testimony
of the police officers that no force or compulsion was exerted on accused-appellant and upon
On their way to the airport, they stopped at the ABS-CBN television station where a finding that his confession was made before a group of newsmen that could have
accused Galgarin was interviewed by reporters. Video footages of the interview were taken dissipated any semblance of hostility towards him. The court gave credence to the arresting
showing Galgarin admitting his guilt while pointing to his nephew Edward Endino as the officers assertion that it was even accused-appellant who pleaded with them that he be
gunman. According to Galgarin, after attacking Aquino, they left for Roxas, Palawan, where allowed to air his appeal on national television for Edward to surrender.
his sister Langging who is Edward's mother, was waiting. Langging gave them money for
their fare for Manila. They took the boat for Batangas, where they stayed for a few days, and The alibi of Galgarin was likewise rejected since there was no convincing evidence to
proceeded to Manila where they separated, with him heading for Antipolo. Galgarin support his allegation that he was not at the locus criminis on the evening of 16 October
appealed for Edward to give himself up to the authorities. His interview was shown over the 1991. Accordingly, accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin was convicted of murder qualified by
ABS-CBN evening news program TV Patrol. treachery[9] and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Additionally, he was ordered to indemnify
the heirs of Dennis Aquino P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and P72,725.35 as actual
damages. The case against his nephew and co-accused Edward Endino remained in the confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an
archives without prejudice to its reinstatement as soon as he could be arrested.[10] offense on television. Such a situation would be detrimental to the guaranteed rights of the
accused and thus imperil our criminal justice system.
In his Appellants Brief, Gerry Galgarin assails the trial court for rejecting his alibi and
admitting his videotaped confession as evidence against him. We do not suggest that videotaped confessions given before media men by an accused
with the knowledge of and in the presence of police officers are impermissible. Indeed, the
The argument that accused-appellant could not be at the scene of the crime on 16 line between proper and invalid police techniques and conduct is a difficult one to draw,
October 1991 as he was in Antipolo assisting his wife who was giving birth on the 14th of that particularly in cases such as this where it is essential to make sharp judgments in determining
month, is not persuasive. Alibi is a weak defense. The testimony of Cornelio Tejero whether a confession was given under coercive physical or psychological atmosphere.
Jr.,[11] Philippine Airlines Load Controller of the Puerto Princesa City, that the name of "Gerry
Galgarin" did not appear on their passenger manifest for the 16 October 1991 Manila-Puerto A word of counsel then to lower courts: we should never presume that all media
Princesa flight, could not be relied upon inasmuch as he himself admitted that they could not confessions described as voluntary have been freely given. This type of confession always
be sure of their passengers real identities. The testimonies of accused-appellants co-workers remains suspect and therefore should be thoroughly examined and scrutinized. Detection of
that he was in Antipolo on 14 October 1991 did not fortify his defense either since these coerced confessions is admittedly a difficult and arduous task for the courts to make. It
witnesses did not categorically state that they saw him in Antipolo in the evening of 16 requires persistence and determination in separating polluted confessions from untainted
October 1991. ones. We have a sworn duty to be vigilant and protective of the rights guaranteed by the
Constitution.
With accused-appellant having been positively identified by the prosecution witnesses
as the one who stabbed Dennis, his bare denial proves futile and unavailing. Josephine With all the evidence tightly ringed around accused-appellant, the question that next
Leongs identification of accused-appellant was given in a very categorical and spontaneous presents itself is whether the trial court correctly denominated the crime as murder qualified
manner. Her confidence as to the attackers identity was clearly shown by her vivid by treachery. Doubtless, the crime committed is one of murder considering that the victim
recollection of him having a mole below his nose, which is correct. Moreover, it is was stabbed while he was simply standing on the pavement with his girlfriend waiting for a
inconceivable for Josephine and Anita to implicate accused-appellant, a complete stranger to ride, blissfully oblivious of the accused's criminal design. The suddenness of the assault on an
them, if there was no truth to their assertion. As for Clara, her naming of accused-appellant unsuspecting victim, without the slightest provocation from him who had no opportunity to
as her boyfriends assailant was not done out of spite, but was impelled by her desire to seek parry the attack, certainly qualifies the killing to murder.[15]
justice for Dennis.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellant GERRY
Corroborating further accused-appellants guilt, probably with intense incriminating GALGARIN alias Toto guilty of Murder qualified by Treachery, sentencing him
effect, were his immediate flight after the slaying, and his attempt at jailbreak[12] revealing a to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Dennis Aquino in the
guilty conscience, hence, his persistent effort to evade the clutches of the law. amount of P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and P72,725.35 as actual damages, is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is further ordered to compensate
Apropos the court a quos admission of accused-appellants videotaped confession, we the decedents heirs P50,000.00 as moral damages for their emotional and mental
find such admission proper. The interview was recorded on video and it showed accused- anguish. Costs against accused-appellant.
appellant unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of
newsmen. Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given SO ORDERED.
to police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the
public. Besides, if he had indeed been forced into confessing, he could have easily sought
succor from the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would have been symphatetic with him. As
the trial court stated in its Decision[13]-

Furthermore, accused, in his TV interview (Exh. H), freely admitted that he had stabbed
Dennis Aquino, and that Edward Endino had shot him (Aquino). There is no showing that the
interview of accused was coerced or against his will. Hence, there is basis to accept the truth
of his statements therein.

We agree. However, because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a


medium for admitting ones guilt, and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several
cases,[14] it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in
further admitting similar confessions. For in all probability, the police, with the connivance of
unscrupulous media practitioners, may attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial
26. People vs. Samus Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C

While it is true that the confessions of appellant were made without benefit of counsel, That on or about 2:30 oclock in the afternoon of September 2, 1996 at San Ramon de
they are still admissible in evidence because of appellants failure to make timely objections Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna, and within the
before the trial court. If only the defense had proffered them on time, the prosecution could jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, with intent to kill, treachery,
have been warned of the need to present additional evidence to support its case. To evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there wilfully,
disregard a major portion of the prosecutions case at a late stage during an appeal goes unlawfully and feloniously hold the neck, strangle and thereafter bange[d] the head on the
against the norms of fundamental fairness. Indeed, justice is dispensed not only for the concrete pavement floor of one DEDICACION BALISI Y SORIANO, a 61 years of age, woman,
accused, but also for the prosecution. Be that as it may, and even if we now affirm appellants thereby inflicting upon her fractured bones, serious and mortal wounds which directly
conviction for murder, we do not, however agree with the trial courts imposition of the death caused her death, to the damage and prejudice of the surviving heirs of the said Dedicacion
sentence, because the proven aggravating circumstance of dwelling was not alleged in the Balisi y Soriano.
Information.
That in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength were in attendant and ordinary
aggravating circumstance committing a crime with disregard of respect due the offended
The Case party by reason of her age and sex.

Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C


For automatic review by this Court is the Decision[1] dated October 8, 1998, issued by
the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, in Criminal Case Nos. 5015-96-C and
5016-96-C.The trial court found Guillermo Samus guilty beyond reasonable of two counts of That on or about 4:30 oclock in the afternoon of September 2, 1996 at San Ramon de
murder. The decretal portion of its Decision reads as follows: Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, with intent to kill, treachery,
WHEREFORE: evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously hold the neck, strangle and thereafter bang[ed] the head on the
concrete pavement floor of one JOHN ARDEE BALISI Y SORIANO, a six year old boy, thereby
A. With respect to Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C for the killing of Dedicacion Balisi, the Court inflicting upon him fractured bones, serious and mortal wounds which directly caused his
finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and is hereby death, to the damage and prejudice of the surviving heirs of the said John Ardee Balisi y
sentenced to suffer the penalty of, after appreciating the aggravating circumstance of Soriano.
dwelling and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imprisonment of 10 years and 1
day of Prision Mayor as minimum up to 20 years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum.
That in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength were in attendan[ce].
The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the heirs of Dedicacion Balisi the amount of
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) for her death and another FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
When arraigned on May 28, 1997, appellant, assisted by his counsel de
(P50,000.00) as and for moral and actual damages and cost of suit.
oficio,[5] pleaded not guilty.[6] In due course, he was tried and found guilty.

B. With respect to Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C for the killing of John Ardee Balisi, this Court
finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Murder and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of, after appreciating the aggravating circumstance of The Facts
dwelling, death. Version of the Prosecution

The accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of John Ardee Balisi the amount of
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) for his death and another FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the evidence for the prosecution
(P50,000.00) as and for moral and actual damages and cost of suit.[2] in this wise:[7]

Two separate Informations,[3] both filed on November 27, 1996,[4] charged appellant as Appellant was a farmer, tilling and living in the land of Miguel Completo at Barangay Niugan,
follows: Cabuyao, Laguna. The victims, sixty two (62) year old Dedicacion Balisi and her grandson, six
(6) year old John Ardee Balisi, were the neighbors of appellants father at San Ramon de killings. SPO3 Malabanan also took the statements of tricycle driver Rafael Baliso, the victims
Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna. relatives Salvacion and Mona Balisi and witness Mary Arguelles, who saw appellant enter the
house of Dedicacion Balisi.
At 4:20 P.M. on September 2, 1996, Senior Police (SP) Inspector Rizaldy H. Garcia was at his
office at the 4th PNP Criminal Investigation Group Regional Office at Camp Vicente Lim in On the same day, September 11, 1996, PNP Fingerprint Examiner Reigel Allan Sorra took
Calamba, Laguna when he received an order from his superior to investigate the murder of fingerprint samples from appellant. His prints exactly matched with a set of prints found at
the two victims. Their office had received a telephone call from a local barangay official the crime scene on September 2, 1998. Later that day, SPO3 Mario Bitos was able to recover
informing them of the victims deaths. the pawned earrings from Ponciano who turned them over to SPO3 Malabanan. (Citations
omitted)
Arriving at the victims residence at Block 8, Lot 6 at San Ramon, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba,
Garcia and his team conducted an investigation, making a sketch of the relative positions of
the victims, lifting fingerprints from the crime scene and taking pictures. Thereafter, an Version of the Defense
investigation report was prepared by Garcia and signed by his superior, Colonel Pedro
Tango. The investigators likewise found a pair of maong pants, a white T-shirt, a handkerchief
and dirty slippers in the bathroom and roof of the house. A pair of earrings worn by Alleging denial and alibi as defenses, appellant presents his version of the incident as
Dedicacion Balisi was likewise reported missing from her body by her daughter, Nora B. follows:[8]
Llore[r]a.
Mrs. Fe Vallejo testified that she knew Guillermo Samus. At about 6:00 p.m. of September 10,
The victims bodies were brought to the Funeraria Seerez de Mesa in Calamba where Senior 1996, Guillermo Samus was in their house. It was then that CIS operatives together with their
Inspector Joselito A. Rodrigo, a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, performed Brgy. Captain entered their house, arrested and handcuffed Guillermo Samus. It was not true
an autopsy. His findings showed that John sustained three (3) contusions, one of which that accused Guillermo Samus hid himself on the roof of her house. When the accused was
lacerated his liver, caused by a blunt instrument, while Dedicacion suffered four (4) arrested by the CIS men, together with the barangay officials, the other persons present
contusions, also caused by a blunt instrument. were the witness and her 3 children. The police were not armed with a warrant of arrest or
search warrant.
On that same day, September 2, 1996, Ponciano Pontanos, Jr., then a resident of Barangay
Niugan, Cabuyao and an acquaintance of appellant, happened to meet appellant at Sammy Accused Guillermo Samus denied the accusations against him. He testified that he was a
Pachecas house in the same barangay where appellant asked Ponciano to accompany him to farmer, working on the land of one Miguel Completo at Brgy. Niugan, Cabuyao. From 6:00
Poncianos wife to pawn a pair of earrings. Poncianos wife was mad at first but upon a.m. to 5:00 p.m. of September 2, 1996, he was harvesting palay with Eligio Completo; that
Poncianos prodding, gave appellant P300.00 with no interest. The earrings were placed in a he never left the farm. He took his lunch at the hut of Miguel Completo; that he arrived home
jewelry box; thereafter, appellant received another P250.00. at 6:00 in the afternoon, took his dinner then went to sleep.

At 6:00 P.M. on September 10, 1996, Major Jose Pante of the Criminal Investigation Group He further testified that on September 10, 1996, he was at the house of his friend, Rolly
received information that appellant was the principal suspect in the killing of the two (2) Vallejo at Brgy. Macabling, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, when a group of CIS operatives arrived and
victims and that he was sighted inside the residence of spouses Rolly and Josie Vallejo at arrested him inside the same house. It was not true that he jumped from the roof of the
Barangay Macabling, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. He then formed and led a team composed of SPO3 house. The CIS people did not have any warrant for his arrest. His kumpadre Rolly Vallejo was
Galivo, Intelligence Commission Officer Casis and SPO3 Mario Bitos.Arriving at the site at past not present at that time. He was brought to Camp Vicente Lim where he was tortured until
7:00 P.M., the team, accompanied by local barangay authorities, asked permission from the he lost his consciousness. On the same night, he was brought to a hospital, was given
Vallejo spouses to enter the house, which was granted. Shortly thereafter, they heard loud medicine, then brought back to the cell where he was handcuffed at the door of the cell. The
footsteps on the roof. Rushing outside, they saw appellant crawling on the roof. They CIS got hold of the medical certificate. He was forced by the CIS to admit the killing of the
ordered him to stop, but he suddenly jumped from the roof and landed hard on the ground, victims and the sale of jewelry by means of torture and threat.
sustaining an injury on his ankle and bruises on his left and right forearm. At that point, the
police team closed in on appellant who, while trembling and shaking, admitted the killings
He also testified that he was forced to execute a document admitting the killing. He was
upon a query from Rolly Vallejo.
forced to sign said document. He did not know Atty. Juliano and did not talk to him. The
victims were the neighbors of his father in the province. He had been in the house of
Appellant was brought to the Camp Vicente Lim PNP Investigation Office where he was Dedicacion Balisi. He was known to Dedicacion Balisi and her household; and, that the last
informed of his constitutional rights by SPO3 Alex Malabanan. In the morning of September time he visited the house of Dedicacion Balisi was on August 30, 1996. He was given food by
11, 1996, appellant, assisted by Atty. Arturo Juliano, gave his statement admitting the
Dedicacion and he later washed dishes, swept the floor, and put dirt in the trash can. He left The lower court gravely erred in holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to
at 12:00 p.m. that same date and returned to his house in Brgy. Niugan. warrant the conviction of the accused.

On cross-examination, he testified that from Brgy. Niugan to San Ramon de Canlubang it took IV
less than 15 minutes to travel, and he also mentioned that the media interviewed him 2 days
after his arrest. He and his relatives in Laguna did not have the capacity to hire/secure the The lower court gravely erred when it ruled that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of
services of a lawyer. superior strength attended the killing of John Ardee Balisi.

The defense also presented Exhibit B (and submarkings), the transcript of stenographic notes
of the testimony of Atty. Juliano, given before the Municipal Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna
on December 1, 1997 in connection with [C]riminal [C]ase [N]o. 26099, also against Guillermo The Courts Ruling
Samus for theft (of the earrings). The prosecution admitted the existence of said exhibit and
the presentation of the witness who was supposed the identify the same was dispensed
with. (Citations omitted) The appeal is partly meritorious.

First Issue:
Ruling of the Trial Court
Arrest of Appellant

The trial court found enough pieces of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of
As a general rule, the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of the witnesses is
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Rejecting his alibi for being unreliable and
accorded great respect, if not finality. In the present case, however, there are cogent reasons
uncorroborated, it convicted him of homicide for the death of Dedicacion Balisi; and of
to disregard its findings with respect to the arrest of appellant on September 10, 1996.
murder, with dwelling as aggravating circumstance, for the death of John Ardee Balisi.
The police officers version of the arrest is incredible. Not only are their allegations
Hence, this automatic review.[9]
uncertain and inconsistent, they are also contrary to human experience. We find it hard to
believe that anyone would jump from the roof of a two-story house to escape and, after
landing on the ground without any broken bones, make a complete turnaround and just
Assignment of Errors meekly surrender without further ado. Even if this story were true, jumping from a roof is not
a crime that would justify the warrantless arrest of appellant.

In his Brief, appellant faults the court a quo with the following alleged errors:[10] It is undisputed that when the CIS team went to the Vallejo residence on the evening of
September 10, 1996, it had no warrant of arrest against appellant. Yet, they arrested
I him. Under the Rules,[11] peace officers may, without a warrant, arrest a person under any of
these circumstances: (a) when, in their presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
The lower court gravely erred in giving credence to the testimonies of police officers to the actually committing, or is attempting to commit, an offense; (b) when an offense has just
effect that the accused tried to escape when he was arrested and that he readily admitted been committed, and they have probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of
responsibility for the crimes. facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) when the
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another, or from a penal establishment where he or she is serving final
II
judgment or is temporarily confined while the case is pending.

The lower court gravely erred in admitting and considering evidence that were obtained in None of these circumstances was present when members of the Criminal Investigation
violation of the accuseds constitutional rights. Group (CIG) arrested appellant. He was not a prisoner. The killing of Dedicacion and John
Ardee Balisi was not done in the presence of the arresting officers. Since it took place on
September 2, 1996, it could not have been considered as having just been committed.
III
Evidently, they unlawfully arrested appellant on September 10, 1996. When they did so, we
cannot ascribe to them the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions,
contrary to the court a quos finding.
Considering that the arrest of appellant was unlawful, the apprehending officers testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is
uncertainty and reluctance in admitting it becomes understandable. In their Joint Affidavit repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance.[15]
executed on September 11, 1996, they alleged that he had voluntarily surrendered to
them. On the other hand, he had allegedly been merely invited by Chief Inspector Jose Pante,
according to SPO3 Alex Malabanan. It was only upon being pressed that the police officers
admitted that they had indeed made the arrest.[12] Second Issue:
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
We now proceed to the alleged confession. In their Joint-Affidavit, the arresting officers
said that after appellant had initially jumped from a two-story house to escape, they closed in
on him and he voluntarily surrendered. At the same place where he did so, they conducted a Appellant claims that his alleged confession to the media while in police custody
preliminary interview, during which he readily admitted killing Dedicacion and John Ardee cannot be admitted in evidence. He further contends that the pair of earrings, the turnover
Balisi. receipt, as well as the testimonies of Pontaos and Bitos, relative thereto should be excluded
for being fruits of the poisonous tree.
But during their testimonies, the police officers denied questioning appellant after
arresting him. Instead, they claimed that it was Rolly Vallejo who had conducted the We clarify. After being illegally arrested, appellant was not informed of his
preliminary interview in their presence as follows: Pare totoo ba ang sinasabi nila tungkol sa constitutional rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent
iyo na ikaw ay pinaghihinalaan nilang pumatay sa mag-lola sa Canlubang[?]; to this question counsel. Hence, any admission elicited from him by the law enforcers during custodial
appellant allegedly answered, [T]otoo nga pare, ako nga. No further questions were allegedly investigation are normally inadmissible in evidence.
asked by the law enforcement officers. Instead, they immediately brought appellant to Camp
Vicente Lim for further investigation. In their affidavits, the police officers readily admitted that appellant was subjected to a
preliminary interview. Yet, during their examination in open court, they tried to skirt this
SPO3 Mario Bitos, on the other hand, stated in his Affidavit, also dated September 11, issue by stating that it was only the media that had questioned appellant, and that they were
1996, that during the conduct of the preliminary interview, appellant admitted that the merely present during the interview.
victims pair of earrings made of gold was taken by him after the incident and x x x sold to Mr.
However, an examination of the testimonies of the three law enforcers show the folly
Jhun Pontanos y Matriano, a resident of Bgy. Niugan, Cabuyao, Laguna, for the amount of
of their crude attempts to camouflage inadmissible evidence. SPO4 Arturo Casis testified as
five hundred (P500) pesos.
follows:
During his testimony, however, Bitos denied that they had conducted any
investigation.[13] Instead, he claimed that upon their arrival at Camp San Vicente Lim, an FISCAL:
interview was conducted by the media in the presence of Major Pante, SPO3 Bitos and SPO3 Q: And after that what did you do with the accused Guillermo Samus?
Malabanan (the investigator).[14] From this interview, the team was able to cull from
appellant that he was responsible for the killings, and that he had stolen the earrings of WITNESS:
Dedicacion Balisi and sold them to Pontanos for P500. This information was allegedly verified
A: He went with us voluntarily in Camp.
by Bitos upon the order of Major Pante.
Q: Camp what?
Thus, the apprehending officers contend that the constitutional rights of appellant
were not violated, since they were not the ones who had investigated and elicited A: Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna.
evidentiary matters from him.
Q: After arriving at Camp Vicente Lim what happened there?
We are not persuaded. The events narrated by the law enforcers in court are too good
to be true. Their Sworn Statements given a day after the arrest contradict their testimonies A: We turned over him to our investigator CIS.
and raise doubts on their credibility.
Q: To whom in particular?
We find the claims of appellant more believable, supported as they are by Fe Vallejo
A: SPO3 Alex Malabanan, sir.
who testified that he had been arrested inside her house, and that Rolly Vallejo was not
around then. Q: What was the purpose for your turning over the accused to Alex Malabanan?
Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, A: To ask him question and to investigate him.
but must be credible in itself -- such as [that which] the common experience of mankind can
approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human Q: Before that when you arrived at the camp, did you see many people at the camp?

A: I noticed some reporters were there.


Q: Where were the reporters at that time? xxxxxxxxx

A: In our office. For his part, SPO3 Malabanan gave the following testimony during his cross-
examination:
Q: Do you know the reason why these reporters were there at that time?
Q By the way, what time did Guillermo Samus finish giving the statement to the media
A They used to hang out at our office because they have a press office holding in our people on the night of September 10, 1996?
office.
A I cannot recall the exact time as to when he finished but I think it is past 8:00 oclock,
Q: Did you notice these press people when you brought Guillermo Samus to the camp? sir.
A: Yes, sir. Q If you know the reason, can you tell us why Guillermo Samus had to be presented to
Q: What did they do when you arrived? the media first before you as an investigator assigned to the case actually take his
statement?
A: They keep on asking who is this fellow we have arrested.
May I request, your Honor that the statement of the witness transpired in the
Q: Did anyone answer them? vernacular be quoted (sila na po and nag-interview).
A: Its up for the investigator and Maj. Pante.[16] A Because when we arrived at that time the press people were already there and we can
no longer prevent from asking or conducting an investigation or interview because
xxxxxxxxx the case is already on public knowledge.
Q: And the apprehending team did not ask question regarding the alleged involvement of ATTY. MANALO:
Guillermo Samus to the kiling?
Q So, after 8:00 p.m. when Guillermo Samus had already finished giving his statement to
A: At the office, sir.[17] the media, do you know where Guillermo Samus was brought?
On the other hand, SPO3 Bitos declared: WITNESS:
Q And you said that in your earlier testimony that Guillermo Samus was immediately A Yes, sir.
brought to Camp Vicente Lim which is your headquarters after his arrest on
September 10, 1996, is that correct? Q Can you tell us where?
A Yes, sir. A Yes, sir. After that Guillermo Samus was brought to our office and Maj. Pante talked to
him, sir.
Q And you said that the purpose of bringing Guillermo Samus to your headquarters on
that day after his arrest was for further investigation, is that correct? Q And do you know where Guillermo Samus spent the night?
A Yes, sir. A Yes, sir.
Q The member of the CID once Guillermo Samus was there in your custody at Camp Q Can you tell us where?
Vicente Lim he was immediately investigated right then and there in the
headquarters, is that correct? A In our stockade, sir.[19]

A He was interviewed by the media people upon the arrival of said suspect. We were not The above testimonies do not tie up. Casis categorically stated that appellant had been
able to conduct the investigation because of the media people who was also asking turned over to SPO3 Malabanan. Appellant noticed reporters in their office, but he did not
question from him, sir. answer their questions. SPO3 Bitos alleged that the interview by the media could not have
been prevented, because it was an ambush interview. Meanwhile, SPO3 Malabanan claimed
Q Who authorized the media people to propound questions to Guillermo Samus when he that when he arrived at the camp, there were already reporters questioning
was at your headquarters in the night of September 10, 1996? appellant. Malabanan further narrated that after 8:00 p.m., appellant was brought to the
office where Major Pante talked to him.
A I think nobody has given the authority to conduct a preliminary investigation with
Guillermo Samus that is why we were bother our investigation because these In the absence of testimony from any of the media persons who allegedly interviewed
media people were conducting immediate interview with that suspect, sir. [18] appellant, the uncertainties and vagueness about how they questioned and led him to his
confession lead us to believe that they themselves investigated appellant and elicited from
him uncounselled admissions. This fact is clearly shown by the Affidavits they executed on rational hypothesis that can be drawn therefrom must be that the accused is guilty. They
September 11, 1997, as well as by their testimonies on cross-examination. must create a solid chain of events, coherent and intrinsically believable, that pinpoints the
accused -- to the exclusion of others -- as the perpetrator of the crime and thereby
Nonetheless, even if the uncounselled admission per se may be inadmissible, under the sufficiently overcomes the presumption of innocence in his or her favor.[22]
present circumstances we cannot rule it out because of appellants failure to make timely
objections.Indeed, the admission is inadmissible in evidence under Article III, Section 12(1) In the present case, it is indisputable that someone entered the house of Dedicacion
and (3) of the Constitution, because it was given under custodial investigation and was made and John Ardee Balisi, and that someone killed them and left the house with Dedicacions
without the assistance of counsel. However, the defense failed to object to its presentation earrings.
during the trial, with the result that the defense is deemed to have waived objection to its
admissibility.[20] The left palm and right thumb prints of appellant near the bloodstains found on the
kitchen tiles, together with other blood-smudged fingerprints, lead to no other reasonable
Can the testimony of Pontaos and the picture of a pair of earrings together with the conclusion except that he was in the house in the afternoon when the victim
turnover receipt, which appellant identified during his testimony, be considered inadmissible died. Considering that the former had bloodstained hands, it can reasonably be deduced that
as the fruit of the poisonous tree and hence be disregarded at this stage of appeal? his hands were responsible for producing the flow of blood (shown in the pictures marked as
Exhibits E to 7) from the heads of Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi.
Upon examination of the records, we find that during the entire examination in court
of Prosecution Witness Pontaos, appellant did not question or object to the admissibility of The act of appellant -- pawning the earrings of Dedicacion Balisi on the same afternoon
the formers testimony. Worse, the latters counsel even freely cross-examined the witness of her death -- is consistent with, and further supports the conclusion that he was at the
without any reservations. Having made no objection before the trial court, appellant cannot crime scene around the time of her killing.
raise this question for the first time on appeal.[21] The evidence having been admitted
without objection, we are not inclined to reject it. The absence of any indication of the presence of any person other than appellant at
the locus criminis around the time of the victims deaths further bolsters the hypothesis that
If only appellant had made a timely objection to the admissibility of the said testimony, he, to the exclusion of all others, was the one who killed them.
the prosecution could have been warned of the need to present additional evidence to
support its case. To disregard unceremoniously a major portion of its case at this late stage The pieces of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution are consistent with
when it can no longer present additional evidence as substitute for that which is now claimed one other, and the only rational hypothesis that can be drawn therefrom is that appellant is
to be inadmissible goes against fundamental fairness. guilty of killing Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi.

The prosecution evidence, taken together with the extrajudicial admissions of


appellant, passes the test of moral certainty and establishes beyond reasonable doubt that
Third Issue: he was the person who killed the victims.
Circumstantial Evidence Alibi

Appellants uncorroborated alibi -- that he was at the farm in Cabuyao, Laguna -- was
No one saw who killed Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi. However, to prove appellants correctly debunked by the court a quo. We have nothing to add to the trial courts short and
culpability for their deaths, the prosecution presented the following circumstantial evidence: straightforward discussion of the matter, which we reproduce hereunder:
1. Finger and palm prints matching appellants own were found near bloodstains
at the scene of the crime. For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish not only that he was somewhere else when
the crime was committed but that it was also physically impossible for him to have been at
2. Dedicacion Balisi owned a pair of earrings that she wore every day. Those the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (People v. Torrifiel, 326, Phil. 388). By
earrings were missing from her dead body. Appellant pawned those same the accuseds own admission, the distance between his alleged whereabouts at the time of
earrings to Ponciano Pontaos wife on the afternoon of September 2, 1996. the commission of the offense and the scene of the crime was a fifteen minute drive. To the
mind of this court, the accuseds presence at the scene of the crime is not impossible.[23]
3. Appellant admitted killing Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi, whose dead
bodies were found inside their residence on the afternoon of September 2,
1996.

Circumstantial evidence would be sufficient for conviction, if (a) there is more than one
circumstance, (b) the facts from which the inferences have been derived are proven, and (c)
the combination of all the circumstances is such that it produces a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. These circumstances must be consistent with one other, and the only
Fourth Issue:
Crime and Punishment

The testimony of Salvacion Balisi, as well as the Birth Certificate of John Ardee Balisi
(Exhibit II),[24] prove that John was only six (6) years old at the time of his death. As correctly
ruled by the court a quo, the killing of [the] child [was] characterized by treachery because
the weakness of the victim due to his tender age resulted in the absence of any danger to the
accused.[25] Indeed [i]t has time and time again been held that the killing of minor children
who, by reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a defense is considered
attended with treachery even if the manner of attack was not shown.[26] Indubitably,
treachery qualified the killing of six-year-old John Ardee Balisi as murder.

As for the death of Dedicacion Balisi, however, none of the qualifying circumstances
alleged in the Information was proven by the prosecution. Hence, appellant can be convicted
of homicide only.

In either of the two cases, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be


appreciated against appellant, simply because it was not alleged in the Information.[27]

There being no aggravating circumstances, the imposable penalty for the


homicide[28] of Dedicacion Balisi is reclusion temporal in its medium period. In this case,
appellant is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. For the same
reason, reclusion perpetua -- not death -- is the correct penalty that should be imposed on
appellant for the murder[29] of John Ardee Balisi.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna (Branch 36) is
hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS : in Criminal Case No. 5015-96-C, the
maximum of the penalty is reduced to 17 years and four months of reclusion
temporal medium; in Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C, the penalty is reduced to reclusion
perpetua. Costs de oficio.

You might also like