You are on page 1of 38

G.R. No.

116720 October 2, 1997 A scrutiny of the evidence for the prosecution shows that the events leading to the arrest of the
accused started when SPO4 Nicolas Bolonia, chief of the PNP vice control section, received a
tip from his informer that the accused, Roel Encinada would be arriving on board the M/V
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
Sweet Pearl at about seven o'clock in the morning of May 21, 1992. On cross-examination
vs.
SPO4 Bolonia testified that the information was given to him by his asset at about four o'clock
ROEL ENCINADA, accused-appellant.
in the afternoon of May 20, 1992. After receiving the tip he relayed the information to SPO4
Cipriano Iligan, Jr., PNP chief of intelligence. SPO4 Bolonia further declared that he would
have applied for a search warrant but there was simply no time for it.

PANGANIBAN, J.: xxx xxx xxx

In acquitting the appellant, the Court reiterates the constitutional proscription that evidence (in this case, In the later case of People vs. Tangliben (184 SCRA 220) the Supreme Court modified its
prohibited drugs) seized without a valid search warrant is inadmissible in any proceeding. A yield of ruling in the Aminuddin case when it held that the arrest and search is lawful when the police
incriminating evidence will not legitimize an illegal search. Indeed, the end never justifies the means. had to act quickly and there was no more time to secure a search warrant. It is noted that the tip
was given to SPO4 Bolonia by his informant at about the closing time of the offices of the
various courts. He still had to inform SPO4 Iligan in order to coordinate with him. The boat
The Case
carrying the accused was scheduled to dock in Surigao City at seven o'clock the following
morning when the courts had not yet opened.
This principle is stressed in this appeal from the Judgment,1 promulgated on July 15, 1994 by the Regional
Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 32,2 in Criminal Case No. 3668, convicting Appellant Roel Encinada
It is therefore quite obvious that the police did not have enough time to apply for a search
of illegal transportation of prohibited drugs under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by warrant in the interim. The police cannot be faulted for acting on the tip and for stopping and
Batas Pambansa Blg. 179. searching the accused even without a warrant.

An Information,3 dated May 22, 1992, was filed by Third Asst. Surigao City Prosecutor Virgilio M. Egay In the case at bar, the accused was caught in flagrante delicto in actual possession of the
charging appellant of said crime allegedly committed as follows: marijuana. The search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (a) of
Rule 113, Section 5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which allows a warrantless
That on or about May 21, 1992, in the City of Surigao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction search as an incident to a lawful arrest (People vs. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401).
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in gross disregard of the prohibition of the
provisions of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 179, did then and
xxx xxx xxx
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control dried
marijuana leaves weighing 800 grams, more or less, which he transported to Surigao City from
Cebu City aboard a passenger ship, well knowing that such acts are expressly prohibited by WHEREFORE, premises considered, the demurrer to evidence in question is denied for lack of
law. merit.

Before arraignment, appellant, assisted by Counsel Antonio Casurra, offered to plead guilty to a lesser After trial in due course, the assailed Judgment was rendered, the decretal portion of which reads:
offense, i.e., illegal possession of prohibited drugs.4 The trial court requested the prosecution to study the
offer,5 but the records do not show any agreement on such proposal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused, Roel Encinada, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Section 4, Article II, of Republic Act No. 6425 as
Upon his arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. 6 After the prosecution presented its amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 179, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life
evidence, the defense filed, with leave of court,7 a "Demurrer to Evidence" dated September 1, imprisonment and to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) without subsidiary
1993,8 questioning the admissibility of the evidence which allegedly was illegally seized from appellant. imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
The court a quo denied the motion, ruling:9
The marijuana (Exhibit B) involved in this case is hereby forfeited to the government to be
For resolution is the demurrer to evidence dated September 1, 1993 of the accused, Roel destroyed or disposed of pursuant to present rules and regulations. The two plastic chairs
Encinada, praying that he be acquitted of the crime charged on the ground of the (Exhibits D and D-1) are also forfeited to the government.
inadmissibility of the evidence for the prosecution consisting of the marijuana (seized) from
him by the police. The accused raised the following issues, to wit: (1) Whether the arrest and
The Facts
search of the accused without a warrant would fall under the doctrine of warrantless search as
an incident to a lawful arrest; and, (2) Whether the subject marijuana is admissible in evidence
against the accused. Version of the Prosecution

xxx xxx xxx The Solicitor General, in the Appellee's Brief, recounts the events leading to appellant's arrest, as
follows:10
At around 4 p.m. of May 20, 1992, SPO4 Nicolas Bolonia was in his house when he received a 1) In the morning of May 21, 1992, at around 8:00 o'clock in the morning, more or less, the
tip from an informant that Roel Encinada would be arriving in Surigao City from Cebu City in accused was seen to have disembarked from MV Sweet Pearl after an overnight trip from Cebu
the morning of May 21, 1992 on board the M/V Sweet Pearl bringing with him "marijuana". City;
Bolonia was then Chief of the Vice Control Squad of the Surigao City Police (pp. 27-29; TSN,
November 27, 1992, 34-40; p. 10, TSN, May 14, 1993).
2) The accused proceeded to the Surigao PPA Gate and boarded a motorela bound for his
residence at Little Tondo, (within the City Proper), Surigao City. The Motorela was fully
Bolonia already knew Encinada because the latter previously was engaged in illegal gambling loaded with passengers, with the accused as the fourth passenger;
known as "buloy-buloy." After receiving the tip, Bolonia notified the members of his team —
SPO3 Marcial Tiro, SPO3 Glen Abot and SPO3 Charlito Duero — as well as his colleague
3) When the motorela was already able to travel a distance of about ten (10) meters more or
SPO4 Cipriano Iligan, Jr., the chief of the Intelligence and Investigation Division, of the
less, the same was forcibly stopped by persons who ordered the passengers to disembarked
information he received. Because the information came late, there was no more time to secure
(sic). Thereafter, all the (baggage) of the passengers and the driver were ordered to stand in a
a search warrant (pp. 38; TSN, November 27, 1992, May 14, 1993, p. 13; pp. 4, 19; TSN,
line for which a body search was made individually (sic);
March 3, 1993).

4) After the search was made, the accused was singled out in the line and ordered to board the
In the early morning of May 21, 1992, Bolonia, Iligan and other police officers deployed
service vehicle of the police and was brought to the PNP Police Station.
themselves in different strategic points at the city wharf to intercept Encinada. At about 8:15
a.m. of the same day, the M/V Sweet Pearl finally docked. The police officers saw Encinada
walk briskly down the gangplank, carrying two small colored plastic baby chairs in his hand (p. Before however the accused boarded the jeep, he was openly protesting to the action taken by
11 TSN, May 14, 1993; pp. 4, 5, 15-16 TSN, March 3, 1993; pp. 29-30 TSN, November 27, the police authorities and demanded from the apprehending officers a copy of a search warrant
1992, pp. 29-30). and/or warrant of arrest for the search made and for his apprehension;

From their various positions, the police officers followed Encinada immediately boarded a 5) In the police headquarters, the accused was made to undergo custodial investigation for
tricycle at Borromeo Street, still holding the plastic chairs. As the tricycle slowly moved which a plastic bag was presented to him allegedly containing the subject marijuana leaves.
forward, Bolonia chased it and ordered the driver to stop after identifying himself as a police The accused denied that the said plastic bag belonged to him.
officer. When the vehicle stopped, Bolinia identified himself to Encinada and ordered him to
alight from the tricycle. Bolonia asked Encinada to hand over the plastic chairs, to which the
latter complied (pp. 5, 6, 17 TSN, March 3, 1993, pp. 30-32, 35 TSN, November 27, 1992). The denial was witnessed by Mr. Daniel "Nonoy" Lerio, Jr. a member of the Surigao City
Press, who was invited by the Police Investigators to witness the presentation of the alleged
marijuana leaves, during the said investigation;
Bolonia noticed that there were two small chairs, one green and the other blue, stacked together
and tied with a piece of string. Between the stack of chairs, there was a bulky package. Bolonia
examined it closely and smelled the peculiar scent of marijuana. Making a small tear in the 6) After the custodial investigation, the accused was placed immediately behind bars and the
cellophane cover, Bolonia could see and smell the what appeared to be "marijuana," a Information for Violation of RA 6425 as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 179 was filed
prohibited drug (pp. 6-9 TSN, March 3, 1993, Exh. "B", "D" and sub-markings; pp. 32-34, 35- before the Court;
39 TSN, November 27, 1992).
xxx xxx xxx
Encinada was brought to the central police station. Bolonia, in the presence of one Nonoy
Lerio who is a member of the local media and a friend of Encinada, opened the package. It was Aside from appellant, the defense also presented five (5) other witnesses whose testimony allegedly
discovered that indeed, the contents consisted of dried leaves known as marijuana. In the established the following:12
course of the investigation, Encinada surrendered to Bolonia his passenger ticket issued by
M/V Sweet Pearl (pp. 9-11 TSN, March 3, 1993, Exh. "E"; pp. 34-35, 39-40 TSN, November
27, 1992). 8.a) Ruben Concha — the driver of the motorela who testified that he was surprised when the
motorela he was driving was forcibly stopped (while already in motion) by the police
authorities while directing his four (4) passengers, (3 males and 1 female) to disembarked (sic)
On July 13, 1992, Bolonia brought the package of dried leaves for examination at the PNP together with their (baggage).
Crime Laboratory at Camp Evangelista, Cagayan de Oro City. The forensic chemist, Inspector
Vicente Armada, tested the leaves and confirmed that they were positive for marijuana.
However, the marijuana only weighed 610 grams, which Armada opined to be probably due to That after the search was made, the accused was singled out, and despite the protests made,
shrinkage and moisture loss (pp. 12-17, 19-21, 24-40, 41; TSN, November 27, 1992, Exh. "A", was ordered to board the Police service vehicle, while the 2 other male passengers just left the
"B", "C" and sub-markings.) scene while the female passenger continued to board the motorela who directed him to proceed
to the residence of Baby Encinada to verify whether the person picked up by the police
authorities was related to the latter;
Version of the Defense
8.b) Josephine Nodalo — testified that she is a beautician, and that she was one of the four (4)
Appellant sets up denial as his defense. In his brief, he denied ownership and possession of said plastic passengers of the motorela driven by Ruben Concha, which motorela was forcibly stopped by
baby chairs, as follows:11 men who are chasing it after travelling a distance of 5 to 10 meters away from its loading area
near the PPA Gate.
All the four (4) passengers were ordered to disembarked (sic) from the motorela whereupon The petition is meritorious.
they were all subjected to body search including their (baggage).
First Issue: Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs
That it was the male passenger who was sitting at the rear portion of the motorela who was
picked up by the Police Authorities and despite the protests made was ordered to board the
Appellant claims that the prosecution failed to prove his possession and ownership of the plastic baby
Police service vehicle.
chairs. He contends that the testimonies of Bolonia and Iligan conflicted as to the number of passengers
riding the motorela. Such alleged conflict is peripheral and irrelevant. Hence, it deserves scant
Upon learning from the persons who were gathered at the scene, that the one who was picked consideration. Appellant adds that such testimonies also conflicted as to the place where appellant sat
up was the son of Mr. Encinada, the latter boarded back the motorela and directed the driver to inside the motorela. This claim, aside from being flimsy, is also not supported by the transcript of
proceed to the residence of the Encinada's at Little Tondo to verify whether it was really their stenographic notes.
son who was picked up by the police authorities. She made this, as Mrs. Encinada, (the mother
of the accused) is his (regular) customer;
In his testimony, appellant vehemently denied possession of the plastic baby chairs, stressing that he was
not holding them when the search was conducted. However, his denial is easily rebutted by Bolonia's
8.c) Mr. Daniel "Nonoy" Lerio, Jr. — testified that, being a member of the Press, he was testimony:14
requested by the police authorities to witness the custodial investigation conducted upon the
person of the accused, who, during the entire proceedings of the investigation vehemently
Q: When you saw Roel Encinada who disembarked from M/V Sweet
denied having any knowledge about the marijuana leaves placed inside the plastic bag;
Pearl, what did you observe in his person, if any?

8.d) Isabelita Encinada — testified that she was informed by her manicurist (Josephine Nodalo)
A: He was carrying a (sic) baby chairs.
about the arrest . . . (of) her son, somewhere at the PPA Port Area and upon being informed,
she and her husband immediately went to the Surigao PNP Headquarters to verify the
(news) . . . ; Q: What kind of chairs?

xxx xxx xxx A: A (sic) plastic chairs.

Ruling of the Trial Court xxx xxx xxx

The trial court rejected appellant's claim that he was merely an innocent passenger and that his package Q: After you saw Roel Encinada disembarked (sic) from the boat, what
contained mango and otap samples, not marijuana. Emphasizing that the Surigao City Police had no ill did you and your companions do?
motive against appellant, the trial court gave credence to SPO4 Bolonia's story that he actually received
from his police asset the information regarding appellant's arrival in Surigao City. The trial court further
A: We followed him behind because we posted in the different
emphasized that appellant was caught carrying marijuana in flagrante delicto. Hence, the warrantless
search following his lawful arrest was valid and the marijuana obtained was admissible in evidence. direction(s) in the wharf.

Assignment of Errors xxx xxx xxx

In his Brief, appellant submits the following assignment of errors: 13 Q: You said you followed Roel Encinada, what happened next when you
followed him?

I. The lower court erred in finding that the accused was caught in flagranti (sic) delicto in
possession of the subject marijuana leaves and is the one responsible in transporting the same; A: I saw Roel Encinada took (sic) a ride with a motorcycle so I chased
him and let him stopped (sic).

II. The lower court gravely erred in finding that search and the arrest of the accused without a
xxx xxx xxx
warrant would fall under the doctrine of warrantless search as incident to a lawful arrest —

III. The lower court gravely erred in finding that the subject marijuana leaves is admissible in Q: By the way, where was (sic) this (sic) two plastic chairs placed in the
motorize tricycle?
evidence —

In short, the main issues are (1) the sufficiency of the evidence showing possession of marijuana by A: He was sitting at the back of the motor at the right portion of the seat
and the chairs was (sic) placed besides him. ([W]itness indicating that he
appellant and (2) the validity of the search conducted on the person and belongings of the appellant.
was sitting (sic) an imaginary seat at the back of the motor and holding
an (sic) imaginary chairs with his left arm).
The Court's Ruling
Between these two contentions, the choice of the trial court prevails because this is a matter that involves but to proceed the next morning to the port area. After appellant disembarked from the ship and rode
credibility of witnesses. On this subject of credibility, the opinion of the trial court deserves great respect a motorela, Bolonia stopped the motor vehicle and conducted the search. He rummaged through the two
as it was in a better position to observe the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses on the strapped plastic baby chairs which were held by appellant and found inserted between them a package of
stand;15 hence, it was in a superior situation to assess their testimonies. marijuana wrapped in a small plastic envelope.

Furthermore, proof of ownership of the marijuana is not necessary in the prosecution of illegal drug Appellant contended before the lower court that the warrantless search of his belongings was proscribed
cases;16 it is sufficient that such drug is found in appellant's possession. by the Constitution. But the trial judge rejected this contention, opining that appellant was caught
in flagrante delicto at the time of his arrest. Hence, it concluded that the warrantless search conducted
after his "lawful arrest" was valid and that the marijuana was admissible in evidence.
Second Issue: Illegal Search and Seizure

Rule 113, Section 5, discusses the instances when a warrantless arrest may be effected, as follows:
Based on the foregoing discussion, appellant's conviction could have been affirmed by this Court.
However, the very evidence implicating him — the prohibited drugs found in his possession — cannot be
used against him in this case or, for that matter, in "any proceeding." Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
Generally, a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured warrant; otherwise, such search
and seizure is subject to challenge.17 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, is apropos: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
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.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this provision is legally inadmissible in evidence as a "fruit of the
poisonous tree." This principle is covered by this exclusionary rule:
xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 3. . . .
In this case, appellant was not committing a crime in the presence of the Surigao City policemen.
Moreover, the lawmen did not have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of . . . the preceding section shall be inadmissible for had committed an offense. The search cannot be said to be merely incidental to a lawful arrest. Raw
any purpose in any proceeding. intelligence information is not a sufficient ground for a warrantless arrest. Bolonia's testimony shows that
the search preceded the arrest:21
The plain import of the foregoing provision is that a search and seizure is normally unlawful unless
authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. This protection is based on the principle Q: You said you followed Roel Encinada, what happened next when you
that, between a citizen and the police, the magistrate stands as a mediator, nay, an authority clothed with followed him?
power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or warrants or arrest. 18
A: I saw Roel Encinada took (sic) a ride with a motorcycle so I chased
The right against warrantless searches, however, is subject to legal and judicial exceptions, as follows: (1) him and let him stopped (sic).
search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs
searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and
xxx xxx xxx
seizure.19 In these cases, the search and seizure may be made only upon probable cause as the essential
requirement. Although the term eludes exact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's belief Q: You said you stopped the motor tricycle in which Roel Encinada (sic)
that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the existence of such facts and riding, what did you do?
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to
seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched.20 A: At first I identified myself to the driver and to some of the
passengers.

In this case, Bolonia received at 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 1992 an intelligence report that appellant who was
carrying marijuana would arrive the next morning aboard the M/V Sweet Pearl. Although such report xxx xxx xxx
could have been the basis of probable cause, Bolonia explained that he could not secure a warrant because
the courts in Surigao City were already closed for the day. Thus, he and the other lawmen had no choice Q: And after that, what happened next?
A: I requested Reel Encinada to disembark from the motor tricycle and order. There is a need for prompt action on such applications for search warrant.
because of that information given to us in his possession. Accordingly, these amended guidelines in the issuance of a search warrant are issued:

Q: Possession of what? 1. All applications for search warrants relating to violation of the Anti-subversion Act, crimes
against public order as defined in the Revised Penal Code, as amended, illegal possession of
firearms and/or ammunition and violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended,
A: Possession of marijuana, Sir.
shall no longer be raffled and shallimmediately be taken cognizance of and acted upon by
the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, and Municipal Trial
Q: And Roel Encinada alighted from the motor vehicle? Court under whose jurisdiction the place to be searched is located.

A: Yes, Sir. 2. In the absence of the Executive Judge, the Vice-Executive Judge shall take cognizance of
and personallyact on the same. In the absence of the Executive Judge or Vice-Executive Judge,
the application may be taken cognizance of and acted upon by any judge of the Court where
Q: After Roel Encinada alighted from the motor tricycle, what happened
the application is filed.
next?

3. Applications filed after office hours, during Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, shall likewise
A: I requested to him to see his chairs that he carried.
be taken cognizance of and acted upon by any judge of the Court having jurisdiction of the
place to be searched, but in such cases the applicant shall certify and state the facts under oath,
Contrary to the trial court's ruling, People vs. Tangliben22 is factually inapplicable to the case at bar. The to the satisfaction of the judge, that its issuance is urgent.
prosecution's evidence did not show any suspicious behavior when the appellant disembarked from the
ship or while he rode the motorela. No act or fact demonstrating a felonious enterprise could be ascribed 4. Any judge acting on such application shall immediately and without delay personally
to appellant under such bare circumstances. conduct the examination of the applicant and his witnesses to prevent the possible leakage of
information. He shall observe the procedures, safeguards, and guidelines for the issuance of
We disagree with the trial court's justification for the search: search warrants provided for in this Court's Administrative Circular No. 13, dated October 1,
1985.
The arrest of the accused without warrant was lawful because there was a probable cause or
ground for his apprehension. The police had received reliable, albeit confidential information In People vs. Aminnudin, the Court declared as inadmissible in evidence the marijuana found in appellant's
from their informant that Roel Encinada would be bringing in marijuana from Cebu City on possession during a search without a warrant, because it had been illegally seized. The Court firmly struck
board the M/V Sweet Pearl. Unfortunately there was no more time for the police to apply for down the policemen's cavalier disregard for the Bill of Rights, explaining:
and secure a search warrant as the information was received late in the afternoon of May 20,
1992 and the accused was expected to arrive at seven o'clock the following morning. The The present case presented no urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses,
different courts were closed by then. Nevertheless the police felt constrained to act on the
it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to
valuable piece of information. arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was
known. The vehicle was identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the
Even if the information was received by Bolonia about 4:00 p.m. of May 20, 1992 at his house, there was information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable
sufficient time to secure a warrant of arrest, as the M/V Sweet Pearl was not expected to dock until 7.00 cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to
a.m. the following day. Administrative Circular No. 13 allows applications for search warrants even after comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who
court hours: was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that a "search warrant
was not necessary."
3. Raffling shall be strictly enforced, except only in case where an
application for search warrant may be filed directly with any judge in Lawmen cannot be allowed to violate the very law they are expected to enforce. Bolonia's receipt of the
whose jurisdiction the place to be searched is located,after office hours, intelligence information regarding the culprit's identity, the particular crime he allegedly committed and
or during Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, in which case the his exact whereabouts underscored the need to secure a warrant for his arrest. But he failed or neglected to
applicant is required to certify under oath the urgency of the issuance do so. Such failure or neglect cannot excuse him from violating a constitutional right of the appellant.
thereof after office hours, or during Saturdays, Sundays and legal
holidays; (Emphasis supplied)
It is significant that the Solicitor General does not share the trial judge's opinion. Taking a totally different
approach to justify the search, the Republic's counsel avers that appellant voluntarily handed the chairs
The same procedural dispatch finds validation and reiteration in Circular No. 19, series of 1987, entitled containing the package of marijuana to the arresting officer and thus effectively waived his right against
"Amended Guidelines and Procedures on Applications for Search Warrants for Illegal Possession of the warrantless search. This, he gleaned from Bolonia's
Firearms and Other Serious Crimes Filed in Metro Manila Courts and Other Courts with Multiple Salas": testimony:23

This Court has received reports of delay while awaiting raffle, in acting on applications for Q: After Roel Encinada alighted from the motor tricycle, what happened
search warrants in the campaign against loose firearms and other serious crimes affecting peace next?
A: I requested to him to see his chairs that he carried. WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Appellant is ACQUITTED. Unless convicted for any other crime or detained for some lawful reason,
Appellant Roel Encinada is ORDERED RELEASED immediately.
Q: Are you referring to the two plastic chairs?

SO ORDERED.
A: Yes, Sir.

Narvasa, C.J., Romero, Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.


Q: By the way, when Roel Encinada agreed to allow you to examine the
two plastic chairs that he carried, what did you do next?

A: I examined the chairs and I noticed that something inside in between


the two chairs.

We are not convinced. While in principle we agree that consent will validate an otherwise illegal search,
we believe that appellant — based on the transcript quoted above — did not voluntarily consent to
Bolonia's search of his belongings. Appellant's silence should not be lightly taken as consent to such
search.24 The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than mere
passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent
at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.25Furthermore, considering that the search was
conducted irregularly, i.e, without a warrant, we cannot appreciate consent based merely on the
presumption of regularity of the performance of duty.

Appellant's alleged acquiescence should be distinguished from the consent appreciated in the recent case
of People vs. Lacerna.26 In said case, the search was conducted at a validly established checkpoint and was
made in the regular performance of the policemen's duty. Although it became intrusive when the
policemen opened his baggage, it was validated by the consent of appellant, who testified in open court
that he allowed such search because he had nothing to hide. In the present case, there was no checkpoint
established. The policemen stopped the motorela and forthwith subjected the passengers to a search of
their persons and baggage. In contrast to the accused in Lacerna, herein appellant testified that he openly
objected to the search by asking for a warrant.

Without the illegally seized prohibited drug, the appellant's conviction cannot stand. There is simply no
sufficient evidence remaining to convict him. That the search disclosed a prohibited substance in
appellant's possession, and thus confirmed the police officers' initial information and suspicion, did not
cure its patent illegality. An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an arrest effected on the strength
of the evidence yielded by the search.

We should stress that the Court is not unmindful of the difficulties of law enforcement agencies in
suppressing the illegal traffic of dangerous drugs. However, quick solutions of crimes and apprehensions
of malefactors do not justify a callous disregard of the Bill of Rights. Law enforcers are required to follow
the law and to respect the people's rights. Otherwise, their efforts become counterproductive. We remind
them of this recent exhortation by this Court:27

. . . In the final analysis, we in the administration of justice would have no right to expect
ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do not insist on the full 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 evidence of the crime regardless of the methods by
which they were obtained. This kind of attitude condones law-breaking in the name of law
enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the more rapid breakdown of our system of justice, and
the eventual 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
nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the
Constitution and the law. Truly, the end never justifies the means.
THIRD DIVISION (a) P50,000.00 for moral damages;
(b) P50,000.00 for exemplary damages;
(c) P25,000.00 for actual damages, and to pay the costs of this
proceeding.

[G.R. No. 98252. February 7, 1997]


There being no evidence to warrant a finding of conviction beyond reasonable doubt, judgment is hereby
rendered ACQUITTING Accused SANTIAGO CID of the crime charged. Being a detention prisoner, the
City Warden of Tagaytay City is hereby ordered to immediately release said person from his prison cell,
unless he is therein detained for any other cause. is
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENE JANUARIO y ROLDAN, EFREN
CANAPE y BAYOT, ELISEO SARITA @ TOTO, EDUARDO SARINOS and SO ORDERED.
SANTIAGO CID,accused, and RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN and EFREN CANAPE y
BAYOT, accused-appellants.

DECISION The Antecedents

PANGANIBAN, J.:
On November 7, 1988, an Information signed by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jose M. Velasco, Jr.,
The 1987 Constitution was crafted and ordained at a historic time when our nation was reeling from was filed against accused-appellants Rene Januario and Efren Canape, and their co-accused Santiago Cid,
ghastly memories of atrocities, excesses and outright violations of our peoples rights to life, liberty and Eliseo Sarita @ Toto and Eduardo Sarinos @ Digo charging them with violation of Republic Act No.
property. Hence, our bill of rights was worded to emphasize the sanctity of human liberty and specifically 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Law)[2] allegedly commited as follows:
to protect persons undergoing custodial investigations from ignorant, overzealous and/or incompetent
peace officers. The Constitution so dearly values freedom and voluntariness that, inter alia, it "That on or about September 4, 1987, at Barangay Bulihan, Municipality of Silang, Province of Cavite,
unequivocally guarantees a person undergoing investigation for the commission of an offense not only the the above-named accused, together with Eliseo Sarita @ Toto and Eduardo Sarinos who (sic) still at-large,
services of counsel, but a lawyer who is not merely (a) competent but also (b) independent and (c) conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, by means of
preferably of his own choice as well. force, violence and intimidation, did, then and there, willfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously, after
stabbing to death the driver Gernonimo (sic) Malibago and conductor Andrew Patriarca, take, steal and
In the case before us, the main evidence relied upon for the conviction of appellants were their own
carry away and carnap, one Isuzu passenger type jeepney, with plate No. DFB-550, owned by Doris and
extrajudicial confessions which admittedly were extracted and signed in the presence and with the
Victor Wolf, to their damage and prejudice in the total amount of P124,000.00.
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 work against the interest of a police agency he
was hoping to join, as a few months later, he in fact was admitted into its work force. For this violation of CONTRARY TO LAW."[3]
their constitutional right to independent counsel, appellants deserve acquittal. After the exclusion of their
tainted 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 contrary is proved beyond Arraigned on February 7, 1989, appellants Januario and Canape, assisted by counsel de oficio,
reasonable doubt. pleaded not guilty.[4]On May 30, 1989, Cid, assisted by counsel de parte, likewise entered a plea of not
guilty.[5] Sarita and Sarinos remained at large. At the trial, the prosecution presented the following
This is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch XVIII in witnesses: Myrna Temporas, NBI Agent Arlis S. Vela, Vicente Dilanco Pons, Andrew Patriarca, Sr.,
Tagaytay City, disposing of Criminal Case No. TG-1392-89, viz.: Juliana Malibago, Atty. Magno Toribio, and Atty. Carlos Saunar, documentary and other evidence tending
to prove the following:
WHEREFORE, and premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused: 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 but that he could help him find a buyer for the
(1) RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN
jeepney for the price of P50,000.00. With Amador Alayan, one of the drivers of his son who was around,
and-
Pons offered to look for a buyer of the jeepney provided that Cid would entrust the vehicle to them. Cid
(2) EFREN CANAPE Y BAYOT
agreed to the proposal. At that time, Pons did not know who owned the jeepney, but he eventually offered
it for sale to Myrna Temporas who agreed to the purchase price ofP65,000.00. However, Temporas paid
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 14 last sentence of R.A. No. 6539, Pons only the amount of P48,500.00.[6]
otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Law and as charged against them in the Information and
pursuant to the said law, this Court hereby imposes upon the said accused, the supreme penalty of Myrna Temporas had a slightly different story. According to her, Pons said that the jeepney was
Reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment. owned by his niece, Doris Wolf. Pons, purportedly acting upon the instructions of Doris Wolf, borrowed
from Myrna Temporas the amount ofP48,500.00 and used the jeepney as a collateral. The amount was
given to Pons in P10,000.00 cash and the balance in a check payable to Doris Wolf. The check was
Further, they are ordered to pay jointly and severally, but separately, the heirs of their victims, namely, encashed as it was cleared from Myrna Temporas' account. It bore a signature supposedly of Doris Wolf
Geronimo Malibago and Andrew Patriarca, Jr., the sums of: at its back portion and a second endorsement by Pons who subsequently deposited it in his account.
On September 11, Temporas asked Pons to secure a special power of attorney from Doris S Opo.
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 5. T Sabihin mo ang iyong pangalan at iba-ibang bagay tungkol sa iyong pagkatao?
but Pons always promised that he himself would go to her house to pay.[7]
S RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN, 26 taong gulang, binata, isang (sic) buy and
Inasmuch as Pons also failed to produce a deed of sale covering the jeepney, Temporas lodged a sell hanapbuhay at naninirahan sa Puro Batya, Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
complaint against him for estafa before the NBI.[8] Acting on the complaint, the NBI contacted the
relatives of the owner of the jeepney who went to Camarines Sur, identified the jeepney and informed the xxx xxx
xxx."[11]
NBI that its driver (deceased Geronimo Malibago) and conductor (deceased Andrew Patriarca, Jr.) had
been killed by carnappers.[9] According to appellant Januario, two weeks before September 1987, he was already in the house of
Patriarca's widow also filed a complaint with the NBI. Upon investigation, an NBI team led by appellant Canape in Bgy. Palapala, Dasmarias, Cavite to procure chicken and "kalawit" for his
business. He also went there because his new friends named Toto Sarita and Digo Samera (sic), as well as
Supervising Agent Magno Toribio found out that the carnapping of the jeepney and the killing of Patriarca
and Malibago were the "handiwork" of a group of four (4) persons named Rene Januario, Efren Canape, appellant Canape, wanted him to look for a buyer of a jeep. Appellant Januario asked for a photograph of
Eliseo Sarita alias Toto, and Eduardo Sarinos alias Digo. The team also discovered that the jeepney was 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 having drinks in the house of Toto.
disposed of through Cid.[10]

Appellants Januario and Canape, as well as Cid, were arrested in Camarines Sur. The NBI then After that drinking spree, the group agreed to fetch appellants Januario and Canape at 4:00 o'clock
invited Pons and Temporas to shed light on the carnapping incident. The jeepney was recovered in an the following morning. It was Digo Samera who fetched appellants before they went to the house of Toto
Sarita. Together, they went to GMA town in Cavite. It was around 5:00 o'clock in the morning when they
auto shop with its engine partly dismantled. Upon being informed by the NBI that the jeepney had been
found, an insurance company brought it back to Manila. hailed a jeep from the "looban." Thereafter, the following allegedly transpired:

From the "oral investigation" they conducted at the Naga City NBI office on March 27, 1988, the "18. T Ano na ang nangyari noong kayo ay sumakay sa jeep?
team learned that Sarita and Sarinos took Patriarca and Malibago inside a sugar plantation where S Ako ang naunang sumakay pagtigil noong jeep. Bago maka-alis ang jeep
presumably they were killed. Because appellants volunteered that their companions were their neighbors nagsalita si TOTO SARITA na nasa baba pa kasama sina EFREN CANAPE at DIGO
in Paliparan, Dasmarias, Cavite who could be in Manila already, the NBI team decided to take down their na `HINTAY ka muna may naiwanan pa ako.' Sumakay si Digo sa tapat ng conductor
statements at the NBI head office in Manila. The team traveled with appellants to Manila, arriving there at na nasa loob ng jeep samantalang si TOTO ay pumuesto sa bandang kanan sa unahan
around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of March 28, 1988. ng jeep at si EFREN ay sa bandang kaliwa rin ng jeep tapat ng driver at sabay si
At the Taft Avenue head office of the NBI, the team took the statements of appellants one at a EFREN at TOTO na sumakay sa unahan ng jeep at mabilis na tinulak ni EFREN ang
driver patungo kay TOTO na siyang tumutok, (sic) sa driver ng isang sandata balisong
time. They asked Atty. Carlos Saunar, who was "just around somewhere," to assist appellants during the
investigation. Agent Arlis Vela took the statement of appellant Januario while Supervising Agent Toribio 29. Habang nangyayari iyon ay tinutukan naman ni DIGO na nasa loob ng jeep ang
took that of Canape. The first portion of the statement, Exhibit C, taken from appellant Januario reads: conductor na pinasubsub ang ulo habang tinutukan ng 29. Ang sabi sa akin ni DIGO
ay REN igapos mo ito' at inabutan niya ako ng isang panyong panali. Sa aking
kabiglaanan ako ay napasunod at tinali ko iyong conductor.
"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, 19. T Ano na ang sumunod na nangyari matapos matalian mo ang conductor?
MANILA.
S Napansin ko na lang na maneho na ni TOTO Sarita ang jeep na kanyang
pinasibad habang ang driver ay nakatali na rin at ako naman ay sinabihan ni DIGO na
xxx xxx hawakan iyong conductor sa balikat habang tinutukan ng patalim ni DIGO. Ang
xxx conductor ay nagsasalita na siya ay nasasaktan dahil nakatusok na ang patalim sa
kanyang leeg o batok.
1. TANONG Mr. RENE JANUARIO ipina-aalam namin sa iyo na ikaw ay aming
inuusig sa salang pagnakaw ng isang jeepney at pagkapatay sa driver at conductor 20. T Ano ang nangyari matapos na matutukan ang conductor at driver at habang
nito. Gusto naming malaman mo na ikaw ay hindi maaring pilitin na magbigay ng nagmamaneho si TOTO?
salaysay at kong (sic) sakaling magbibigay ka ng salaysay, ano mang sasabihin mo
rito ay pueding (sic) gamitin laban sa iyo sa ano mang caso. Nauunawaan mo ba ito? 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 ay hininto ang
SAGOT Naiintiendihan (sic) ko. sasakyan.
2. T Kailangan mo ba ang tulong ng abogado sa pagtatanong na ito? 21. T Ano na ang sumonod (sic) na nangyari sa lugar na iyon matapos na maihinto ang
jeep?
S Magsalaysay (sic) lang ako pag-may abogado ako.
S Unang bumaba po ay si TOTO na hawak ang driver pababa at itinulak ang
3. T May abogado ka ba sa ngayon? driver sa may tobohan (sic). Si EFREN ay sumonod (sic)hanggang sa may gilid ng
karsada habang si TOTO ay tuloy sa tobohan (sic) na dala ang driver. Si DIGO
S Mayroon po si Atty. CARLOS SAUNAR ay nandito para tulongan (sic) ako.
naman ay tinulak ang conductor hawak-hawak sa buhok at ang sabi naman sa akin ay
4. T Nanunumpa ka na magsasabi ng katotohanan, buong katotohanan at wala ng iba hawakan ko ang balikat. Kinuha sa akin ang conductor ni DIGO at dinala sa may
kungdi katotohanan lamang sa pagtatanong na ito? tubuhan (sic) at akin na lang narinig na ang pag-ungol ng conductor dahil malapit lang
iyon sa sasakyan.
22. T Nakikita mo ba sila DIGO at ang conductor habang siya ay umuungol? libre. Matapos mong malaman ang iyong mga karapatan, ikaw ba ay nakahandang
magbigay ng kusang loob na salaysay?
S Hindi ko na po nakita kasi nasa tubohan na.
ANSWER Opo, sir.
23. T Sila TOTO at ang driver nasaan sila habang naririnig mong umuungol 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 Pumasok po sa tubohan hindi ko na sila makita.
S Ako si EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT, 31 anyos ang idad (sic), kasal kay AIDA
24. T Ano na ang nangyari matapos na dalhin ni TOTO ang driver at ni DIGO naman ROLDAN, isang mag-sasaka (sic), nakatapos ng ika-limang baitang sa elemantarya, at
ang conductor sa tobohan (sic)? sa kasalukuyan ay naninirahan sa Bgy. Sibuho, Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
S Mga ilang minuto lang po ay bumalik na sila sa sasakyan at kami sumakay na 3. T Ikaw ba ay may nalalaman sa pagkanakaw ng isang Malaguea type jeepney sa
at si TOTO ang nagmaneho ng sasakyan at tuloy-tuloy na kami sa Bikol, sa Bulihan, Silang, Cavite noong buwan ng Septyembre 1988?
Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
S Opo, sir.
25. T Noong kayo ay umalis sa tubohan na iyon, nasaan na noon ang driver at ang
conductor? 4. T Kung ganoon sabihin mo sa mga imbistigador na ito kung paano ang buong
pangyayari?
S Wala na po.
S Kasi nuong (sic) minsan ako ay mapasyal sa Bgy. Crossing, sakop ng
26. T May napansin ka ba kina DIGO at TOTO noong sila ay sumakay sa jeep galing Dasmarias, Cavite noong mga buwan ng Agosto 1987, kami ay nagkita ng aking
sa tubuhan (sic)? kaibigan na si TOTO' SARETA at ang kanyang kasama na si DIGO (complete name
unknown) at ako ay kanyang sinabihan na humanap ng buyer ng isang jeep. Kaya, ng
S Humihingal sila po na parang pagod at napansin ko na may dugo ang kamay ni (sic) ako ay umuwi na ng Libmanan, Camarines Sur ako ay humananp (sic) ng taong
DIGO at ang damit at pantalon naman ni TOTO ay may tilamsik (sic) ng dugo. interesado na bumili ng nasabing jeep, katulung si RENE JANUARIO na taga bayan
xxx xxx ng Libmanan. Ang aming nakitang interesado sa jeep ay si SANTIAGO CID. Kaya
xxx."[12] ang aming ginawa ni RENE ay bumalik sa Bgy. Crossing, Dasmarias, Cavite para
ipaalam kina TOTO SARETA na kami ay nakakuha na ng buyer. Ng gabing yaon na
Appellant Januario described the driver as more than fifty years old, of medium build, and with kami ay dumating kami ay niyaya nina TOTO na mag inuman at habang kami ay nag-
gray hair and a fine nose. Upon reaching Libmanan, they went directly to Santiago Cid with whom iinuman sinabi ni TOTO na may makukuha na kami na jeep. Mga bandang alas
appellant Januario had earlier conferred regarding the sale of the jeep. Appellant Januario did not know to kuwatro ng madaling araw, kami ay niyaya na nina TOTO na kunin na ang jeep. Kami
whom the jeep was sold but he knew that Cid approached Vicente Pons. The latter gave appellant ay lumakad na papuntang Bulihan, Silang, Cavite. Pagdating namin doon, kami ay
Januario P1,000 cash and rice and eggs worth around P600. A second jeep was brought by Toto and Digo naghintay ng mga ilang minuto. Ng (sic) dumaan ang isang jeep na wala pnag (sic)
to Roger Abajero. Cid brought both appellants to the house of Roger. Later, the jeep was impounded at pasahero, ito ay pinara ni DIGO at kami ay sumakay. Mga ilang minuto naman ang
the NBI Naga City office. lumipas, habang ang diyep (sic) ay tumatakbo papuntang Alabang ay naglabas ng
patalim sina TOTO at DIGO at tinutukan ang driver at ang kundoktor. Tapos kami ni
Appellant Januario signed and thumbmarked his statement which was sworn before NBI Executive RENE ay sinabihan (sic) din nila na maglabas ng patalim at tutukan din ang driver at
Director Salvador R. Ranin. It was also signed by Atty. Carlos Saunar "as counsel." ang kundoktor (sic). Pagdating namin sa Bgy. Maguyam, sakop din ng Silang,
sapilitana (sic) ibinaba nina TOTO, DIGO at RENE ang driver at ang kundoktor (sic)
Appellant Canape's sworn statement, Exhibit I, was taken by Atty. Magno V. Toribio, a supervising at dinala sa loob ng tubuhan. Ako ay naiwan sa loob ng jeep. Hindi naman natagalan
NBI Agent. Quoted in full, the statement reads: ay lumabas na ang tatlo galing sa loob ng tubuhan, hindi na kasama ang driver at and
kundoktor (sic). Tapos, narining ko kay TOTO na `ayos na daw'. Ang sunod naming
"SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NI IBINIGAY NI EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT KAY AGENTS ginawa ay pinatakbo na namin ang jeep papuntang Libmanan. Pagdating namin sa
MAGNO V. TORIBIO AND TOMAS C. ENRILE, MGA AHENTE NG NBI DITO SA NCR, Libmanan kami ay dumerretso (sic) kay SANTIAGO CID at ibinigay na namin sa
NBI, MANILA, NGAYONG IKA 27 NG MARSO 1988. kanya ang jeep. Ang sabi naman ni SANTIAGO ay dadalhin niya ang jeep kay
VICENTE PONS na taga Libmanan din.
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 5. T Alam mo ba ang nangyari sa driver at konduktor (sic) ng jeep na inagaw niyo?
1. TANONG Ginoong EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT, ikaw ay aming iniimbistigahan S Ang pag-kaalam ko ho sa sabi ni TOTO na ayos na' ang ibig sabihin ay patay
ngayon tungkol sa pagkanakaw ng isang Izuzu (sic) type jitney sa Silang, Cavite at sa na sila.
pagkamatay ng conductor nito noong buwan ng Septembyre (sic) 1988. Bago ka
namin tanungin aming ipinaalam sa iyo ang iyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng 6. T Sino naman ang VICENTE PONS na ito?
Saligang Batas. Una, ikaw ay may karapatan na huwag magbigay ng salaysay sa
imbistigasyon na ito, at manahimik. Ano mang sabihin mo dito ay puweding gamitin S Ang sabi sa amin ni SANTIAGO si VICENTE PONS ay ang kanyang
laban sa iyo sa asunto kriminal o civil. Ikalawa, ikaw ay may karapatan na kumuha nakuhang buyer ng jeep.
ng iyong abogado upang tulungan ka sa imbistigasyon na ito. At kung gusto mo pero 7. Q Sa pagkaalam mo ba ay talagang binili ni VICENTE PONS and jeep?
wala kang pambayad sa sirbesyon (sic) nito, ikaw ay bibigyan ng NBI ng
A Opo, sir.
8. T Magkano naman ang pagkabili ni VICENTE PONS? 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 Hindi ko po alam kung magkano ang iksaktong halaga, pero ang presyo sa
amin ni SANTIAGO ay P25,000.00. S Opo, sir.

9. T Nang dalhin ba ninyo ang jeep kay SANTIAGO ay agad ninyong dinala at 22. T Pansamantala ay wala na muna akong itatanong sa iyo, ikaw ba ay mayroon pa
pinagbili rin kay VICENTE PONS? ibig sabihin?

S Opo, ng araw din na iyon. S Wala na po, sir. KATAPUSAN NG SALAYSAY.

10. T Magkano ba ang paunang bayad, kung mayroon man, na ibinigay ni VICENTE (
PONS sa inyo? Signed and thumbmarked)
E
A Ang alam ko ho ay P4,000.00 ang ibinigay ni VICENTE PONS kay FREN B. CANAPE
SANTIAGO dahil siya ang kausap nito. N
agsasalaysay
11. T Magkano naman ang halagang naparte mo?

S Ako ho ay binigyan ni SANTIAGO ng P1,000.00? SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:


12. T Ito bang pag-pabili ninyo ng jeep kay VICENTE PONS ay may kasulatan?
(Illegible signature) (Illegible signature)
S Wala po.

13. T Kailan pa ang mga sumunod na bayad na ibinigay sa inyo ni VICENTE PONS? SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 27th day of March 1988 at
NBI, National Capital Region, Manila. I likewise certify that I have carefully examined the
S Hindi ko na ho masyadong matandaan ang mga iksaktong oras na kanyang herein affiant and that I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed his statement and understood
pagbayad at kung magkano, basta ang pag-kaalam ko ay mga tatlong beses lang the same.
siyang nag-hulog at iyon ay kanyang ibinibigay kay SANTIAGO. Si SANTIAGO
naman ang siyang nag-bibigay (sic) sa amin.
(
14. T Ito bang si SANTIAGO CID at si VICENTE PONS ay alam kung saan at paano Signed)
ninyo nakuha ang jeep? A
tty. ARLIS E. VELA
S Opo, sir. (By
Authority of Rep. Act 157)"[13]
15. T Nasaan na ngayon sina TOTO SARETA at DIGO?
After the investigation, appellants went with the NBI agents in searching for their companions.[14]
S Sa Dasmarias, Cavite ho.
Meanwhile, Andrew Patriarca, Sr. reported the disappearance of his son, Andrew, Jr., the jeepney
16. T Hindi na ba sila napupuntang Libmanan? and its driver to the police detachment in Bulihan, Silang, Cavite and the police stations in Silang and
Imus, Cavite. Two weeks after September 4, 1987, the body of 23-year-old Andrew Patriarca, Jr. was
S Bihira na ho sir. Pumupunta lang ho sila kung kukuha ng pera.
found in a sugarcane plantation in Maguyam. His head was severed from his body.[15] The body of the
17. T Sa pagkaalam mo, mayroon pa ba silang ibang jeep na dinala sa Libmanan? driver, Geronimo Malibago, stepfather of Doris Wolf, the owner of the jeepney, [16] was recovered after the
harvest of sugarcane in the plantation[17] in Maguyam.[18] Malibagos widow identified his body from its
S Mayroon pa ho akong nalaman kay SANTIAGO CID na may isa pang jeep na clothing.[19]
dinala daw sina TOTO at DIGO sa kanya at kanya namang ibenenta kay Mr.
ROGELIO ABAJERO, na taga Libmanan din. On September 12, 1989, the prosecution formally offered its evidence,[20] which the court duly
admitted.[21] For its part, the defense, through counsel, manifested its intention to file a demurrer to
18. T Ano pa ang ibang alam mo tungkul (sic) dito sa pangalawang jeep na ibenenta evidence. However, because the defense had not yet presented accused Cid, the court on November 21,
(sic) nila kay Mr. ABAJERO? 1989, ordered the cancellation of his bailbond and gave his surety thirty days within which to show cause
why judgment against the bond should not be rendered. The defense counsel, Atty. Jose Claro, was
S Wala na ho sir. likewise required to explain why he should not be held in contempt of court for his failure to file a
demurrer to evidence.[22]
19. T Iyung tungkol sa unang jeep na ibenenta kay Mr. VICENTE PONS, alam mo ba
kung nasaan na iyon ngayon? For failure of the defense counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing dates and to file the promised
demurrer to evidence, the court on December 22, 1989, issued an order stating that the "accused may no
S Hindi ko rin po alam kung saan dinala ni Mr. PONS. longer at this time be allowed to present their Demurrer to Evidence." It scheduled dates for the
presentation of defense evidence and appointed Atty. Oscar Zaldivar as counsel de oficio for the
20. T Ito bang sina TOTO SARETA at DIGO ay matagal mo nang kakilala?
defendants.[23]
S Matagal na ho sir, dahil sa ako ay ipinanganak din sa Dasmarias, Cavite at
doon din lumaki. Sila ho ay aking mga kababayan at matalik kung mga kaibigan.
Nevertheless, on December 26, 1989, counsel for the defense Claro mailed a "demurrer to evidence In their separate briefs filed by their respective counsel (Atty. Jose C. Claro for Januario and Atty.
or motion to dismiss on (sic) insufficiency of evidence."[24] On January 10, 1990, the trial court denied the Florendo C. Medina for Canape), appellants ascribe basically two errors against the trial court:
motion finding that the demurrer did not "contain any reason compelling enough to recall the previous
order," disallowing the filing of said pleading.[25]
(1) The trial procedure, particularly the presentation and admission of the testimony of Atty. Carlos
On February 8, 1990, upon the manifestation of Atty. Claro that appellants would no longer present Saunar, was irregular and prejudicial to the appellants; and
evidence, the trial court issued an order considering the case terminated as far as appellants were
concerned. However, it granted a "reservation" to present evidence as regards Cid. The trial court further (2) The extra-judicial confessions of the appellants are inadmissible in evidence for having been extracted
directed Atty. Claro to present Cid before the court on March 9, 1990. It ordered the filing of memoranda in violation of their constitutional right to counsel.
"as the case of accused Januario and 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]
Insisting that his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, appellant Januario contends
On March 1, 1990, appellants' counsel filed their memorandum.[27] that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence his sworn statement before the NBI and the testimony of
Atty. Saunar as rebuttal or additional witness after the prosecution had rested its case, he (appellant
On March 9, 1990, the trial court did not make a "partial promulgation of judgment." Instead, it Januario) had filed his memorandum, and the decision had been scheduled for promulgation. [38]
ordered the "continuation of proceedings for purposes of rebuttal evidence."[28]
For his part, appellant Canape also claims that his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable
On the same day, the defense presented Santiago Cid as a witness. He testified that a certain Raul doubt. He questions the trial court's having given "weight and sufficiency" to his extra-judicial
Repe, Toto Sarita and Digo Sarreal approached him about the sale of the jeepney. He referred them to confession.[39]
Vicente Pons who he thought would buy the vehicle. He knew appellants were also from Libmanan but
did not see them during the transaction for the sale of the jeepney.[29] Appellant Januario contends that the trial court erred in allowing the presentation of Saunar as a
witness after the prosecution had closed its case and offered its documentary evidence. Saunar could not
On March 27, 1990, the Court denied defense counsel Claro's motion to cancel the hearing in any guise be considered as a rebuttal witness simply because there was no defense evidence to rebut.
scheduled for that day. Noting the presence of Atty. Carlos Saunar, a prosecution witness whose
attendance during scheduled trial dates had been delayed, and citing the "imperatives of justice," the trial
court issued an order directing that the testimony of said witness should be heard that day. [30] In the
absence of the counsel of record for the defense, the trial court reiterated the appointment of Atty. Oscar The Courts Ruling
Zaldivar as counsel de oficio. The First Issue: Order of Trial
Atty. Saunar testified that he joined the NBI sometime in May or June 1988. On March 1988,
while still in private practice, he was at the NBI head office handling a client case when Atty. Vela, an The pertinent provisions of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court state:
NBI agent, approached him. The latter and Atty. Toribio introduced him to appellants and Cid. Vela and
Toribio told him that the three had verbally confessed to participation in a crime and that they needed his
assistance as they were about to execute their sworn statements. [31]Saunar agreed to assist the three "Sec. 3. Order of trial.- The trial shall proceed in the following order:
suspects and allegedly explained to them the consequences of their confession. He also supposedly told
them individually and in Tagalog, their constitutional rights, like their rights to be silent and to counsel (a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge, and in the proper case, the civil liability.
and that whatever they would say could be used against them.[32]

Saunar identified his signature in the sworn statement of appellant Januario. However, he could no (b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and damages, if any, arising from the issuance
longer recall which of the three accused was appellant Canape although he admitted that the latter's face of any provisional remedy in the case.
was "familiar."[33] He was certain, however, that he participated in the taking of appellant Canape's sworn
statement on March 28, 1988. He admitted that his signature does not appear on appellant Canape's sworn
statement but he could "only surmise" that he did not sign the same sworn statement because either it was (c) The parties may then respectively present rebutting evidence only, unless the court, in the
not presented to him immediately after the statement was taken or that it could have been misplaced. [34] furtherance of justice, permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue.

After receiving Saunar's testimony, the trial court asked the prosecution whether it was presented (d) Upon admission of the evidence, the cases shall be deemed submitted unless the court directs the
as rebuttal testimony. Answering in the positive, the prosecutor reminded the court that when Saunar parties to argue orally or to submit memoranda.
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, the court said that as against Cid, the testimony was a
principal one but a rebuttal as far as the appellants were concerned. [35] (e) However, when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but
interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified accordingly." (Emphasis supplied.)
On May 11, 1990, the defense manifested that it was closing its case. The prosecution 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 rendered the herein questioned The trial procedure as outlined in this rule is ordinarily followed to insure the orderly conduct of
Decision.[37] 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 circumstances obtaining in each case at
the discretion of the trial judge. Thus, as early as 1917, this Court explained:

The Issues "x x x. The orderly course of proceedings requires, however, that the prosecution shall go
forward and should present all of its proof in the first instance; but it is competent for the judge,
according to the nature of the case, to allow a party who has closed his case to introduce further We find that Saunar was not the choice of appellant Januario as his custodial investigation
evidence in rebuttal. This rule, however, depends upon the particular circumstances of each counsel. Thus, NBI Agent Arlis Vela testified:
particular case, and falls within the sound discretion of the judge, to be exercised or not as he may
think proper."[41] "Q Now, considering that they were then under your custody, and under investigation,
were they represented by counsel during the time that you took their statements?
Hence, the court may allow the prosecutor, even after he has rested his case or even after the A Yes, sir. They were.
defense has moved for dismissal, to present involuntarily omitted evidence. [42] The primary consideration
is whether the trial court still has jurisdiction over the case. Thus Q Do you recall who was that counsel who represented them?

A Atty. Carlos Saunar, sir.


"The claim that the lower court erred in allowing the prosecuting attorney to introduce new evidence is
devoid of any merit, for while the prosecution had rested, the trial was not yet terminated and the cause Q Was he the counsel of their own choice, or was the counsel furnished by your office?
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 A Because they were not represented by counsel of their own choice, we got the service
furtherance of justice, the court may grant either of the parties the right and opportunity to adduce new of Atty. Carlos Saunar who helped them.[47]
additional evidence bearing upon the main issue in question."[43]
xxx xxx xxx.

Saunars testimony was admitted in evidence before the trial court rendered its Q And Atty. Saunar is connected with the NBI?
Decision. Undoubtedly then, the courta quo retained its jurisdiction even though the prosecution had
A At that time, he was at the NBI Office. He was just somewhere around.
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 Q And it was the NBI who requested Saunar to assist Mr. Rene Januario in the
was, therefore, a rebuttal witness with respect to accused Cid.[45] investigation?

A We requested him, because he was just around, sir."[48] (Emphasis supplied.)

The Second Issue: Appellants Right to Counsel As regards Saunar's assistance as counsel for appellant Canape, investigating NBI Agent Magno
Toribio testified as follows:

"Q Now, with regards to your advice that he has a right to counsel, and to seek
Proof of Saunar's presence during the custodial investigation of appellants is, however, not a assistance of a counsel of his own choice if he does not have one, and to remain silent,
guarantee that appellants' respective confessions had been taken in accordance with Article III, Section 12 and if he does not have a lawyer, you will furnish one for him, now what was his
(1) of the Constitution. This constitutional provision requires that a person under investigation for the answer?
commission of an offense shall have no less than "competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice." Elucidating on this particular constitutional requirement, this Court has taught: WITNESS:

According to him, he does not need a lawyer, but despite that refusal to have a lawyer . . .
It is noteworthy that the modifiers competent and independent were terms absent in all organic laws
previous to the 1987 Constitution. Their addition in the fundamental law of 1987 was meant to stress the COURT:
primacy accorded to the voluntariness of the choice, under the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial
investigation, by according the accused, deprived of normal conditions guaranteeing individual autonomy, That is not refusal. That is manifestation that he does not need a lawyer. He did not
an informed judgment based on the choices given to him by a competent and independent lawyer. refuse. He said, he does not need a lawyer.

WITNESS: (con't.)
Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such investigation should be as far as reasonably possible, the
choice of the individual undergoing questioning. If the lawyer were one furnished in the accused's behalf, Although, he does not need a lawyer, we provided him a lawyer by the name of Atty. Carlos
it is important that he should be competent and independent, i.e., that he is willing to fully safeguard the Saunar, who was present during the investigation, and who advised him of the
constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, consequences of the statements that he will give, and he did not refuse.
peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights. In People v. Basay, this Court
FISCAL VELAZCO:
stressed that an accused's right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel `contemplates
the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an Q Now, how did you know that Atty. Saunar gave him advice, gave accused Canape
abstract constitutional principle.' advice?

Ideally, therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial investigation (if the latter could not A Because we were present.
afford one) `should be engaged by the accused (himself), or by the latter's relative or person authorized by Q Now, when did Atty. Saunar give that advice to accused Canape, was it before, during,
him to engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper petition of the accused or person authorized by the or after the taking of this statement?
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 many areas, the relationship between A Before, during, and after the taking of the statement.
lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic."[46]
Q Now, may we know from you why Atty. Saunar was present there?
A He was present there because he was then applying for the position of NBI agent. around to properly apprise appellant of his constitutional right as reflected in the written sworn statement
itself.
FISCAL VELAZCO: However, the same cannot be said about appellant Canape. Clearly, he was not properly informed
of his constitutional rights. Perfunctorily informing a confessant of his constitutional rights, asking him if
Q Was he the only lawyer who was present there? he wants to avail of the services of counsel and telling him 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
A I remember, Atty. Claro, sometimes is there, representing another client.[49] mandate.[51] In this case, 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
xxx xxx xxx. waiver of his right to counsel of his own choice.
Q Now, Atty. Saunar is employed with the NBI office, am I right? Furthermore, the right of a person under custodial investigation to be informed of his rights to
remain silent and to counsel implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to
A Yes, sir. explain and to contemplate an effective communication that results in an understanding of what is
Q When was he employed at the NBI office? Tell us the exact date? conveyed.[52] Appellant Canape's sworn statement, which reads and sounds so lifeless on paper, fails to
reflect compliance with this requirement. Neither does the aforequoted testimony of NBI Agent Toribio.
Bearing in mind that appellant Canape reached only the fifth grade, the NBI agents should have exerted
COURT: more effort in explaining to him his constitutional rights.

Moreover, there is enough reason to doubt whether appellant Canape was in fact and in truth
If you can. assisted by counsel. Atty. Saunar affirmed on the witness stand that he assisted appellants on March 28,
[53]
1988. However, the sworn statement itself reveals that it was taken on March 27, 1988. No satisfactory
WITNESS: explanation was made by the prosecution on this discrepancy. All that Agent Vela stated was that they
conducted an oral investigation in Naga City on March 27, 1988 and that investigation at the NBI Manila
head office was made in the afternoon of March 28, 1988.[54]
Maybe in September.
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 Constitution. They have likewise forgotten
ATTY. CLARO:
the third paragraph of Section 12 of the same 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
19? against the person so admitting.[55]

An admission, which, under Section 26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, is an "act, declaration or
A 1988. omission of a party as to a relevant fact" is different from a confession which, 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
Q But he was always frequent in the NBI office because he was to be employed, is that
any offense necessarily included therein." Both may be given in evidence against the person admitting or
what you mean?
confessing. In People vs. Lorenzo,[56] the Court explained that in a confession there is an acknowledgment
A He was applying. 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 with which the accused is
Q And from where is he? charged.

A I think he is from Bicol. Appellants verbally intimated facts relevant to the commission of the crime to the NBI agents in
Naga City. This is shown by the testimony of NBI Agent Vela that, based on the facts gathered from
xxx xxx interviews of people in that city, they "invited" and questioned appellants, thus:
xxx.
"Q Now, tell us, what was your purpose in inviting these two (2) people?
Q Now, how many times have you requested Atty. Saunar to assist a person under your
investigation in the NBI office, other than this? A That was in connection with the vehicle I mentioned earlier, in connection with the
carnapping incident mentioned earlier.
A I cannot remember anymore.
Q You invited them in connection with the carnapping because you want to know from
Q You always ask him to assist if there is no lawyer available, or the person to be them actually what they know about the carnapping, am I correct?
investigated has no lawyer?
A Precisely, that is right."[57]
A If he is around."[50] (Emphasis supplied.)
Apparently attempting to avoid the questions on whether appellants admitted complicity in the
Let us for the moment grant arguendo that Saunar's competence as a lawyer is beyond crime, Agent Toribio testified:
question. Under the circumstances described by the prosecution however, he could not have been
the independent counsel solemnly spoken of by our Constitution. He was an applicant for a position in "ATTY. CLARO:
the NBI and therefore it can never be said that his loyalty was to the confessants. In fact, he was actually
employed by the NBI a few months after. As regards appellant Januario, Saunar might have really been
When you were conducting an investigation, and you saw me at the NBI building, Naga ATTY. CLARO:
City, you were referring to the investigation of Mr. Canape, am I right?
Mr. Toribio, because you were with Mr. Vela, Mr. Vela did not conduct any investigation to
A Yes, sir. (sic) Mr. Januario, one of the accused in this case, in Naga City? Tell the Court?

Q And that investigation you were conducting was reduced to writing, and that is now A Not yet at that time, because it was useless. The crime was committed in Silang,
Exhibit `G', am I right? Cavite. They will have to be brought to Manila for the appropriate Judge or Fiscal.

A That is not. COURT:

Q But you investigated Mr. Canape in Naga City at the NBI building, am I right, tell the So, you are claiming that you did not conduct any investigation of Canape?
Court?
A We conducted an investigation. When we took the statement of the other witnesses,
A At that time, we were taking the statement of the woman, the complainant, in the estafa complainant and witnesses .
case, and the other witnesses.
COURT:
COURT:
Does that satisfy you?
You mean, at the time you investigated that estafa complaint, that was the time when you
also investigated Canape, is that what you mean? ATTY. CLARO:

FISCAL VELAZCO: No.

No, your Honor. COURT;

COURT: Please clarify the question.

But there is a question of counsel. You better clarify that. WITNESS: (con't.)

WITNESS: It is true that we were sometimes talking with those people, but not investigating them
yet."[58] (Emphasis supplied.)
He was asking me if I had already taken the statement of Canape.
Note should also be taken of the fact that according to Atty. Saunar, when he acceded to be the
COURT: custodial investigation counsel of appellants, the latter had already confessed. Thus:

That is it, sir, Naga City. That is the question. "COURT:

WITNESS: There is one thing that he would like to add, `that I talked to the accused one by one,' you
want to add something?
Not yet. We were only asking him.
A And I confirmed with them whether they are confessing to their crime, and they said
ATTY. CLARO: yes. In fact, from what I observed,they have already confessed to the NBI agents.
By him, whom are you referring to: COURT:
A The complainants and the witnesses, sir. All of them confessed?
Q All right. You were with Atty. Vela when you conducted an investigation to (sic) Mr. A Yes, your Honor, because they also told me what happened.
Canape, am I right? In Naga City?
FISCAL VELAZCO:
WITNESS:
Now, when they informed you that they intend to confess, now, did you explain to them, to
Yes, sir. the accused or to the persons under investigation the consequences of confessing?
Q And Mr. Vela at that time, was also conducting an investigation to (sic) a certain Rene A Yes, that is basic. I informed them of their rights to remain silent and to counsel, and
Januario in Naga City, is that right? whatever they will confess there will be used against them during the trial of this case.
A. No. We took the statement in Manila. Q How about that ultimate consequence of admission?
COURT: A Yes. I told them that if they confess, they will have to go to prison.
You took the statement in Manila. How about in Naga, that is the question of counsel? Q And what were their answers?
A Naga, no statement yet. A Actually, they have already confessed to their crime before I talked to them.
xxx xxx xxx. the primary source (the `tree') is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative
evidence (the `fruit') derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is
ATTY. ZALDIVAR: obtained as adirect result of the illegal act, whereas the `fruit of the poisonous tree' is the indirect
result of the same illegal act. The `fruit of the poisonous tree is at least once removed from the illegally
Your Honor, the witness has just answered during the preliminary question of the Fiscal that
seized evidence, but is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally
at the time his assistance was sought by the NBI, the accused had in fact already obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained
confessed. evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained."
COURT:
Appellants might have indeed committed the crime in concert with Eliseo Sarita and Eduardo
I am now asking him, have you said that? Sarinos. However, what could have been their valuable admissions and confessions as far as the
A They have already confessed. prosecution was concerned were sullied and rendered inadmissible by the irregular manner by which the
law enforcement agents extracted such admissions and confessions from appellants. Without such
ATTY. ZALDIVAR: statements, the remaining prosecution evidence -- consisting mostly of hearsay testimony and
investigation reports -- is sorely inadequate to prove appellants participation in the crime.
We can review the transcript of stenographic notes.
Notably, these law enforcers did not only defy the mandate of Section 12 of the Bill of Rights but,
COURT: 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 deprived of their liberty while in
What do you mean by that? their custody.[62] Appellants were even made to travel for 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
A They were still confessing at that time, your Honor.
"actually arrested" the appellants when the court issued the warrant for their arrest. [64]The records show
ATTY. ZALDIVAR: however that the NBI turned appellants over to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Silang-Amadeo in
Cavite only on March 30, 1989. On the same day, the same court turned them back to the NBI for
I just want to manifest into the record that they have already confessed; that the witness has "detention during pendency of the case."[65]
just repeated the word.

COURT:
Epilogue
But there is an explanation by him. Put that on record, all of them.

FISCAL VELAZCO:
The Court understands the difficulties faced by law enforcement agencies in apprehending violators
Now, did you verify whether that confession was only verbal or in writing? of the law especially those involving syndicates. It sympathizes with the public clamor for the bringing of
criminals before the altar of justice. However, quick solution of crimes and the consequent apprehension
A That was only verbal that is why there is a need for the sworn statement to be
of malefactors are not the end-all and be-all of law enforcement. Enforcers of the law must follow the
taken. That was the time that I was telling them that they can be put to
procedure mandated by the Constitution and the law. Otherwise, their efforts would be meaningless. And
jail."[59] (Emphasis supplied.)
their expenses in trying to solve crimes would constitute needless expenditures of taxpayers money.
It is therefore clear that prior to the execution of the sworn statements at the NBI head office,
This Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a
appellants had already made verbal admissions of complicity in the crime. Verbal admissions, however,
condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative and prosecutory powers of government. The
should also be made with the assistance of counsel. Thus:
admonition given by this Court to government officers, particularly those involved in law enforcement and
the administration of justice, in the case of People vs. Cuizon,[66] where NBI agents mishandled a drug bust
"The verbal admissions allegedly made by both appellants of their participation in the crime, at the operation and in so doing violated the constitutional guarantees against unlawful arrests and illegal
time of their arrest and even before their formal investigation, are inadmissible, both as violative of searches and seizures, is again called for and thus reiterated in the case at bench, to wit:
their constitutional rights and as hearsay evidence. These oral admissions, assuming they were in
fact made, constitute uncounselled extrajudicial confessions within the meaning of Article III,
x x x In the final analysis, we in the administration of justice would have no right to
Section 12 of the Constitution."[60]
expect ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do not insist on the full protection of their
rights. Some lawmen, prosecutors and judges may still tend to gloss over an illegal search and
That appellants indeed admitted participation in the commission of the crime in Naga City is shown seizure as long as the law enforcers show the alleged evidence of the crime regardless of the
by the fact that the NBI agents brought them to Manila to facilitate apprehension of the other culprits who methods by which they were obtained. This kind of attitude condones law-breaking in the name of
could be either in Cavite or Manila. Because their uncounselled oral admissions in Naga City resulted in law enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the more rapid breakdown of our system of justice, and
the execution of their written confessions in Manila, the latter had become as constitutionally infirm as the the eventual denigration of society. While this Court appreciates and encourages the efforts of law
former. In People vs. Alicando,[61] this Court explained the ramifications of an irregularly counselled enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society, we nevertheless
confession or admission: admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the
law. Truly, the end never justifies the means.[67]
"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 phrase minted by Mr. Justice WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 18 in
Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone v. United States. According to this rule, once Tagaytay City, is herebyREVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants Rene Januario and Efren Canape
are ACQUITTED. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director General, 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 properly investigated and prosecuted.

The accused-appellants are hereby ORDERED RELEASED immediately unless they are being
detained for some other legal cause.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 122485 February 1, 1999 front of the gate of the unfinished house (TSN, September 27, 1995, pp. 3-7; 14-
17).
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. Later, at 9 o'clock in the evening, appellant showed up at Norgina Rivera's store to
LARRY MAHINAY Y AMPARADO, accused-appellant. buy lugaw. Norgina Rivera informed appellant that there was none left of it. She
notice that appellant appeared to be uneasy and in deep thought. His hair was
disarrayed; he was drunk and was walking in a dazed manner. She asked why he
looked so worried but he did not answer. Then he left and walked back to the
compound (TSN, September 18, 1995, pp. 4-8; 12-14).
PER CURIAM:
Meanwhile, Elvira Chan noticed that her daughter, Ma. Victoria, was missing. She
A violation of the dignity, purity and privacy of a child who is still innocent and unexposed to the ways of last saw her daughter wearing a pair of white shorts, brown belt, a yellow hair
worldly pleasures is a harrowing experience that destroys not only her future but of the youth population ribbon, printed blue blouse, dirty white panty, white lady sando and blue rubber
as well, who in the teachings of our national hero, are considered the hope of the fatherland. Once again, slippers (TSN, August 23, 1995, pp. 22, 33).
the Court is confronted by another tragic desecration of human dignity, committed no less upon a child,
who at the salad age of a few days past 12 years, has yet to knock on the portals of womanhood, and met
Isip testified that appellant failed to show up for supper that night. On the following
her untimely death as a result of the "intrinsically evil act" of non-consensual sex called rape. Burdened
day, June 26, 1995, at 2 o'clock in the morning, appellant boarded a passenger
with the supreme penalty of death, rape is an ignominious crime for which necessity is neither an excuse
jeepney driven by Fernando Trinidad at thetalipapa. Appellant alighted at the top of
nor does there exist any other rational justification other than lust. But those who lust ought not to last.
the bridge of the North Expressway and had thereafter disappeared (TSN,
September 20, 1995, pp. 4-9; September 27, l995; pp. 14-17).
The Court quotes with approval from the People's Brief, the facts narrating the horrible experience and the
tragic demise of a young and innocent child in the bloody hands of appellant, as such facts are ably
That same morning, around 7:30, a certain Boy found the dead body of Ma.
supported by evidence on record: 1*
Victoria inside the septic tank. Boy immediately reported what he saw to the
victim's parents, Eduardo and Elvira Chan (TSN, September 6, 1995, p. 13).
Appellant Larry Mahinay started working as houseboy with Maria Isip on
November 20, 1953. His task was to take care of Isip's house which was under
With the help of the Valenzuela Police, the lifeless body of Ma. Victoria was
construction adjacent to her old residence situated inside a compound at No. 4165
retrieved from the septic tank. She was wearing a printed blouse without underwear.
Dian Street, Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. But he stayed and slept in
Her face bore bruises. Results of the autopsy revealed the following findings:
an apartment also owned by Isip, located 10 meters away from the unfinished house
(TSN, September 6, 1995, pp. 5-10).
Cyanosis, lips and nailbeds,
The victim, Ma. Victoria Chan, 12 years old, was Isip's neighbor in Dian Street. She
used to pass by Isip's house on her way to school and play inside the compound Contusions, suprapubic area, 6.0 x 3.0 cm., thigh right,
yard, catching maya birds together with other children. While they were playing,
appellant was always around washing his clothes. Inside the compound yard was a
Anterior aspect, middle third, 4.5 x 3.0 cm.
septic tank (TSN, August 22, 1995, pp. 29-31; September 6, 1995, pp.17; 20-22).

Contused-abrasions on the forehead, 5.0 x 5.0 cm. angle of the left eye, lateral
On June 25, 1995, at 8 o'clock a.m., appellant joined Gregorio Rivera in a drinking
aspect, 2.5 x 1.5 cm. left jaw, 13.5 x 7.0 cm. neck, antero-lateral aspect, right, 2.0 x
spree. Around 10 o'clock in the morning, appellant, who was already drunk, left
1.0 cm. and left, 7.0 x 6.0 cm., left iliac area, 9.0 x 5.5 cm. intraclavicular area, left,
Gregorio Rivera and asked permission from Isip to go out with his friends (TSN,
posterior aspect, 4.0 x 2.0 cm. scapular area, right 4.0 x 4.0 cm. subscapular area,
September 6, 1995; pp. 9-11).
left, 1.5 x 1.5 cm. lumbar area, left 7.0 x 8.0 cm. arm, left, posterior aspect, middle
third, 11.00 x 4.0 cm elbows, right, 4.0 x 3.0 cm. and left 6.0 x 5.0 cm, forearms,
Meantime, Isip's sister-in-law, Norgina Rivera, who also owned a store fronting the left, posterior aspect, lower rd, 5.2 x 4.0 cm. hand, left, dorsal aspect, 0.8 x 0.9 cm.
compound, saw Ma.Victoria on that same day three to four times catching birds thighs; right antero-lateral aspect, upper 33rd , 12.0 x 10.0 cm. right anterior aspect,
inside Isip's unfinished house around 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The unfinished lower 3rd 5.0 x 2.0 cm. and left antero-lower 3rd, 5.5 x 2.5 cm. knee, right, lateral
house was about 8 meters away from Rivera's store (TSN, September 18, 1995, pp. aspect, 1.5 X 1.0 cm. lateral mallcolum, left, 3.0 x 3.5 cm. foot, left, dorsal aspect
9-11). 2.2 x 1.0 cm.

On the other hand, Sgt. Roberto Suni, also a resident of Dian Street, went to his in- Hematoma, forehead, and scalp, left, 3.5 x 3.0 cm.
law's house between 6 to 7 o'clock p.m. to call his office regarding changes on the
trip of President Fidel V. Ramos. The house of his in-laws was near the house of
Hemorrhage, interstitial, underneath nailmarks, neck, subepicardial, subpleural
Isip. On his way to his in-law's house, Sgt. Suni met appellant along Dian Street.
petechial hemorrhages.
That same evening, between 8 to 9 o'clock p.m., he saw Ma. Victoria standing in
Hemorrhage, subdural, left fronto-parietal area. Thus, on July 10, 1995, appellant was charged with rape with homicide in an Information which reads: 2

Tracheo-bronchial tree, congested. That on or about the 26th day of June 1995 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, by means of
force and intimidation employed upon the person of MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y
Other visceral organs, congested.
CABALLERO, age 12 years old, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously lie with and have sexual intercourse with said MARIA VICTORIA
Stomach, contain 1/4 rice and other food particles. CHAN Y CABALLERO against her will and without her consent; that on the
occasion of said sexual assault, the above-named accused, choke and strangle said
MARIA VICTORIA CHAN Y CABALLERO as a result of which, said victim
CAUSE OF DEATH - Asphyxia by Manual Strangulation; Traumatic Head Injury,
died.
Contributory.

Contrary to law.3
REMARKS: Hymen: tall, thick with complete lacerations at 4:00 and 8:00 o'clock
position corresponding to the face of a watch edges congested with blood clots.
(TSN, August 18, 1995; p. 4; Record, p. 126). to which he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision convicting
appellant of the crime charged, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay a total
of P73,000.00 to the victim's heirs. The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision states:
Back in the compound, SPO1 Arsenio Nacis and SPO1 Arnold Alabastro were
informed by Isip that her houseboy, appellant Larry Mahinay, was missing.
According to her, it was unlikely for appellant to just disappear from the apartment WHEREFORE, finding accused Larry Mahinay y Amparado guilty beyond
since whenever he would go out, he would normally return on the same day or early reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby sentenced to death by
morning of the following day (TSN, September 6, 1995, pp. 6-11-27). electricution (sic). He is likewise condemned to indemnify the heirs of the victim,
Ma. Victoria Chan the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the further sum of
P23,000.00 for the funeral, burial and wake of the victim.
SPO1 Nacis and SPO1 Alabastro were also informed that a townmate of appellant
was working in apancit factory at Barangay Reparo, Caloocan City. They
proceeded to said place. The owner of the factory confirmed to them that appellant Let the complete records of the case be immediately forwarded to the Honorable
used to work at the factory but she did not know his present whereabouts. Supreme Court for the automatic review in accordance to Article 47 of the Revised
Appellant's townmate, on the other hand, informed them that appellant could Penal Code as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659.
possibly be found on 8th Street, Grace Park, Caloocan City (TSN, August 14, 1995,
pp. 8-9).
SO ORDERED. 4

The policemen returned to the scene of the crime. At the second floor of the house
Upon automatic review by the Court en banc pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code. (RPC), as
under construction, they retrieved from one of the rooms a pair of dirty white short
amended,5 appellant insists that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution against him is
pants, a brown belt and a yellow hair ribbon which was identified by Elvira Chan to
insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In his testimony summarized by the trial court,
belong to her daughter, Ma. Victoria. They also found inside another room a pair of
appellant offered his version of what transpired as follows:
blue slippers which Isip identified as that of appellant. Also found in the yard, three
armslength away from the septic tank were an underwear, a leather wallet, a pair of
dirty long pants and a pliers positively identified by Isip as appellant's belongings. (T)hat on June 25, 1995, around 9:30 a.m. on Dian Street, Gen. T. de Leon,
These items were brought to the police station (TSN, August 14, 1995, pp. 10-13; Valenzuela, Metro Manila, he joined Gregorio Rivera and a certain Totoy in a
August 18, 1995, pp. 3-8; August 23, 1995, pp. 21-25). drinking spree. Gregorio Rivera is the brother of Maria Isip, appellant's employer.
After consuming three cases of red horse beer, he was summoned by Isip to clean
the jeepney. He finished cleaning the jeepney at 12 o'clock noon. Then he had lunch
A police report was subsequently prepared including a referral slip addressed to the
and took a bath. Later, he asked permission from Isip to go out with his friends to
office of the Valenzuela Prosecutor. The next day, SPO1 Virgilio Villano retrieved
see a movie. He also asked for a cash advance of P300.00 (TSN, October 16, 1995,
the victim's underwear from the septic tank (TSN, August 23, 1995, pp. 3-8; 14-17).
pp. 4-5-5).

After a series of follow-up operations, appellant was finally arrested in Barangay


At 2 o'clock in the afternoon, appellant, instead of going out with his friend, opted
Obario Matala, Ibaan, Batangas. He was brought to the Valenzuela Police Station.
to rejoin Gregorio Rivera and Totoy for another drinking session. They consumed
On July 7, 1995, with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes, appellant executed
one case of red horse beer. Around 6 o'clock p.m., Zaldy, a co-worker, fetched him
an extra-judicial confession wherein he narrated in detail how he raped and killed
at Gregorio Rivera's house. They went to Zaldy's house and bought a bottle of gin.
the victim. Also, when appellant came face to face with the victim's mother and
They finished drinking gin around 8 o'clock p.m. After consuming the bottle of gin,
aunt, he confided to them that he was not alone in raping and killing the victim. He
they went out and bought another bottle of gin from a nearby store. It was already 9
pointed to Zaldy and Boyet as his co-conspirators (TSN, August 14,1995, pp. 13-
o'clock in the evening. While they were at the store, appellant and Zaldy met Boyet.
21).
After giving the bottle of gin to Zaldy and Boyet, appellant left (TSN, October 16,
1995, pp. 6-7).
On his way home, appellant passed by Norgina Rivera's store to buy lugaw. FIRST — Prosecution witness Norgina Rivera, sister-in-law of Maria Isip, owner of
Norgina Rivera informed him that there was none left of it. He left the store and the unfinished big house where the crime happened and the septic tank where the
proceeded to Isip's apartment. But because it was already closed, he decided to body of Maria Victoria Chan was found in the morning of June 26, 1995 is located,
sleep at the second floor of Isip's unfinished house. Around 10 o'clock p.m., Zaldy categorically testified that at about 9:00 in the evening on June 25, 1995, accused
and Boyet arrived carrying a cadaver. The two placed the body inside the room Larry Mahinay was in her store located in front portion of the compound of her
where appellant was sleeping. As appellant stood up, Zaldy pointed to him a knife. sister-in-law Maria Isip where the unfinished big house is situated buying rice
Zaldy and Boyet directed him to rape the dead body of the child or they would kill noodle (lugaw). That she noticed the accused's hair was disarranged, drunk and
him. He, however, refused to follow. Then, he was asked by Zaldy and Boyet to walking in sigsagging manner. That the accused appeared uneasy and seems to be
assist them in bringing the dead body downstairs. He obliged and helped dump the thinking deeply. That the accused did not reply to her queries why he looked
body into the septic tank. Thereupon, Zaldy and Boyet warned him that should they worried but went inside the compound.
ever see him again, they would kill him. At 4 o'clock the following morning, he left
the compound and proceeded first to Navotas and later to Batangas (TSN, October
SECOND — Prosecution witness Sgt. Roberto C. Suni, categorically testified that
16, 1995, pp. 4-13).
on June 25, 1995 between 6:00 and 7:00 in the evening, on his way to his in-laws
house, he met accused Larry Mahinay walking on the road leading to his in-law's
Subsequently, appellant was apprehended by the police officers in Ibaan, Batangas. residence which is about 50 to 75 meters away to the unfinished big house of Maria
The police officers allegedly brought him to a big house somewhere in Manila. Isip. That he also saw victim Maria Victoria Chan standing at the gate of the
There, appellant heard the police officer's plan to salvage him if he would not admit unfinished big house of Maria Isip between 8:00 and 9:00 in the same evening.
that he was the one who raped and killed the victim. Scared, he executed an extra-
judicial confession. He claimed that he was assisted by Atty. Restituto Viernes only
THIRD — Prosecution witness Maria Isip, owner of the unfinished big house where
when he was forced to sign the extra-judicial confession (TSN, October 16, 1995,
victim's body was found inside the septic tank, testified that accused Larry Mahinay
pp. 9-11).6
is her houseboy since November 20, 1993. That in the morning of June 25, 1995, a
Sunday, Larry Mahinay asked permission from her to leave. That after finishing
This being a death penalty case, the Court exercises the greatest circumspection in the review thereof since some work she asked him to do accused Larry Mahinay left. That it is customary on
"there can be no stake higher and no penalty more severe . . . than the termination of a human life." 7 For the part of Larry Mahinay to return in the afternoon of the same day or sometimes
life, once taken is like virginity, which once defiled can never be restored. In order therefore, that in the next morning. That accused Larry Mahinay did not return until he was
appellant's guilty mind be satisfied, the Court states the reasons why, as the records are not shy, for him to arrested in Batangas on July 7, 1995.
verify.
FOURTH — Prosecution witness Fernando Trinidad, a passenger jeepney driver
The proven circumstances of this case when juxtaposed with appellant's proffered excuse are sufficient to plying the route Karuhatan-Ugong and vice versa which include Dian St., Gen. T.
sustain his conviction beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the absence of any direct evidence de Leon, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, pinpointed the accused Larry Mahinay as one
relative to the commission of the crime for which he was prosecuted. Absence of direct proof does not of the passengers who boarded his passenger jeepney on June 26, 1995 at 2:00 early
necessarily absolve him from any liability because under the Rules on evidence8 and pursuant to settled morning and alighted on top of the overpass of the North Expressway.
jurisprudence, 9 conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence provided that the following requisites
concur:
FIFTH — Personal belongings of the victim was found in the unfinished big house
of Maria Isip where accused Larry Mahinay slept on the night of the incident. This
1. there is more than one circumstance; is a clear indication that the victim was raped and killed in the said premises.

2. the facts from which the inferences There is no showing that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (sic)
are derived are proven; and fabricated or there was any reason for them to testify falsely against the accused.
The absence of any evidence as to the existence of improper motive sustain the
conclusion that no such improper motive exists and that the testimonies of the
3. the combination of all the
witnesses, therefore, should be given full faith and credit. (People vs. Retubado,
circumstances is such as to produce a
58585 January 20, 1988 162 SCRA 276,. 284; People vs. Ali L-18512 October 30,
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
1969, 29 SCRA 756).

Simply put, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all


SIXTH — Accused Larry Mahinay during the custodial investigation and after
circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the
having been informed of his constitutional rights with the assistance of Atty.
accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and
Restituto Viernes of the Public Attorney's Office voluntarily gave his statement
with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.10 Facts and circumstances consistent
admitting the commission of the crime. Said confession of accused Larry Mahinay
with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, constitute evidence which, in weight and probative
given with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes is believed to have been freely
force, may surpass even direct evidence in its effect upon the court.11
and voluntarily given. That accused did not complain to the proper authorities of
any maltreatment on his person (People vs. delos Santos L-3398 May 29, 1984;150
In the case at bench, the trial court gave credence to several circumstantial evidence, which upon thorough SCRA 311). He did not even informed the Inquest Prosecutor when he sworn to the
review of the Court is more than enough to prove appellant's guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. truth of his statement on July 8, 1995 that he was forced, coersed or was promised
These circumstantial evidence are as follows: of reward or leniency. That his confession abound with details know only to him.
The Court noted that a lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office Atty. Restituto Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous.
Viernes and as testified by said Atty. Viernes he informed and explained to the (People vs. Santos L-385 Nov. 16, 1979)
accused his constitutional rights and was present all throughout the giving of the
testimony. That he signed the statement given by the accused. Lawyer from the
EIGHT — If the accused did not commit the crime and was only forced to
Public Attorneys Office is expected to be watchful and vigilant to notice any
disposed/dumpted the body of the victim in the septic tank, he could have apprise
irregularity in the manner of the investigation and the physical conditions of the
Col. Maganto, a high ranking police officer or the lady reporter who interviewed
accused. The post mortem findings shows that the cause of death Asphyxia by
him. His failure and omission to reveal the same is unnatural. An innocent person
manual strangulation; Traumatic Head injury Contributory substantiate. Consistent
will at once naturally and emphatically repel an accusation of crime as a matter of
with the testimony of the accused that he pushed the victim and the latter's head hit
preservation and self-defense and as a precaution against prejudicing himself. A
the table and the victim lost consciousness.
person's silence therefore, particularly when it is persistent will justify an inference
that he is not innocent. (People vs. Pilones, L-32754-5 July 21, 1978).
Pagpasok niya sa kuwarto, hinawakan ko siya sa kamay tapos
tinulak ko siya, tapos tumama iyong ulo niya sa mesa. Ayon
NINTH — The circumstance of flight of the accused strongly indicate his
na, nakatulog siya tapos ni-rape ko na siya.
consciousness of guilt. He left the crime scene on the early morning after the
incident and did not return until he was arrested in Batangas on July 7, 1995. 12
There is no clear proof of maltreatment and/or tortured in giving the statement.
There were no medical certificate submitted by the accused to sustain his claim that
Guided by the three principles in the review of rape cases, to wit:13
he was mauled by the police officers.

1). An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more
There being no evidence presented to show that said
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove;
confession were obtained as a result of violence, torture,
maltreatment, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or
leniency nor that the investigating officer could have been 2). In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, where only two persons are
motivated to concoct facts narrated in said affidavit; the usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme
confession of the accused is held to be true, correct and freely caution; and
or voluntarily given. (People v. Tuazon 6 SCRA 249; People
v. Tiongson 6 SCRA 431, People v. Baluran 52 SCRA 71,
People v. Pingol 35 SCRA 73.) 3). The evidence of the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.

SEVENTH — Accused Larry Mahinay testified in open Court that he was notable
to enter the apartment where he is sleeping because it was already closed and he the foregoing circumstantial evidence clearly establishes the felony of rape with homicide
proceeded to the second floor of the unfinished house and slept. He said while defined and penalized under Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section
sleeping Zaldy and Boyet arrived carrying the cadaver of the victim and dumped it 11, R.A. 7659, which provides:
inside his room. That at the point of a knife, the two ordered him to have sex with
the dead body but he refused. That the two asked him to assist them in dumping the When and how rape is committed - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge
dead body of the victim in the septic tank downstairs. (Tsn pp. 8-9 October 16, of a woman under any of the following circumstances.
1995). This is unbelievable and unnatural. Accused Larry Mahinay is staying in the
apartment and not in the unfinished house. That he slept in the said unfinished
house only that night of June 25, 1995 because the apartment where he was staying 1.) By using force or intimidation;
was already closed. The Court is at a loss how would Zaldy and Boyet knew he
(Larry Mahinay) was in the second floor of the unfinished house. 2.) When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious: and
Furthermore, if the child is already dead when brought by Zaldy and Boyet in the
room at the second floor of the unfinished house where accused Larry Mahinay was 3.) When the woman is under twelve
sleeping, why will Boyet and Zaldy still brought the cadaver upstairs only to be years of age or is demented.
disposed/dump later in the septic tank located in the ground floor. Boyet and Zaldy
can easily disposed and dumped the body in the septic tank by themselves.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

It is likewise strange that the dead body of the child was taken to the room where
accused Larry Mahinay was sleeping only to force the latter to have sex with the Whenever the crime of rape is committed with use of a deadly weapon or by two or
dead body of the child. more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

We have no test to the truth of human testimony except it's When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the
conformity to aver knowledge observation and experience. penalty shall be death.
When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or woman is below such age. Conviction will therefore lie, provided sexual intercourse is proven. But if the
on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. woman is 12 years of age or over at the time she was violated, as in this case, not only the first element of
sexual intercourse must be proven but also the other element that the perpetrator's evil acts with the
offended party was done through force, violence, intimidation or threat needs to be established. Both
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed the penalty
elements are present in this case.
shall be death.

Based on the evidence on record, sexual intercourse with the victim was adequately proven. This is shown
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any
from the testimony of the medical doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the child's body:
of the following attendant circumstances:

Q: And after that what other parts or the victim did you
1.) When the victim is under eighteen
examine?
(18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or A: Then I examined the genitalia of the victim.
affinity within the third civil degree, or
the common-law spouse of the parent
Q: And what did you find out after you examined the
of the victim.
genitalia of the victim?

2.) When the victim is under the


A: The hymen was tall-thick with complete laceration at 4:00
custody of the police or military
o'clock and 8:00 o'clock position and that the edges were
authorities.
congested.

3.) When the rape is committed in full


Q: Now, what might have caused the laceration?
view of the husband, parent, any of the
children or other relatives within the
third degree of consanguinity. A: Under normal circumstances this might have (sic) caused
by a penetration of an organ.
4.) When the victim is a religious or a
child below seven (7) years old. Q: So, the laceration was caused by the penetration of a male
organ?
5.) When the offender knows that he is
afflicted with Acquired Immune A: Adult male organ, sir.
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
Q: You are very sure of that, Mr. Witness?
6.) When committed by any member
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
or Philippine National Police or any A: I am very sure of that.20
law enforcement agency
Besides, as may be gleaned from his extrajudicial confession, appellant himself admitted that he had
7.) When by reason or on the occasion sexual congress with the unconscious child.
of the rape, the victim has suffered
permanent physical mutilation. 14 15. T: Ano ang nangyari ng mga sandali o oras na iyon?

At the time of the commission of this heinous act, rape was still considered a crime against S: Natutulog po ako sa itaas ng bahay ni ATE MARIA, yung
chastity,15 although under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (R.A. No. 8353), rape has since been re-classified as malaking bahay na ginagawa, tapos dumating yung batang
a crime against persons under Articles 266-A and 266-B, and thus, may be prosecuted even without a babae. Pag-pasok niya sa kuwarto hinawakan ko siya sa
complaint filed by the offended party. kamay tapos tinulak ko siya. Tapos tumama yung ulo niya sa
mesa. Ayon na, nakakatulog na siya tapos ni rape ko na siya.
The gravamen of the offense of rape, prior to R.A. 8353, is sexual congress with a woman by force and
without consent. 16 (Under the new law, rape may be committed even by a woman and the victim may 16. T: Ano ang suot nung batang babae na sinasabi mo?
even be a
man.) 17 If the woman is under 12 years of age, proof of force and consent becomes immaterial18 not only
because force is not an element of statutory rape, 19 but the absence of a free consent is presumed when the
S: Itong short na ito, (pointing to a dirty white short placed 26 T: Nung nakaraos ka, nasaan parte na katawan ng batang
atop this investigator's table. Subject evidence were part of babae yung iyong ari?
evidences recovered at the crime scene).
S: Nakapasok po doon sa ari nung babae.
17. T: Bakit mo naman ni rape yung batang babae?
27. T: Natapos mong ma-rape si MA. VICTORIA CHAN,
S: Eh nasobrahan ako ng lasing. Hindi ko na alam ang ano pa ang sumunod mong ginawa?
ginagawa ko.
S: Natulak ko siya sa terrace.
18. T: Ano ba ang inyong ininom bakit ka nasobrahan ng
lasing?
28. T: Ano ang nangyari kay MA. VICTORIA matapos mong
itulak sa terrace?
S: Red Horse po at saka GIN.
S: Inilagay ko po sa poso-negra.
19. T: Saan lugar ng malaking bahay ni ATE MARIA mo ni
rape yung batang babae?.
29. T: Saan makikita yung poso negra na sinasabi mo?

S: Sa kuwarto ko po sa itaas.
S: Doon din sa malaking bahay ni ATE MARIA.

20. T: Kailan ito at anong oras nangyari?


30. T: Bakit mo namang naisipang ilagay si MA. VICTORIA
sa poso-negra?
S: Mga bandang alas 8:00 ng gabi, araw ng Linggo, hindi ko
na matandaan kung anong petsa, basta araw ng Linggo.
S: Doon ko lang po inilagay.

21. T: Saan lugar ito nangyari?


31. T: Bakit nga doon mo inilagay siya?

S: Sa Dian, Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela, M.M.


S: Natatakot po ako.

22. T: Alam mo ba ang pangalan ng batang babae na ni rape


32. T: Kanino ka natatakot?
mo?

S: Natatakot po ako sa ginawa kong masama, natatakot ako


S: Hindi ko po alam.
sa mga pulis.

23. T: Ngayon, nais kong ipaalam sa iyo na ang pangalan ng


33. T: Buhay pa ba si MA. VICTORIA nung ilagay mo siya
batang babae na iyong ni rape at pinatay ay si MA.
sa poso-negra?
VICTORIA CHAN? Matatandaan mo ha ito?

S: Hindi ko po alam dahil nung pagbagsak niya inilagay ko


S: Oho.
na siya sa poso-negra.

24. T: Nung ma-rape mo, nakaraos ka ba?


34. T: Nung gawin mo ba itong krimen na ito, mayroon ka
kasama?
S: Naka-isa po.
S: Nag-iisa lang po ako.
25. T: Nais kong liwanagin sa iyo kung ano ang ibig sabihin
ng "NAKARAOS", maaari bang ipaliwanag mo ito?
35. T: Noong mga oras o sandaling gahasain mo si MA.
VICTORIA CHAN, buhay pa ba siya o patay na?
S: Nilabasan po ako ng tamod.
S: Buhay pa po.
36. T: Papaano mo siya pinatay? Q — By the way, who was that Atty. Zapanta?

S: Tinulak ko nga po siya sa terrace.21 A — Our immediate Superior of the Public Attorney's Office.

In proving sexual intercourse, it is not full or deep penetration of the victim's vagina; rather the slightest Q — Was he also present at the start of the question and
penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ is enough to consummate the sexual answer period to the accused?
intercourse. 22 The mere touching by the male's organ or instrument of sex of the labia of the pudendum of
the woman's private parts is sufficient to consummate rape.
A — No more, sir, he already went to our office. I was left
alone.
From the wounds, contusions and abrasions suffered by the victim, force was indeed employed upon her
to satisfy carnal lust. Moreover, from appellant's own account, he pushed the victim causing the latter to
Q — But he saw the accused, Larry Mahinay?
hit her head on the table and fell unconscious. It was at that instance that he ravished her and satisfied his
salacious and prurient desires. Considering that the victim, at the time of her penile invasion, was
unconscious, it could safely be concluded that she had not given free and voluntary consent to her A — Yes, sir.
defilement, whether before or during the sexual act.
Q — Now, when Atty. Zapanta left at what time did the
Another thing that militates against appellant is his extra judicial confession, which he, however, claims question and answer period start?
was executed in violation of his constitutional right to counsel. But his contention is belied by the records
as well as the testimony of the lawyer who assisted, warned and explained to him his constitutionally
A — If I am not mistaken at around 4:05 of July 7, 1995 in
guaranteed pre-interrogatory and custodial rights. As testified to by the assisting lawyer:
the afternoon, sir.

Q — Will you please inform the Court what was that call
Q — And when this question and answer period started, what
about?
was the first thing that you did as assisting lawyer to the
accused?
A — We went to the station, police investigation together
with Atty. Froilan Zapanta and we were told by Police
Officer Alabastro that one Larry Mahinay would like to A — First, I tried to explain to him his right, sir, under the
confess of the crime of, I think, rape with homicide. constitution.

Q — And upon reaching the investigation room of Q — What are those right?
Valenzuela PNP who were the other person present?
A — That he has the right to remain silent. That he has the
A — Police Officer Alabastro, sir, Police Officer Nacis and right of a counsel of his own choice and that if he has no
other investigator inside the investigation room and the counsel a lawyer will be appointed to him and that he has the
parents of the child who was allegedly raped. right to refuse to answer any question that would incriminate
him.

Q — And when you reached the investigation room do you


notice whether the accused already there? Q — Now, after enumerating these constitutional rights of
accused Larry Mahinay, do you recall whether this
constitutional right enumerated by you were reduced in
A — The accused was already there. writing?

Q — Was he alone? A — Yes, sir, and it was also explained to him one by one by
Police Officer Alabastro.
A — He was alone, sir.
Q — I show to you this constitutional right which you said
were reduced into writing, will you be able to recognize the
Q — So, when you were already infront of SPO1 Arnold
same?
Alabastro and the other PNP Officers, what did they tell you,
if any?
A — Yes, sir.
A — They told us together with Atty. Zapanta that this Larry
Mahinay would like to confess of the crime charged, sir.
Q — Will you please go over this and tell the Court whether Q — Did you ask him of his educational attainment?
that is the same document you mentioned?
A — It was the Police Officer who asked him.
A — Yes, sir, these were the said rights reduced into writing.
Q — In your presence?
ATTY. PRINCIPE:
A — In my presence, sir.
May we request, Your Honor, that this document be marked
as our Exhibit A. proper.
Q — And when he said or when he replied "Opo" so the
question started?
Q — Do you recall after reducing into writing this
constitutional right of the accused whether you asked him to
A — Yes, sir.
sign to acknowledge or to conform?

Q — I noticed in this Exhibit A that there is also a waiver of


A — I was the one who asked him, sir. It was Police Officer
rights, were you present also when he signed this waiver?
Alabastro.

A — Yes, sir, I was also present.


Q — But you were present?

Q — Did you explain to him the meaning of this waiver?


A — I was then present when he signed.

A — I had also explained to him, sir.


Q — There is a signature in this constitutional right after the
enumeration, before and after there are two (2) signatures,
will you please recognize the two (2) signatures? Q — In Filipino?

A — These were the same signatures signed in my presence, A — In Tagalog, sir.


sir.
Q — And there is also a signature after the waiver in Filipino
Q — The signature of whom? over the typewritten name Larry Mahinay, "Nagsasalaysay",
whose signature is that?
A — The signature of Larry Mahinay, sir.
A — This is also signed in my presence.
ATTY. PRINCIPE:
Q — Why are you sure that this is his signature?
May we request, Your Honor, that the two (2) signatures
identified by my compañero be encircled and marked as A — He signed in my presence, sir.
Exhibit A-1 and A-2.
Q — And below immediately are the two (2) signatures. The
Q — After you said that you apprised the accused of his first one is when Larry Mahinay subscribed and sworn to,
constitutional right explaining to him in Filipino, in local there is a signature here, do you recognize this signature?
dialect, what was the respond of the accused?
A — This is my signature, sir.
A — Larry Mahinay said that we will proceed with his
statement.
Q — And immediately after your first signature is a
Certification that you have personally examined the accused
Q — What was the reply? Larry Mahinay and testified that he voluntary executed the
Extra Judicial Confession, do you recognize the signature?
A — He said "Opo".
A — This is also my signature, sir.23 (emphasis supplied).
Appellant's defense that two other persons brought to him the dead body of the victim and forced him to years at the time of the commission of the crime.31 Again, the record rebuffs appellant on this point
rape the cadaver is too unbelievable. In the words of Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet of New Jersey, 24 considering that he was proven to be already more than 20 years of age when he did the heinous act.

Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible Pursuant to current case law, a victim of simple rape is entitled to a civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos
witness, but must be credible in itself - such as the common experience and (P50,000.00) but if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances
observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have under which the death penalty is authorized by present amended law, the civil indemnity for the victim
no test or the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, shall be not less than seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000.00).32 In addition to such indemnity, she can
observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the also recover moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code 33 in such amount as the court
miraculous, and is outside of judicial cognizance. deems just, without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof. 34 Civil indemnity is different
from the award of moral and exemplary damages. 35 The requirement of proof of mental and physical
suffering provided in Article 2217 of the Civil Code is dispensed with because it is "recognized that the
Ultimately, all the foregoing boils down to the issue of credibility of witnesses. Settled is the rule that the
victim's injury is inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape to
findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of
warrant per se the award of moral damages". 36 Thus, it was held that a conviction for rape carries with it
its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses'
the award of moral damages to the victim without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof. 37
deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.25 In this case,
the trial court's findings, conclusions and evaluation of the testimony of witnesses is received on appeal
with the highest respect, 26 the same being supported by substantial evidence on record. There was no Exemplary damages can also be awarded if the commission of the crime was attended by one or more
showing that the court a quo had overlooked or disregarded relevant facts and circumstances which when aggravating circumstances pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code38 after proof that the offended party
considered would have affected the outcome of this case27 or justify a departure from the assessments and is entitled to moral, temperate and compensatory damages. 39 Under the circumstances of this case,
findings of the court below. The absence of any improper or ill-motive on the part of the principal appellant is liable to the victim's heirs for the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as
witnesses for the prosecution all the more strengthens the conclusion that no such motive exists. 28 Neither moral damages.
was any wrong motive attributed to the police officers who testified against appellant.
Lastly, considering the heavy penalty of death and in order to ensure that the evidence against an accused
Coming now to the penalty, the sentence imposed by the trial court is correct. Under Article 335 of the were obtained through lawful means, the Court, as guardian of the rights of the people lays down the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. 7659 "when by reason or on occasion of the rape, a procedure, guidelines and duties which the arresting, detaining, inviting, or investigating officer or his
homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death." This special complex crime is treated by law in the companions must do and observe at the time of making an arrest and again at and during the time of the
same degree as qualified rape - that is, when any of the 7 (now 10) "attendant circumstances" enumerated custodial interrogation 40 in accordance with the Constitution, jurisprudence and Republic Act No.
in the law is alleged and proven, in which instances, the penalty is death. In cases where any of those 7438: 41 It is high-time to educate our law-enforcement agencies who neglect either by ignorance or
circumstances is proven though not alleged, the penalty cannot be death except if the circumstance proven indifference the so-called Miranda rights which had become insufficient and which the Court must update
can be properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under Articles 14 and 15 of the RPC which in the light of new legal developments:
will affect the imposition of the proper penalty in accordance with Article 53 of the RPC However, if any
of those circumstances proven but not alleged cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance under
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial
Articles 14 and 15, the same cannot affect the imposition of the penalty because Article 63 of the RPC in
investigation must be informed in a language known to and
mentioning aggravating circumstances refers to those defined in Articles 14 and 15. Under R.A. No. 8353,
understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be
if any of the 10 circumstances is alleged in the information/complaint, it may be treated as a qualifying
shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings,
circumstance. But if it is not so alleged, it may be considered as an aggravating circumstance, in which
information or communication must be in a language known
case the only penalty is death - subject to the usual proof of such circumstance in either case.
to and understood by said person;

Death being a single indivisible penalty and the only penalty prescribed by law for the crime of "rape with
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and
homicide", the court has no option but to apply the same "regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
that anystatement he makes may be used as evidence against
circumstance that may have attended the commission of the crime"29 in accordance with Article 63 of the
him;
RPC, as amended. 30 This case of rape with homicide carries with it penalty of death which is mandatorily
imposed by law within the import of Article 47 of the RPC, as amended, which provides:
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at
all times and have the presence of an independent and
The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under
competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;
existing laws,except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of age at
the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or
when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the 4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot
required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him;
which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his
behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the
person arrested or one acting in his behalf;
(emphasis supplied).

5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he


In an apparent but futile attempt to escape the imposition of the death penalty, appellant tried to alter his
must be informed that no custodial investigation in any form
date of birth to show that he was only 17 years and a few months old at the time he committed the rape
and thus, covered by the proscription on the imposition of death if the guilty person is below eighteen (18)
shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or SO ORDERED.
after a valid waiver has been made;
Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he Martinez, Purisima, Pardo, Buena and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient
means - telephone, radio, letter or messenger - with his
Footnotes
lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his
immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister
chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or 1 Rollo, pp. 146-154: Appellees Brief filed by the Solicitor General, pp. 2-10.*Sic is no longer
by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly accredited indicated so as not to clutter the narration and other quotations from other quotations from the
national or international non-government organization. It records and the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN).
shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is
accomplished;
2 Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 4974-V-95 filed before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of
said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and
3 Rollo, p. 8; RTC Records, p. 2.
intelligently and ensure that he understood the same;

8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a 4 Decision dated October 25. 1995 penned by Judge Adriano R. Osorio of Branch 171 of the
RTC of Valenzuela; Rollo, p. 130.
lawyer, he must be informed that it must be done in writing
AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be
warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver 5 Art. 47, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22. R.A. 7659 provides: In what cases
and chooses to speak; the death penalty shall not be imposed; automatic review of death penalty cases. — . . . In all
cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be forwarded to
9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgement by the Court en banc, within twenty
(20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after promulgation of the judgement or notice of
indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that
he does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he denial of any motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded
makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if within ten (10) days after the filing thereof by the stenographic reporter. (Emphasis supplied)
the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must
ceased if it has already begun; 6 Rollo, pp. 152-154.

10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial 7 People v. Galera, 280 SCRA 492.
waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or
any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any
time during the process, regardless of whether he may have 8 Sec. 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules on Evidence.
answered some questions or volunteered some statements;
9 People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 117471, September 3, 1998: People v. Quitorio, et.al. G.R.
11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, No.116765, January 28, 1998; People v. Berroya, 283 SCRA 111: People v. Abrera, 283
as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the SCRA 1; People v. Doro, 282 SCRA 1: People v. Dabbay, 277 SCRA 432; People v. Bonola,
foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in 274 SCRA 238; People v. Grefoldia, 273 SCRA 591.
part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
10 People v. De Guia, 280 SCRA 141.
Four members of the Court — although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed
in People v. Echegaray 42 that R.A. No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional 11 People v. Alberca, 257 SCRA 613 citing People v. Abitono, 240 SCRA 335.
— nevertheless submit to the ruling of the Court, by a majority vote, that the law is constitutional and that
the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.
12 Rollo, pp. 126-129: RTC Decision pp. 15-18.

WHEREFORE, the conviction of appellant is hereby AFFIRMED except for the award of civil indemnity
for the heinous rape which is INCREASED to P75,000.00, PLUS P50,000.00 moral damages. 13 People v. Gallo, 284 SCRA (1998) 590.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, 14 Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 7659 and further
upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the amended by R.A. No. 8353, was renumbered to Articles 266-A and 266-8 of the RPC which
President for possible exercise of the pardoning power. reeds: Art. 266-A. Rape; When and how committed. - Rape is committed —
1.) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following 4.) When the victim is a religious engaged in
circumstances: legitimate religious vocation or calling and is
personally known to be such by the offender
before or at the time of the commission of the
a.) Through force, threat, or intimidation:
crime:

b.) When the offended party is deprived of reason


5.) When the victim is a child below seven (7)
or otherwise unconscious;
years old;

c.) By means of fraudulent machination or grave


6.) When the offender knows that he is afflicted
abuse of authority; and
with Human Immuna-Deficiency Virus
(HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
d.) When the offended party is under twelve years (AIDS) or any other sexually; transmissible
of age or is demented, even though none of the disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to
circumstances mentioned above be present. the victim:

2.) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall 7.) When committed by any member of the
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal Armed Forces of the Philippines or Philippine
orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. National Police or any low enforcement agency.

Art. 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be 8.) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
punished by reclusion perpetua. the victim has suffered permanent physical
mutilation.
Whenever the rape is committed with use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the
penalty shall bereclusion perpetua to death. 9.) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of
the offended party at the time of the commission
of the crime: and
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape; the victim has become insane, the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua to death.
10.) When the offender knew of the mental
disability, emotional disorder and/or physical
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, handicap of the offended party at the time of the
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
commission of the crime.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be Rape under paragraph. 2 of the next preceding Article shall be punished by prison mayor.
death.

Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons,
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty
1.) hen the victim is under eighteen (18) years of shall be reclusion temporal.
age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the When the rape is attempted and the homicide is committed by reason or on occasion thereof,
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; the penalty shall be reclusion temporal or reclusion perpetua.

2.) hen the victim is under the custody of the When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall
police or military authorities or any law be reclusion perpetua.
enforcement or penal institution:
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten
3.) hen the rape is committed in full view of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article.
spouse, parent, any of the children or other
relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
15 This case occurred after the passing of the Death Penalty Law (R.A. No. 7659) which took xxx xxx xxx
effect on December 31, 1993.
(3) seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts:
16 People v. Philip Tan, Jr. 264 SCRA 425.
xxx xxx xxx
17 Art. 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
18 People v. Lagrosa, Jr., 230 SCRA 298: The two elements of statutory rape are; (1) that the Article, may also recover moral damages.
accused had carnal knowledge of a woman: and (2) that the women is below twelve years of
age. (People v. Andres, 253 SCRA 751).
34 People v. De los Santos, G.R. No, 121906, September 17, 1998; People v. Victor y Penis,
supra.
19 People v. Aborda, 328 Phil. 80; People v. Oarga, 328 Phil. 395; People v. Ligator, 331 Phil.
98.
35 People v. Prades, G.R. No. 127569. July 30. 1998 cited in People v. Mostrales, G.R.
No.125937. August 28, 1998.
20 TSN, September 1, 1995, Dr. Antonio Vertido, pp. 18-19.
36 People v. Perez, supra.
21 Sinumpaang Salaysay of appellant Larry Mahinay, dated July 8, 1995; RTC Records p. 20.
37 People v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 129054, September 29, 1998 citing People v. Prades, People
22 People v. Ligotan, 331 Phil 98: People v. Lazaro, 249 SCRA 234. v. Alfeche, G.R. No. 124213, August 17, 1998; See also Article 2219(3), New Civil Code.

23 TSN, August 11, 1995, morning session. Atty. Restituto Viernes, pp. 6-11. 38 People v. Bernaldez, supra.

24 Cited in Daggers v. Van Dyck, 37 N.J. Eq., 130, 132: See also People v. Cora. 283 SCRA 39 People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998; People v. Tabugoca, 285 SCRA
96. 312.

25 People v. Philip Tan, Jr. 264 SCRA 425. 40 People v. Dicierdo, 149 SCRA 496.

26 People v. Baccay, 284 SCRA 296: People v. Tenorio, 284 SCRA 420. 41 Under R.A. No. 7438 (AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON
ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE
DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING, AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND
27 People v. Dio, 44 SCAD 559: People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613.
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF) which took effect only on July 7,
1992, "custodial investigation" includes the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who
28 People v. Ravanes, 284 SCRA 634. is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed.

29 People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998. 42 267 SCRA 282, (1997).

30 Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes
a single indivisible penalty, It shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the deed. . . .

31 Art. 47, RPC, as amended.

32 People v. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998; People v. Bernaldez G.R. No.
109780, August 17, 1998 citing People v. Victor y Penis, G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998.

33 Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:


G.R. No. 90342 May 27, 1993 So Ordered.2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, The evidence of record discloses that on 19 August 1988, at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Lt.
vs. Manuel Obrera, Chief of the Narcotics and Intelligence Division, Integrated National Police ("INP"),
HILARIO MACASLING, JR. y COLOCADO, accused-appellant. Baguio City, received a telephone call from the Chief of the Narcotics Command ("Narcom"), First
Regional Unit, INP. The latter sought the assistance of Lt. Obrera in the apprehension of appellant, who
according to the Narcom Chief, would be delivering shabu at Room No. 77 of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel in
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Baguio City, on that same afternoon. Lt. Obrera quickly formed a team which include Pat. Ramoncito
Bueno, Pat. Martel Nillo and himself and hastily left for the hotel. There they were met by the Narcom
Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant. Chief who informed them that appellant Macasling had previously agreed with a Chinese businessman in
Las Pinas, Metro Manila, that appellant would deliver about 250 grams of shabu at Room 77 of the Hyatt
Terraces Hotel.

Accordingly, Lt. Obrera and his companions waited inside Room No. 77 of the hotel, for appellant to
FELICIANO, J.: show up. Appellant, however, did not arrive that afternoon. Instead, he arrived at the Hyatt Terraces Hotel
at about 1:00 o'clock in the early morning of the following day, together with one Editha Gagarin and a
Hilario Macasling, Jr. appeals from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court which sentenced him to third person who was an undercover Narcom agent. Lt. Obrera opened the door of Room No. 77 to let
suffer life imprisonment, to pay a fine and costs of litigation. appellant and his party in, upon noticing that the Narcom agent was combing his hair, which was pre-
arranged signal meaning that appellant had theshabu in his possession. When appellant and his party were
inside Room No. 77, Lt. Obrera and his companions identified themselves to appellant and asked him
Appellant Macasling was charged with violation of Republic Act ("R.A.") No. 6425, as amended, in an about the shabu. Appellant handed over a small package with a wrapper marked "Happy Days" which,
information which reads as follows: upon being opened by arresting officers, was found to contain about 50 grams of crystalline
granules.3 Appellant and Editha Gagarin were brought to Camp Bado, Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet,
The undersigned accuses Hilario Macasling, Jr. y Colocado for violation of Section where the fact of their arrest was officially recorded. They were later transferred to the Baguio City Jail as
21(b) in relation to Section IV, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by detention prisoners. The crystalline granules were forwarded to the INP Crime Laboratory in Camp
Batas Pambansa Blg. 179 (Sale, Administration, Delivery, Transportation & Crame, Quezon City, for examination. The Forensic Chemist in charge of the examination subjected the
Distribution), committed as follows: granules to four (4) different tests, namely, the color test, the melting point test, the thin layer
chromatography test, and the spectro-infra red test. All the test showed the presence of metamphetamine
hydrochloride, the scientific name of the substance popularly called shabu.4
That on or about the 20th day of August 1988, in the City of Baguio, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not
authorized by law, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, The investigation by the City Prosecutor of Baguio City initially included Editha Gagarin. However, upon
deliver, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport fifty (50) grams of shabu, the basis of a letter written by appellant Macasling admitting sole responsibility for the acts charged in the
knowing fully well that said shabu [is] a prohibited drug, in violation of the above- information, Editha was excluded from the information. In that letter, appellant stated that Editha was
mentioned provision of law.1 completely innocent, and that she had merely come along with appellant at his invitation, to Baguio City.

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty at arraignment and the case proceeded to trial. After trial, on 18 Appellant Macasling made the following assignment of errors in his Brief:
August 1989, the trial court rendered a decision with the following dispositive portion:
1. The lower court erred in not holding that since the arresting officers were not
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Hilario armed with a search warrant of arrest, the arrest and consequent confiscation of the
Macasling, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of transporting and/or attempting to package with a wrapper marked 'Happy Days' contain[ing] 50 grams of shabu (Exh.
deliver 50 grams of shabu in violation of Section 21(b), Article IV in relation to H and series) are illegal and unlawful, hence are inadmissible in evidence.
Section 15, Article III, in relation to No. 2(e), Section 2, Article I of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, and hereby sentences him to life imprisonment and to pay 2. The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused on the ground that 'shabu' is
the fine of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment not of those mentioned in R.A. No. 6425, as amended.
in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

3. The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused on the ground that he was
The 50 grams of shabu contained in the wrapped package marked Happy Days deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the
(Exh. H and series) being the subject of the crime, is hereby declared confiscated accusation against him.5
and forfeited in favor of the State and referred to the Dangerous Drugs Board for
immediate destruction.
We shall consider the above alleged errors though not in the order submitted by appellant.
The accused Hilario Macasling, Jr. being a detention prisoner is entitled to be
credited 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence under We consider first appellant's argument that he cannot be convicted of the offense charged in the
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. information considering that shabu — the term in the information — is not a dangerous drug, since it is
not one of those enumerated as such in R.A. No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act).
R.A. No. 6425, as amended, distinguishes between "prohibited drugs" and "regulated drugs." Article I, Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and
Section 2 (e) defines the term "dangerous drugs" as referring either to "prohibited drugs" or to "regulated Distribution of Regulated Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a
drugs" in the following manner: fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or
distribute any regulated drug. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a
(e) "Dangerous drugs" — refers to either:
regulated drug involved in any offense under this section be the proximate cause of
the death of the victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
(1) "Prohibited drug" which includes opium and its active components and imposed. (As amended by P.D. No. 1683, March 14, 1980.)
derivatives, such as heroin and morphine; coca leaf and its derivativeness;
principally cocaine; alpha and beta eucaine, hallucinogenic drugs, such as
xxx xxx xxx
mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and other substances producing similar
effects; Indian hemp and its derivatives; all preparations made from any of the
foregoing; and other drugs and chemical preparations, whether natural or synthetic, (Emphasis supplied)
with the physiological effects of a narcotic or a hallucinogenic drug; or (As
amended by B.P. Blg. 179, March 12, 1982.)
The trial court after noting the above-quoted provisions of the statute, went on to say that:

(2) "Regulated drug" which includes self-inducing sedatives, such as secobarbital,


From the above provisions of law, it is clear that shabu which is the street name of
phenobarbital, pentobarbital, barbital, amobarbital and any other drug which
metamphetamine hydrochloride, is not among those enumerated as prohibited drugs
contains a salt or derivative of a salt of barbituric acid; and salt, isomer or salt of an
under No. 1 (e), Section 2, Article I on Definition of Terms of Republic Act 6425,
isomer, of amphetamine, such as benzedrine or dexedrine, or any drug which
as amended.
produces a physiological action similar to amphetamine; and hypnotic drugs, such
as methaqualone, nitrazepam or any other compound producing similar
physiological effects (as amended by P.D. No. 1683, March 14, 1980.) Obviously, metamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) is a derivative of amphetamine
or a compound thereof, meaning to say, amphetamine in combination with other
drugs or elements which, if one looks closer, is actually enumerated among the
xxx xxx xxx
regulated drugs under No. 2(e), Section 2, Article I on Definition of Terms of
Republic Act 6425, as amended.
(Emphasis supplied)
Note that the law says when it defines regulated drugs as those "which includes self
The statute penalizes the sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of both "prohibited inducing sedatives such as . . . of amphetamine such as benzedrine or dexedrine, or
drugs" and "regulated drugs:" any other drug which produces a physiological action similar to amphetamine, and
hypnotic drugs, such as methaqualone or any other compound producing similar
physiological effect." Since shabu is actually metamphetamine hydrochloride, it
Article II
would then be obvious that its component parts would be the compound of
Prohibited Drugs
amphetamine with other elements to form metamphetamine hydrochloride. In other
words, among the elements contained in metamphetamine hydrochloride is
xxx xxx xxx amphetamine, a regulated drug.

Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of xxx xxx xxx6
Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person
(Emphasis supplied)
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another,
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as broker
in any of such transactions. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a We agree with the above ruling of the trial court. This Court has in fact taken judicial notice that shabu is
prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause a "street name" for metamphetamine hydrochloride (or "methyl amphetamine
of the victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed. (As hydrochloride").7 Considering the chemical composition of shabu, the Court has declared that shabu is a
amended by P.D. No. 1675, February 17, 1980.) derivative of a regulated drug,8 the possession, sale, transportation, etc. of which is subject to the
provisions of R.A. No. 6425 as amended. It remains only to point out that, in the case at bar, the laboratory
examination conducted on the crystalline granules recovered from appellant in fact yielded the compound
xxx xxx xxx
metamphetamine hydrochloride. The use in the criminal information of the casual or vulgar
term shabu rather than the scientific term metamphetamine hydrochloride, does not affect the legal
Article III responsibility of appellant under the relevant provisions of R.A. No. 6425 as amended.
Regulated Drugs
It is true, as pointed out by the trial court, that the preambular portion of the criminal information in this
xxx xxx xxx case referred to violation of "Section 21 (b) in relation to Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 as
amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 179." Section 21 (b) of the statute reads as follows:
Sec. 21. Attempt and Conspiracy. — The same penalty prescribed by this Act for of 50 grams of shabu. That is the one important. Only the designation of the offense
the commission of the offense shall be imposed in case of any attempt or conspiracy was a mistake from regulated drug to prohibited drug which is a conclusion of law.
to commit the same in the following case:
This would not violate the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
xxx xxx xxx nature and cause of the accuasation against him. As in fact, the accused is still
informed of the offense charged, that is, the unlawful, transport, sale or delivery of
50 grams of shabu.
(b) Sale, Administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous
drugs;
xxx xxx xxx9
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis partly in the original and partly supplied)
(Emphasis supplied)
Appellant's next contention is that because he was not lawfully arrested, the package with a "Happy Days"
wrapper containing 50 grams of shabu, taken from him was inadmissible in evidence. Appellant's claim
Section 4, Article II of the statute deals with "sale, administration, distribution and transportation
that he was unlawfully arrested is anchored on the fact that the arresting officers had neither warrant of
of prohibited drugs." Upon the other hand, Section 15 of the statute is concerned with the "sale,
arrest nor a search warrant.
administration, dispensation, delivery, transportation and distribution of regulated drugs." It will be
recalled that the term "dangerous drugs" as used in the statute covers both "prohibited drugs" and
"regulated drugs." Thus, again as pointed out by the trial court, the opening clause of the information The basic difficulty with appellant's contention is that it totally disregards the antecedents of the arrest of
should, more precisely, have referred to Section 15 which deals with "regulated drugs" rather than to the appellant inside Room No. 77 of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel. It will be recalled that the arresting officers
Section 4 which refers to "prohibited drugs." This imprecision in the specification of the appropriate had been informed by the Chief of the Narcom Regional Office that a transaction had been agreed upon by
section of R.A. No. 6425 as amended has, however, no consequences in the case at bar. For it is the appellant in Las Pinas, Metro Manila, involving delivery of shabu, which delivery was, however, to take
character of the acts charged in the criminal information and proven at the trial that is important, rather place in Room No. 77 at the Hyatt Terraces Hotel in Baguio City. Only appellant with Editha Gagarin and
than the correctness of the designation of the section and article of the statute violated. It should also not the undercover Narcom agent showed up at Room No. 77 at the Hyatt Terraces Hotel and the Narcom
escape notice that the penalty provided in Section 4: "life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from undercover agent had signalled that appellant had with him the shabu. The reception prepared by the
P20,000.00 to P30,000.00," is exactly the same penalty imposed in Section 15 of the statute. arresting officers for appellant inside Room No. 77 was in fact an entrapment operation. The sale of
the shabu (understood as the meeting of the minds of seller and buyer) did not, of course, take place in the
presence of the arresting officers. The delivery or attempted delivery of the subject matter did, however,
In much the same way, appellant's contention that he had been deprived of his right to be informed of the
take place in their presence. The trial court explained:
nature and cause of the accusation against him, is bereft of merit. The acts with which he was charged are
quite plainly set out in the operative portion of the criminal information: that appellant "did — willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, distributed, dispatch in transit or transport 50 grams of The situation at hand is no different from a buy bust operation and is in fact part of
shabu, knowing fully well that said shabu [is] a prohibited drug . . .". We agree with the trial court that the a buy bust operation. It must be stressed that the sale was transacted and closed in
use of the term "prohibited drug" was merely a conclusion of law, something which is for the Court to Las Pinas, Metro Manila by a Chinese businessman but the delivery was directed to
determine; in the circumstances of this case, the inaccurate use of the term "prohibited drug" was also be made in Room 77, Hyatt Terraces, Baguio. And instead of the Chinese
merely a falsa descriptio. The trial court said: businessman being inside Room 77 to receive the delivery, the Narcom elements
took his place to entrap the party that will deliver.
The Court stressed this point as in the body of the Information what is alleged as the
offense committed is that the accused unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, Normally, the buy bust operation may take the form of both the negotiation for the
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport 50 grams of shabu knowing fully well that sale and delivery being made in the same place between the seller and the poseur
said shabu is a prohibited durg in violation of the law. buyer. And when the sale is agreed upon, on the same occasion the drug is delivered
upon the payment being given. And it is at this juncture that the police or the
Narcom elements close in to arrest the offender in the act of selling and delivering.
It can readily be seen that the subject matter of the offense, as recited in the body of
This is the classic case of a "buy-bust" operation, to bust drug pushing.
the Information, is the transport or sale or delivery of the 50 grams of shabu. This
is the allegation of fact in respect to the acts consituting the offense. This is the
offense that would need to be proved. However, the allegationthat shabu is a But surely, there are variations of a "buy-bust" operation, where the sale is agreed
prohibited drug is a conclusion of law. Apparently, the prosecutor, who filed the upon in one place like on the street and then the delivery is to be made in another
Inforamtion considered shabu a prohibited drug. Thus, the prosecutor designated place as when the buyer and the seller proceed to the house where the drug is stored
the offense as a violation of Section 21 (b) in relation to Section 4, Article II of for the delivery. And upon the delivery of the drug by the seller to the buyer, the
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The Court pointed this out as should shabu, police elements will arrest the seller in the act of delivering.
which really is the street name of metamphetamine hydrochloride be, in fact,
a regulated drug, the the designation of the offense should have been Violation of
And in the case at bar, the situation is but an extension of the second variation
Section 21 (b), Article IV in relation to Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425,
above illustrated where the sale is agreed upon in one place but the delivery is to be
as amended. But note, despite the mistaken designation of he offense for as recited
made in another place. As here the sale was agreed upon in Las Pinas but the
in the body of the Information, what is charged is still the sale, transport or delivery
delivery is to be made in a far away place, in Hyatt Terraces, Baguio City. Surely,
the above is still part and parcel of a buy bust operation although as we said it is tipped off, or can sense something is amiss or wrong. Unless, of course, accused
more a "buy the delivery" operation. can explain then and there that he knocked on the door and went inside Room 77 by
mistake like being an innocent hotel boy, room boy or hotel employee who is going
inside the room to fix the room. Or that accused is a hotel guest who committed a
xxx xxx xxx
mistake as to his correct room. but this is not the situation at hand as no such
explanation was immediately made by the accused. On the contrary, accused went
The fact that the Narcom got to know beforehand the delivery to be made thru their inside the room when let in indicating beyond reasonable doubt that he was the
intelligence sources must be given credence by the Court. Like any other party to deliver, and indeed he was, as the shabu was taken from his person after the
organization fighting the crime on drugs, the Narcom must have intelligence pre-arranged signal was given by the undercover agent. These circumstances speak
sources or it cannot perform its functions well and fulfill its mission. for themselves. Res Ipsa Loquitor. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto.

Thus, to wait for the delivery, the Narcom elements deployed themselves inside xxx xxx xxx10
Room 77 in place of the Chinese businessman to entrap the party who will appear to
deliver the shabu which they would be in his possession thru a pre-arranged signal
(Emphasis supplied)
of their undercover agent. Whosoever comes and appear at Room 77 would be it.
All other persons are unexpected (sic) to come to Room 77 and have no business
appearing there except to deliver the shabu unless explained. And ultimately their We consider that under the total circumstances of this case, the warrantless arrest of appellant inside
waiting paid off as accused Hilario Macasling, Jr. appeared in Room 77 to deliver Room No. 77 was merely the culmination of an entrapment operation and that the taking of shabu from
the shabu and from whom it was taken by the Narcom. The lack of warrant of arrest appellant was either done immediately before, or was an incident of, a lawful arrest. 11
is not fatal as this would be covered by the situation provided for warrantless arrests
under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court where an offender is arrested while
As his principal factual defense, appellant denied knowledge of the fact that the package bearing the
actually committing and offense or attempting to commit the offense in the presence
"Happy Days" wrapper contained a quantity of a dangerous drug, claiming that he has merely been
of a peace officer.
instructed by his employer, Mr. Ben Diqueros, to bring the package to Baguio City as a gift for Mrs.
Diqueros. Appellant sought to explain his trip to Baguio by insisting that he has been asked by Mr.
xxx xxx xxx Diqueros to drive the latter's Toyota Celica car to the Diqueros Residence in Tranco Ville, Baguio City, as
Mrs. Diqueros was planning to sell the car. Macasling had in turn invited Editha Gagarin, together with
the latter's children and mother, to join him in Baguio City. They reached Baguio City later in the evening
The Court must stressed that the situation in the case at bar is very different from a
of 19 August 1988 and stayed temporarily at the Castilla Monte. Appellant contended that he had left the
situation where the law enforcing agents or elements will simply accost people at
Castilla Monte to see Mrs. Diqueros at their residence in Tranco Ville but was informed by one Mario and
random on the road, street, boat, plane or bus without any pre-arranged transaction
a domestic helper that Mrs. Diqueros was at the Hyatt Terraces Hotel. Appellant then had Mario
and without warrant of arrest or search warrant and by chance find drugs in the
accompany him to the hotel where they found Mrs. Diqueros playing in the casino. Appellant, however,
possession of a passerby. This latter situation is clearly not permissible and would
decided not to bother Mrs. Diqueros and so returned to the Castilla Monte.
be in violation of the constitutional rights of a person against unreasonable searches
and seizures. This would be a fishing expedition. You search first, and if you find
anything unlawful you arrest. While at the Castilla Monte, appellant continued, he received a telephone call from Mario informing him
that Mrs. Diqueros had finished playing at the casino. Although it was then midnight, appellant together
with Editha Gagarin proceeded to the Hyatt Terraces Hotel. There they were met at the hotel lobby by
But here it is not at random. There was a previous unlawful transaction. There is a
Mario who informed them that Mrs. Diqueros was at Room. No. 77. Appellant claimed that he was, in
designated place for delivery, Room 77 and a specified time frame, that very day of
Room No. 77, searched at gunpoint and that the package he was carrying for Mrs. Diqueros was seized.
August 19, 1988 or thereabouts, and limited to a particular person, in the sense that
Unknown to him , he insisted, the gift package contained "shabu."12
whoever would appear thereat would be it. Those who don't knock at Room 77 and
don't go inside Room 77 will not certainly be arrested. But those who will there at
that time and in that place will surely be arrested because of the advance The trial court was not persuaded by appellant's elaborate disclaimer of knowledge about the shabu,
information, thru the intelligence sources, on the delivery and the prior transaction finding such disclaimer as contrived and improbable and not worthy of credence.13 The rule, of course, is
made. This makes a lot of difference. that testimony to be believed must not only originate from a credible witness, but must also itself be
credible.14 We see no reason, and we have been pointed to none, why the Court should overturn the
appraisal of the trial court of the credibility (or rather lack of credibility) of the long story offered by the
xxx xxx xxx
appellant. We find no basis for departing from the basic rule that the appraisal by the trial court of the
credibility of witnesses who appeared before it is entitled to great respect from appellate courts who do not
But in the case at bar, accused Hilario Macasling, Jr., at the time of his arrest, was deal with live witnesses but only with the cold pages of a written record.
actually in the act of committing a crime or attempting to commit a crime in the
presence of the peace officers as he appeared there in Room 77 to deliver 50 grams
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court Baguio City, in Criminal Case No. 5936-R is
of shabu, a regulated drug, which was previously bought but directed to be
hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.
delivered thereat.

SO ORDERED.
The accused had no reason to be at Room 77, knocking therein, and going inside, if
he was not the party to deliver the shabu, and indeed he was. And the Narcom
elements have the right to pounce on him immediately lest he gets away, or is Bidin, Davide, Jr., Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 91261 February 19, 1991 Police asked her who among those men raped her, she pointed to the accused. After identifying
the accused she went to the hospital for examination.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. Corroborating certain parts of the victim's testimony, Estela Aberasturi declared that at about
REY FRANCIS YAP TONGSON @ REY, accused-appellant. 9:00 o'clock in the evening of May 21, 1987, Arleta Espera (a maid of Emerenciana Aberasturi,
Estela's mother-in-law) went to her house in the poblacion of Malitbog. Arleta asked her where
Glenda Laplana was. She told Arleta that Glenda was at Emerenciana's house. Arleta said
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Glenda went ahead of her as she (Glenda) felt sleepy.
Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

When she (Estela) went downstairs, she felt surprised to see Glenda crying and her whole body
wet. She had no more slippers. She asked her why she was crying. Glenda answered she was
raped by the laborer of Tiu Tiam Su. She further noticed that Glenda's hair was sandy and she
had bruises on her arms and feet. After questioning Glenda, she told her parents-in-law and
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.: also her brother-in-law about the incident. And, they called for a policeman.

Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Maasin, Southern Leyte, Branch 25 in Criminal Guerillito Lura, the Station Commander of the Malitbog Police, testified that in the evening of
Case No. 1178 finding the accused, Rey Francis Yap Tongson, alias Rey, guilty of the crime of rape May 21, 1987 the guard of the Police Station sent for him, informing him there was a rape
committed against 13-year-old Glenda Laplana. incident. He immediately went to the police station. He found many people there. He asked the
guard what transpired. The guard told him that Pat. Claro Faelnar and Pfc. Macario Lagatierra
were in pursuit of the perpetrator, a laborer of Tiu Tiam Su.
As found by the trial court, the facts of the case are as follows:

He followed the policemen to Tiu Tiam Su's residence. When he arrived there he asked Lando
. . . In the evening of May 21,1987, while the offended party was on her way home from the
(a son of Tiu Tiam Su) where Pat. Faelnar and Pfc. Lagatierra were. He was told that they were
house of Emerenciana Aberasturi at Malitbog, Southern Leyte, she was held by the accused looking for Rey. The policemen were then in the bodega of Tiu Tiam Su searching for Rey.
and forcibly dragged towards the sea. She shouted for help but to no avail. They could not find Rey at that instant. Pat. Lagatierra followed Rey as he evaded the police
and managed to jump out of the bodega.
Upon reaching the seashore, the accused held her hair and immersed her in the sea. The place
of immersion was knee-deep. Her whole body wet, she was dragged ashore by him. He then He summoned other policemen and some people around to help apprehend the culprit. Among
pushed her and she fell down. While she was lying down, he gagged her with his T-shirt and
them were Fernando Aberasturi, his brother (Rico), and a younger brother, Fernando
then boxed her thrice on her abdomen. apprehended Rey at the wharf about 50 meters away from the bodega of Tiu Tiam Su. Rey was
brought to him immediately.
Thereafter, the accused removed her panty, inserted his fingers into her vagina, and after
pulling them out, had sexual intercourse with her. She tenaciously resisted the lustful designs When the victim (whom he had summoned) arrived, he asked her to pinpoint the person who
of the accused by moving her body, pushing him and even boxing him while he was sexually raped her. She immediately pointed to the accused, Rey Tongson, from among some twenty
abusing her. Her efforts at resistance, however, proved futile as he was much stronger than she. persons present. The accused just bowed his head when the victim identified him. Before the
(p. 19, Rollo.) victim (Glenda Laplana) arrived at his office, he asked the accused if it was true that he raped
her. He admitted without hesitation.
What happened afterwards are as follows:
Dr. Leonardo S. Gimeno told the court he examined the victim, Glenda Laplana, at about 11:00
. . . After he had performed the act, he warned her not to divulge it or else he would kill her. o'clock in the evening of May 21, 1987. He issued a medico-legal certificate containing his
The accused then brought her towards the house of Tiu Tiam Su where he was then working. findings (Exh. A). He found all those multiple contusions and abrasions indicated in Item No. 1
of Exh. "A". These injuries could have been caused by fistic blows or by some pressure on the
victim after she fell down.
When they reached near the house of Tiu Tiam Su alias Onjo, the accused told her to wait
because he would get a pump boat. She did not, however, wait for him. As soon as he was at a
distance from the house of Tiu Tiam Su, she ran towards the house of her aunt, Estela. With reference to Item No. 2, he told the victim to undress because he wanted to examine her
vagina. Upon taking off her panty, he saw blood on the front portion of her panty. There was
blood also on the vaginal orifice. The blood came from the first-degree laceration. One cause
Upon arriving at Estela's house she called for the people upstairs. Estela responded to her call. of this laceration is the forced entry into the vagina of a man's penis.
They met at the stairway. Estela asked her why she was wet and crying. She told Estela she
(victim) was raped by the laborer of Tiu Tiam Su. She then went up the house after telling
Estela about the incident. As he examined the victim further, he found traces of sand and grass in the vaginal canal. The
injuries sustained by the victim indicate signs of struggle by her during the incident. His
examination, however, proved negative for spermatozoas. (pp. 16-18, Rollo.)
Later that evening she was brought to the office of the Chief of Police, Guerillito Lura. There
were policemen and civilians (among them being the accused) in that office. When the Chief of
The records do not reveal when the victim filed a complaint, but the information based on the complaint the injury to her vaginal orifice was "caused by the forced entry into the vagina of a man's penis" (p.
was filed with the Regional Trial Court on June 30, 1987. 62, Rollo). The doctor's other findings support complainant's testimony that she was raped on the seashore.
Sand and grass were found in her vagina. The multiple abrasions and contusions on the victim's lips, right
face, lower back including both buttocks, left elbow, left thigh, both knees, legs and feet, are mute
After the trial, the lower court found Tongson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
testimonies giving credence to her claim that the appellant dragged her on the shore and forcibly had
rape.1âwphi1 It sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify
sexual intercourse with her.
the offended party in the amount of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00). Petitioner-appellant was given
credit for his preventive imprisonment.
When a woman testifies that she was raped, she says all that is necessary to show its commission, for no
young and decent Filipino — in this case only thirteen (13) years old — would publicly admit having been
In this appeal, the accused-appellant alleges that the trial court erred: (1) in giving much weight and credit
ravished unless it is the truth, for her natural instinct is to protect her honor (People vs. Manago, G.R. No.
to the evidence of the prosecution without considering that of the defense, and (2) in finding him guilty
90669, November 21, 1990; People vs. Barcelona, G.R. No. 82589, October 31, 1990). The testimony of a
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
rape victim is credible where no motive to testify against the accused is shown except the desire to
vindicate her honor (People vs. Lutanez, G.R. No. 78854, December 21, 1990; People vs. Fabro, G.R. No.
Contrary to appellant Tongson's claim that the offended party voluntarily submitted to his sexual 79673, November 15, 1990).
advances, the trial court found that the victim Laplana resisted vigorously so that he had to drag her
towards the seashore. She testified that she shouted for help many times but nobody was on the road at the
In any case, whether or not carnal knowledge is voluntary and free is a question of credibility (People vs.
time, so no one came to help her. She described how she struggled against the appellant, causing him to
Mercado, G.R. No. 72726, October 15, 1990). Since the witnesses to rape are often only the victim and the
box her three (3) times in the abdomen, and her futile efforts to attract the attention of the persons
offender, the trial judge's evaluation of the witnesses' credibility deserves utmost respect in the absence of
attending a public dance some 120 to 130 meters from the seashore where she was sexually assaulted.
arbitrariness, considering the trial judge's advantage of observing the witnesses' demeanor in court (People
vs. Felipe, G.R. No. 90390, October 31, 1990. We find no reason to reverse the trial court's conviction of
The alleged "public setting" of the rape is not an indication of consent. For, as pointed out by the Solicitor Tongson for rape.
General, rape may be committed at a place where people congregate such as parks (People vs. Vidal, 127
SCRA 171), by the roadside (People vs. Aragona, 138 SCRA 569), or on a passageway at noontime
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 1178 is affirmed
(People vs. Lopez, 141 SCRA 385). In the case of People vs. Barcelona, G.R. No. 82589, October 31,
in all respects except the award of damages to the victim Glenda Laplana which is increased from P30,000
1990, we took judicial notice of the fact that a man overcome by perversity and beastly passion chooses
to P40,000 in accordance with the latest policy of the Court.
neither time, place, occasion, nor victim.

SO ORDERED.
That no spermatozoa was present in the specimen that was taken from the vagina of the victim did not
disprove the rape. Presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial since it is penetration, however slight,
and not ejaculation that constitutes rape (People vs. Paringit, G.R. No. 83947, September 13, 1990; People Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
vs. Barro, Jr., G.R. No. 86385, August 2, 1990).

Appellant's contention that he did not have sexual intercourse with the complainant but merely inserted his
light middle finger into her vagina was correctly found by the trial court to be incredible:

The claim of the accused that he merely inserted his middle right finger into the victim's vagina
does not appear credible. He admitted though that he did it without her permission. His
demonstration of how it was done defies our imagination. Here is the reactment (sic) of the
fantastic scene;

Sitting side by side with her, he placed his right thigh over the victim's left thigh, holding her
right hand with his left, and at the same time inserting his middle right finger into her vagina,
while the victim was holding his right lap with her left hand. The situation described by him
appears awkward and improbable.

Moreover, it does not jibe with his pre-demonstration testimony that he was embracing the
victim with his left hand, face to face with her, when he inserted his right middle finger into her
vagina. Furthermore, by demonstrating that the victim held his right lap with her left hand
while he was inserting his finger, he wanted to imply that she voluntarily consented to such
insertion. And yet according to him, she got mad. Is this not absurd? (p. 45, Rollo.)

That the complainant was raped was established by the medical findings, to wit: "blood in the vaginal
orifice, first degree laceration of one inch or more at 6:00 o'clock position of the vaginal orifice" (p.
61, Rollo). Dr. Leonardo Gimeno, the physician who examined the victim after the incident, declared that
G.R. No. 82589 October 31, 1990 The following day, November 8, 1985, accompanied by her uncle and auntie, she
reported the matter to the police authorities (Ibid., p. 14). Thereafter, she was
brought to the Medicare Community Hospital where she was examined (Ibid.).
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GIDEON BARCELONA y DEQUITO, defendant-appellant. Upon information from Hernando Cayaon that he saw accused-appellant, Gideon
Barcelona jogging near the diversion road in the late afternoon of November 7,
1985, the police authorities invited the latter on November 9, 1985 for questioning
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
(November 18, 1986, tsn, p. 3). Upon confrontation, the victim positively Identified
accused-appellant as the person who raped her (July 2, 1986, tsn, p. 14). Thereafter,
Jose P. Villanueva counsel de oficio for accused-appellant. accused-appellant was placed under arrest. 4

The accused Gideon Barcelona, however, denied that he committed the crime imputed to him and
interposed the defense of alibi. The trial court summarized the evidence for the defense as follows:
PADILLA, J.:
The accused in his defense testified that he is presently 19 years old having been
born on November 7, 1968. He was employed since October 1985 in the finishing
In Criminal Case No. 6026 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Gideon Barcelona y Dequito was
outfit of Paning Paner and has their base at Cabugan Island, Roxas, Palawan.
charged with the crime of Rape committed as follows: Normally, they go to the Poblacion of Roxas every Saturday to haul water and
supplies. Sometime in the afternoon of November 9, 1985, he was fetched by P/Sgt.
That on or about the 7th day of November, 1985 at Barangay IV, Poblacion, Eriberto Castillo of Roxas Police Station and taken to the Municipal Building. In
Municipality of Roxas, Province of Palawan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction the said place he saw Melchor Cayaon as well as his brothers and sisters. He alleged
of this Honorable Court, the said accused with lewd design, by means of force, since complainant saw him, she did not positively Identified (sic) him but
threat and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and felonously have entertained doubts as the person who raped her.
carnal knowlege, with one Sylina Rodriguez against her wil and consent to her
damage and predice. 1 Supporting in part his testimony was the statement of Roger a detainee at the
municipal jail of Roxas, Palawan at the time who alleged that he saw suspect
When arraigned, the acused, assisted by counsel, pleaded "Not Guilty" to the commission of the Melchor Cayaon in the early morning of 8 November, 1985. He stated that at about
crime. 2 After trial, however, he was found guilty, as charged, and sentenced to suffer the penalty 8:00 A.M. of the same day when victim saw Melchor Cayaon, the former identified
of reclusion perpetua, to pay the offended party the amount of P30,000.00, and to pay the cost. 3 the latter as the one who raped her. He further heard the complainant describe that
the person who raped her had curly hair. Suspect Melchor Cayaon had curly hair
while accused Gideon Barcelona had no curly hair.
From this judgment, the accused appealed to this Court.

In addition to this, witness Jose Lagrada testified that he was the companion of the
The incrimatory facts of the case, according to the People's counsel, are as follows: accused at the fishing outfit of Paning Paner. In brief, said witness testified that he
knew accused Gideon Barcelona. Both of them were employed in said fishing outfit
Around 6:30 p.m. of November 7, 1985, Sylina Rodriguez, a sixteen-year old high about the latter part of October, 1985 and continued uninterruptedly until his arrest
scholl student of the Roxas National Comprehensive High School in Roxas, on November 9, 1985. He stated that their schedule of fishing is from 7:00 o'clock
Palawan, was walking on her way home (July 2, 1986 tsn, p. 7.). Upon reaching a a.m. up to 1:00 o'clock p.m. He claimed that from the last week of October 1985 up
point in the diversion road near the Medicare Hospital of the new townsite, she to his arrest on November 9, 1985, accused Barcelona never went to the Poblacion
looked back and say a male person jogging (Ibid., p.8). She continued walking of Roxas, Palawan and continuously stayed at Cabugan Island. Despite prior
(Ibid.). The jogger overtook her and, upon doing so, suddenly turned back and took knowledge that the latter was arrested for rape, he never informed the Police Force
hold of her hands and started pulling her towards the bushes (Ibid.). She resisted of Roxas, Palawan or any person for that matter about the stay of Barcelona in their
and hit him with fist blows on his chest (Ibid.). As he was pulling her, he threatened place of work nor did he visited (sic) accused in jail despite his close friendship
to kill her by making a motion to pull something from his back (Ibid.. p. 9). He was with him. (Test. of Jose Lagrada, tsn: pp. 1-11, December 12, 1986) 5
finally able to pull her to the bushes (Ibid.).
In this appeal, the accused-appellant claims that the trial court erred: (1) in giving weight to the testimony
In the bushes, he forcibly undressed her, removing both her skirt and panty (Ibid., p. of the complainant which is allegedly materially inconsistent, contradictory and incredible; and (2) in
10). He also undressed and forced her to lay down on her back (Ibid.). He then lay convicting the accused-appellant when there is no evidence on record that his guilt has been proved
on top of her and began to kiss her cheeks and lips (Ibid., pp. 9-10). At this point, beyond reasonable doubt.
she was in tears (Ibid., p, 11). Then he inserted his organ into her private part (Ibid.,
p. 1 0). She immediately felt a stab of pain (Ibid., p. 11). When he was finished he We find no merit in the appeal. There is no doubt that the complainant had been raped on 7 November
allowed her to dress up but warned her not to report the incident to the police 1985, in the manner testified to by her and affirmed by the trial court. When a woman testifies that she has
authorities (Ibid, p. 12). The victim then went home (Ibid., p. 13). been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed, for no young and
decent Filipino woman would publicly admit that she has been criminally ravished unless that is the truth,
for her natural instinct is to protect her honor. 6
Besides, complainant's testimony is confirmed by the surrounding physical facts. Medical examination of inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which refer to minor details do not impair the
her genitalia in the morning following the attack showed that (1) there was a slight mucosal inflammation probative value of their testimony.14
of the labia majora; (2) hymenal laceration at 2:00 o'clock, 5:00 o'clock, and 9:00 o'clock; and (3) whitish
mucosal vaginal discharge, scanty in amount noted. 7 Dr. Feliciano Velasco, medical officer of the Roxas
The insinuation of the appellant that he could not have raped the complainant on 7 November 1985
Palawan Medicare Community Hospital, who examined the complainant, opined that this was the first
because it was his birthday is, definitely, without basis for a man overcome by perversity and beastly
time she had sexual intercourse because the lacerations on the hymen were fresh. 8
passion chooses neither time, place, occasion, nor victim.

Moreover, the outrage was immediately reported to the police authorities after its commission, removing
There being no error committed in the judgment appealed from, the same should be affirmed.
any doubt that the complainant may have concocted her charge against the appellant.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with costs.


The appellant contends, however, that the crime of Rape was not committed because no force or
intimidation was employed, i.e., no external injuries or bruises or scratches were found on the
complainant's body, despite her testimony that she was dragged to the bushes, and that the complainant did SO ORDERED.
not offer tenacious and spirited resistance to the assault on her.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado JJ., concur.
The absence of physical injuries on the complainant's body does not, of itself, negate the complainant's
testimony that she was raped; nor does it make the complainant a willing partner in the sex act. The victim
need not kick, bite, hit, slap or scratch with her fingernails the offender to successfully claim that she had
been raped. It is enough that coition was undertaken against her will. It is sufficient that the carnal
knowledge was done after the woman yielded because of an authentic apprehension of a real fear of
immediate death or great bodily harm. In this case, there is evidence that the offended girl yielded to the
carnal desires of the appellant for fear that he might kill her since, according to complainant, the appellant
had threatened her with death and made menacing gestures as if to draw a weapon. It is this same fear that
must have prevented her from making an outcry or reporting the outrage to her uncle. 9

As the Court had said in a case, 10 "the force or violence required in rape cases is relative. When applied it
need not be too overpowering or irresistible. What is essential is that the force used is sufficient to
consummate the purpose which the offender had in mind, or to bring about the desired result. In using
force, it is not even necessary that the offender is armed with a weapon, as the use of a weapon serves only
to increase the penalty. Intimidation can be addressed to the mind as well. In sum, the absence of external
signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape.

As to the identity of the perpetrator of the dastardly act, the complainant declared, and the trial court
agreed with her, that the appellant committed the crime. The complainant positively identified the accused
as the person who raped her 11 and, as the trial court said, she had no doubt nor second thought about her
identification of the accused-appellant. Besides, it would appear that the complainant had no ill motive to
falsely against the appellant. In fact, the appellant was a complete stranger to her and she did not know his
name then; But, when they came face to face, the second time, she readily pointed to the appellant as the
person who ravished her. 12 This court consistently held that the testimony of a rape victim as to who
abused her is credible where she has no motive to testify falsely against the accused. 13

The appellant argues that the testimony of the complainant should not be given weight and credence
because it is allegedly inconsistent, contradictory and incredible in that: (1) on direct examination, she
declared that in trying to repel the advances of the appellant, she bit him on the left forearm, whereas, on
cross examination, she denied having stated that she bit the appellant; (2) on direct examination, the
complaint that she did not report the incident to her uncle because she was afraid but, on cross
examination, she stated that she reported the incident to her uncle who, in turn, reported it to the police;
and (3) on direct examination, the complainant testified that the sexual act took about twenty (20) minutes
and that she felt pain, but that she felt no ejaculation, while on cross examination, she stated that there was
ejaculation inside her vagina.

These alleged contradictory statements are not fatal as they refer to relatively minor details, and they are to
be expected from uncoached witnesses. They do not affect, nor can they prevail over the positive
identification of the appellant as the rapist. As repeatedly held by the Court, the discrepancies and

You might also like