Consti II- Mico

8/9/2019 Consti II- Mico

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/consti-ii-mico 1/104

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 186228 March 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,vs.ANTONIO LAUGA Y PINA ALIAS TERIO, Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ, J.:

Before Us for final revie is t!e trial court"s conviction of t!e appellant for t!e rape of !is t!irteen-#ear old dau$!ter.

Consistent it! t!e rulin$ of t!is Court in People v. Ca%al&uinto, ' t!e real na(e and t!e personalcircu(stances of t!e victi(, and an# ot!er infor(ation tendin$ to esta%lis! or co(pro(ise !er identit#,includin$ t!ose of !er i((ediate fa(il# or !ouse!old (e(%ers, are not disclosed in t!is decision.

)!e *acts

In an Infor(ation dated +' Septe(%er +,+ t!e appellant as accused of t!e cri(e of UAI*IED/APE alle$edl# co((itted as follos0

)!at on or a%out t!e '1t! da# of 2arc! +, in t!e evenin$, at Baran$a# 333, (unicipalit# of 333, province of Bu4idnon, P!ilippines, and it!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!is 6onora%le Court, t!e a%ove-na(ed accused, %ein$ t!e fat!er of AAA it! led desi$n, it! t!e use of force and inti(idation, didt!en and t!ere, illfull#, unlafull# and cri(inall# !ave carnal 4noled$e it! !is on dau$!ter AAA,a '7 #ear8s9old (inor a$ainst !er ill.7

On '+ Octo%er +, appellant entered a plea of not $uilt#. : Durin$ t!e pre-trial conference, t!e prosecution and t!e defense stipulated and ad(itted0 ;a< t!e correctness of t!e findin$s indicated in t!e(edical certificate of t!e p!#sician !o e3a(ined AAA= ;%< t!at AAA as onl# t!irteen ;'7< #ears old!en t!e alle$ed offense as co((itted= and ;c< t!at AAA is t!e dau$!ter of t!e appellant. 1 On trial,t!ree ;7< itnesses testified for t!e prosecution, na(el#0 victi( AAA=> !er %rot!er BBB=? and one2oises Bo# Bantin$,@ a bantay bayan in t!e %aran$a#. )!eir testi(onies revealed t!e folloin$0

In t!e afternoon of '1 2arc! +, AAA as left alone at !o(e. AAA"s fat!er, t!e appellant, as!avin$ a drin4in$ spree at t!e nei$!%or"s place. ' 6er (ot!er decided to leave %ecause !en appellant

$ets drun4, !e !as t!e !a%it of (aulin$ AAA"s (ot!er. '' 6er onl# %rot!er BBB also ent ouco(pan# of so(e nei$!%ors.'+

At around '0 o"cloc4 in t!e evenin$, appellant o4e AAA up= '7 re(oved !is pants, slid ins %lan4et coverin$ AAA and re(oved !er pants and underear=': arned !er not to s!out for !elpt!reatenin$ !er it! !is fist='1 and told !er t!at !e !ad a 4nife placed a%ove !er !ead. '> 6e proce(as! !er %reast, 4iss !er repeatedl#, and inserted !is penis inside !er va$ina.'?

Soon after, BBB arrived and found AAA cr#in$.'@ Appellant clai(ed !e scolded !er for sta#late.' BBB decided to ta4e AAA it! !i(.+ !ile on t!eir a# to t!eir (aternal $rand(ot!er"

AAA recounted !er !arroin$ e3perience it! t!eir fat!er.+'

Upon reac!in$ t!eir $rand(ot!er"t!e# told t!eir $rand(ot!er and uncle of t!e incident,++ after !ic!, t!e# sou$!t t!e assistance ofBo# Bantin$.+7

2oises Bo# Bantin$ found appellant in !is !ouse earin$ onl# !is underear.+: 6e invited appet!e police station,+1 to !ic! appellant o%li$ed. At t!e police outpost, !e ad(itted to !i( t!at !AAA %ecause !e as una%le to control !i(self.+>

)!e folloin$ da#, AAA su%(itted !erself to p!#sical e3a(ination. +? Dra. osefa Arlita . 2unicipal 6ealt! Officer of 3 3 3, Bu4idnon, issued t!e 2edical Certificate, !ic! reads0

!#pere(ic vulvae it! : o"cloc4 > o"cloc4 fres!l# lacerated !#(en= ;F< (ini(al to (oderatedisc!ar$es +G to an alle$ed rapin$ incident+@

On t!e ot!er !and, onl# appellant testified for t!e defense. 6e %elieved t!at t!e c!ar$e a$ainst !ill-(otivated %ecause !e so(eti(es p!#sicall# a%uses !is ife in front of t!eir c!ildren after en

in a !eated ar$u(ent,+ and %eats t!e c!ildren as a disciplinar# (easure .7 6e ent furt!er to!o !is da# as on t!e date of t!e alle$ed rape.

6e alle$ed t!at on '1 2arc! +, t!ere as no food prepared for !i( at lunc!ti(e. 7' S!ortAAA arrived.7+ S!e ansered %ac4 !en confronted.77 )!is infuriated !i( t!at !e 4ic4ed !er !!er %uttoc4s.7:

Appellant ent %ac4 to or4 and ent !o(e a$ain around 7 o"cloc4 in t!e afternoon.71 *indin$ at !o(e,7> !e prepared !is dinner and ent to sleep.7?

ater in t!e evenin$, !e as aa4ened %# t!e (e(%ers of t!e Bantay Bayan !eaded %# 2oisBantin$.7@)!e# as4ed !i( to $o it! t!e( to discuss so(e (atters.7 6e later learned t!at !e adetention %ecause AAA c!ar$ed !i( of rape.:

ONSTI II !S"c. 1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_186228_2010.html#fnt1







































































































On @ ul# +>, t!e /e$ional )rial Court, Branc! , 2ala#%ala# Cit#, Bu4idnon, rendered itsdecision:' in Cri(inal Case No. '7?+-, findin$ appellant $uilt# of rape &ualified %# relations!ip and(inorit#, and sentenced !i( to suffer t!e penalt# of reclusion perpetua. :+ It also ordered !i( toinde(nif# AAA P1,. as (oral da(a$es, and P1,. as civil inde(nit# it! e3e(plar#da(a$es of P+1,..:7

On 7 Septe(%er +@, t!e decision of t!e trial court as A**I/2ED it! 2ODI*ICA)IONS:: %# t!e

Court of Appeals in CA-H./. C/ 6C No. :1>-2IN.:1 )!e appellate court found t!at appellant is noteli$i%le for parole and it increased %ot! t!e civil inde(nit# and (oral da(a$es fro( P1,.to P?1,..:>

On +: Nove(%er +@, t!e Court of Appeals $ave due course to t!e appellant"s notice of appeal.:? )!isCourt re&uired t!e parties to si(ultaneousl# file t!eir respective supple(ental %riefs,:@ %ut %ot!(anifested t!at t!e# ill no lon$er file supple(ental pleadin$s. :

)!e lone assi$n(ent of error in t!e appellant"s %rief is t!at, t!e trial court $ravel# erred in findin$ !i($uilt# as c!ar$ed despite t!e failure of t!e prosecution to esta%lis! !is $uilt %e#ond reasona%ledou%t,1 %ecause0 ;'< t!ere ere inconsistencies in t!e testi(onies of AAA and !er %rot!er BBB= 1' ;+<!is e3tra5udicial confession %efore 2oises Bo# Bantin$ as it!out t!e assistance of a counsel, inviolation of !is constitutional ri$!t=1+ and ;7< AAA"s accusation as ill-(otivated.17

Our /ulin$

Appellant contests t!e ad(issi%ilit# in evidence of !is alle$ed confession it! a bantay bayan and t!ecredi%ilit# of t!e itnesses for t!e prosecution.

Ad(issi%ilit# in Evidence of an E3tra5udicial Confession %efore a Banta# Ba#an

Appellant ar$ues t!at even if !e, indeed, confessed to 2oises Bo# Bantin$, a bantay bayan, t!econfession as inad(issi%le in evidence %ecause !e as not assisted %# a la#er and t!ere as no validaiver of suc! re&uire(ent.1:

)!e case of People v. 2aln$an 11 is t!e aut!orit# on t!e scope of t!e 2iranda doctrine provided for under Article III, Section '+;'<1> and ;7<1? of t!e Constitution. In 2aln$an, appellant &uestioned t!ead(issi%ilit# of !er e3tra5udicial confessions $iven to t!e %aran$a# c!air(an and a nei$!%or of t!e private co(plainant. )!is Court distin$uis!ed. )!us0

Ar$ua%l#, t!e %aran$a# tanods, includin$ t!e Baran$a# C!air(an, in t!is particular instance, (a# %edee(ed as la enforce(ent officer for purposes of appl#in$ Article III, Section '+;'< and ;7<, of t!e

Constitution. !en accused-appellant as %rou$!t to t!e %aran$a# !all in t!e (ornin$ of + +', s!e as alread# a suspect, actuall# t!e onl# one, in t!e fire t!at destro#ed several !ousesS!e as, t!erefore, alread# under custodial investi$ation and t!e ri$!ts $uaranteed %# 3 3 Constitution s!ould !ave alread# %een o%served or applied to !er. Accused-appellant"s confesBaran$a# C!air(an 3 3 3 as (ade in response to t!e interro$ation" (ade %# t!e latter J ad(conducted it!out first infor(in$ accused-appellant of !er ri$!ts under t!e Constitution or don presence of counsel. *or t!is reason, t!e confession of accused-appellant, $iven to Baran$a# C!3 3 3, as ell as t!e li$!ter found 3 3 3 in !er %a$ are inad(issi%le in evidence a$ainst !3.1avvphi1

8But suc! does9 not auto(aticall# lead to !er ac&uittal. 3 3 3 8)9!e constitutional safe$uards custodial investi$ations do not appl# to t!ose not elicited t!rou$! &uestionin$ %# t!e police oa$ents %ut $iven in an ordinar# (anner !ere%# t!e accused ver%all# ad(it s 3 3 3 as 3 3 3 in t!e %ar !en accused-appellant ad(itted to 2ercedita 2endoKa, one of t!e nei$!%ors 3 3 3 8of t!e co(plainant9.1@ ;E(p!asis supplied<

*olloin$ t!e rationale %e!ind t!e rulin$ in 2aln$an, t!is Court needs to ascertain !et!er obantay bayan (a# %e dee(ed a la enforce(ent officer it!in t!e conte(plation of ArtiSection '+ of t!e Constitution.

In People of t!e P!ilippines v. Buendia,1 t!is Court !ad t!e occasion to (ention t!e nature of a bayan, t!at is, a $roup of (ale residents livin$ in 8t!e9 area or$aniKed for t!e purpose of 4 peace in t!eir co((unit#8,!ic! is9 an accredited au3iliar# of t!e 3 3 3 PNP.>

Also, it (a# %e ort!# to consider t!at pursuant to Section ';$< of E3ecutive Order No. 7 iss'' Nove(%er '@?, as a(ended, a Peace and Order Co((ittee in eac! %aran$a# s!all %e or$anserve as i(ple(entin$ ar( of t!e Cit#L2unicipal Peace and Order Council at t!e Baran$a# levelco(position of t!e Co((ittee includes, a(on$ ot!ers0 ;'< t!e Punong Barangay as C!air(an=

C!air(an of t!e Sangguniang Kabataan= ;7< a 2e(%er of t!e Lupon Tagapamayapa= ;:< a Ba

Tanod = and ;1< at least t!ree ;7< 2e(%ers of e3istin$ Baran$a#-Based Anti-Cri(e or nei$!%oatc! Hroups or a Non Hovern(ent Or$aniKation /epresentative ell-4non in !is co((unit#.

)!is Court is, t!erefore, convinced t!at %aran$a#-%ased volunteer or$aniKations in t!e nature of$roups, as in t!e case of t!e bantay bayan, are reco$niKed %# t!e local $overn(ent unit to pfunctions relatin$ to t!e preservation of peace and order at t!e %aran$a# level. )!us, it!out rut!e le$alit# of t!e actions ta4en %# 2oises Bo# Bantin$, and t!e specific scope of dut

responsi%ilities dele$ated to a bantay bayan, particularl# on t!e aut!orit# to conduct a cu

investi$ation, an# in&uir# !e (a4es !as t!e color of a state-related function and o%5ective insofa

ONSTI II !S"c. 1























































entitle(ent of a suspect to !is constitutional ri$!ts provided for under Article III, Section '+ of t!eConstitution, ot!erise 4non as t!e 2iranda /i$!ts, is concerned.

e, t!erefore, find t!e e3tra5udicial confession of appellant, !ic! as ta4en it!out a counsel,inad(issi%le in evidence.

Be t!at as it (a#, e a$ree it! t!e Court of Appeals t!at t!e conviction of t!e appellant as notdeduced solel# fro( t!e assailed e3tra5udicial confession %ut fro( t!e confluence of evidence s!oin$!is $uilt %e#ond reasona%le dou%t.>7

Credi%ilit# of t!e itnesses for t!e Prosecution

Appellant assails t!e inconsistencies in t!e testi(onies of AAA and !er %rot!er BBB. AAA testified t!atBBB acco(panied !er to t!e !ouse of t!eir $rand(ot!er. )!ereafter, t!e#, to$et!er it! !er relatives, proceeded to loo4 for a bantay bayan. On t!e ot!er !and, BBB testified t!at !e %rou$!t !er sister tot!e !ouse of t!eir %anta# %a#an after !e learned of t!e incident.

Citin$ Bartocillo v. Court of Appeals,>: appellant ar$ues t!at !ere t!e testi(onies of to 4e#itnesses cannot stand to$et!er, t!e inevita%le conclusion is t!at one or %ot! (ust %e tellin$ a lie, and

t!eir stor# a (ere concoction.>1

)!e principle, !oever, is not applica%le in t!e case at %ar. In Bartocillo, t!e to testi(onies could notsi(pl# stand to$et!er %ecause0

On one !and, if e are to %elieve Susan, Orlando could not !ave possi%l# seen t!e !ac4in$ incidentsince !e !ad acco(panied Vicente !o(e. On t!e ot!er !and, if e are to accept t!e testi(on# of Orlando, t!en Susan could not !ave possi%l# itnessed t!e !ac4in$ incident since s!e as it! Vicenteat t!at ti(e.

6ere, t!e testi(on# of AAA does not run contrar# to t!at of BBB. Bot! testified t!at t!e# sou$!t t!e!elp of a bantay bayan. )!eir respective testi(onies differ onl# as to !en t!e !elp as sou$!t for,!ic! t!is Court could ell attri%ute to t!e nature of t!e testi(on# of BBB, a s!ortcut version of AAA"stesti(on# t!at dispensed it! a detailed account of t!e incident.

At an# rate, t!e Court of Appeals is correct in !oldin$ t!at t!e assailed inconsistenc# is too trivial toaffect t!e veracit# of t!e testi(onies.>> In fact, inconsistencies !ic! refer to (inor, trivial or inconse&uential circu(stances even stren$t!en t!e credi%ilit# of t!e itnesses, as t!e# erase dou%ts t!atsuc! testi(onies !ave %een coac!ed or re!earsed.>?

Appellant"s contention t!at AAA c!ar$ed !i( of rape onl# %ecause s!e %ore $rud$es a$ainstli4eise un(eritorious. )!is Court is not dissuaded fro( $ivin$ full credence to t!e testi(o(inor co(plainant %# (otives of feuds, resent(ent or reven$e.>@ As correctl# pointed out %# t!of Appeals0

Indeed, (ere disciplinar# c!astise(ent is not stron$ enou$! to (a4e dau$!ters in a *ilipino invent a c!ar$e t!at ould not onl# %rin$ s!a(e and !u(iliation upon t!e( and t!eir fa(ilies %

%rin$ t!eir fat!ers into t!e $allos of deat!.> )!e Supre(e Court !as repeatedl# !eld t!un%elieva%le for a dau$!ter to c!ar$e !er on fat!er it! rape, e3posin$ !erself to t!e ordee(%arrass(ent of a pu%lic trial and su%5ectin$ !er private parts to e3a(ination if suc! !einou

as not in fact co((itted.?

No person, (uc! less a o(an, could attain suc! !ei$!t of cruelt#!o !as sired !er, and fro( !o( s!e oes !er ver# e3istence, and for !ic! s!e naturall# feelsand lastin$ $ratefulness.?' Even !en consu(ed it! reven$e, it ta4es a certain a(o ps#c!olo$ical depravit# for a #oun$ o(an to concoct a stor# !ic! ould put !er on fat!efor t!e (ost of !is re(ainin$ life and dra$ t!e rest of t!e fa(il# includin$ !erself to a lifets!a(e.?+ It is !i$!l# i(pro%a%le for 8AAA9 a$ainst !o( no proof of se3ual perversit# or(oralit# !as %een s!on to fa4e c!ar$es (uc! (ore a$ainst !er on fat!er. In fact !er testi(entitled to $reater ei$!t since !er accusin$ ords ere directed a$ainst a close relative.?7

Ele(ents of /ape

6avin$ esta%lis!ed t!e credi%ilit# of t!e itnesses for t!e prosecution, e no e3a(applica%ilit# of t!e Anti-/ape a of '? ?: to t!e case at %ar.

)!e la provides, in part, t!at rape is co((itted, a(on$ ot!ers, 8%9# a (an !o s!all !ave4noled$e of a o(an t!rou$! force, t!reat or inti(idation.?1 )!e deat! penalt# s!all %e i(pit is co((itted it! a$$ravatin$L&ualif#in$ circu(stances, !ic! include, 89!en t!e victi( iei$!teen ;'@< #ears of a$e and t!e offender is a parent.?>

)!e consistent and fort!ri$!t testi(on# of AAA detailin$ !o s!e as raped, cul(inatin$ penetration of appellant"s penis into !er va$ina, suffices to prove t!at appellant !ad carnal 4nol!er. !en a o(an states t!at s!e !as %een raped, s!e sa#s in effect all t!at is necessar# to s!rape as co((itted.??*urt!er, !en suc! testi(on# corresponds it! (edical findin$s, tsufficient %asis to conclude t!at t!e essential re&uisites of carnal 4noled$e !ave %een esta%lis!e

)!e Court of Appeals pointed out t!at t!e ele(ent of force or inti(idation is not essential !accused is t!e fat!er of t!e victi(, inas(uc! as !is superior (oral ascendanc# or influence su%

for violence and inti(idation.? At an# rate, AAA as actuall# t!reatened %# appellant it! !is a 4nife alle$edl# placed a%ove AAA"s !ead. @

ONSTI II !S"c. 1










































It (a# %e added t!at t!e self-servin$ defense of appellant cannot prevail over t!e positive andstrai$!tforard testi(on# of AAA. Settled is t!e rule t!at, ali%i is an in!erentl# ea4 defense t!at isvieed it! suspicion %ecause it is eas# to fa%ricate. @' Ali%i and denial (ust %e supported %# stron$corro%orative evidence in order to (erit credi%ilit#.@+ 2oreover, for t!e defense of ali%i to prosper, t!eaccused (ust esta%lis! to ele(ents J ;'< !e as not at t!e locus delicti at t!e ti(e t!e offense asco((itted= and ;+< it as p!#sicall# i(possi%le for !i( to %e at t!e scene at t!e ti(e of itsco((ission.@7 Appellant failed in t!is ise.

A$$ravatin$Lualif#in$ Circu(stances

)!e presence of t!e &ualif#in$ circu(stances of (inorit# and relations!ip it! t!e offender in t!einstant case !as li4eise %een ade&uatel# esta%lis!ed. Bot! &ualif#in$ circu(stances ere specificall#alle$ed in t!e Infor(ation, stipulated on and ad(itted durin$ t!e pre-trial conference, and testified to %# %ot! parties in t!eir respective testi(onies. Also, suc! stipulation and ad(ission, as correctl# pointed

out %# t!e Court of Appeals, are %indin$ upon t!is Court %ecause t!e# are 5udicial ad(issions it!in t!econte(plation of Section :, /ule '+ of t!e /evised /ules of Court. It provides0

Sec. :. udicial ad(issions. - An ad(ission, ver%al or ritten, (ade %# a part# in t!e course of t!e proceedin$s in t!e sa(e case, does not re&uire proof. )!e ad(ission (a# %e contradicted onl# %#s!oin$ t!at it as (ade t!rou$! palpa%le (ista4e or t!at no suc! ad(ission as (ade.

Penalt#

*inall#, in increasin$ t!e a(ount of civil inde(nit# and da(a$es eac! fro( P1,. to P?1,.,t!e Court of Appeals correctl# considered controllin$ 5urisprudence to t!e effect t!at !ere, as !ere, t!erape is co((itted it! an# of t!e &ualif#in$La$$ravatin$ circu(stances arrantin$ t!e i(position of t!e deat! penalt#, t!e victi( is entitled to P?1,. as civil inde(nit# e3 delicto@: and P?1,. as(oral da(a$es.@1 6oever, t!e aard of e3e(plar# da(a$es s!ould !ave %een increasedfro( P+1,. to P7,..@> Also, t!e penalt# of reclusion perpetua in lieu of deat! as correctl#i(posed considerin$ t!at t!e i(position of t!e deat! penalt# upon appellant ould !ave %eenappropriate ere it not for t!e enact(ent of /epu%lic Act No. 7:>, or An Act Pro!i%itin$ t!eI(position of Deat! Penalt# in t!e P!ilippines.@? e furt!er affir( t!e rulin$ of t!e Court of Appeals onappellant"s non-eli$i%ilit# for parole. Sec. 7 of /epu%lic Act No. 7:> clearl# provides t!at personsconvicted of offenses punis!ed it! reclusion perpetua, or !ose sentences ill %e reducedto reclusion perpetua %# reason of t!e la, s!all not %e eli$i%le for parole.

6E/E*O/E, t!e Decision of t!e Court of Appeals dated 7 Septe(%er +@ in CA-H./. C/ 6C No.

:1>-2IN is !ere%# A**I/2ED. Appellant Antonio au$a is HUI)M %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of &ualified rape, and is !ere%# sentenced to suffer t!e penalt# of reclusion perpetua it!out eli$i%ilit# for

parole and to pa# AAAP?1,. as civil inde(nit#, P?1,. as (oral da(a$es, and P7,e3e(plar# da(a$es.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 1




















*I/S) DIVISION

G.R. No. (5028 Ma) 15, 1((5

PEOPLE OF THE. PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.MARLO OMPIL Y LITA*AN, accused-appellant.

*ELLOSILLO, J.:

On t!e %elief t!at t!e case for t!e prosecution depends in t!e (ain on !is on e3tra5udicial confession!ic! !e clai(s is inad(issi%le, accused 2arlo Co(pil # ita%an filed a de(urrer to evidence instead

of presentin$ evidence in !is %e!alf. )!e trial court !oever denied !is de(urrer, ad(itted !ise3tra5udicial confession, and found !i( $uilt# of ro%%er# it! !o(icide. No %efore us, !e (aintainst!at !is e3tra5udicial confession as e3tracted it!out t!e assistance of counsel, t!us constitutionall#flaed.

As su%(itted %# t!e prosecution, on +7 Octo%er '@?, 5ust %efore (idni$!t, ro%%ers struc4 on MJ

Furnitureslocated alon$ )o(as 2apua Street, Sta. CruK, 2anila, !ic! dou%led as t!e dellin$ of its

proprietors, t!e spouses 2anuel and 2ar# a#. )!e intruders (ade t!eir a# into t!e furniture s!opt!rou$! t!e indo $rills t!e# detac!ed on t!e second floor !ere t!e %edroo( of t!e a#s as located.)o ;+< of t!e ro%%ers fort!it! !erded t!e to ;+< (aids of t!e oners into t!e %at!roo(.

2anuel a# as not #et !o(e. 6e as to co(e fro( t!eir ot!er furniture store, t!e Best ood Furniture, alon$ )o(as Pinpin Street, also in Sta. CruK. 6is ife 2ar# !ad earlier retired to t!eir %edroo(. Sensin$ !oever t!at so(et!in$ unusual as $oin$ on outside, 2ar# opened t!e door to

pee4. Suddenl#, a (an placed !is ar(s around !er nec4 !ile anot!er po4ed a balisong at !er nape. S!eas pus!ed %ac4 into t!e %edroo( and ordered to open t!e draers !ere s!e 4ept (one#. A t!ird (anransac4ed t!e %edroo(. )!e# t!en tied !er !ands %e!ind !er %ac4, stuffed !er (out! it! a toel, andtoo4 off it! so(e P71,. in cas! and pieces of 5eelr# ort! P7,..

Afterards, 2ar# !o as $a$$ed in t!e %edroo(, and one of t!e !ouse(aids !erded into t!e %at!roo(, !eard 2anuel a$oniKin$ a(id a co((otion in t!e $round floor. After noticin$ t!at t!e to

;+< (en $uardin$ t!e( !ad alread# left, t!e !elpers, enel#n Valle and Vir$inia N$o!o, das!ed out of t!e %at!roo( and proceeded to t!e %edroo( of t!eir e(plo#ers. Upon seein$ 2ar#, t!e to ;+< (aidsuntied !er !ands and too4 out t!e toel fro( !er (out!. )!e# t!en rus!ed to t!e $round floor !eret!e# sa 2anuel spraled on t!e floor a(on$ t!e pieces of furniture !ic! ere in disarra#. 6e

succu(%ed to t!irteen ;'7< sta% ounds.

In t!e investi$ation t!at folloed, essie Bartolo(e, a furniture or4er in MJ Furnitures, told opof t!e estern Police District ;PD< t!at 5ust %efore t!e incident t!at evenin$, !ile it! !is $iinda 6er(oso inside an oner-t#pe 5eep par4ed near MJ Furnitures, !e sa !is co-or4ersCo(pil, BaltaKar 2a%ini and ose acale $o to t!e %ac4 of t!e furniture s!op. inda t!en confir(infor(ation of Bartolo(e to t!e police investi$ators !o also learned t!at t!e trio !o ere aSa(ar failed to report for or4 t!e da# after t!e incident, and t!at BaltaKar 2a%ini as planninto )a#a%as, ueKon, to %e t!e %aptis(al $odfat!er of !is sisters c!ild.

)!us on +? Octo%er '@?, PD a$ents to$et!er it! )o(as a#, %rot!er of t!e deceased, and Valle ent to t!e paris! c!urc! of )a#a%as, ueKon, to loo4 for BaltaKar 2a%ini and !is co(p

*ro( t!e records of t!e paris! t!e# ere a%le to confir( t!at suspect BaltaKar 2a%ini st$odfat!er in t!e %aptis( of t!e c!ild of !is sister 2a(erta and /e# opeK. I((ediatel# t!e# proto t!e !ouse of opeK !o infor(ed t!e( t!at BaltaKar 2a%ini and !is co(panions alread# left %efore, e3cept Co(pil !o sta#ed %e!ind and still plannin$ to leave.

After %ein$ positivel# identified %# enel#n Valle as one of t!e or4ers of t!e a# spouses, a2arlo Co(pil !o as l#in$ on a couc! as i((ediatel# fris4ed and placed under arrest. Accoenel#n, Co(pil turned pale, %eca(e speec!less and as tre(%lin$. 6oever after re$ainco(posure and upon %ein$ interro$ated, Co(pil readil# ad(itted !is $uilt and pointed to t!e arofficers t!e perpetrators of t!e !eist fro( a picture of t!e %aptis( of t!e c!ild of 2a%inis sister. as t!en %rou$!t to t!e )a#a%as Police Station !ere !e as furt!er investi$ated. On t!eir a# 2anila, !e as a$ain &uestioned. 6e confessed t!at s!ortl# %efore (idni$!t on +7 Octo%er '@?it! t!e $roup t!at ro%%ed MJ Furnitures. 6e divul$ed to t!e police officers !o !is co(panioand !is participation as a loo4out for !ic! !e received P',.. 6e did not $o inside t!e fu

s!op since !e ould %e reco$niKed. Onl# t!ose !o ere not 4non to t!eir e(plo#ers ent Co(pil said t!at !is co!orts sta%%ed 2anuel a# to deat!. 6e also narrated t!at after t!e ro%%erall (et in Ban$4al, 2a4ati, in t!e !ouse of one Pa%lo Pa4it, a %rot!er of !is co-conspirator /Pa4it, !ere t!e# s!ared t!e loot and dran4 %eer until four-t!irt# in t!e (ornin$. )!en t!e# all ueKon and a$reed t!at fro( t!ere t!e# ould all $o !o(e to t!eir respective provinces.

*ro( )a#a%as, ueKon, t!e arrestin$ tea( to$et!er it! accused Co(pil proceeded to t!e !oPa%lo Pa4it !o confir(ed t!at !is #oun$er %rot!er /o$elio, it! so(e si3 ;>< ot!ers incCo(pil, ent to !is !ouse past (idni$!t on +7 Octo%er '@? and divided a(on$ t!e(selves t!eand 5eelr# !ic!, as !e pic4ed up fro( t!eir conversation, as ta4en fro( Sta. CruK, 2aniladran4 %eer until past four ocloc4 t!e ne3t (ornin$.

On +@ Octo%er '@?, t!e da# folloin$ !is arrest, accused Co(pil after conferrin$ it! CAO

2elencio ClaroK and in t!e presence of !is sister eticia Co(pil, %rot!er Orville Co(pil and %rola Vir$ilio acala, e3ecuted a sorn state(ent %efore Cpl. Patricio Balana# of t!e PD ad(it participation in t!e !eist as a loo4out. 6e na(ed t!e si3 ;>< ot!er perpetrators of t!e cri(e

ONSTI II !S"c. 1



acale, BaltaKar 2a%ini, A(ancio Alvos, /o$elio Pa4it, a certain Ernin$ and one ando, andasserted t!at !e as (erel# forced to 5oin t!e $roup %# ose acale and BaltaKar 2a%ini !o ere t!e(aster(inds0 Accordin$ to Co(pil, !e as earlier !ired %# 2a%ini to or4 for MJ Furnitures !ere !eas t!e fore(an.

2ean!ile PD a$ents !ad $at!ered ot!er leads and conducted follo-up operations in 2anila,Paraa&ue and Bulacan %ut failed to appre!end t!e co!orts of Co(pil.

On '+ Nove(%er '@? an Infor(ation for ro%%er# it! !o(icide as filed a$ainst 2arlo Co(pil.Assisted %# a counsel de o!icio !e entered a plea of Not Huilt# !en arrai$ned. After t!e prosecution

!ad rested, t!e accused r epresented %# counsel de parte instead of adducin$ evidence filed a de(urrer toevidence.

On + une '@@ t!e /e$ional )rial Court of 2anila, Br. :, 1 denied t!e de(urrer, found t!e accused$uilt# of ro%%er# it! !o(icide, and sentenced !i( to reclusion perpetua.

In !is ?1-pa$e appellants %rief, accused Co(pil clai(s t!at ;!e< as not apprised of !is constitutionalri$!ts ;to re(ain silent and see4 t!e assistance of counsel< %efore t!e police officers started interro$atin$!i( fro( t!e ti(e of !is arrest at t!e !ouse of /e# opeK, t!en at t!e )a#a%as Police Station, and !ileon t!eir a# to 2anila . . . . ;!e< as (ade to confess and declare state(ents t!at can %e used a$ainst!i( in an# proceedin$. 2 And, t!e %elated arrival of counsel fro( t!e CAO prior to t!e actuale3ecution of t!e ritten e3tra5udicial confession did not cure t!e constitutional infir(it# since t!e policeinvesti$ators !ad alread# e3tracted incri(inator# state(ents fro( !i( t!e da# %efore, !ic! e3tractedstate(ents for(ed part of !is alle$ed confession. 6e t!en concludes t!at 89it!out t!e ad(ission of ;!is< oral . . . and . . . ritten e3tra5udicial ;confessions< . . . ;!e< cannot %e convicted %e#ond reasona%ledou%t of t!e cri(e of ro%%er# it! !o(icide %ased on t!e testi(onies of ot!er itnesses $ !ic! arereplete it! serious and $larin$ inconsistencies and contradictions. '

In People v" #ous, 5 t!e )!ird Division of t!is Court !eld t!at an e3tra5udicial confession (a# %ead(itted in evidence even if o%tained it!out t!e assistance of counsel provided t!at it as read andfull# e3plained to confessant %# counsel %efore it as si$ned. 6oever e adopt our vie in $amboa

v" %ru& 6 !ere t!e Court 'n Banc ruled t!at 8t9!e ri$!t to counsel attac!es upon t!e start of aninvesti$ation, i"e", !en t!e investi$atin$ officer starts to as4 &uestions to elicit infor(ation andLor confessions or ad(issions fro( respondentLaccused. At suc! point or sta$e, t!e person %ein$interro$ated (ust %e assisted %# counsel to avoid t!e pernicious practice of e3tortin$ forced or coercedad(issions or confessions fro( t!e lips of t!e person under$oin$ interro$ation for t!e co((ission of

t!e offense. e (aintained t!is rule in t!e fairl# recent cases of People v" Macam + and People v"

Bandula 8 !ere e furt!er reiterated t!e procedure

. . . At t!e ti(e a person is arrested, it s!all %e t!e dut# of t!e arrestin$ officer to infor( !i(reason for t!e arrest and !e (ust %e s!on t!e arrant of arrest, if an#. 6e s!all %e infor(edconstitutional ri$!ts to re(ain silent and to counsel, and t!at an# state(ent !e (i$!t (a4e coused a$ainst !i(. )!e person arrested s!all !ave t!e ri$!t to co((unicate it! !is la#er, a relaan#one !e c!ooses %# t!e (ost e3pedient (eans %# telep!one if possi%le or %# le(essen$er. It s!all %e t!e responsi%ilit# of t!e arrestin$ officer to see to it t!at t!is is acco(plis!custodial investi$ation s!all %e conducted unless it %e in t!e presence of counsel en$a$ed %# t!earrested, %# an# person on !is %e!alf, or appointed %# t!e court upon petition eit!er of t!e d!i(self or %# an#one on !is %e!alf . . . An# state(ent o%tained in violation of t!e procedure !erdon, !et!er e3culpator# or inculpator#, in !ole or in part, s!all %e in ad(issi%le in evidence.

In t!e case at %enc!, it is evident t!at accused-appellant as i((ediatel# su%5ected to an interroupon !is arrest in t!e !ouse of /e# opeK in )a#a%as, ueKon. 6e as t!en %rou$!t to t!e )Police Station !ere !e as furt!er &uestioned. And !ile on t!eir a# to 2anila, t!e arrestin$a$ain elicited incri(inatin$ infor(ation. In all t!ree instances, !e confessed to t!e co((issioncri(e and ad(itted !is participation t!erein. In all t!ose instances, !e as not assisted %# counse

)!e %elated arrival of t!e CAO la#er t!e folloin$ da# even if prior to t!e actual si$nin$ uncounseled confession does not cure t!e defect for t!e investi$ators ere alread# a%le to incri(inator# state(ents fro( accused-appellant. )!e operative act, it !as %een stressed, is ! police investi$ation is no lon$er a $eneral in&uir# into an unsolved cri(e %ut !as %e$un to focu particular suspect !o !as %een ta4en into custod# %# t!e police to carr# out a process of interrt!at lends itself to elicitin$ incri(inator# state(ents, and not t!e si$nin$ %# t!e suspect of !is sue3tra5udicial confession. )!us in People v" de Jesus ( e said t!at ad(issions o%tained durin$ c

interro$ations it!out t!e %enefit of counsel alt!ou$! later reduced to ritin$ and si$ned presence of counsel are still flaed under t!e Constitution.

!at is (ore, it is !i$!l# i(pro%a%le for CAO la#er 2elencio ClaroK to !ave full# e3plaineaccused !o did not even finis! Hrade One, in less t!an ten ;'< (inutes as %orne %# t!e recorlatters constitutional ri$!ts and t!e conse&uences of su%scri%in$ to an e3tra5udicial confession.

!ile t!e e3tra5udicial confession of accused-appellant is so convincin$ t!at it (entions detailscould not !ave %een (erel# concocted, and 5i%es it! t!e ot!er pieces of evidence uncovered investi$ators, still e cannot ad(it it in evidence %ecause of its i(plicit constitutional inf Nevert!eless, e find ot!er sufficient factual circu(stances to prove !is $uilt %e#ond reasona%le

e $ive credence to t!e testi(onies of prosecution itnesses inda 6er(oso, Pa%lo Pa4it and

Valle. e %elieve t!at inda 6er(oso sa t!e accused and 2a%ini in t!e vicinit# of MJ Furnitu

ONSTI II !S"c. 1



%efore t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e. !ile 6er(oso (a# !ave contradicted !erself on so(e (inor incidents, s!e as strai$!tforard on t!is specific instance

*ISCA *O/2OSO ;re-direct<0

. Mou said t!at #ou sa 2arlo and Puti ;BaltaKar 2a%ini< to$et!er it! essie !en #ou ere insidet!e 5eep, is it notQ

I)NESS 6E/2OSO0

A. Mes, sir.

. as t!is %efore #ou ent to sleepQ

A. Mes, sir. 10

)i(e and a$ain it !as %een said t!at (inor inconsistencies do not i(pair t!e credi%ilit# of itnesses,(ore so it! itness 6er(oso !o onl# reac!ed Hrade )o and !o as t!e trial court noted !addifficult# understandin$ t!e &uestions %ein$ propounded to !er. In fine, in t!e a%sence of evidence tos!o an# reason !# prosecution itnesses s!ould falsel# testif#, it is fair to conclude t!at no i(proper (otive e3ists and t!at t!eir testi(on# is ort!# of full fait! and credit.

e !ave repeatedl# ruled t!at t!e $uilt of t!e accused (a# %e esta%lis!ed t!rou$! circu(stantial

evidence provided t!at0 ;'< t!ere is (ore t!an one circu(stance= ;+< t!e facts fro( !ic! t!e inferencesare derived are proved= and, ;7< t!e co(%ination of all t!e circu(stances is suc! as to produceconviction %e#ond reasona%le dou%t. 11 And t!ere can %e a conviction %ased on circu(stantial evidence!en t!e circu(stances proven for( an un%ro4en c!ain !ic! leads to a fair and reasona%le conclusion pinpointin$ t!e accused as t!e perpetrator of t!e cri(e. 12

In t!e instant case, t!e prosecution as a%le to prove t!e $uilt of t!e accused t!rou$! t!e folloin$

circu(stances0 *irst, accused 2arlo Co(pil and BaltaKar 2a%ini !o are %ot! fro( Sa(ar or4edin MJ Furnitures in Sta. CruK, 2anila, and ere fa(iliar it! t!e floor plan of t!e s!op. Second, on t!eni$!t of t!e incident, t!e# ere seen in front of MJ Furnitures. )!ird, t!e# ere seen $oin$ to t!e rear of t!e furniture store. *ourt!, ro%%ers forci%l# entered MJ Furnitures t!rou$! t!e %ac4 indo on t!esecond floor. *ift!, so(e to ;+< !ours after t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e, at around to ocloc4 t!efolloin$ (ornin$, t!e# ere in a !ouse in Ban$4al, 2a4ati, dividin$ %eteen t!e(selves and t!eir five ;1< ot!er co(panions t!e (one# and 5eelr# ta4en fro( Sta. CruK, 2anila. Si3t!, t!e# all failed to

s!o up for or4 t!e folloin$ da#. Sevent!, accuses Co(pil turned as!en, as tre(%lin$ andspeec!less !en appre!ended in )a#a%as, ueKon, for a cri(e co((itted in 2anila. Certainl# t!ese

circu(stances as $leaned fro( t!e factual findin$s of t!e trial court for( an un%ro4en c!ain !icto a fair and reasona%le conclusion pointin$ to t!e accused as one of t!e perpetrators cri(e. 1$ 6ence even disre$ardin$ accused-appellants oral and ritten confessions, as e do, s prosecution as a%le to s!o t!at !e as a co-conspirator in t!e ro%%er# it! !o(icide.

!ile it (a# %e true t!at t!e arrest, searc! and seiKure ere (ade it!out t!e %enefit of a accused-appellant is no estopped fro( &uestionin$ t!is defect after failin$ to (ove for t!e &uas

t!e infor(ation %efore t!e trial court. )!us an# irre$ularit# attendant to !is arrest as cured voluntaril# su%(itted !i(self to t!e 5urisdiction of t!e trial court %# enterin$ a plea of not $uil %# participatin$ in t!e trial. 1'

)!e ar$u(ent of accused-appellant t!at t!e trial court s!ould !ave convicted t!e arrestin$ police of ar%itrar# detention, if not dela# in t!e deliver# of detained persons, is (isplaced. Suffice it to t!e la enforcers !o arrested !i( are not %ein$ c!ar$ed and prosecuted in t!e case at %enc!.

i4eise devoid of (erit is t!e contention of accused-appellant t!at $rantin$ t!at !e !ad participt!e co((ission of t!e cri(e, !e s!ould %e considered onl# as an acco(plice. Disre$arde3tra5udicial confession and %# reason of !is failure to adduce evidence in !is %e!alf, t!e Courit! no ot!er recourse %ut to consider onl# t!e evidence of t!e prosecution !ic! s!os t! perpetrators of t!e cri(e acted in concert. *or, direct proof is not essential to prove conspirac# 1

(a# %e inferred fro( t!e acts of t!e accused durin$ and after t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e !ic

to a 5oint purpose, concert of action and co((unit# of interest. 16)!us circu(stantial evidsufficient to prove conspirac#. 1+ And !ere conspirac# e3ists, t!e act of one is t!e act of all, andto %e !eld in t!e sa(e de$ree of lia%ilit# as t!e ot!ers. 18

6E/E*O/E, t!e Decision of t!e /e$ional )rial Court appealed fro( is A**I/2ED insoffinds accused-appellant 2A/O CO2PI # I)ABAN $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of rit! !o(icide. Conse&uentl#, !e is sentenced to reclusion perpetua it! all t!e accessor# p

provided %# la.

Accused-appellant is also directed to inde(nif# t!e !eirs of t!e deceased 2anuel a# in t!e a(P1,., plus P71,. as actual da(a$es. 6e is furt!er directed to return to 2ar# a# t!e 5ort! P7,., and if !e can no lon$er return t!e 5eelr#, to pa# its value.

Costs a$ainst accused-appellant.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 1



SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1$$026 F"r-ar) 20, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.E/AR ENINO !a ar"% a34 GERRY GALGARIN aa TOTO, accused.GERRY GALGARIN aa TOTO, accused-appellant.

*ELLOSILLO, J .7

MIEDINH to (ans %rutis! instinct for reven$e, Edard Endino, it! t!e aid of Herr# Hal$arin

alias Toto, sle Dennis A&uino in t!e presence of a lad# !ose love t!e# once s!ared. 1()phi1"n*t

On a %us# street in Puerto Princesa Cit# in t!e evenin$ of '> Octo%er '', an e(%oldened Herr#Hal$arin, uncle of accused Edard Endino, suddenl# and it!out arnin$ lun$ed at Dennis and sta%%ed!i( repeatedl# on t!e c!est. Dennis $irlfriend Clara A$a$as !o as it! !i(, stunned %# t!eune3pected attac4, pleaded to Hal$arin to stop. Dennis stru$$led and succeeded (o(entaril# to free!i(self fro( !is attac4er. Dennis das!ed toards t!e near%# Midto)n Sales %ut !is escape as foiled

!en fro( out of no!ere Edard Endino appeared and fired at Dennis. As Dennis sta$$ered for safet#, t!e to ;+< assailants fled in t!e direction of t!e airport.

2ean!ile, Dennis, ounded and %leedin$, sou$!t refu$e inside t!e 'lohim Store !ere !e collapsedon t!e floor. 6e as $raspin$ for %reat! and near deat!. Clara it! t!e !elp of so(e onloo4ers too4 !i(to t!e !ospital %ut Dennis e3pired even %efore !e could receive (edical attention. Accordin$ to t!eautops# report of Dr. osep!ine Ho!-CruK, cause of deat! as cardio-respirator# arrest secondar# to

!#povole(ic s!oc4 secondar# to a sta% ound !ic! penetrated t!e !eart.'

On '@ Octo%er '', an Infor(ation for t!e (urder of Dennis A&uino as filed a$ainst Edard Endinoand accused-appellant Herr# Hal$arin and arrants ere issued for t!eir arrest. 6oever, as %ot!accused re(ained at lar$e, t!e trial court issued on +> Dece(%er '' an order puttin$ t!e case in t!earc!ives it!out pre5udice to its reinstate(ent upon t!eir appre!ension.

On ' Nove(%er '+, Herr# Hal$arin as arrested t!rou$! t!e co(%ined efforts of t!e Antipolo andPalaan police forces at a !ouse in Sitio Sto. Nio, Antipolo, /iKal. 6e as i((ediatel# ta4en intote(porar# custod# %# t!e Antipolo Police. Earl# in t!e evenin$ of t!e folloin$ da#, !e as fetc!edfro( t!e Antipolo Police Station %# PO7 Haudencio 2anlavi and PO7 Edin 2a$%anua of t!e Palaan

police force to %e ta4en to Palaan and %e tried accordin$l#.

On t!eir a# to t!e airport, t!e# stopped at t!e ABS-CBN television station !ere accused Has intervieed %# reporters. Video foota$es of t!e intervie ere ta4en s!oin$ Hal$arin ad(!is $uilt !ile pointin$ to !is nep!e Edard Endino as t!e $un(an. Accordin$ to Hal$ariattac4in$ A&uino, t!e# left for /o3as, Palaan, !ere !is sister Langging !o is Edards (ot!aitin$. Langging $ave t!e( (one# for t!eir fare for 2anila. )!e# too4 t!e %oat for Batan$ast!e# sta#ed for a fe da#s, and proceeded to 2anila !ere t!e# separated, it! !i( !eadAntipolo. Hal$arin appealed for Edard to $ive !i(self up to t!e aut!orities. 6is intervie asover t!e ABS-CBN evenin$ nes pro$ra( T+ Patrol .

)!e case a$ainst accused-appellant Herr# Hal$arin as esta%lis!ed t!rou$! t!e testi(on# o

A$a$as !o said t!at s!e as it! t!e victi( Dennis A&uino standin$ outside t!e Soundlab #eStudio, a %ar!ouse oned %# !i(, !en Hal$arin suddenl# approac!ed t!e( and it!out anarnin$ sta%%ed Dennis. Dennis tried to run aa#, %ut Edard, a spurned lover !o !ar%ofeelin$s toards !er and Dennis, s!ot Dennis. S!e reco$niKed Edard and Herr# %ecause t!e strsufficientl# li$!ted.+

)!e testi(on# of Clara A$a$as as corro%orated %# Anita eon$, ne3t-door nei$!%or of Denntestified t!at a little past si3 ocloc4 in t!e evenin$ of '> Octo%er '' Herr# Hal$arin to$et!erco(panion ent to !er !ouse loo4in$ for Dennis. S!e instructed t!e( to proceed to t!e So

#ecording Studio as Dennis (i$!t still %e t!ere. But a fe (inutes later s!e !eard a Instinctiveinstructed !er to ;+< #oun$ dau$!ters to duc4 for cover !ile s!e an3iousl# aited for !er sev#ear old dau$!ter osep!ine !o as out of t!e !ouse for an errand for !er. Soon enou$! s!osep!ine 4noc4in$ at t!eir door. S!e as cr#in$ %ecause s!e said !er Kuya ennis !ad %een ssta%%ed.7

osep!ine confir(ed !er (ot!ers testi(on# and even said t!at s!e !ad seen Herr# Hal$ar!er Kuyaennis and s!e could re(e(%er Herr# ver# ell %ecause of t!e (ole %elo !is nose.:

*or !is part, accused-appellant Herr# Hal$arin disclai(ed !avin$ ta4in$ part in t!e sla#in$ of DHerr# asserted t!at on ': Octo%er '' !e as in Antipolo to !elp !is co((on-la ife2arasi$an $ive %irt! to t!eir first %orn. 6e sta#ed it! !er until t!e '>t! of Octo%er !en sdisc!ar$ed fro( t!e Pedra$oKa 2aternit# Clinic.1

Clarita *lorentino Pedra$oKa, t!e (idife !o delivered !is son, supported t!e ali%i of acappellant. 6oever, s!e ad(itted t!at !en s!e re$istered t!e c!ilds %irt! on '7 Dece(%er '(ore t!an to ;+< #ears after t!e deliver#, s!e infor(ed t!e civil re$istrar t!at t!e c!ilds fat!

un4non. > 6is stor# as also confir(ed %# Dolores Arcia$a and 2aria )o(enio, !is co-or

t!e Kainan sa Kubo Sing -long #estaurant , !o testified t!at accused-appellant as fetc!e

ONSTI II !S"c. 1



nei$!%or fro( t!e restaurant in t!e earl# afternoon of ': Octo%er it! t!e nes t!at !is ife as !avin$la%or pains.?

Accused-appellant disoned t!e confession !ic! !e (ade over T+ Patrol and clai(ed t!at it asinduced %# t!e t!reats of t!e arrestin$ police officers. 6e asserted t!at t!e videotaped confession asconstitutionall# infir(ed and inad(issi%le under t!e e3clusionar# rule provided in Sec.'+, Art. III, of t!e Constitution.@

)!e trial court !oever ad(itted t!e video foota$es on t!e stren$t! of t!e testi(on# of t!e policeofficers t!at no force or co(pulsion as e3erted on accused-appellant and upon a findin$ t!at !is

confession as (ade %efore a $roup of nes(en t!at could !ave dissipated an# se(%lance of !ostilit#toards !i(. )!e court $ave credence to t!e arrestin$ officers assertion t!at it as even accused-appellant !o pleaded it! t!e( t!at !e %e alloed to air !is appeal on national television for Edardto surrender.

)!e ali%i of Hal$arin as li4eise re5ected since t!ere as no convincin$ evidence to support !isalle$ation t!at !e as not at t!e locus criminis on t!e evenin$ of '> Octo%er ''. Accordin$l#,accused-appellant Herr# Hal$arin as convicted of (urder &ualified %# treac!er# and sentencedto reclusion perpetua. Additionall#, !e as ordered to inde(nif# t!e !eirs of Dennis A&uino P1,.as co(pensator# da(a$es and P?+,?+1.71 as actual da(a$es. )!e case a$ainst !is nep!e and co-accused Edard Endino re(ained in t!e arc!ives it!out pre5udice to its reinstate(ent as soon as !e

could %e arrested.'

In !is Appellants Brief, Herr# Hal$arin assails t!e trial court for re5ectin$ !is ali%i and ad(ittin$ !is

videotaped confession as evidence a$ainst !i(.

)!e ar$u(ent t!at accused-appellant could not %e at t!e scene of t!e cri(e on '> Octo%er '' as !eas in Antipolo assistin$ !is ife !o as $ivin$ %irt! on t!e ':t! of t!at (ont!, is not persuasive.Ali%i is a ea4 defense. )!e testi(on# of Cornelio )e5ero r.,'' P!ilippine Airlines oad Controller of t!e Puerto Princesa Cit#, t!at t!e na(e of Herr# Hal$arin did not appear on t!eir passen$er (anifestfor t!e '> Octo%er '' 2anila-Puerto Princesa fli$!t, could not %e relied upon inas(uc! as !e !i(self ad(itted t!at t!e# could not %e sure of t!eir passen$ers real identities. )!e testi(onies of accused-appellants co-or4ers t!at !e as in Antipolo on ': Octo%er '' did not fortif# !is defense eit!er since t!ese itnesses did not cate$oricall# state t!at t!e# sa !i( in Antipolo in t!e evenin$ of '>Octo%er ''.

it! accused-appellant !avin$ %een positivel# identified %# t!e prosecution itnesses as t!e one !o

sta%%ed Dennis, !is %are denial proves futile and unavailin$. osep!ine eon$s identification of accused-appellant as $iven in a ver# cate$orical and spontaneous (anner. 6er confidence as to t!e

attac4ers identit# as clearl# s!on %# !er vivid recollection of !i( !avin$ a (ole %elo !i!ic! is correct. 2oreover, it is inconceiva%le for osep!ine and Anita to i(plicate accused-appco(plete stran$er to t!e(, if t!ere as no trut! to t!eir assertion. As for Clara, !er na(in$ of aappellant as !er %o#friends assailant as not done out of spite, %ut as i(pelled %# !er desire 5ustice for Dennis.

Corro%oratin$ furt!er accused-appellants $uilt, pro%a%l# it! intense incri(inatin$ effect,

i((ediate fli$!t after t!e sla#in$, and !is atte(pt at 5ail%rea4 '+ revealin$ a $uilt# conscience, !e persistent effort to evade t!e clutc!es of t!e la.

Apropos t!e court a .uo/s ad(ission of accused-appellants videotaped confession, e finad(ission proper. )!e intervie as recorded on video and it s!oed accused-appellant un%ur!is $uilt illin$l#, openl# and pu%licl# in t!e presence of nes(en. Suc! confession does not foof custodial investi$ation as it as not $iven to police officers %ut to (edia (en in an atte(pt t

s#(pat!# and for$iveness fro( t!e pu%lic. Besides, if !e !ad indeed %een forced into confesscould !ave easil# sou$!t succor fro( t!e nes(en !o, in all li4eli!ood, ould !ave %een s#(pit! !i(. As t!e trial court stated in its Decision'7 -

*urt!er(ore, accused, in !is )V intervie ;E3!. 6<, freel# ad(itted t!at !e !ad sta%%ed Dennis Aand t!at Edard Endino !ad s!ot !i( ;A&uino<. )!ere is no s!oin$ t!at t!e intervie of accuscoerced or a$ainst !is ill. 6ence, t!ere is %asis to accept t!e trut! of !is state(ents t!erein.

e a$ree. 6oever, %ecause of t!e in!erent dan$er in t!e use of television as a (ediu( for ad(ones $uilt, and t!e recurrence of t!is p!eno(enon in several cases,': it is prudent t!at trial cou

re(inded t!at e3tre(e caution (ust %e ta4en in furt!er ad(ittin$ si(ilar confessions. *o pro%a%ilit#, t!e police, it! t!e connivance of unscrupulous (edia practitioners, (a# attele$iti(iKe coerced e3tra5udicial confessions and place t!e( %e#ond t!e e3clusionar# rule %# !aaccused ad(it an offense on television. Suc! a situation ould %e detri(ental to t!e $uaranteed r

t!e accused and t!us i(peril our cri(inal 5ustice s#ste(.1()phi1"n*t

e do not su$$est t!at videotaped confessions $iven %efore (edia (en %# an accused 4noled$e of and in t!e presence of police officers are i(per(issi%le. Indeed, t!e line %eteenand invalid police tec!ni&ues and conduct is a difficult one to dra, particularl# in cases suc!!ere it is essential to (a4e s!arp 5ud$(ents in deter(inin$ !et!er a confession as $ivencoercive p!#sical or ps#c!olo$ical at(osp!ere.

A ord of counsel t!en to loer courts0 e s!ould never presu(e t!at all (edia confessions de

as voluntar# !ave %een freel# $iven. )!is t#pe of confession ala#s re(ains suspect and t!s!ould %e t!orou$!l# e3a(ined and scrutiniKed. Detection of coerced confessions is ad(it

ONSTI II !S"c. 1



difficult and arduous tas4 for t!e courts to (a4e. It re&uires persistence and deter(ination in separatin$ polluted confessions fro( untainted ones. e !ave a sorn dut# to %e vi$ilant and protective of t!eri$!ts $uaranteed %# t!e Constitution.

it! all t!e evidence ti$!tl# rin$ed around accused-appellant, t!e &uestion t!at ne3t presents itself is!et!er t!e trial court correctl# deno(inated t!e cri(e as (urder &ualified %# treac!er#. Dou%tless, t!ecri(e co((itted is one of (urder considerin$ t!at t!e victi( as sta%%ed !ile !e as si(pl# standin$

on t!e pave(ent it! !is $irlfriend aitin$ for a ride, %lissfull# o%livious of t!e accuseds cri(inaldesi$n. )!e suddenness of t!e assault on an unsuspectin$ victi(, it!out t!e sli$!test provocation fro(!i( !o !ad no opportunit# to parr# t!e attac4, certainl# &ualifies t!e 4illin$ to (urder. '1

/HEREFORE, t!e Decision of t!e court a .uo findin$ accused-appellant HE//M HAHA/INalias Toto $uilt# of 2urder &ualified %# )reac!er#, sentencin$ !i( to reclusion perpetua, and orderin$!i( to inde(nif# t!e !eirs of Dennis A&uino in t!e a(ount of P1,. as co(pensator# da(a$es

and P?+,?+1.71 as actual da(a$es, isAFFIRME it! t!e MOIFIATION t!at accused-appellantis furt!er ordered to co(pensate t!e decedents !eirs P1,. as (oral da(a$es for t!eir e(otionaland (ental an$uis!. Costs a$ainst accused-appellant.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



EN BANC

G.R. No. 151286 March $1, 200'

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,vs.AZUNA a34 ATALINO UEAS, 9R., appellant.

D E C I S I O N

ORONA J.7

Before us on auto(atic revie is t!e decision,' dated Octo%er +>, +', of t!e /e$ional )rial Court;/)C< of Baler, Aurora, Branc! >, in Cri(inal Case No. +++ findin$ t!e appellant, Catalino Dueas,r., $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of t!e cri(e of (urder &ualified %# evident pre(editation andattended %# t!e a$$ravatin$ circu(stance of recidivis(. Appellant as sentenced to deat!.

On April ', '?, Provincial Prosecutor C!arla . /on&uillo filed it! t!e /)C Baler, Aurora aninfor(ation c!ar$in$ appellant it! t!e cri(e of (urder0

)!at at a%out @0 o"cloc4 in t!e (ornin$ on Nove(%er +, '> at Ha%$a% Bu!an$in, Baler, Auroraand it!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!is 6onora%le Court t!e said accused !o as convicted of 2urder onOcto%er +, ', it! intent to 4ill, evident pre(editation, treac!er# and use of an unlicensed firear(,did t!en and t!ere, attac4, assault and use personal violence upon Elva /a(os-aco%, also 4non asElvin$ aco%, %# s!ootin$ !er at t!e !ead it! a .7@ cali%er revolver t!at caused !er deat! not lon$t!ereafter.

CON)/A/M )O A.+

Upon arrai$n(ent, appellant entered a plea of not $uilt#.7

)!e folloin$ facts are uncontroverted.

Appellant as a convicted felon for t!e cri(e of !o(icide: in Cri(inal Case No. ':': in t!e /e$ional)rial Court, Branc! >>, Baler, Aurora. 6e as servin$ sentence in t!e Ia!i$ Prison *ar(, PuertoPrincesa Cit#, Palaan, !en !e escaped fro( confine(ent on ul# '', '1.

On Nove(%er +, '>, at around @0 a.(., Cesar *ri$inal as cuttin$ $rass in !is rice field in SitioHa%$a%, Br$#. Bu!an$in, Baler, Aurora, !en !e !eard to $uns!ots. 6e instinctivel# turned to t!e

direction !ere !e !eard t!e s!ots and, fro( a%out a !undred (eters aa#, sa a s!ort (an $reen clot!es runnin$ aa#. At first, !e i$nored t!e occurrence %ut !en !e sa people troopinvicinit#, !e 5oined t!e crod and t!ere sa a dead o(an on t!e $round. )!e o(an aidentified as !is cousin and nei$!%or, Elva Ra Elvin$ /a(os-aco%.1

On Dece(%er >, '>, Dr. Nenita S. 6ernandeK, (unicipal !ealt! officer of Baler, Aurora, cona post mortem e3a(ination on t!e victi(. 6er autops# report s!oed t!e folloin$0

I - 6ead0

'. ound, $uns!ot, entrance, circular in s!ape a%out ' c(. dia(eter at t!e ri$!t parieto-te(poral

+. ound, $uns!ot, e3it, stollate in s!ape, ed$es everted a%out '.1 c(. dia(eter it! an e3pose(atter and fractured %one fra$(ent located at t!e te(poral area, ri$!t side.

7. ound lacerated a%out '.1 c(. lon$ at t!e ri$!t parietal area.

II - Ar(0

'. ound lacerated : c(. lon$, lateral aspect, ri$!t rist.

CAUSE O* DEA)60

)!e (ost pro%a%le cause of deat! as %rain da(a$e and !#povel(ic s!oc4 due to $uns!ot out!e %rain.>

In a (anifestation, t!e Office of t!e Solicitor Heneral ;OSH< narrated !at it vieed as t!e antecedents of t!e case0

On Dece(%er '@, '>, appellant tried to enter t!e !ouse of one Benn# Po%lete in Br$#. Bu!Baler, Aurora, it!out per(ission. Benn# and !is fat!er 6arold Po%lete tied appellant"s !ands u police arrived. Police Officer Noel C. Pal(ero t!en appre!ended and detained appellant at t!Police Station.

)!e ne3t da#, or on Dece(%er ', '>, appellant sou$!t voluntar# confine(ent for safe4e

%ecause t!ere ere t!reats upon !is life %rou$!t a%out %# !is involve(ent in t!e afore(eincident of t!eft a$ainst t!e Po%letes.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



/i$!t after !is appre!ension, appellant inti(ated to Police Officer Pal(ero t!at !e !as infor(ationre$ardin$ t!e deat! of Ra Elvin$. Police Officer Pal(ero t!en instructed appellant to t!in4 a%out it over ; sic< first.

*our da#s after or on Dece(%er +7, '>, Police Officer Pal(ero as4ed t!e still detained appellant if !eas read# to divul$e t!e infor(ation re$ardin$ Ra Elvin$"s deat!, to !ic! appellant ansered #es.Appellant as t!en infor(ed of !is constitutional ri$!ts, includin$ t!e ri$!t to secure t!e services of a

la#er of !is on c!oice. Police Officer Pal(ero told appellant t!at if !e cannot afford t!e services of counsel, !e ould even %e provided it! one for free.

B# eleven o"cloc4 t!at sa(e (ornin$, Att#. osefina S. An$ara, upon t!e police"s invitation, arrived att!e Baler Police Station to tal4 to appellant. Att#. An$ara spo4e it! appellant in private for a%out t!irt#;7< (inutes. Appellant %la(ed Benn# for 4ic4in$ !i( and causin$ !i( to suffer c!est pains. Att#.An$ara as4ed appellant !at reall# !appened. Before lon$, appellant ad(itted t!at !e as

co((issioned %# Benn# to 4ill t!e victi(. Att#. An$ara arned !i( of t!e seriousness of !isi(plications %ut appellant as ada(ant in confessin$ to t!e (urder of Ra Elvin$. )!e la#er-clientconference as %riefl# interrupted %# lunc!ti(e. B# one-t!irt# in t!e afternoon, !oever, t!e in&uisitionresu(ed. Beteen t!e !ours of t!ree t!irt# and four o"cloc4 in t!e afternoon, appellant co(pleted!is Sinumpaang Salaysay !ere !e confessed to t!e 4illin$ of Ra Elvin$. )!e state(ent of appellantas initiall# ritten on pad paper, t!ereafter it as t#peritten. 6oever, %# t!e ti(e t!e Sinumpaang

Salaysay as finaliKed, it as alread# past office !ours suc! t!at t!e attestation %efore t!e (unicipal(a#or as postponed until t!e folloin$ (ornin$.

Afterards, %ecause of persistent c!est pains, appellant as t!en %rou$!t to t!e Aurora 2e(orial

6ospital to %e (edicall# e3a(ined. 6oever, Police Officer Pal(ero did not in&uire as to t!e results of t!e (edical e3a(ination. )!e results of t!e (edical e3a(ination ere not offered in evidence.

)!e folloin$ (ornin$, Dece(%er +:, '>, appellant, !o as escorted %# t!e police, as %rou$!t

%efore t!e t!en 2unicipal 2a#or of Baler, Aurora, Arturo S. An$ara. 2a#or An$ara read t!esi$ned Sinumpaang Salaysay %efore ad(inisterin$ t!e oat!. 6e pro%ed appellant if t!e si$natureappearin$ in t!e Sinumpaang Salaysay as !is and !et!er !e understood t!e contents of t!e saiddocu(ent. Su%se&uentl#, 2a#or An$ara affi3ed !is si$nature on appellant"s Sinumpaang Salaysay.

In su%stance, t!e contested Sinumpaang Salaysay states t!at Benn# Po%lete co((issioned one Cesar to4ill Ra Elvin$. Cesar, in turn, contacted appellant for t!e !it. *or (ore t!an a ee4, appellant and Cesar,to$et!er it! a certain 2ann# HonKales, stal4ed t!e victi(. On Nove(%er +, '>, appellant acted as

a loo4out !ile !is co(panions s!ot t!e victi(.?

On t!e ot!er !and, appellant testified t!at, %efore noon on Dece(%er ':, '>,@ !e ent to t!e !one Benn# Po%lete to see !is %rot!er-in-la, Erin Bernardo, !o as or4in$ for t!e Po%lete!is %rot!er-in-la as not around, 6arold, son of Benn# Po%lete, invited !i( to a drin4in$ spreet!e# ere drin4in$, police officers Alfredo 2iel and A(oranto A&uino arrived and arrested !i(. %rou$!t to t!e (unicipal !all !ere !e as !orced to admit the 0illing of Elvin$ aco%. *oconsecutive ni$!ts, !e as (auled. As a result, !is e #es %eca(e sollen and !is c!est ac!ed. Unendure t!e pain an# lon$er, !e oned up to t!e cri(e.

On Dece(%er +7, '>, PO7 Noel C. Pal(ero, in t!e presence of Att#. osefina An$ara, too4 appstate(ent. Appellant clai(ed t!at neither investigating o!!icer Palmero nor -tty" Jose!ina

apprised him o! his constitutional rights during the custodial investigation" )!e folloin$ da#, %rou$!t to 2a#or Arturo An$ara %efore !o( !e sore to !is affidavit containin$ !is confession

Dr. /o%erto A. Correa of t!e Aurora 2e(orial 6ospital testified t!at !e conducted a (

e3a(ination of t!e appellant at around +0 p.(. on Dece(%er +7, '>. Durin$ t!e e3a(inatfound a t!ree-inc! lacerated ound on appellant"s ri$!t ar( and a %iositis tenderness ;infla((t!e (uscle< in !is ri$!t scapular area. 6e furt!er testified t!at t!e lesions ere caused %# ainstru(ent. Aside fro( t!ese lesions, Dr. Correo did not notice an# ot!er in5uries on t!e %od#appellant.''

On re%uttal, Att#. An$ara %elied t!e accusation of Dueas. S!e testified t!at at past '0 a

Dece(%er +7, '>, police(en ca(e to !er office and re&uested !er to assist t!e appellant t!en under custodial investi$ation. S!e arrived at t!e police station at past ''0 a.(. anintroduced to t!e appellant. Durin$ !er private conversation it! t!e appellant, s!e apprised !i(

constitutional ri$!ts and told !i( t!at !atever !e said could %e used a$ainst !i(. S!e discoura$fro( $ivin$ !is confession %ut appellant as deter(ined to do so. )!e &uestionin$ resu(ed a'07 p.(. and lasted up to :0 p.(. !ile t!e investi$ation as $oin$ on, appellant co(plac!est pains so s!e re&uested t!at appellant %e %rou$!t to t!e !ospital for (edical attention.

PO7 Pal(ero as also presented as re%uttal itness. 6e disclai(ed (aulin$ t!e appellant. 6e adt!at appellant as indeed co(plainin$ of c!est pains %ut it as alle$edl# t!e result of t!e 46arold Po%lete. In contrast it! !is previous declaration t!at !e fetc!ed Att#. An$ara at aroun p.(. to assist appellant durin$ t!e investi$ation, PO7 Pal(ero no clai(ed t!at t!e interro$atioa%out t!ree !ours, t!at is, fro( '0 p.(. up to a%out :0 p.(. on Dece(%er +7, '>. 6e also dt!at appellant as $iven (edical attention after t!e interro$ation.'+

/el#in$ principall# on t!e e3tra5udicial confession of t!e appellant on Dece(%er +7, '> ;!i

later repudiated<, t!e trial court rendered its decision convictin$ appellant of t!e cri(e c!ar$ed0

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



6E/E*O/E, pre(ises considered, t!e Court finds accused Catalino Dueas, r. HUI)M BEMOND/EASONABE DOUB) of t!e cri(e of 2urder &ualified %# evident pre(editation, and considerin$t!e presence of t!e a$$ravatin$ circu(stance of recidivis( and in t!e a%sence of an# (iti$atin$circu(stance, !ere%# sentences !i( to suffer t!e e3tre(e penalt# of DEA)6 and furt!er orders !i( toinde(nif# t!e !eirs of t!e victi(s in t!e a(ount of *ift# )!ousand Pesos ;P1,.< as (oralda(a$es and to pa# t!e costs.

SO O/DE/ED.'7

6ence, t!is auto(atic appeal.

Accordin$ to appellant, t!e e3tra5udicial confession !ic! t!e trial court relied on !eavil# for !isconviction as infir( %ecause t!e confession as secured t!rou$! force and inti(idation, a violation of !is constitutional ri$!ts.

*or t!e State, t!e OSH filed a (anifestation and (otion in lieu of appellee"s %rief, see4in$ t!e reversalof t!e c!allen$ed decision and t!e ac&uittal of Dueas on t!e $round of involuntariness of !ise3tra5udicial confession. )!e OSH underscored t!e fact t!at it as forced out of appellant %# (eans of t!reats, violence and inti(idation, t!us violatin$ !is ri$!ts.

)!e appeal is (eritorious.

In convictin$ t!e appellant, t!e court a .uo reasoned as follos0

)!e e3tra5udicial confession of accused Dueas, r. as freel# and voluntaril# $iven and t!at !isretraction and clai(s of violence and coercion ere (erel# %elated contrivances and efforts of e3culpation.

)!e state(ent ;E3!. B-Stip.< itself reveals t!at t!ere as co(pliance it! t!e constitutional re&uire(enton pre-interro$ation advisories, t!us0

P-SB-L23 20a) %atalino ue4as, Jr", ipinagbibigay alam 0o sa iyo, na i0a) ay inuusig sa isang

0asalanan, pinapaalala 0o sa iyo na sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas ay 0arapatan mo ang manahimi0

at hindi sumagot sa mga tanong 0o sa iyo at mag0aroon ng -bogado ng sarili mong pili, ito ba ay

nauuna)aan mo5

S-$6T3 6po"

T-767$3 -lam mo ba at naipali)anag ng iyong abogado na anumang salaysay mo sa pagsisiy

ito ay maaring gamitin laban sa iyo5

S-$6T3 6po"

)!e Court finds no (erit in t!e insinuation of t!e defense t!at Att#. osefina An$ara as not Don c!oice as counsel for t!e interro$ation ;)SN, Octo%er :, +', p. :<.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

In t!e present case, accused even ad(itted t!at !e trusted Att#. An$ara !en !e si$ned !isstate(ent in t!e presence of t!e said counsel ;)SN, Nove(%er +7, +, p. <.

A%sent an# s!oin$ t!at t!e la#er !o assisted t!e accused as re(issed ; sic< in !er duties, isafel# concluded t!at t!e custodial investi$ation of Dueas as re$ularl# conducted.

As could %e o%served, t!e confession is replete it! details t!at could not !ave %een concocted police aut!orities. Accordin$ to Dueas, !e is one of t!ose !o 4illed Elva aco%= t!at !is co(pere 2ann# HonKales and one Cesar= t!at Benn# Po%lete contacted Cesar !o in turn contact;accused< for t!e purpose of 4illin$ Elvin$ aco% %ecause !is ;Benn# Po%lete"s< dau$!ter /!ea in Septe(%er, '> (i$!t still %e alive ere it not for t!e itc!craft of Elvin$ aco% and !er si%t!at !e ;accused< as contacted %# Cesar in Nove(%er, '> at t!e (ar4et near t!e ter(inal of B)ransit in Ca%anatuan Cit#= t!at !e and Cesar ere to$et!er !en t!e# ent to Baler, Aurora an 5ust fetc!ed 2ann# HonKales at t!e $asoline station in 2aria Aurora, Aurora= t!at t!e# !atc!ed t

of e3ecutin$ Elvin$ aco% in t!e (iddle of Nove(%er, '> at t!e !ouse of Benn# Po%lete= t!a place and ti(e, Cesar as $iven t!ree t!ousand pesos ;P7,.<= t!at !e ;accused< did not 4no

ell %ut could descri%e t!e latter"s distinctive features= t!at Cesar and 2ann# HonKales ereit! a .7@ cal. revolver= t!at t!e# conducted a surveillance on Elvin$ aco% for (ore t!an a deter(ine !er (ove(ent in $oin$ to and fro( t!e ricefield s!e is or4in$ on at Sitio Ha%$a%Bu!an$in, Baler, Aurora= t!at on Nove(%er +, '>, at a%out ei$!t o"cloc4 in t!e (ornin positioned t!e(selves under a canal, fei$nin$ to %e catc!in$ fis!, until Elvin$ aco% passed %#= to co(panions folloed Elvin$ aco%, !ile !e re(ained on top of t!e canal and acted as a lot!at, not lon$ t!ereafter, !e !eard to $uns!ots= t!at t!e# left t!e scene and reunited at Santia$o"in Br$#. Su4la#in, Baler, Aurora= t!at on Dece(%er '@, '>, at around one o"cloc4 in t!e afternas instructed %# Cesar to $o to t!e !ouse of Benn# Po%lete to collect t!e %alance of five t!o pesos ;P1,.<= and t!at !e as arrested t!ere %# t!e police. )!e confession is replete it!t!at onl# t!e confessant could !ave 4non and !ic!, t!erefore, s!o t!at t!e confession as e3

voluntaril# ;People vs. i(eneK, '1 SC/A ?+'<.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



Also, t!e confession of t!e accused is e3onerative in nature as it points to ot!er (e(%er of t!e $roup ast!e tri$$er(an. )!e e3culpator# tone of ad(ission of t!e cri(e and t!e a%undance of details ne$ateviolence and (altreat(ent in o%tainin$ a confession. A $uilt# person seldo( ad(its !is $uilt full# andco(pletel#. 6e !as a tendenc# to e3plain aa# !is conduct or (ini(iKe !is fault or cri(e or s!ift t!e %la(e to ot!ers.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

)!e defense tried to i(press to t!e Court t!at t!e police(en su%5ected t!e accused to cruel and painful punis!(ent to e3tract !is confession, t!us0

A))M. NOVE/AS )O )6E ACCUSED

Durin$ t!e t!ird ti(e t!e# (auled #ou and told #ou to ad(it responsi%ilit# for t!e deat! of Elvin$aco%, !at !appenedQ

A I alread# ad(it 8sic9 %ecause I could not %ear t!e pain an#(ore, Sir.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

!at else, if t!ere are an#Q

A )!e# could 8sic9 not allo (e to sleep. )!e# 5ust t!ro ater on (e so I could not sleep or rest.

;)SN, Octo%er :, +, pp. 7-:<.

But,

Mou said #ou ere forced and inti(idated to $ive t!e confession in connection it! t!e deat! of 2rs.aco%, did #ou tell Att#. An$ara a%out t!e factQ

A I did not.

!#Q

A 6O COUD I )E )6A) 6EN )6E POICE O**ICE/S E/E )6E/E SU//OUNDINH2EQ ;E(p!asis ours< ;I%id, p. ><

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

P/OS. /ONUIO )O )6E ACCUSED

Did #ou file an# c!ar$e to ; sic< t!e police(en !o (auled #ouQ

A No, sir.

!#Q

A BECAUSE I 6AVE NO ONE )O )E ON AND I A2 A*/AID *O/ )6E2, SI/ 8sic9

Nove(%er +7, +, p. ''<

A revie of appellant"s e3tra5udicial confession discloses certain facts and circu(stances !ic!culpa%ilit# in dou%t.

Under Article III, Section '+ of t!e '@? Constitution, persons under custodial investi$ation !folloin$ ri$!ts0

;'< An# person under investi$ation for t!e co((ission of an offense s!all !ave t!e ri$!t to %e inof !is ri$!t to re(ain silent and to !ave co(petent and independent counsel, prefera%l# of !c!oice. If t!e person cannot afford t!e services of counsel, !e (ust %e provided it! one. )!esecannot %e aived e3cept in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel.

;+< No torture, force, violence, t!reat, inti(idation or an# ot!er (eans !ic! vitiate t!e free

%e used a$ainst !i(. Secret detention places, solitar#, incommunicado, or ot!er si(ilar fodetention are pro!i%ited.

;7< An# confession or ad(ission o%tained in violation of t!is or Section '? !ereof s!all %e inad(in evidence a$ainst !i(.

;:< 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

)!ere are to 4inds of involuntar# or coerced confessions covered %# t!is constitutional provist!ose resultin$ fro( t!ird de$ree (et!ods li4e torture, force, violence, t!reat and inti(idation, t!ose $iven it!out t!e %enefit of t!e 2iranda arnin$s.':

Vieed a$ainst t!is %ac4drop, certain circu(stances in t!is case need to %e carefull# revieconsidered.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



On Dece(%er '@, '>,'1 appellant as arrested for t!eft on t!e re&uest of a certain Benn# Po%lete. PO7Pal(ero ad(itted t!at at t!e ti(e of t!e arrest, appellant as not co((ittin$ an# cri(e. 6e asdetained overni$!t it!out an# c!ar$es. )!e folloin$ da#, PO7 Pal(ero clai(ed t!at appellantsupposedl# sou$!t voluntar# confine(ent for !is on protection. )!e police %lotter entr#, !oever,as not offered in evidence. Onl# a certification of suc! entr# as presented, !ic! certification asnot even si$ned %# appellant. Under t!e circu(stances, t!e voluntar# confine(ent tale appears to %ean aftert!ou$!t to cover up t!e appellant"s ille$al arrest and detention. No person in !is ri$!t (ind,alread# %e!ind %ars, ill still see4 voluntar# confine(ent !en t!ere are no c!ar$es a$ainst !i(.

Appellant e3ecuted !is sorn state(ent on !is alle$ed involve(ent in t!e 4illin$ of Ka Elvin$ onDece(%er +7, '> or five da#s after !is arrest. I((ediatel# after acco(plis!in$ t!e affidavit, appellantsou$!t (edical attention, durin$ !ic! Dr. Correa found positive (ar4s of violence on t!e latter"s %od#,an indication t!at p!#sical coercion occurred at one point fro( t!e ti(e of !is arrest up to t!e e3ecutionof !is e3tra5udicial confession. )!e onl# purpose of t!e (altreat(ent could !ave %een to force !i( toad(it $uilt a$ainst !is ill. !en confronted on t!is (atter, re%uttal itness PO7 Pal(ero !ad not!in$ %ut evasive and unresponsive ansers0

Did #ou personall# %rin$ Dueas to t!e !ospitalQ

A I could not re(e(%er, an#(ore, Sir. But !e as %rou$!t to t!e !ospital.

Are #ou sure of t!atQ

A Mes, sir.

If #ou could not re(e(%er an#(ore if #ou ere t!e one !o %rin$ ; sic< !i( to t!e !ospital, do #ou

4no !o as t!e police officer !o %rou$!t !i(Q

A I do not 4no t!e 5ailer at t!e ti(e.

ere #ou still in t!e police station !en !e as %rou$!t %ac4Q

A 2a#%e I as not t!ere.

Did #ou tr# to in&uire !at as t!e result of t!e e3a(ination %ein$ conducted upon Catalino DueasQ

A Not an#(ore, sir.

!#Q

A Because I could not re(e(%er an#(ore t!e person !o acco(panied !i(.'>

)!e trial court considered appellant"s clai( of (altreat(ent as %ut a la(e e3cuse. It stated tfailure of t!e accused to co(plain to t!e searin$ officer or to file c!ar$es a$ainst t!e personalle$edl# (altreated !i(, alt!ou$! !e !ad t!e opportunit# to do so, (eant t!at t!e confessiovoluntar#. But appellant ade&uatel# e3plained !# !e did not tell an#%od# a%out t!e police %rut!ad suffered. 6e testified0

Mou said #ou ere forced and inti(idated to $ive t!e confession in connection it! t!e deat! aco%, did #ou tell Att#. An$ara a%out t!at factQ

A I did not.

!#Q

A 6o could I tell t!at !en t!e police officers ere t!ere surroundin$ (e.'?

On cross-e3a(ination, appellant (ade t!e folloin$ declaration0

P/OS. /ONUIO

Did #ou file an# c!ar$e to ; sic< t!e police(en !o (auled #ouQ

A No, sir.

!#Q

A Because I !ave no one to tell on and I a( afraid for t!e(, sir. ; sic<'@

*urt!er(ore, t!e trial court (isapplied t!e rule t!at a confession is presu(ed voluntar# !ere t!contains details and facts un4non to t!e investi$ator !ic! could !ave %een supplied onl# perpetrator of t!e cri(e. In People vs" -bayon,' e !eld0

It is a settled rule t!at !ere an alle$ed confession contains details and is replete it! facts !ic!ave possi%l# %een supplied onl# %# t!e perpetrator of t!e cri(e, and could not !ave %een 4noinvented %# t!e investi$ators, t!e confession is considered to !ave %een voluntaril# $iven. )!!oever, as erroneousl# applied %# t!e trial court in t!e case at %ar.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



)!e facts and details contained in at least t!ree of t!e confessions, t!ose of /e#naldo A%a#on, 2arianoAra$on and ose uareK, ere alread# 4non to t!e PC investi$ators at t!e ti(e t!e state(ents erealle$edl# si$ned %# t!e said accused-appellants. )!e t!ree confessions referred to all appear to !ave %een e3ecuted a!ter t!e %od# of t!e deceased Pedro Esla(ado !ad %een e3!u(ed %# t!e PC tea( onul# '1, '?'. A%a#ons state(ent is dated ul# '>, Ara$ons state(ent, ul# ++, and uareK state(ent,ul# +7, '?'. On t!ose dates, t!e PC ould !ave 4non details and facts suc! as, t!at Pedro Esla(adoas a%ducted and 4illed, !ere !is re(ains ere %uried, t!at !e as tied around t!e (out! %# toels,t!at !is !ands ere tied it! s!oe strin$s, all of !ic! ere stated in t!e confessions.

In t!is case, t!e police aut!orities alread# 4ne of t!e (urder of Ka Elvin$. As succinctl# pointed out %# t!e Office of t!e Solicitor Heneral0

333 at t!e ti(e of t!e e3ecution of t!e e3tra5udicial confession, and even %efore appellant"s arrest,t!e post mortem e3a(ination as alread# availa%le to t!e police. Data re$ardin$ t!e (urder eapon,

t!e ounds sustained %# t!e victi(, t!e !erea%outs of t!e cadaver ere properl# it!in t!e 4noled$eof t!e investi$atin$ officers. )!e latter, t!en, could !ave easil# filled up t!e details of t!e cri(e in t!ee3tra5udicial confession. It (ust %e e(p!asiKed t!at t!e presu(ption of voluntariness of an e3tra5udicialconfession arises onl# !en t!e replete details could !ave %een supplied %# no ot!er person %ut t!e perpetrator !i(self 8 People vs" Base, '1 SC/A ?+' ;'@'<9, !ic! is not t!e case !ere.

Also ort! (entionin$ is t!e %elated appearance of Att#. An$ara, incidentall# not of appellant"s c!oice,

!o assisted !i( in t!e e3ecution of !is e3tra5udicial confession. )!is fell terri%l# s!ort of t!e standardsde(anded %# t!e Constitution and Section + of /A ?:7@. + Appellant as arrested %efore noon onDece(%er '@, '>. )!e e3tra5udicial confession as ta4en five da#s later, on Dece(%er +7, '>. Att#.

An$ara testified t!at police(en ca(e to !er office at past '0 a.(. on Dece(%er +7, '> re&uestin$!er to assist a suspect under custodial investi$ation. S!e arrived at t!e police station at around ''0a.(. and conferred it! t!e appellant for a%out 7 (inutes. )!e interro$ation resu(ed after lunc! andlasted till :0 p.(.

*ro( t!e fore$oin$, it is evident t!at appellant !ad alread# %een in detention for five da#s %efore !eca(e to %e assisted %# a la#er, 5ust %efore !e as a%out to put !is confession in ritin$. e entertainno dou%t t!at t!e constitutional re&uire(ent as violated. In People vs" Bolanos,+' e !eld t!at0

An accused !o is on %oard t!e police ve!icle on t!e a# to t!e police station is alread# under custodial investi$ation and s!ould t!erefore %e accorded !is ri$!ts under t!e Constitution.

Custodial investi$ation refers to t!e critical pre-trial sta$e !en t!e investi$ation ceases to %e a $eneral

in&uir# into an unsolved cri(e %ut !as %e$un to focus on a particular person as a suspect. Accordin$ to

PO7 Pal(ero, ri$!t after appellant"s arrest, t!e latter alread# insinuated to !i( t!at !e ould con participation in t!e 4illin$. As !e testified on cross-e3a(ination0

On Dece(%er '@, '>, !en #ou arrested !i( !at did !e actuall# told 8sic9 #ouQ

A Before e put !i( in 5ail at t!e Baler Police Station !e told us t!at !e !as ; sic< to reveal so(a%out t!e deat! of Elvira aco%.

So #ou alread# 4no t!at on Dece(%er '@, '> t!at !atever Catalino Dueas ill reveal ill $ive #ou lead in solvin$ t!e investi$ation in connection it! t!e deat! of Elvira aco%, isn"t i

A Mes, sir.

So, #ou still aited until Dece(%er +7, '> for t!at revelation, isn"t itQ

A Mes, sir. )!at"s all, #our !onor.++

ell-settled is t!e doctrine t!at t!e purpose of providin$ counsel to a person under cuinvesti$ation is to cur% t!e unciviliKed practice of e3tractin$ a confession, even t!rou$! t!e slcoercion !ic! (i$!t lead t!e accused to ad(it so(et!in$ untrue.+7 !at is sou$!t to %e avoideevil of e3tortin$ fro( t!e ver# (out! of t!e person under$oin$ interro$ation for t!e co((issiooffense, t!e ver# evidence it! !ic! to prosecute and t!ereafter convict !i(.+: )!ese consti$uarantees are (eant to protect a person fro( t!e in!erentl# coercive ps#c!olo$ical, if not p!at(osp!ere of suc! investi$ation.+1

*inall#, t!e court notes t!e (aterial discrepanc# %eteen t!e testi(on# of PO7 Pal(ero and t!at An$ara. !en PO7 Pal(ero as first put on t!e itness stand, !e testified t!at !e fetc!ed Att#.to assist appellant at a%out 707 p.(. on Dece(%er +7, '>. )!e interro$ation lasted (ore or !our. 6oever, on re%uttal, PO7 Pal(ero c!an$ed !is stor# and declared t!at t!e interro$aappellant lasted a%out t!ree !ours fro( a%out '0 p.(. to :0 p.(. )!e ad5ust(ent in t!e ti((a# !ave %een (ade to confor( to t!e earlier testi(on# of re%uttal itness Att#. An$ara !o st!e interro$ation of appellant lasted fro( a%out '07 p.(. up to a%out :0 p.(. But !o cointerro$ation of appellant !ave ta4en place it!in t!at ti(e-fra(e !en, accordin$ to Dr. Corrt!e appellant"s (edical record, t!e doctor conducted !is (edical e3a(ination of t!e appellant at+0 p.(. on Dece(%er +7, '>Q+>

In vie of t!e fore$oin$, since t!e e3tra5udicial confession of appellant as $iven in violation

safe$uards in Article III, Section '+ of t!e Constitution, e !old t!at t!e appellant"s e3tra5confession dated Dece(%er +7, '> as inad(issi%le as evidence. And it! t!e e3clusion t!er

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



record is %ereft of an# su%stantial evidence to sustain t!e 5ud$(ent of conviction. !ile it is true t!atone Cesar *ri$inal as presented as a itness %# t!e prosecution, !is testi(on# did not i(plicate t!eappellant in t!e (urder of Elvin$ aco%, t!e itness !avin$ said onl# t!at !e sa a s!ort (an in $reenclot!es runnin$ aa# fro( t!e vicinit# of t!e cri(e.

/HEREFORE, t!e decision of t!e /e$ional )rial Court of Baler, Aurora, Branc! >, in Cri(inal Case No. +++, convictin$ appellant Catalino Dueas, r., is !ere%# RE:ERSE and SET ASIE.

Appellant is A;UITTE of t!e cri(e of (urder and !is i((ediate release is ordered unless t!ere isreason to return !i( for confine(ent at t!e Ia!i$ Prison *ar( in Puerto Princesa Cit# or to detain !i(for so(e ot!er valid cause. )!e Director of Prisons is directed to infor( t!is Court of !is co(plianceit!in ten da#s fro( receipt of t!is decision.

No costs.

SO ORERE.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



)6I/D DIVISION

G.R. No. 1120$5 9a3-ar) 16, 1((8

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.PANFILO A*ILES alias <NONOY<, accused-appellant.

MELO, J.:

Accused-appellant, Panfilo Ca%iles, alias Nono#, see4s t!e reversal of t!e decision of t!e /e$ional )rialCourt of t!e National Capital udicial /e$ion ;Branc! '+:, Raloo4an Cit#<, findin$ !i( $uilt# of t!e

cri(e of /o%%er# it! /ape, as follos0

6E/E*O/E, IN VIE O* )6E *O/EHOINH, t!is Court finds t!e accused PanfiloCa%iles alias Nono# $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of /o%%er# it! /ape as c!ar$ed and !ere%#sentences !i( to suffer i(prison(ent of #eclusion Perpetuain accordance it! Para$rap! + of Art. +:of t!e /evised Penal Code= to inde(nif# t!e victi( uKvi(inda A&uino in t!e a(ount of P7,. asconse&uential da(a$es. Said accused is also ordered to return to 2arites Nas AtienKa t!e stolen Sei4o

rist atc! ort! P',1. and one $old rin$ ort! P1. and if una%le to do so, to pa# said victi(t!e correspondin$ prices of t!ese articles as s!on a%ove= to rei(%urse 2arites Nas AtienKa t!e a(ountof P',. in cas! and to pa# t!e costs.

)!e accused s!all %e entitled to t!e full period of !is preventive i(prison(ent, pursuant to Art. + of t!e

/evised Penal Code provided it! t!e conditions enu(erated t!ereon !ave %een co(plied it!.

SO O/DE/ED.

;pp. @>-@?, #ollo.<

)!rou$! an A(ended Infor(ation, accused-appellant, to$et!er it! t!e additional accused, as c!ar$edas follos0

)!at on or a%out t!e 1t! da# of Nove(%er '@, in Caloocan Cit#, 2etro 2anila and it!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!is 6onora%le Court, t!e a%ove-na(ed accused %# (eans of force and violence, it!intent of $ain, conspiring together and mutually helping one another , did t!en and t!ere illfull#,unlafull# and feloniousl# ta4e, ro%, and carr# aa# one ;'< $old rin$ ort! P1., one ;'< ladies

sei4o atc! ort! P',1., cas! (one# ort! P',., one ;'< %racelet ort! P1. andristatc! ;C!annel< ort! P@. %elon$in$ to one 2arites Nas AtienKa, to t!e latters da(a$e and

pre5udice, and %# reason or on occasion of said ro%%er#, it! t!e use of a deadl# eapon, andesi$ns, !ad carnal 4noled$e of one UVI2INDA AUINO M A/EVAO, and t!en atassaulted and sta%%ed one A/NE CE/ICOS M 2ICIANO it! t!e sa(e eapon, t!ere%# infupon t!e latter serious p!#sical in5uries.

;p. ?, #ollo.<

Accused-appellants co-accused, ai(e 2a%in$na#, as neit!er appre!ended nor arrai$ned, accused-appellant as arrai$ned on %ot! ori$inal and a(ended infor(ations. After trial, folloentr# of a not $uilt# plea, t!e a%ove-&uoted verdict as rendered. 6ence, t!e instant appeal.

As deduced fro( t!e prosecutions evidence !ic! ca(e pri(aril# fro( t!e testi(on# of 2ariAtienKa and uKvi(inda A&uino, t!e inculpator# facts are as follos0

2arites Nas AtienKa, a !ouseife !ose !us%and as a%road, as residin$ at No. ++: 2ala(%A(paro Su%division, Raloo4an Cit#. On t!e eve of Nove(%er 1, '@, s!e as asleep it! !er#ear old dau$!ter, Erica Dianne AtienKa, inside !er roo( at !er !ouse. Appro3i(atel# to stepfro( !er %ed, uKvi(inda A&uino, 2arites !ouse(aid, as sleepin$ on a sofa. )!e !ouse !as of a%out + s&uare (eters. )!e (ain door is located at t!e 4itc!en. In t!e 4itc!en, t!ere is a stleadin$ to a store. )o t!e left of t!e !ouse is t!e %edroo( !ere t!e t!ree ere asleep. )!e plaillu(inated %# t!e li$!t co(in$ fro( a +1-att electrical %ul% !ic! as outside t!e roo(s ;tsn, 2arc! 1, ', p. >= tsn, April 1, ', pp. +-+:, +@= tsn, April +>, ', pp. :, >, @, ', '?

At around '0'1 ocloc4 on t!e (ornin$ of Nove(%er 1, '@, a (an suddenl# %ar$ed into t!e !

2arites %# destro#in$ t!e 4itc!en door and re(ovin$ t!e laanit all t!ereof, t!us ena%lin$ reac! t!e loc4 inside. )!e (an suddenl# po4ed a >-inc! 4itc!en 4nife on t!e ri$!t side of 2arite)!is aa4ened !er. S!e as told not to s!out, ot!erise s!e ould %e 4illed. )!en t!e (an(as4in$ tape on !er (out! and ordered !er to %rin$ out !er (one# and 5eelr#. At t!e point4nife, 2arites, !ile carr#in$ !er %a%#, ent to t!e ca%inet outside t!e roo(, too4 cas! a(ounP',., a Sei4o atc! ort! P',1., a lad#s ristatc! it! t!e trade(ar4 C!anelreferred to in t!e records as C!annel< ort! P@1., a %racelet ort! P1., and a rin$P1., and $ave t!e( to t!e (an. Afterards, t!e# ent %ac4 inside t!e %edroo( and 2arite!er %ed, still cuddlin$ !er %a%# ;tsn, 2arc! 1, ', pp. ?-@, ''-'+, := tsn, April 1, ', pp. 7'<. 2arites later identified t!e (an as accused-appellant.

2ean!ile, uKvi(inda as aa4ened %# t!e cr#in$ of 2arites %a%#. !en s!e as a%out tot!e (an po4ed t!e 4nife on !er left side, causin$ !er an in5ur#. )!e (an t!en told !er, 6ua

sisi$a 4undi papata#in 4ita. 2ean!ile, 2arites sat on t!e %ed, tre(%lin$ it! fear, as s!e cu!er %a%#. )!e (an also placed (as4in$ tape on uKvi(indas (out!. )!ereafter, !e forci%l# !e

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



of !er ar(s in front of !er. Notit!standin$ !er stru$$le to !ide !er !ands at !er %ac4, accused-appellant succeeded in t#in$ !er !ands at t!e front it! t!e use of a piece of s!oestrin$ ;tsn, 2arc! 1,', pp. -', '>= tsn, April 1, ', pp. 7:-71= tsn, April +>, ', pp. >-, +?, 7:, ::<. uKvi(indali4eise later identified t!e (an as accused-appellant.

)!e (an t!en ent to t!e store !ic! as onl# a%out : to 1 steps aa# fro( 2arites %ed. 6e ransac4edt!e sa(e in searc! for (ore valua%les. )!ereafter, !e too4 a %ottle of %eer fro( t!e refri$erator and

%e$an drin4in$. Afterards, !e returned to t!e roo( and sat %eside uKvi(inda ;tsn, 2arc! 1, ', p.'= tsn, April 1, ', p. +1<.

!ile t!e (an continued to !old t!e 4nife, !e tapped uKvi(indas t!i$!. !en !e as a%out to

consu(e t!e %eer, !e started re(ovin$ uKvi(indas pants and underear !ile still !oldin$ t!e 4nifeit! !is ri$!t !and. )!e (an t!en rolled don !is s!ort pants to !is t!i$!s. 6e po4ed t!e 4nife onuKvi(indas ri$!t side and despite t!e latters resistance, !e succeeded in insertin$ !is se3ual or$an into

uKvi(indas private parts after forci%l# l#in$ on top of !er. uKvi(inda stru$$led and 4ic4ed,accidentall# !ittin$ it! !er ri$!t foot t!e 4nife t!us causin$ !er in5ur#. All t!e !ile, 2arites as stillcuddlin$ !er dau$!ter, as s!e sat on !er %ed in e3tre(e fear. S!e as itnessin$ uKvi(inda %ein$raped %# t!e (an. !ile on top of uKvi(inda and continuousl# doin$ t!e se3ual act, t!e (an uttered0Isusunod 4o an$ Ate (o pa$4atapos 4o sa i#o. Upon !earin$ t!ose ords, 2arites tried to escape %#as4in$ per(ission to prepare (il4 for !er %a%# ;tsn, 2arc! 1, ', pp. ''-':, '>-'?= tsn, April 1, ', pp. 7>, 7@, :, :+= tsn, April +>, ', pp. '-'', '7-':, +?<.

!ile carr#in$ !er c!ild, 2arites as a%le to run to t!e !ouse of !er nei$!%or, Arnel Cericos, fro(!o( s!e as4ed for !elp. Ceriros !ouse as appro3i(atel# telve steps aa# fro( 2arites !ouse.

2arites decided to !ide at Ceriros !ouse. !en Cericos entered t!e roo(, t!e (an as still on top of uKvi(inda. 6oever, upon seein$ Cericos, t!e (an stood up ri$!t aa# and sta%%ed Cericos four ti(es. Afterards, t!e# c!ased eac! ot!er outside t!e !ouse. 2ean!ile uKvi(inda put on !er pantsand ran toard Cericos !ouse ;tsn, 2arc! 1, ', pp. '@-'= tsn, April +>, ', pp. '1, '@<.

!en 2arites learned t!at Cericos as in5ured, s!e rus!ed %ac4 to !er !ouse to ad(inister first aid to!i(. Cericos sustained a sta% ound on !is c!est, to sta% ounds on !is left ar(, and a sta% ound on!is ri$!t ar(. Cericos t!en co(plained of difficult# in %reat!in$. Conse&uentl#, 2arites %rou$!t !i( toa p!#sician, one Col. avier, for treat(ent. !en Cericos co(plaints continued, 2arites decided to %rin$ !i( to t!e V. una 6ospital in ueKon Cit# at a%out : ocloc4 t!at (ornin$ ;tsn, 2arc! 1, ', pp. '-++<.

Attendin$ p!#sician Dr. E((anuel ueddin$ noted t!at Cericos sustained four sta% ounds of different

siKes, t!e (ost serious of !ic! as t!e lacerated ound on t!e interior c!est !ic! re&uired Cericos to %e placed under o%servation for @ to '+ !ours. Dr. ueddin$ found t!at t!e ounds, if deep enou$!,

could result in t!e laceration of t!e lun$, !eart, and so(e arteries and conse&uentl#, t!e victi(sAfter advisin$ Cericos not to or4 for a%out one ee4 or (ore, !e as per(itted to leave t!e !oa%out ' ocloc4 t!at afternoon ;tsn, April 1, ', pp. :-1, ', '+<.

*or !er part, uKvi(inda, at ocloc4 t!at (ornin$, ent to t!e Raloo4an Police Depart(ereported !at !appened to !er. On Nove(%er >, '@, upon referral %# t!e c!ief of t!e Nort!ernDistrict, Raloo4an Cit#, uKvi(inda su%5ected !erself to a p!#sical e3a(ination conducted

Car(elita Bel$ica, a (edico-le$al officer. /esultantl#, Dr. Bel$ica found on uKvi(indas ri$!tlaceration, !ealin$, (easurin$ 7.1 c(. it! sca% for(ation and perip!eral ede(a at t!e (elcolus, ri$!t side . . . 6er $enital e3a(ination results s!oed an old !ealed laceration indicase3ual intercourse possi%l# occurrin$ t!ree (ont!s %efore t!e date of e3a(ination. Dr.

e3pounded t!at alt!ou$! t!e p!#sical e3a(ination results (anifested t!at t!e occurrence ofintercourse t!ree (ont!s %efore could !ave caused t!e laceration, s!e did not discount t!e post!at se3ual intercourse also too4 place on Nove(%er 1, '@ it!out an# in5ur# at t!e $enital arcannot %e consulted (edicall# %ecause t!e openin$ is ide enou$! ;tsn, anuar# ', ', pp.'<.

ater, on Nove(%er @, '@, at a%out '0: ocloc4 in t!e afternoon, Corporal uciano Caeda a2anuel /odri$ueK of t!e Raloo4an Cit# Police Station, alon$ it! /o(eo Nas, %rot!er of 2ent to a sas! factor# are!ouse at t!e 2arivic Co(pound, Raloo4an Cit#. Outside t!e factor# t!e# sa accused-appellant sleepin$ on a %enc!. /o(eo Nas sa t!at accused-appellant as e %racelet !ic! t!e for(er reco$niKed as t!e %racelet ta4en fro( 2arites. Upon %ein$ aaccused-appellant, told t!e t!ree (en t!at t!e ot!er t!in$s !e too4 fro( 2arites ere inside a %a$ at t!e factor# %uildin$. Conse&uentl#, Pcf. /odri$ueK ent inside t!e %uildin$ to $et t!e pla

and it as found to contain a o(ans unders!irt, a li$!t %lue s!irt, and a ristatc! it! t!ena(e C!anel !ic! as t!e one ta4en fro( 2arites ;tsn, April ', ', pp. :-1, ?-@, '', ':, '

)!e folloin$ da#, Nove(%er , '@, at a%out 707 ocloc4 in t!e afternoon, 2arites sa acappellant at t!e Raloo4an Cit# Police Station. )!e latter ad(itted !is $uilt and pointed to2a%in$na#, 2arites %rot!er-in-la, as t!e one !o as4ed !i( to co((it t!e cri(e. 2arites recalled t!at s!e sa accused-appellant at 2a%in$na#s !ouse on Nove(%er 1, '@, %efore t!too4 place ;tsn, 2arc! 1, ', p. 7= tsn, April ', ', pp. 77-7><.

Accused-appellant, on t!e ot!er !and, relied and %an4ed on denial and ali%i.

Accused-appellant denied even !avin$ $one to A(paro Villa$e, Raloo4an Cit#. 6e denied !avin$

uKvi(inda A&uino. 6e said t!at t!e first ti(e !e ever sa 2arites as at t!e Raloo4an Cit#

Station on Nove(%er , '@. 6e said t!e sa(e t!in$ a%out uKvi(inda ;tsn, Au$ust +7, ', p

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



/e$ardin$ t!e da# of t!e incidence, accused-appellant testified t!at on Nove(%er 1, '@, at '07ocloc4 in t!e (ornin$, !e as at 2arivic Su%division, sleepin$ it! !is ife. 6e !ad %een residin$ att!e 2arivic co(pound startin$ Octo%er 7, '@ as !e as desi$nated %# t!e oner of t!e place toatc! over t!e pre(ises ;tsn, Au$ust +7, ', p. :<.

As to accused-appellants arrest !ic! too4 place on Nove(%er @, '@ at around ' ocloc4 in t!eafternoon, !e testified t!at !e as l#in$ on a %enc! at t!e 2arivic Co(pound !en t!ree (en in

civilian clot!es arrived. 6e did not 4no t!e reason for !is arrest. 6e, !oever, ad(itted t!at aC!anel lad#s atc! as recovered fro( !i( at t!e ti(e of t!e arrest %ut insisted t!at !e ons t!eatc!, t!e sa(e !avin$ %een pled$ed to !i( %# !is cousin EliKa%et! A%antao !en !e as still atri$!t, Sa(ar, and !ic! as later sold to !i(. 6e denied t!at a plastic %a$ it! stolen contents as

recovered fro( !i( %# !is captors. 6e said !e onl# sa t!e contents of t!e %a$ !en !e as under detention at t!e Raloo4an Cit# ail. As re$ards !is sorn state(ent containin$ a confession to t!eco((ission of t!e cri(e, !e said !e as forced %# t!e police(en at t!e station to e3ecute t!e sa(e. 6edid not read it and as 5ust forced to si$n it. 6e as not assisted %# counsel durin$ t!at ti(e ;tsn,Au$ust +7, ', pp. >-<.

Accused-appellants version of t!e event as corro%orated %#0 ;a< !is ife Soledad Ca%iles !o testifiedt!at s!e slept it! accused-appellant at 2arivic Su%division in t!e evenin$ of Nove(%er :, '@= ;%<Conrado Baco#, Sr., oner of t!e oodcarvin$ factor# atc!ed over % # accused-appellant, !o testifiedt!at accused-appellant and !is ife ere alloed to sleep it!in t!e factor# pre(ises= and ;c< 2elc!or 2a%ini !o aside fro( supportin$ accused-appellants ali%i, also said t!at accused-appellants captorsdid not !ave a arrant !en t!e# (ade t!e arrest.

)!e trial court found no (erit in accused-appellants defense. It found t!at !is identit# as ellesta%lis!ed, %ased on t!e testi(on# of 2arites and uKvi(inda !o ere ad5ud$ed as credi%leitnesses. *ro( t!e testi(on# of said itnesses, t!e trial court li4eise o%served t!at0 ;'< at t!e ti(e of accused-appellants arrest, !e as earin$ a %racelet !ic! as said to %e oned %# 2arites= ;+< t!at as!oestrin$ as found inside t!e plastic %a$ !ic! accused-appellant stated as !is on !en !e led t!earrestin$ officers to t!e factor# co(pound at 2arivic, Baesa, Raloo4an Cit#= and ;7< t!at said s!oestrin$as t!e one used %# accused-appellant in t#in$ uKvi(indas !ands %efore s!e as raped. )!e trialcourt li4eise noted accused-appellants confession %efore 2arites and in t!e presence of A(#2aliana$, a council o(an of A(paro Su%division and inda Pila!an, t!at accused-appellantsro%%ed and raped uKvi(inda, and t!at ai(e 2a%in$na# instructed !i( to do so, to cause t!e %lindnessof 2arites, and to 4ill !er. 2a%in$na# as said to !ave pro(ised to !elp accused-appellant to $et a 5o%a%road and to !elp t!e latter financiall#. 6oever, accused-appellant too4 pit# on 2arites c!ild.

As re$ards t!e cri(e of serious p!#sical in5uries, !ic!, as c!ar$ed in t!e A(ended Infor(ation, asalle$edl# co((itted %# reason or on occasion of t!e ro%%er#, t!e trial court found t!at t!e evidence is

insufficient to prove t!e co((ission of t!e sa(e or an# of t!e p!#sical in5uries penaliKed in Su%d' of Art. +>7 of t!e /evised Penal Code.

e affir( t!e trial courts decision.

Accused-appellant ar$ues as !is sole assi$n(ent of error t!at t!e trial court erred in findin$ !i( %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of t!e cri(e c!ar$ed. 6e stresses t!e folloin$ ar$u(ents, to it0 ;'< (edico-le$al officer said several ti(es t!at t!e se3ual intercourse occurred t!ree (ont!s %efincident co(plained of= ;+< t!at ver%al ad(issions are inad(issi%le a$ainst t!e accused= ;7< t %racelet and t!e C!anel atc! and even t!e i(pro%a%le s!oestrin$ ere t!e products of a potree, not !avin$ %een t!e fruits of a laful arrantless arrest= and ;:< t!at !is identification %ased

%uilt and voice is not an effective one.

e s!all first discuss t!e procedural (atters and circu(stances surroundin$ t!e c!ar$e.

Accused-appellant, corro%orated %# defense itness 2elc!or 2a%ini, contends t!at !is arrest alle$ed arrantless one. 6oever, suc! irre$ularit# as onl# raised durin$ trial. In re$ard to t!it!is Court !as consistentl# ruled t!at an# o%5ection involvin$ a arrant of arrest or procedureac&uisition %# t!e court of 5urisdiction over t!e person of an accused (ust %e (ade %efore !e en plea, ot!erise t!e o%5ection is dee(ed aived ;People v. opeK, r., +:1 SC/A 1 8'19= Peo/ivera, +:1 SC/A :+' 8'19<. Veril#, t!e ille$al arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause foraside a valid 5ud$(ent rendered upon a sufficient co(plaint after trial free fro( error= suc! arrenot ne$ate t!e validit# of t!e conviction of t!e accused ;People vs. 2anKano, +:@ SC/A +7 8And it is (uc! too late in t!e da# to co(plain a%out t!e arrantless arrest after a valid infor(at

%een filed and t!e accused arrai$ned and trial co((enced and co(pleted and a 5ud$(ent of conrendered a$ainst !i( ;People vs. lanaresas, +:@ SC/A >+ 8'19<.

As re$ards t!e evidentiar# ei$!t of accused-appellants sorn state(ent !erein !e confessecri(e c!ar$ed, and !is ver%al confession (ade %efore ro%%er# victi(, 2arites Nas AtienKa, a$ainst t!e validit# of t!e ritten confession %ut up!old t!e ad(issi%ilit# of t!e ver%al confession

In People vs. eniega, +1' SC/A >+> 8'19, e laid don t!e four funda(ental re&uire(entsfor ad(issi%ilit# of a confession, to it0 ;'< t!e confession (ust %e voluntar#= ;+< t!e confessio %e (ade it! t!e assistance of co(petent and independent counsel= ;7< t!e confession (ust %e eand ;:< t!e confession (ust %e in ritin$.

Accused-appellant testified t!at !e as forced to e3ecute t!e sorn state(ent containin$ !is con

;tsn, Au$ust +7, ', p. <. Alt!ou$! t!is assertion is uncorro%orated, accused-appellants free volition in si$nin$ !is confession ill not cure t!e defect t!at it as (ade it!out assistance of c

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



An ad(ission (ade it!out t!e assistance of counsel durin$ custodial investi$ation is inad(issi%le inevidence. ;People vs. Cascalla, +: SC/A :@+ 8'19<. Even if t!e confession of an accused spea4s t!etrut!, if it as (ade it!out t!e assistance of counsel, it is inad(issi%le in evidence re$ardless of t!ea%sence of coercion or even if it !ad %een voluntaril# $iven ;People vs. A$ustin, +: SC/A 1:'8'19<. An uncounselled e3tra5udicial confession it!out a valid aiver of t!e ri$!t to counsel t!atis, in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel is inad(issi%le in evidence ;People vs. Ca%into#, +:'SC/A ::+ 8'19<.

In contrast, accused-appellants ver%al confession %efore 2arites Nas AtienKa is, !oever, ad(issi%le inevidence. )!e case in point is People vs. -ndan ;H./. No. ''>:7?, 2arc! 7, '?< !ere e ruled t!att!e accuseds ver%al confession (ade in a private (eetin$ it! t!e (unicipal (a#or, spontaneousl#,

full# and voluntaril# done, is ad(issi%le in evidence since it is not covered %# t!e re&uire(ents of Section '+;'< and ;7< of Article III of t!e Constitution. !en said accused tal4ed it! t!e (a#or as aconfidant and not as a la enforce(ent officer, !is uncounselled confession did not violate !isconstitutional ri$!ts. Constitutional procedures on custodial investi$ation do not appl# to a spontaneousstate(ent, not elicited t!rou$! &uestionin$ %# t!e aut!orities, %ut $iven in an ordinar# (anner !ere%#t!e accused orall# ad(itted !avin$ co((itted t!e cri(e as in t!e case at %ar.

In an# event, e a$ree it! t!e prosecutions contention t!at accused-appellants conviction asdeduced not on t!e %asis of !is ad(ission of $uilt, %ut on t!e trial courts assess(ent of t!e evidence presented %efore it.

e find no reason to distur% t!e trial courts findin$ as to t!e credi%ilit# of prosecution itnesses2arites Nas AtienKa and uKvi(inda A&uino, t!e victi(s of ro%%er# and rape, respectivel#. )!e ti(e-

tested 5urisprudence is t!at t!e findin$s and conclusions of t!e trial court on t!e credi%ilit# of itnessesen5o# a %ad$e of respect for t!e reason t!at trial courts !ave t!e advanta$e of o%servin$ t!e de(eanor of itnesses as t!e# testif# ;People vs. Ha(iao, +: SC/A +1: 8'19= People vs. /a(os, +: SC/A ''8'19= People vs. Ca5a(%a%, +: SC/A >:7 8'19= People vs. 2oran, +:' SC/A ? 8'19<. A perusal of t!e testi(on# of %ot! itnesses convinces us even (ore t!at t!ere is no stron$ and co$entreason to disre$ard t!e trial courts findin$s.

e a$ree t!at t!e identit# of accused-appellant as sufficientl# esta%lis!ed t!rou$! t!e folloin$circu(stances0

'. )!e roo( !ere t!e cri(e as co((itted covered a ver# s(all area of + s&uare (eters ;tsn, April 1,', p. +:<. It as illu(inated %# a li$!ted electric %ul% outside t!e 5alousie indo of said roo( ;tsn,

April +>, ', p. '?<. )!e victi(s could !ave easil# noticed t!e p!#sical features of t!eir assailant,

!o as later identified as accused-appellant.

+. )o itnesses ;2arites Nas AtienKa and Corporal uciano Caeda< testified t!at at t!e taccused-appellants arrest, !e as earin$ a %racelet ;E3!. *< !ic! 2arites reco$niKed as ts!e surrendered to accused-appellant durin$ t!e ro%%er# on Nove(%er 1, '@ ;tsn, 2arc! 1, '71<.

In t!is li$!t, e are sa#ed %# 2arites spontaneous and strai$!tforard testi(on# on !reco$niKed t!e culprit, to it0

No, !at as #our %asis in sa#in$ t!at it as t!e accused !o as t!e one !o po4ed a 44nife on #ouQ

A 6is !ei$!t, !is %uilt, especiall# !is voice, ere (# %asis, sir, in sa#in$ t!at !e as t!e perso po4ed t!e 4nife on (e.

!at is so particular in !is voice t!at #ou 4no t!at it as t!e voice of t!e accused in t!is case

A))M. C6AVE0

)!e &uestion !as alread# %een ansered, #our 6onor, !is !ei$!t, !is %uilt and !is voice are t!e %!er 4noin$ accused Panfilo Ca%iles.

COU/)0

itness (a# anser.

I)NESS0

A. Because I !ave seen !i( once and I !eard !is voice !en !e ent to t!e !ouse of (# %rot!erai(e 2a%in$na#, on t!e last ee4 of Octo%er, '@.

*ISCA SISON0

!en #ou said ai(e 2a%in$na#, !e is one of t!e accused in t!is caseQ

A Mes, sir.

No, tell us !o far is t!at !ouse of ai(e 2a%in$na# to #our !ouseQ

A. A%out si3 ;>< steps aa# fro( our !ouse, sir.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



. And !en #ou !eard t!e voice of Panfilo Ca%iles, !at ere t!e# doin$ t!en inside t!e !ouse of ai(e 2a%in$na#Q

A )!e# ere !avin$ a drin4in$ spree in t!e sala of t!e !ouse of ai(e 2a%in$na# !ic! is 5ust in frontof t!e door of (# !ouse, sir.

!en #ou sa t!e( drin4in$, !at ti(e as t!atQ

A Around @0 ocloc4 in t!e evenin$, sir.

And up to !at ti(e did #ou see !i( inside t!e !ouse of ai(e 2a%in$na#Q

A I sa !i( t!ere for a%out an !our and I dont 4no !et!er or not !e slept t!ere.

Before last ee4 of Octo%er, !ave #ou seen !i(Q

A))M. C6AVE0

e o%5ect to t!e &uestion on t!e %asis of, first, t!ere is no %asis= second, t!e *iscal interpretin$ in)a$alo$ $ives an advance si$n for an anser to t!e itness, #our 6onor.

*ISCA SISON0

So t!at at t!e ti(e in Octo%er, t!at as t!e first ti(e #ou sa t!e accused in t!is case, I a( referrin$

to Panfilo Ca%ilesQ

A Mes, sir.

6ave #ou !eard !at !e saidQ

A No, sir. But I !eard !is voice !en !e $reeted (# sister I(elda Nas.

!en !e $reeted #our sister I(elda Nas, !ere as !eQ

A 6e as t!ere sittin$ at t!e sala !ile !e as drin4in$ it! ai(e 2a%in$na#.

!ere as #our sister at t!at ti(eQ

A. S!e as standin$ at t!e door of ai(es !ouse and I as %e!ind !er.

2arites identification of accused-appellant is corro%orated %# uKvi(indas identification of acappellant as !er rapist, as follos0

. Aside fro( t!at ad(ission, !at ot!er %asis !ave #ou to sa# t!at t!e accused as t!at person is still an#Q

A))M. IAHAN0

I o%5ect, #our 6onor, %ecause t!ere is no %asis and after t!e itness ansered t!at t!e onl# s4nos of t!e accused is !en at t!e police !ead&uarters !e ad(itted %efore De eon to !ave alse3uall# pla#ed on !er, so I o%5ect.

*ISCA SISON0

If s!e !as ot!er %asis, #our 6onor, aside fro( t!at ad(ission !e (ade.

COU/)0

itness (a# anser.

I)NESS ;A<0

6is voice and !is %uilt, sir.

*ISCA SISON ;<0

Mou (entioned a%out !is %uilt, !en !e !ad se3ual intercourse it! #ou t!at as #ou said at a%ouin t!e (ornin$, !o co(e #ou ere a%le to see t!e %uilt of t!e accused at t!at ti(eQ

A0 Because t!e li$!t co(in$ inside t!ru t!e 5alousie indo illu(inates t!e inside of t!e roo(, si

;tsn, April +>, ', pp. '>-'?<

0 !at aa4ened #ouQ

A0 Because t!e %a%# of Ate )es as cr#in$ and t!at aa4ened (e, sir, and !en I opened (# e#et!at t!ere as so(e%od# standin$.

0 And t!at person t!at #ou sa standin$ as facin$ !is %ac4 to #ou, correctQ

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



A0 No, sir. 6e as facin$ (# direction.

0 So t!is person #ou said as facin$ in #our direction as %eteen #ou and #our Ate 2arites, is t!at!at #ou ant us to understandQ

A0 Mes, sir.

;tsn, April +>, ', p. 7:.<

7. Aside fro( t!e %racelet, t!e arrestin$ officers found a C!anel lad#s ristatc! ;E3!. H< !ic!2arites li4eise reco$niKed as anot!er of t!e o%5ects ta4en %# accused-appellant durin$ t!e ro%%er#.

Accused-appellants assertion t!at said atc! is !is on is not persuasive. Aside fro( t!e fact t!at !istesti(on# is not corro%orated, e li4eise (a4e t!e practical o%servation t!at C!anel is not anordinar# atc! %rand. It ould %e too (uc! of a coincidence t!at a atc! of t!e sa(e not ver# ordinar# %rand as t!at involved in t!e ro%%er# su%5ect !ereof as pled$ed to accused-appellant.

)!e trial court correctl# cited t!e evidentiar# presu(ption t!at a person found in possession of a t!in$ta4en in t!e doin$ of a recent ron$ful act is t!e ta4er and doer of t!e !ole act ;Sec. 78?9, /ule '7',/evised /ules of Evidence<. In People vs. 7e)man ;'>7 SC/A :> 8'@@9<, e ruled t!at !ere t!e

accused offers no satisfactor# e3planation as to t!e fact of !is possession of stolen properties, suc!evidence ould a%undantl# incri(inate !i( and proves t!at !e too4 t!e( it! animus lucrandi. In t!ecase at %enc!, all t!at accused-appellant could offer as defense as denial !ic! is a ea4 defense. )!edefense of denial, if uncorro%orated %# clear and convincin$ proof, is considered self-servin$ evidenceundeservin$ of an# ei$!t in la ;People vs. 2acario, +: SC/A 17' 8'19<.

Accused-appellant stron$l# relies on t!e findin$ of NBI 2edico-e$al Officer, Car(elita Bel$ica, t!at

upon p!#sical e3a(ination of t!e rape victi(, it as found t!at t!e !#(enal lacerations too4 place t!ree(ont!s %efore t!e date of e3a(ination, to rule out !is co((ission of t!e cri(e of rape. e are not persuaded.

An# prior se3ual intercourse !ic! could !ave resulted in !#(enal laceration is irrelevant in rape casesfor vir$init# is not an ele(ent of rape ;People vs. Delovino, +:? SC/A 1' 8'19<. 6ence, it is of no(o(ent t!at t!ere is a findin$ t!at se3ual intercourse occurred t!ree (ont!s earlier t!an Nove(%er 1,

'@. )oo, t!e rape could !ave %een so sli$!t as to leave no traces upon e3a(ination, for co(plete penetration of t!e fe(ale or$an is not necessar# to constitute rape ;People vs. Soan, +:7 SC/A >++<.)!e (ere penetration of t!e penis %# entr# t!ereof into t!e labia ma:ora of t!e fe(ale or$an suffices toarrant a conviction for rape ;People vs. Sanc!eK, +1 SC/A ': 8'19<. )!e folloin$ circu(stances

are si$nificant0

'. uKvi(inda testified t!at s!e as raped %# accused-appellant. No #oun$ *ilipina ould pad(it t!at s!e !ad %een cri(inall# a%used and ravis!ed unless t!at is t!e trut!, as it is !er instinct to protect !er !onor. ;People vs. Delovino, supra= People vs. Na(a#on, +:> SC/A >:> People vs. /ivera, +:+ SC/A +> 8'19<.

+. uKvi(indas testi(on# is corro%orated %# t!at of 2arites !o !erself itnessed t!e rape ;tsn1, ', p. '><.

7. )!e s!oestrin$ t!at as found inside t!e plastic %a$ is also an indication of accused-appeco((ission of t!e cri(e of rape. uKvi(inda identified said s!oestrin$ as t!at !ic! as used oneffect t!e cri(e of rape.

astl#, accused-appellants defense of denial and ali%i (ust fail considerin$ t!at !e as poidentified %# 2arites and uKvi(inda as t!e aut!or of t!e cri(e. e !ave consistentl# ruled t!li4e denial, is in!erentl# ea4 and easil# fa%ricated. In order to 5ustif# an ac&uittal %ased defense, t!e accused (ust esta%lis! %# clear and convincin$ evidence t!at it as p!#sicall# i(pfor !i( to !ave %een at t!e cri(e scene durin$ its co((ission ;People vs. Pontilar, H./. No. 'ul# '', '?= People vs. Su(%illo, et. al., H./. No. '1++, April '@, '?= People vs. Ha(iao,

In t!e case at %enc!, accused-appellant ad(itted %ein$ at 2arivic Co(pound at Baesa, ueKodurin$ t!e ni$!t of t!e incident. 6e as alle$edl# it! !is ife ;tsn, Au$ust +7, ', p. :<. Ditness 2elc!or 2a%ini even attested t!at t!e couple spent t!e ni$!t at t!e co(pound on t!e Nove(%er 1, '@. But did 2a%ini atc! over t!e couple t!e !ole ni$!tQ It is not i(possaccused-appellant to sleep at t!e 2arivic Co(pound on t!e ni$!t of Nove(%er :, '

surreptitiousl# leave t!e pre(ises at (idni$!t to $et to Raloo4an Cit#. )!e distance %eteen Cit# and Raloo4an Cit# is not si$nificant.

Anent t!e aard of conse&uential da(a$es, e increase t!e inde(nit# in favor of rapeuKvi(inda A&uino fro( P7,. to P1,. in line it! recent 5urisprudence. e affiaards concernin$ t!e a(ounts correspondin$ to t!e value of t!e ite(s stolen, t!e sa(e !avinesta%lis!ed t!rou$! t!e testi(on# of 2arites Nas AtienKa, includin$ t!e P',. aarded for c

6E/E*O/E, findin$ t!e conviction of accused-appellant 5ustified %# t!e evidence on recoassailed decision is !ere%# A**I/2ED it! t!e (odification a%ove-stated.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



ONSTI II !S"c. 11



*I/S) DIVISION

G.R. No. 1121++ 9a3-ar) 28, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.TITO ZUELA ) MORANARTE, MA=IMO :ELARE ) E LOS REYES, a34 NELSONGARIA ) TEMPORAS,accused-appellants.

PARO, J.:

)!e case is an appeal of accused 2a3i(o Velarde # de los /e#es, Nelson Harcia # )e(poras and )itouela # 2orandarte fro( t!e decision' of t!e /e$ional )rial Court, Ca(arines Sur, i%(anan, Branc!+:, findin$ t!e( $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of ro%%er# it! !o(icide and sentencin$ eac! of t!e(to reclusion perpetua, and to pa# 5ointl# and severall# t!e a(ount of one !undred t!ousand;P',.< pesos to t!e !eirs of 2aria A%endao and o!n A%endao, and fift# t!ousand;P1,.< pesos to t!e !eirs of 6e$ino 6ernandeK, it!out su%sidiar# i(prison(ent in case of insolvenc#, and to pa# t!e costs.+

On ul# +, '@1, Assistant Provincial *iscal ulian C. Oca(po III filed it! t!e /e$ional )rial Court,i%(anan, Ca(arines Sur an infor(ation c!ar$in$ accused 2a3i(o Velarde # de los /e#es, NelsonHarcia # )e(poras and )ito uela # 2orandarte it! ro%%er# it! triple !o(icide co((itted asfollos0

)!at in t!e evenin$ of April +?, '@1 in Ca(a$on$, Ca%usao, Ca(arines Sur, P!ilippines, t!e a%ove-na(ed accused, conspirin$ and confederatin$ to$et!er and (utuall# aidin$ eac! ot!er, it! intent to$ain, did t!en and t!ere, illfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl#, it! violence and inti(idation $ainst8 sic9 persons, t!at is %# s!ootin$ and sta%%in$ one 6e$ino 6ernandeK, Sr., 2aria S. A%endao and o!n-o!n A%endao, t!ere%# inflictin$ upon t!e( (ortal in5uries t!at caused t!eir instantaneous deat!, ta4e,ro% and carr# aa# t!e folloin$ personal properties %elon$in$ to t!e said 2aria A%endao, to it0

;'< Cas! (one# P +',.;+< one $old rin$ P ?1.;7< one Sei4o rist atc! P ',+1.

P +7,.

)!at as a conse&uence of t!e felonious act of t!e accused, t!e !eirs of t!e deceased suffered da(t!e a(ount of P+1,. eac!, representin$ inde(nit# for deat!, loss of earnin$ capacit# andda(a$es.

CON)/A/M )O A.7

On une ', '@1 2a3i(o Velarde as arrested at 2a$allanes, Sorso$on, !ile accused Nelsonand )ito uela ere arrested at Ca%usao, Ca(arines Sur on une :, '@1 and une , '@1, respe

On 2arc! +>, '@?, all t!ree accused, ere arrai$ned it! t!e assistance of t!eir counsel, and p

not $uilt# to t!e c!ar$e. )rial ensued.

)!e evidence esta%lis!ed t!e folloin$ facts0

2aria A%endao as en$a$ed in %usiness. S!e !as a store operated a passen$er 5eepne# and en$t!e %u# and sale of palay. 6er !ouse cum store as %eside t!at of !er sister /o(ualda Al$arins %# t!e roadside in Barcelonita, Ca%usao, Ca(arines Sur. /o(ualda also !ad a store.1()phi1"n*t

Accused Nelson Harcia as 2arias store !elper. Accused )ito uela alias Antin$ !elped /oin !er store durin$ palay season. )!e ot!er accused 2a3i(o Velarde as 4non to /o(ualda %s!e (et !i( at a %irt!da# part# !eld at 2arias !ouse on April ', '@1. )!e t!ree accused ere f

On April +?, '@1, 2aria (ade t!ree ;7< deliveries of palay on %oard to !er 5eepne#, driven %#

6ernandeK, r., to t!e rice(ill of Herardo BeniteK in San uan, i%(anan, Ca(arines Sur. deliver# costs seven t!ousand ;P?,.< pesos. )!e t!ree deliveries ere (ade at 0 in t!e (+0 in t!e afternoon and ?07 in t!e evenin$. :

Beteen >0 and ?0 in t!e evenin$ of t!at da#, fro( a distance of five ;1< ar(s len$t!, /osa t!e t!ree ;7< accused %oard t!e 5eepne# of 2aria, %ound for San uan, i%(anan, Ca(arin

Because t!e 5eepne# as filled it! palay, t!e# (erel# !old on t!e railin$ of t!e 5eepne#. 1 )!eot!er passen$ers na(el#, Pa%lo A%endao and /o%erto Ec!iaca.>

Herardo AtienKa, t!e %u#er of palay, sa 2a3i(o inside t!e 5eepne# durin$ t!e second andeliver# of pala# to !is rice(ill.? *or eac! deliver#, Herardo paid 2aria t!e a(ount of seven t!;P?,.< pesos.

)!e folloin$ (ornin$, t!e %odies of 6e$ino 6ernandeK, 2aria and o!n-o!n A%endao erein rigor mortis condition at Ne Po%lacion, Ca%usao, Ca(arines Sur.@

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_112177_2000.html#fnt1





















Dr. /estituto Sa(pilo, (unicipal !ealt! officer of Ca%usao, found 2aria in a reclinin$ position on t!efront seat of t!e 5eepne#. o!n as in a se(i-4neelin$ position, facin$ !is (ot!er it! %ot! !andsclaspin$ !er left !and. 6e$ino as at t!e steerin$ !eel it! !is %od#, fro( t!e a%do(en up, restin$ ont!e side of t!e ve!icle and !is !ead outside of it. A %ullet t!at e3ited fro( 6e$inos left e#e%ro causedt!e ound near !is ri$!t ear.'

2aria !ad a !oriKontal sta% ound at t!e front part of !er nec4 5ust a%ove t!e 3#p!oid process. '' 6er

seven ;?< #ear old son, o!n, !ad a t!ree ;7< inc! slas!ed !oriKontal ound at t!e front %ase of t!e nec4,a to ;+< inc! ound on t!e left upper ar( and to ;+< sta% ounds on t!e lateral side of t!e nec4 at t!e 5unction of t!e ri$!t s!oulder.'+ 6e$ino !ad a s(all ound it! sli$!tl# depressed ed$es, a%out an inc!fro( t!e !i$!est tip of t!e ri$!t ear, a ound it! everted and lacerated ed$es a%ove t!e (iddle part of

t!e left e#e%ro, and seven ;?< sta% ounds at t!e %ac4.'7

)!ou$! t!ere ere no e#eitnesses, t!e prosecution esta%lis!ed !o t!e cri(e as co((itted it! t!e

testi(on# of /o(ualda Al$arin, !ic! as in turn %ased on t!e e3tra5udicial ad(ission $iven %#2a3i(o Velarde to /o(ualda !en s!e visited t!e latter at t!e Ca(ali$an (unicipal 5ail on une >,'@1.

2a3i(o, )ito and Nelson conceived t!e plan to !old-up 2aria !ile drin4in$ in front of /o(ualdasstore %ecause 2a3i(o needed (one# for !is fare to 2anila.

!en t!e pala#-laden 5eepne# of 2aria left for i%(anan, Ca(arines Sur 2a3i(o, )ito and Nelson %oarded it. )!e# ali$!ted at sitio Ca$u(pis, Ca(a$on$, Ca%usao, Ca(arines Sur to attend aeddin$.': 2a3i(o as supposed to %oard t!e 5eepne# on its a# %ac4 to Barcelonita, !ile t!e ot!er

to ;+< accused, )ito and Nelson ould ait alon$ t!e road at t!e crossin$ of Ne Po%lacion andCa(a$on$, Ca(arines Sur to %oard t!e 5eepne# and !old-up 2aria.

Ever#t!in$ ent accordin$ to plan. Nelson and )ito !ailed t!e 5eepne# at t!e crossin$ of Ca%usao,Ca(arines Sur. Upon reac!in$ an unin!a%ited place, )ito alias Antin$ told Velarde0 Ora$ui na n$a#aan$ driver.'12a3i(o po4ed a $un at t!e driver and s!ot !i(. 6e also s!ot 2aria at t!e nec4 !en t!elatter s!outed.'>

Nelson and )ito ali$!ted fro( t!e 5eepne#. Nelson ent to t!e front side of t!e 5eepne#, !ile )itoapproac!ed t!e ri$!t front side of t!e 5eepne#, in t!e process steppin$ on t!e sleepin$ o!n-o!n !oas t!en aa4ened. )!e %o# stood up and said, Mou ill see I ill tell (# fat!er t!at #ou 4illed (#(ot!er.'? )o avoid %ein$ identified %# t!e %o#, )ito told 2a3i(o Ora$ui na ini. '@ 2a3i(o too4 !oldof t!e %o#s !air and slas!ed !is nec4.

)ito too4 2arias (one# and divided it, eac! accused receivin$ a%out seven t!ousand ;P?,.fro( t!e loot.

)ito and Nelson ent %ac4 to Barcelonita, Ca%usao, Ca(arines Sur. 2a3i(o proceeded to 2anil

On une ', '@1, t. Ernesto . Idian, Station Co((ander, Ca%usao Police Station, Ca%usao, CaSur assisted %# to ;+< ot!er police(en, arrested 2a3i(o in 2a$allanes, Sorso$on. )!ou$! no of arrest !ad %een issued, 2a3i(o as i((ediatel# %rou$!t to t!e Ca(ali$an police staCa(ali$an, Ca(arines Sur !ere !e as investi$ated and as4ed to $ive a ritten state(ent presence of Att#. ose Oca(po fro( t!e CitiKens e$al Assistance Office ;CAO<, Na$a Cit#.'

On une :, and , '@1, )ito and Nelson ere ta4en into police custod# it!out a arranunderent custodial investi$ation it!out t!e assistance of counsel %ecause no la#er could %e fCa%usao, Ca(arines Sur.

On t!e last pa$e of eac! accuseds confession appeared a state(ent, in t!eir on !andritin$effect t!at t!e# voluntaril# $ave t!eir state(ents and t!at no one coerced or pro(ised t!e( an#tad(it responsi%ilit# for t!e cri(e.

2a3i(o, Nelson and )ito si$ned t!eir individual state(ents %efore ud$e ore /. Valencia Ba$2unicipal Circuit )rial Court, i%(anan, Ca(arines Sur on t!ree ;7< different dates.+ S!e follosa(e procedure and line of &uestionin$, usin$ t!e local dialect, in ascertainin$ t!e voluntarinest!ree ;7< accuseds confessions. S!e ordered t. Idian and !is co(panions to leave !er and t!e ainside t!e c!a(%er .+'Satisfied t!at t!e# ere properl# apprised of t!eir ri$!ts and t!at t!e# volu

e3ecuted t!eir state(ents, s!e !ad t!e( si$n t!eir individual e3tra5udicial state(ents.

Antonio A%endao, t!e !us%and of 2aria, as or4in$ at Saudi Ara%ia !en !is fa(il# as 4ica(e to 4no a%out t!e tra$ic deat! of !is ife and son t!rou$! an overseas call fro( !is /enato A%endao. !en !e learned a%out it, !e %eca(e unconscious. 6e arrived in t!e P!ilippi;1< da#s after .++ 6e 4ne Nelson Harcia %ecause !e as t!e son of !is cousin. 6e as also fa(il)ito uela, %ut !e did not 4no 2a3i(o Velarde. 6e spent tent# t!ousand ;P+,.< pesosfuneral of !is ife and son. 6e $ave one t!ousand ;P',.< pesos financial assistance to t!eof t!eir driver, 6e$ino.+7

On t!e ot!er !and 2a3i(o, )ito and Nelson interposed co((on defenses0 ;'< denial and ;+< t!ere tortured and forced to (a4e a confession. In addition, )ito and Nelson clai(ed t!e# assisted %# counsel !en t!eir confessions ere ta4en, !ile 2a3i(o alle$ed t!e of alibi sa#in$ t!at !e did not leave 2a$allanes, Sorso$on an#ti(e in '@1.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

O ' '@1 fi ;1< l d % Idi ! ! f 2 i V l d i 2 ll f ! 4illi f ! A% d B N l f d Idi % ! !i







































On une ', '@1, five ;1< persons, led %# t. Idian, ent to t!e !ouse of 2a3i(o Velarde in 2a$allanes,Sorso$on to fetc! !i( %ecause !is parents anted !i( at Ca%usao, Ca(arines Sur as !is %rot!er BenitoVelarde died. 6e as s!on t!e picture of t!e cadaver of !is %rot!er. 2a3i(o ent it! t!e $roup of t. Idian on %oard a red car and traveled to Na$a Cit#, arrivin$ t!ere %eteen ?0 and @0 in t!eevenin$.

In a dar4 place %efore reac!in$ Na$a Cit#, t!e driver stopped t!e ve!icle to urinate. Before t!e driver

could return, 2a3i(o felt a !ard o%5ect !it !is !ead and !e passed out. !en !e re$ainedconsciousness, !e as alread# !andcuffed. Pointin$ a $un at !i(, t. Idian told !i( t!at !e !ad toc!oices, eit!er to die or si$n t!e state(ent t!e# prepared %ecause !is %rot!er !ad ron$ed t!e(. 6e asarned not to tell an#one t!at !e as (auled. )!ereafter, t!e# proceeded to t!e Ca(ali$an (unicipal

5ail.

)o da#s later or on une 7, '@1, 2a3i(o as %rou$!t out of t!e 5ail and us!ered into a s(all roo(

!ere !e sa t!ree persons, na(el# t. Idian, Att#. ose Oca(po fro( CAO= Na$a Cit# and Pat.Honsalo /efe, a police investi$ator fro( Ca%usao, Ca(arines Sur. Att#. Oca(po read to !i( t!econtents of a prepared state(ent, !ic! in su%stance (entioned t!at so(e people died and t!at !e asresponsi%le for t!eir deat!. 2a3i(o refused to si$n. Att#. Oca(po stepped out of t!e roo(, folloed %#t. Idian and !e over!eard t!at !e ould %e (ade to si$n t!e state(ent in Att#. Oca(pos office in Na$aCit#. Att#. Oca(po t!en left and t. Idian returned to t!e roo(.

Upon t. Idians return to t!e s(aller roo(, !e 4ic4ed 2a3i(o in t!e sto(ac! and po4ed a $un at !i(.Consu(ed %# fear, 2a3i(o pro(ised t!at !e ould si$n t!e prepared state(ent. 6e as t!en !anded a piece of paper and ordered to cop# its contents on t!e prepared state(ent. *ound on pa$e 1 of !is

e3tra5udicial confession as t!is state(ent, in !is on !andritin$0

Opo %inasa 4o po an$ apeda%et! na ito na (a# 1T pa!ina na paan$ totoo at sasarelin$ 4a$usto!an atalan$ nanta4ot o nan$a4o.+:

On une :, '@1, 2a3i(o a$ain si$ned t!e state(ent %efore ud$e ore /. Valencia Ba$alacsa,2unicipal Circuit )rial Court, i%(anan, Ca(arines Sur. *ro( t!e ti(e accused 2a3i(o as arrested,!e as never released. 2a3i(o denied t!at !e sa and tal4ed to /o(ualda on une >, '@1 at t!eCa(ali$an (unicipal 5ail %ecause !e !ad %een detained at t!e i%(anan (unicipal 5ail since une :,'@1.

*or !is part, Nelson Harcia denied an# 4noled$e of t!e cri(e. On une :, '@1, t!e $roup of Pat.Honsalo /efe ent to !is !ouse and invited !i( to t!e office of t. Idian. 6e as %rou$!t to t!eCa(ali$an Police Station. Upon t!eir arrival, t. Idian tal4ed to !i( and tried to convince !i( to

confess to t!e 4illin$ of t!e A%endaos. Because Nelson refused, t. Idian %rou$!t !i( upsta(auled !i(. 6e as transferred to Na$e Cit# 5ail, !ere !e as detained for to ;+< !ours.

)!ereafter, !e as %rou$!t to t!e Ca%usao Police Station !ere Pat. /odolfo O. Cario su%5ectedanot!er investi$ation. Because of !is continued refusal to confess, !e as (auled a$ain, t!is tPat. Cario.

)o avoid furt!er in5ur# to !is person, on une 1, '@1, Nelson Harcia as forced to si$n t!e prstate(ent. 6e as neit!er infor(ed of its contents nor assisted %# counsel. 6e as !anded a p paper, t!e contents of !ic! !e as ordered to cop#, in !is on !andritin$, and in su%stansi(ilar to !at 2a3i(o as ordered to cop# as !is on e3tra5udicial state(ent. 6e as %rou$!

office of ud$e Ba$alacsa t!at sa(e afternoon so t!at !e could si$n !is e3tra5udicial state(ent.

*ro( t!e ti(e !e as invited to t!e office of t. Idian, Nelson as never released fro( police c6e as first detained at t!e i%(anan (unicipal 5ail, and later on transferred to t!e )inan$is Penin Pili, Ca(arines Sur. )!ou$! !e suffered p!#sicall# fro( t!e %eatin$s !e $ot fro( t!e police(as never per(itted to see a doctor. 6is relatives ere not a%le to visit or tal4 to !i( %eca police(en pro!i%ited visitors.+1

i4e Nelson, )ito alias Antin$, denied participation in t!e cri(e. On ul# , '@1, Pat. /efe !i( to t!e office of t. Idian in Ca%usao, Ca(arines Sur. Upon arrival at t!e police station, investi$ated a%out !is 4noled$e of t!e cri(e. *ailin$ to elicit an# infor(ation fro( !i(, %rou$!t to i%(anan 5ail !ere !e spent t!e ni$!t.

)!e folloin$ da#, )ito as a$ain %rou$!t to Ca%usao Police Station and presented to t. IdianIdians office, !e as investi$ated a%out !is involve(ent in t!e cri(e. !en !e could not provianser, !e as (ade to %oard t!e police 5eep, to %e %rou$!t %ac4 to t!e i%(anan 5ail.

Alon$ t!e a#, t!e police 5eep stopped and Pat. Ca%rera $ot off and 4ic4ed )ito !o fell to t!e $6e !eard a $uns!ot and as s!on t!e piece of paper t!at !e as ordered to si$n %eforeBa$alacsa. 6e as t!reatened it! deat! s!ould !e refuse to si$n t!e prepared state(ent. Out of !is life, )ito pro(ised to si$n. )!ereafter, t!e# %oarded t!e police 5eep and proceeded to t!e ofud$e Ba$alacsa i%(anan, in Ca(arines Sur.

Upon arrival at t!e office of ud$e Ba$alacsa, !e as ordered to si$n t!e state(ent it!assistance of counsel and it!out %ein$ infor(ed of its contents. )!ereafter, !e as %roui%(anan (unicipal 5ail and later to )inan$is Penal *ar(. i4e !is co-accused, !e as never refro( police custod# fro( t!e ti(e of arrest.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

O A t +> '7 t! t i l t l t d it d i i i ti t! t! ;7< d f %% A t IV S ti + N ! ll % ll d t % it i t !i lf A








On Au$ust +>, '7, t!e trial court pro(ul$ated its decision convictin$ t!e t!ree ;7< accused of ro%%er#it! !o(icide, t!e dispositive portion of !ic! reads0

6E/E*O/E, after a careful and serious evaluation of t!e evidence presented %# t!e prosecution andt!e defense, t!e Court is (orall# convinced %e#ond reasona%le dou%t, t!at t!e t!ree ;7< accused2a3i(o Velarde, )ito uela and Nelson Harcia !ad co((itted t!e cri(e of /o%%er# it! 6o(icideand, t!erefore, sentences t!e( to suffer t!e penalt# of i(prison(ent of reclusion perpetua and to pa#

5ointl# and severall# an inde(nit# in t!e a(ount of ONE 6UND/ED )6OUSAND ;P',.<PESOS for t!e 6eirs of 2aria A%endao and o!n A%endao and *I*)M )6OUSAND ;P1,.<PESOS for t!e 6eirs of 6e$ino 6ernandeK, it!out i(prison(ent in case of insolvenc#, and to pa# t!ecosts.

SO O/DE/ED.

HIVEN t!is +>t! da# of ul#, '7 at i%(anan, Ca(arines Sur, P!ilippines.

;S$d.< SAVADO/ H. CAO)Presidin$ ud$e+>

On t!e sa(e da#, all t!ree ;7< accused filed a notice of appeal it! t!e trial court.

In t!eir appeal, accused-appellants clai( t!at t!e trial court erred in0

;'< rel#in$ on 2a3i(o Velardes e3tra-5udicial confession notit!standin$ t!e violation of !is

constitutional ri$!ts=

;+< $ivin$ full fait! and credit to /o(ualda Al$arins testi(on#= and

;7< findin$ all t!ree ;7< accused $uilt# as c!ar$ed despite t!e prosecutions failure to prove t!eir $uilt %e#ond reasona%le dou%t.

Considerin$ t!at t!ere ere no e#eitnesses to t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e, t!e e3tra-5udicialconfessions of t!e t!ree ;7< accused pla# a pivotal role in t!e deter(ination of t!eir culpa%ilit#. )!eCourt is dut#-%ound, t!erefore, to resolve t!e issue of !et!er or not t!e e3tra-5udicial confessions eree3ecuted in accordance it! t!e provisions of t!e '?7 Constitution, in li$!t of t!e fact t!at t!e cri(etoo4 place in '@1.

)!e pertinent provision of t!e '?7 Constitution provides0

Art. IV, Section +. No person s!all %e co(pelled to %e a itness a$ainst !i(self. An# personinvesti$ation for t!e co((ission of an offense s!all !ave t!e ri$!t to re(ain silent and to counto %e infor(ed of suc! ri$!t. No force, violence, t!reat, inti(idation, or an# ot!er (eans, !ic! t!e free ill, s!all %e used a$ainst !i(. An# confession o%tained in violation of t!is section s!inad(issi%le in evidence.+?

)!e ri$!t to counsel attac!es t!e (o(ent an investi$atin$ officer starts to as4 &uestions to

infor(ation on t!e cri(e fro( t!e suspected offender. It is at t!is point t!at t!e la re&uiassistance of counsel to avoid t!e pernicious practice of e3tortin$ forced or coerced ad(issconfessions fro( t!e person under$oin$ interro$ation. In ot!er ords, t!e (o(ent t!ere is a (even ur$e of said investi$ators to elicit ad(issions or confessions or even plain infor(ation !i

appear innocent or innocuous at t!e ti(e, fro( said suspect, !e s!ould t!en and t!ere %e assicounsel, unless !e aives t!e ri$!t, %ut t!e aiver s!all %e (ade in ritin$ and in t!e prescounsel.+@

t. Idians tea( appre!ended appellant 2a3i(o in 2a$allanes Sorso$on on une ', '@1 arrant !ad %een issued for !is arrest. I((ediatel# t!ereafter, t!e arrestin$ peace officers invesappellant 2a3i(o. 6is state(ent as reduced in ritin$ !en t!e# ere in Ca(ali$an, Ca(arinIt as in Ca(ali$an t!at CAO la#er Oca(po as su((oned to assist appellant 2a3i(oe3ecution of !is ritten confession. Att#. Oca(po as not present durin$ t!e entire duratioaccused 2a3i(o as su%5ected to custodial investi$ation as could %e inferred fro( t!e testi(on#/odolfo Cario, to it0

0 And after ta4in$ t!e state(ent of Velarde, !at did #ou do it! t!e state(ent of VelardeQ

A0 It as presented to Att#. Oca(po.

0 Do #ou ant to tell (e t!at inspite of t!e fact t!at !e as present !en t!e confession as (still present t!e state(ent to Att#. Oca(poQ

A0 In order to let !i( si$n t!e state(ent.

0 And !ere did Att#. Oca(po si$n t!e confession of VelardeQ

A0 It as si$n 8 sic9 at Na$a %ecause !e ent a!ead.

0 Do #ou (ean to tell (e no t!at after t!e confession as (ade, t!e confession as left to #

after t!e confession as %rou$!t to !is office at t!e CAO Office in Na$a, is t!at !at #ou ant!is court.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

A0 e ent to Na$a it! t Idian and Velarde In la#in$ don t!e principles of t!e $overn(ent and funda(ental li%erties of t!e peop









A0 e ent to Na$a it! t. Idian and Velarde.

0 But it re(ains a fact t!at Att#. Oca(po as alread# at Na$a !en t!e state(ent of Velarde as presented to !i( for si$nature, is t!at correctQ

A0 Mes !e ent a!ead to Na$a.+

)!ere as no evidence t!at 2a3i(o e3ecuted a aiver of !is ri$!t to counsel. In li$!t of t!ese facts, eare constrained to t!e rule t!at 2a3i(o Velardes e3tra-5udicial state(ent is inad(issi%le inevidence.7 An uncounselled e3tra-5udicial confession it!out a valid aiver of t!e ri$!t to counsel t!at is, in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel is inad(issi%le in evidence.7'

)!e respective sorn state(ents of appellants )ito and Nelson ere li4eise inad(issi%le in evidence %ecause t!e# ere e3ecuted it!out t!e assistance of counsel. Despite t!e fact t!at t!e reason for t!ea%sence of la#er durin$ t!e custodial investi$ation as t!e scarcit# of la#ers in t!e area, t!e Courtcould not %e lenient in t!is case. )!e a%sence or scarcit# of la#ers in an# $iven place is not a validreason for def#in$ t!e constitutional (andate on counseled confessions.

Contrar# to t!e rulin$ of t!e trial court, t!e defect in t!e confessions of )ito and Nelson as not cured

%# t!eir si$nin$ t!e e3tra-5udicial state(ents %efore ud$e Ba$alacsa.

Nevert!eless, t!e infir(it# of accused-appellants sorn state(ents did not leave a void in t!e prosecutions case. Accused-appellant 2a3i(o repeated t!e contents of !is sorn state(ent to/o(ualda Al$arin !o, in turn, related t!ese in court. Suc! declaration to a private person is ad(issi%le

in evidence a$ainst accused-appellant 2a3i(o pursuant to /ule '7, Section +> of t!e /ules of Courtstatin$ t!at t!e act, declaration for o(ission of a part# as to a relevant fact (a# %e $iven in evidence

a$ainst !i(. )!e trial court, t!erefore, correctl# $ave evidentiar# value to /o(ualdas testi(on#.In People vs. Ma.ueda,7+ e !eld0

6oever, t!e e3tra5udicial ad(issions of 2a&ueda to Prosecutor arate and to /a# Dean Salvosa standon a different footin$. )!ese are not $overned %# t!e e3clusionar# rules under t!e Bill of /i$!ts.2as&ueda voluntaril# and freel# (ade t!e( to Prosecutor arate not in t!e course of an investi$ation, %ut in connection it! 2a&uedas plea to %e utiliKed as a state itness= and as to t!e ot!er ad(ission, it

as $iven to a private person. )!e provisions of t!e Bill of /i$!ts are pri(aril# li(itations on$overn(ent, declarin$ t!e ri$!ts t!at e3ist it!out t!e $overn(ental $rant, t!at (a# not %e ta4en aa# %# $overn(ent and t!at $overn(ent !as t!e dut# to protect= or restrictions on t!e poer of t!e$overn(ent found not in particular specific t#pes of action pro!i%ited, %ut in t!e $eneral principle t!at4eeps alive in t!e pu%lic (ind t!e doctrine t!at $overn(ental poer is not unli(ited. )!e# are t!efunda(ental safe$uards a$ainst a$$ressions of ar%itrar# poer, or state t#rann# and a%use of aut!orit#.

In la#in$ don t!e principles of t!e $overn(ent and funda(ental li%erties of t!e peopConstitution did not $overn t!e relations!ips %eteen individuals.

Accordin$l#, 2a&uedas ad(issions to /a# Dean Salvosa, a private part#, are ad(issi%le in eva$ainst t!e for(er under Section +>, /ule '7 of t!e /ules of Court. In -balle vs. People ;'@7'> 8'9<, t!is Court !eld t!at the declaration o! an accused e;pressly ac0no)ledging his gu

o!!ense may be given in evidence against him and any person, other)ise competent to test

)itness, )ho heard the con!ession, is competent to testi!y as to the substance o! )hat he hea

heard and understood it . )!e said itness need not repeat verbatim t!e oral confession= it suffic$ives its su%stance. B# analo$#, t!at rule applies to oral e3tra5udicial ad(ission. ;E(p!asis suppl

And in t!e recent case of People vs. -ndan7: t!e Court reiterated t!e doctrine enuncit!e Ma.ueda case. In Andan, t!e Court said t!at !en t!e accused tal4ed it! t!e (a#or as coand not as a la enforce(ent officer, !is uncounselled confession did not violate !is constitu

ri$!ts. Constitutional procedures on custodial investi$ation do not appl# to a spontaneous state(elicited t!rou$! &uestionin$ %# t!e aut!orities, %ut $iven in an ordinar# (anner !ere%# aporall# ad(itted !avin$ co((itted t!e cri(e. Of course, accused-appellant 2a3i(o atte(discredit /o(ualdas credi%ilit# as a itness !en !e sore t!at !e could not !ave %een in Ca(on une >, '@1 %ecause since une :, '@1 until so(e t!ree ee4s later, !e as detainedi%(anan 5ail.71 )!e trial court correctl# disre$arded t!is self-servin$ uncorro%orated assertion.

)!e defense failed to attri%ute an# ill-(otive on t!e part of /o(ualda for testif#in$ on acappellant 2a3i(os ad(ission and t!erefore t!e presu(ption t!at in so testif#in$, s!e as i(peno ot!er reason t!an to tell t!e trut!, stands. )!e fact t!at s!e is related to to of t!e victi(s

render !er testi(on# incredi%le. /elations!ip per se is not proof of pre5udice.

7>

S!e (i$!t !av(ista4en as to t!e date !en s!e tal4ed it! accused-appellant 2a3i(o !ile !e as deconsiderin$ t!e (ore t!an t!ree-#ear $ap %eteen une '@1 and Septe(%er to Octo%er '@@/o(ualda testified. 6oever, it is not necessar# t!at t!e itness s!ould %e a%le to fi3 accuratdate of t!e conversation in !ic! t!e ad(ission as (ade. !at is i(portant is t!at t!e itnessto state t!e su%stance of t!e conversation or declaration.7?

/o(ualdas testi(on# on accused-appellant 2a3i(os ad(ission sealed not onl# t!e latters fate %t!at of appellants )ito and Nelson. )!e rule t!at an e3tra5udicial confession is %indin$ onl# upconfessant and is not ad(issi%le a$ainst !is co-accused %ecause t!e latter !as no opportunit# toe3a(ine t!e confessant and t!erefore, as a$ainst !i(, t!e confession is !earsa#,7@ is not applica%!at is involved !ere is an ad(ission, not a confession. !arton distin$uis!ed t!ese ter(s as fo

A confession is an ac4noled$(ent in e3press ter(s, %# a part# in a cri(inal case, of !is $uilt

cri(e c!ar$ed, !ile an ad(ission is a state(ent %# t!e accused, direct or i(plied, of facts pert

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

t!e issue and tendin$ in connection it! proof of ot!er facts to prove !is $uilt In ot!er ords an Accused-appellant ar$ues t!at !ad !e participated in t!e cri(e !is natural reaction ould !ave

























t!e issue and tendin$, in connection it! proof of ot!er facts, to prove !is $uilt. In ot!er ords, anad(ission is so(et!in$ less t!an a confession, and is %ut an ac4noled$(ent of so(e fact or circu(stance !ic! in itself is insufficient to aut!oriKe a conviction and !ic! tends onl# to esta%lis!t!e ulti(ate fact of $uilt.7

Appellants )ito and Nelson ere afforded t!e opportunit# to cross-e3a(ine itness /o(ualda onaccused-appellant 2a3i(os declaration. )!e# could !ave &uestioned its veracit# %# presentin$

evidence in support of t!eir defenses of denial and alibi so t!e# could put to test /o(ualdas credi%ilit#.6avin$ failed to do so, /o(ualdas testi(on#, !ic! t!e trial court correctl# considered as credi%le,stands unscat!ed.

/o(ualdas testi(on# on t!e su%stance of accused-appellant 2a3i(os ad(ission standin$ alone, (a#not %e t!e %asis for conviction of t!e appellants. 6oever, suc! testi(on#, ta4en it! circu(stancesdul# esta%lis!ed %# t!e prosecution, point unerrin$l# to accused-appellants culpa%ilit#. )!ese

circu(stances are0 ;'< accused-appellants and t!e victi(s ere all residents of Barcelonita, Ca%usao,Ca(arines Sur, a s(all %aran$a# !ere ever#one 4ne ever#%od#= ;+< accused-appellants )ito and Nelson !elped in t!e stores of t!e sisters 2aria and /o(ualda a ee4 %efore t!e incident= ;7< /o(ualdasa t!e t!ree accused-appellants as t!e# %oarded 2arias 5eepne# durin$ its last palay deliver# toi%(anan= ;:< Herardo AtienKa sa accused-appellant 2a3i(o it! 2arias $roup durin$ t!e 5eepne#ssecond deliver# of palay= ;1< AtienKa sa accused-appellant 2a3i(o ridin$ in 2arias 5eepne# after t!elast deliver#= ;>< after t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e, accused-appellants )ito and Nelson no lon$er entto t!e store of /o(ualda= ;?< accused-appellants never attended t!e a4e of t!e victi(s, and ;@<accused-appellant 2a3i(o fled to 2anila.

)!ese circu(stances for( an un%ro4en c!ain, !ic!, %# t!e(selves lead to a fair and reasona%leconclusion t!at accused-appellants ere t!e culprits in t!e ro%%er# it! !o(icide. : Under t!e la,circu(stantial evidence is sufficient %asis for conviction as lon$ as0 ;'< t!ere is (ore t!an onecircu(stance= ;+< t!e facts fro( !ic! t!e inferences are derived are proved, and ;7< t!e co(%ination of all t!e circu(stances is suc! as to produce conviction %e#ond reasona%le dou%t.:' )!ese re&uisites ere present in t!is case.

Accused-appellants diverse course of action after t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e, it! accused-appellant2a3i(o $oin$ to 2anila and accused-appellants )ito and Nelson sta#in$ in Barcelonita, do not ne$atet!eir $uilt. As re$ards accused-appellant 2a3i(o, !is fli$!t to 2anila and to 2a$allanes, Sorso$on it!no plausi%le e3planation t!erefor is a clear indication of $uilt.:+ it! respect to accused-appellants )itoand Nelson, t!eir decision to sta# in Barcelonita did not (ean t!at t!e# ere not e&uall# $uilt# asaccused-appellant 2a3i(o. As t!is Court once said0

Accused-appellant ar$ues t!at !ad !e participated in t!e cri(e, !is natural reaction ould !ave flee. e do not a$ree. Eac! culprit %e!aves differentl# in e3ternaliKin$ and (anifestin$ !is $uilt.(a# escape or flee !ic! circu(stance is stron$l# indicative of $uilt, !ile ot!ers (a# re(aisa(e vicinit# so as to create a se(%lance of nor(alc#, careful not to arouse suspicionco((unit#.:7

Conspirac# (a# %e inferred fro( t!e acts of accused-appellants %efore, durin$ and after t!e co((

of t!e cri(e, !ic! indicate a 5oint purpose, concerted action and concurrensenti(ents.:: !enever !o(icide is co((itted as a conse&uence or on t!e occasion of t!e ro%%t!ose !o too4 part as principals in t!e conspirac# are also $uilt# as principals in t!e special cocri(e of ro%%er# it! !o(icide alt!ou$! t!e# did not actuall# ta4e part in t!e 4illin$, unless t!e

proof t!at t!e# tried to prevent t!e cri(e.:1

)!ere is no evidence t!at an# of t!e accused-appdesisted fro( t!e (alevolent intent of t!e ot!ers to 4ill t!e victi(s durin$ t!e ro%%er#. As sucs!all e&uall# %ear t!e responsi%ilit# for t!e resultin$ cri(e.

)reac!er# as not alle$ed in t!e infor(ation %ut t!e suddenness of t!e assault upon 6e$ino andfro( %e!ind as proven reasona%le dou%t. As suc!, treac!er# (a# %e appreciated as a a$$ravatin$ circu(stance.:> As re$ards seven-#ear-old o!n, even if t!e (anner %# !ic! !attac4ed as not s!on, treac!er# (a# %e dee(ed to !ave attended !is 4illin$. )reac!er# e3istan adult person ille$all# attac4s a c!ild of tender #ears and causes !is deat!.:?

)!e cri(e co((itted is t!e special co(ple3 cri(e of ro%%er# it! !o(icide defined and penalArticle +: of t!e /evised Penal Code. )!e trial court correctl# considered t!e cri(e as ro%%er!o(icide and not ro%%er# it! triple !o(icide as c!ar$ed in t!e infor(ation. )!e ter( !o(i

Article +:;'< is used in its $eneric sense, e(%racin$ not onl# t!e act !ic! results in deat! %ut ot!er acts producin$ an#t!in$ s!ort of deat!.:@ Neit!er is t!e nature of t!e offense altered %# t!e of 4illin$s in connection it! t!e ro%%er#.:)!e (ultiplicit# of victi(s slain on t!e occasionro%%er# is onl# appreciated as an a$$ravatin$ circu(stance. )!is ould preclude an anosituation !ere, fro( t!e standpoint of t!e $ravit# of t!e offense, ro%%er# it! one 4illin$ otreated in t!e sa(e a# t!at ro%%er# it! (ultiple 4illin$s ould %e.1

Under Article +: ;'< of t!e /evised Penal Code, ro%%er# it! !o(icide is punis!a%le %# re

perpetua to deat!. B# t!e presence of to a$$ravatin$ circu(stances, na(el#, treac!er# and (ultof slain victi(s, t!e proper penalt# s!ould %e deat! in vie of Article >7 ;'< of t!Code.1' 6oever, considerin$ t!at !en t!is case !appened, t!e i(position of t!e deat! penal proscri%ed, t!e proper i(posa%le penalt# as reclusion perpetua. )!e !einousness of t!e cri(co((itted notit!standin$, accused-appellants (a# not %e deprived of suc! favora%le factor case.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

)!e Solicitor Henerals plea for (odification of t!e penalt# in accordance it! /epu%lic Act No. ?>1



































)!e Solicitor Heneral s plea for (odification of t!e penalt# in accordance it! /epu%lic Act No. ?>1!ic! !as alread# e3pressl# converted reclusion perpetua into a divisi%le penalt# and on account of t!e decision in People vs. Lucas,1+ is untena%le. It (ust %e stressed t!at t!e ucas rulin$ !as %eenreconsidered and, accordin$l#, t!e Court !as !eld0

After deli%eratin$ on t!e (otion and re-e3a(inin$ t!e le$islative !istor# of /.A. No. ?>1, t!e Courtconcludes t!at alt!ou$! Section '? of t!e /.A. No. ?>1 !as fi3ed t!e duration of reclusion

perpetua fro( tent# ;+< #ears and one ;'< da# to fort# ;:< #ears, t!ere as no clear le$islative intentto alter its ori$inal classification as an indivisi%le penalt#. It s!all t!en re(ain as an indivisi%le penalt#.17

)!e trial court failed to aard t!e !eirs of 2aria A%endao t!e a(ount of tent# t!ree t!ousand

;P+7,.< pesos in rei(%urse(ent of t!e stolen cas!, rin$ and ristatc! and t!e e3pensesa(ountin$ to tent# t!ousand ;P+,.< pesos for !er a4e and t!at of !er son, !ic! ere dul# proved.1: )!e !eirs are entitled to t!ose a(ounts as reparation of t!e da(a$e caused %# accused-

appellants. )!e# s!all also %e lia%le for e3e(plar# da(a$es in vie of t!e presence of to a$$ravatin$circu(stances in t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e.11

6E/E*O/E, t!e Court A**I/2S it! 2ODI*ICA)ION t!e decision of t!e trial court. )!e Courtrenders 5ud$(ent findin$ accused-appellants )ito uela # 2orandarte, 2a3i(o Velarde # de los /e#es, Nelson Harcia # )e(poras $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of ro%%er# it! !o(icide, defined and penaliKed under Article +: ;'< of t!e /evised Penal Code, and sentences eac! of t!e( to reclusion

perpetua it! all its accessor# penalties and to pa# civil inde(nit# of one !undred t!ousand;P',.< pesos to t!e !eirs of 2aria A%endao and o!n A%endao and fift# t!ousand;P1,.< pesos to t!e !eirs of 6e$ino 6ernandeK, r.

In addition, t!e Court sentences eac! of t!e accused-appellants solidaril# to pa# t!e additional a(ountsof fort# t!ree t!ousand ;P:7,.< pesos as rei(%urse(ent of da(a$es to t!e !eirs of 2ariaA%endao, and fift# t!ousand ;P1,.< pesos as e3e(plar# da(a$es to t!e !eirs of eac! of t!e t!ree

;7< victi(s.1()phi1"n*t

it! costs.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11














ONSTI II !S"c. 11

*I/S) DIVISION )!at on 2arc! +@, '7, at (ore or less '07 ocloc4 in t!e evenin$ !ile inside a (otor ve!icl



G.R. No. 12+'($ "c">"r 8, 1(((

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ORLANO LA*TAN ) A;UIHON !A Lar"%, alias *E*OT, HENRY FELIIANO )LAGURA a34 9ONELTO LA*TAN !A Lar"%, acc-"4, HENRY FELIIANO )LAGURA, accused-appellant.

PUNO, J.:

Accused-appellant 6enr# *eliciano appeals t!e decision of t!e /e$ional )rial Court of Ca$a#an de OroCit#, Branc! +1 1 convictin$ !i( of !i$!a# ro%%er# and ro%%er# it! !o(icide on t!e %asis of a sornstate(ent !ic! !e repudiated durin$ t!e trial.

On April +7, '7, an infor(ation 2 as filed a$ainst 6enr# *eliciano, Orlando a%tan, and oneltoa%tan c!ar$in$ t!e( it! ro%%er# it! !o(icide co((itted as follos0

)!at on or a%out April '>, '7, at a%out +07 in t!e afternoon, (ore or less, at Bunton$, Ca(a(an-an,Ca$a#an de Oro Cit#, P!ilippines, and it!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!is 6onora%le Court, t!e a%ove-na(edaccused, conspirin$, confederatin$ to$et!er and (utuall# !elpin$ one anot!er, and it! $rave a%use of confidence, did t!en and t!ere ilfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl# and %# (eans of violence, ta4e, ro%and carr# aa# P7.Lcas! (one# to t!e da(a$e and pre5udice of t!e offended part# ;*lorentino

Bolasito<= t!at on t!e occasion of t!e said ro%%er# and for t!e purpose of ena%lin$ t!e( ;accused< tosteal, ta4e and carr# aa# t!e P7. (one#, t!e !erein accused, in pursuance of t!eir conspirac#, did

t!en and t!ere ilfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl#, and it! evident pre(editation and ta4in$advanta$e of t!eir nu(%er and stren$t! and it! intent to 4ill, accused Orlando a%tan #Da&ui!on, alias Be%ot a%tan and onelto a%tan, treac!erousl# attac4, assault and use personalviolence upon *lorentino Bolasito t!ere%# inflictin$ upon !i( t!e folloin$ in5uries0 S!oc4 due to(ultiple sta% ounds !eart, it! t!e use of a ; sic< 4nivesL%laded eapon !ic! accused areconvenientl# provided, !ic! directl# caused t!e deat! of t!e said *lorentino Bolasito.

Contrar# to and in violation of Article + and +: of t!e /evised Penal Code.

Su%se&uentl#, anot!er infor(ation $ dated 2a# +, '7 as filed a$ainst 6enr# *eliciano and Orlandoa%tan c!ar$in$ t!e( it! !i$!a# ro%%er# co((itted as follos0

national !i$!a# at Baran$a# A$usan up to t!e road at Ca(a(an-an, all of Ca$a#an de OrP!ilippines, and it!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!is 6onora%le Court, t!e a%ove- na(ed it! intent and a$ainst t!e ill of t!e oners, %# (eans of violence a$ainst and inti(idation of persons, oupon t!in$s it! t!e use of 4nives !ic! t!e# ere convenientl# provided it!, conconfederatin$ to$et!er and (utuall# !elpin$ one anot!er, did t!en and t!ere ilfull#, unlafufeloniousl# and cri(inall# ta4e, ro% and carr# aa# (one# or cas! a(ountin$ to P?+., pstereo, %ooster and titters oned %# and %elon$in$ to /o(an S. 2ercado, and a Sei4oristatc! oned %# Is(ael P. E%on, all in all a(ountin$ to P',@,, a$ainst t!eir ill,da(a$e and pre5udice of t!e said offended parties in t!e total su( of P',@. P!ilippine Curr

Contrar# to and in violation of PD 17+.

Onl# accused *eliciano pleaded not $uilt# to t!e to c!ar$es. Orlando a%tan !ad escap

2a!arli4a /e!a%ilitation and Detention Center in Car(en, Ca$a#an de Oro Cit# !ere !e as d!ile onelto a%tan !as eluded arrest. )!e to cases ere tried to$et!er.

)!e prosecutions case as (ainl# anc!ored on t!e t!ree-pa$e sorn state(ent e3ecuted %# *eori$inall# in Visa#an lan$ua$e, %efore t!e Ca$a#an de Oro Cit# Police station, vi& 0 '

Preli(inar#0 Mou 6enr# *eliciano # a$ura, I ould li4e to infor( #ou t!at #ou are !ere in 8t!eand /o%%er# Section of Ca$a#an de Oro Cit# Police Station to %e investi$ated re$ardin$ an in!erein a certain driver !ose na(e is *lorentino Bolasito, a resident of A%ellanoso St., of t!; sic<. Said driver as 4illed on April '7, '7, !ose %od# as found at )ipolo!an, Ca(a(at!is Cit# since #ou 4ne ever#t!in$ a%out it.

I ould li4e to infor( #ou t!at accordin$ to our la #ou !ave t!e folloin$ ri$!ts0

'. Mou !ave t!e ri$!t to re(ain silent, and not to anser incri(inatin$ &uestions !ic! ill %e evidence a$ainst #ou.

+. Mou !ave t!e ri$!t to c!oose an attorne# to defend #ou in t!is investi$ation.

7. )!at if #ou cant ; sic< $et a la#er, I can $ive #ou a counsel de o!icio to defend #ou.

Certification

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

)!is is to esta%lis! t!e fact t!at I (#self voluntaril# e3ecuted t!is certification and !ere%# affi3 (# 0 )ell (e #our na(e, a$e, occupation, residence and ot!er personal circu(stancesQ



si$nature !ereunder on t!e da# 8of9 April, 8'7 in t!e9 Cit# of Ca$a#an de Oro,P!ilippines.

S$d. 6enr# *eliciano # a$ura

;Affiant<

Assisted %# !is la#er0

S$d. Pepito A. C!aveK

Notar# Pu%lic

Until Dec. 7', '7

P)/ No. '@:7+1> 'L@L7

0 Before e ;ill< proceed 8it!9 t!is investi$ation, did #ou understand all t!ose ri$!ts I narrated to#ouQ

A0 Mes, sir 8,9 I understand ever#t!in$.

0 ill #ou $et a la#er of #our on to defend #ou in t!is investi$ationQ

A0 No, sir. I cant ; sic< pa# t!e services of la#er.

0 Since #ou ill not $et #our on la#er, ill #ou a$ree t!at Ill ; sic< $ive #ou Att#. Pepito C!aveK as#our counsel de o!icio in t!is investi$ationQ

A0 Mes, sir. I a$ree t!at Att#. Pepito C!aveK ill %e (# la#er for t!e ascertain(ent of t!e trut!.

0 !at is #our !i$!est educational attain(entQ

A0 Hrade : onl# at Baon$ca, Bu4idnon.

0 In ot!er ords, #ou 4no !o to read Visa#aQ

A0 I 4no8,9 sir !o to read Visa#a includin$ En$lis! %ut I cant ; sic< understand deep En$lis!.

A0 I, 6enr# *eliciano, +1 #ears old, (arried and a resident of Rola(%o$, apasan of t!is cit# an8a9 5eepne# driver of t!is cit#.

0 Up to t!is ti(e, are #ou still drivin$Q

A0 No (ore, sir.

0 !at is t!en #our or4 at t!is ti(eQ

A0 I $o 8to9 or4 8it!9 (# friends li4e Orlando a%tan alias Be%ot a%tan !o are residRola(%o$, apasan of t!is Cit#.

0 *ro( !at ti(e did #ou $o alon$ it! t!is 8 sic9 personsQ

A0 Since t!e (ont! of *e%ruar#, '7.

0 *ro( t!e ti(e #ou $o ; sic< it! t!e(, !at !ave #ou done, if an#Q

A0 On 2arc! '7, I participated in a !old-up of a certain driver 2r. /o(an 2ercado 5of )a%loned a 5eep I use8d9 to drive ;%efore< and e $ot a car stereo includin$ t!e 5eep. )!en, e %rou 5eep to Bunton$, Ca(a(an-an and t!e driver, !oever, e freed t!e driver later.

0 !at elseQ

A0 On 2arc! '7 e !old-up ; sic< a collector of (# %rot!er !ose na(e is Car(en*eliciano 6 and e ere a%le to $et cas! of P+,@.= 8a9nd, t!ere as also 8a9 certain 5eep, o

2r. 2an$ano t!at e carnapped and %rou$!t ;it< to A$la#an, 2ala#%ala#, Bu4idnon.

0 it! t!e latest incident, !at !ave #ou doneQ

A0 ast April '>, '7, e !eld-up a certain driver of 8a9 PU 2inica !ose na(e is *loBolasito of A%ellanosa St.

0 ill #ou tell us !o t!e driver as 4illed and !o 4illed t!e(Q

A0 On April '>, '7, at +07 in t!e afternoon, I, Be%ot a%tan and onelto a%tan 8ere9 !anaround outside Orora(a Superstore at ./. Bor5a St., of t!is Cit#, and t!e t!ree of us ent to a

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

!ere (ost of PU 2inica cars ere par4ed. e ere a%le to %oard one PU 2inica driven %# an old 0 !en ;as t!en< ere #ou arrested %# t!e police aut!orities of t!e )!eft and /o%%er# Section



(an.

0 As #ou %oarded t!e PU 2inica !ere did #ou $oQ

A0 e ordered t!e driver to ta4e us to Bunton$, Ca(a(an-an of t!is Cit#. !en e arrive8d9 t!ereat,onelto told us t!at !e ill visit !is $irlfriend !ile Be%ot a%tan ali$!ted, e re(ained inside t!eve!icle. As 8t!e9 driver de(anded for t!e fare, !oever, e !ave no (one# to pa#. Suddenl#, I saBe%ot a%tan and onelto a%tan too4 a 4nife and sta%%ed t!e driver.

0 After sta%%in$ t!e driver, !e died, and so onelto a%tan drove t!e PU toards )ipolo!on and e

leave ; sic< %e!ind t!e %od# of t!e driver, instead of (e $ettin$ out fro( t!e car ; sic<, onelto did notstop t!e car ; sic<, so e proceeded toards Alu%a Su%d. and e left t!e PU 2inica t!ere.

A0 After #ou left t!e PU 2inica at Alu%a, !ere did #ou $oQ

0 I ent !o(e at Balolon$ of t!is Cit#, and I do not 84no9 !ere (# co(panions proceeded.

0 !o t!en sta%%ed t!e driverQ

A0 )!e one !o sta%%ed 8t!e driver9 8,9 sir8,9 as onelto a%tan and Be%ot a%tan.

0 Did ; sic< #ou a%le to $et so(e (one# fro( t!e driverQ

A0 onelto a%tan as a%le to $et P7., and e %rou$!t ; sic< a ; sic< coconut ine at Rola(%o$,apasan.

0 it! respect to t!is ; sic< to ;+< 4nives !ic! ere ta4en fro( #ou and Be%ot a%tan, !at can #ousa# a%out t!is ; sic< 4nivesQ

A0 )!ese to ;+< 4nives, sir, t!e s!arp 4nife it! a 4nife case is oned %# Be%ot a%tan, t!is dou%le %lade is oned %# onelto a%tan.

0 Are t!ese 8t!e9 4nives !ic! ere used %# Be%ot a%tan and onelto a%tan in sta%%in$ t!e PU2inica driver if #ou 4noQ

A0 Mes, sir. Be%ot a%tan used t!is 4nife it! a 4nife case, %ut t!is 4nife !ic! is dou%le %laded as not

used, t!e ot!er 4itc!en 4nife li4e a fan 4nife !ic! as left inside t!e PU as used %# onelto insta%%in$.

A0 On April +, '7, !ile e, I and Be%ot a%tan ere at )a(%o, 2acasandi$ of t!is Cit# ait!e truc4 of 2r. A%errastori to ride to %rin$ us to Valencia, Bu4idnon, e ere appre!ended police(en near t!e store of 2rs. Car(en )an. It as t!en t!at ti(e !ere Be%ot a%tan as s!ofeet and t!e to 4nives ere confiscated.

0 I !ave no ot!er &uestions, do #ou !ave an#t!in$ to sa#.

A0 No (ore. sir.

)!is is to certif# t!at I !ave read t!e fore$oin$ state(ents consistin$ of t!ree ;7< pa$es of !ic!initiated and si$ned in t!e presence of Att#. Pepito C!aveK, Attorne# de 6!!icio, and I state t!at iand correct to t!e %est of (# 4noled$e and %elief.

S$d. 6enr# *eliciano # a$ura

;Affiant<. +

In addition, t!e prosecution presented t!e testi(on# of Is(ael E%on t!at on 2arc! +@, '7, a p.(., !e as drivin$ alon$ Bu$o 6i$!a#, !en to ;+< (en %oarded !is 5eepne#. 6e identi(en as 6enr# *eliciano and Orlando a%tan. Suddenl#, Be%ot a%tan pointed a dou%le %laded 4t!e ri$!t side of !is nec4. *eliciano t!en too4 t!e steerin$ !eel and proceeded to Bolonsori. !ere near t!e !ouse of a certain Police(an apis, *eliciano stopped t!e 5eep. )!e to t!en dives

of !is atc!, P?. cas!, car stereo, to ;+< teeters and one ;'< %ooster. )!e# t!reatened to s!ould !e report to t!e police. 6oever, !en t!e to left, !e proceeded to t!e Puerto Police and reported t!e !old-up. 6e t!en ent to t!e $ara$e and told /o(an 2ercado, t!e oner 5eepne#, t!at !e as ro%%ed. )!at ni$!t, t!e to of t!e( reported t!e ro%%er# to t!e Ca$a#an Cit# Police Station. E%on also stated t!at !e 4ne *eliciano %ecause t!e latter previousl# odriver of /o(an 2ercado. 8

!en t!e defense presented its case, onl# accused 6enr# *eliciano testified for !is %e!alf. 6is consisted of an ali%i and a repudiation of !is sorn state(ent. 6e told t!e court t!at on 2arc! +@!en Is(ael E%on as !eld-up, !e as in 2aasin, Baun$on, Bu4idnon, !is %irt!place. 6e did nE%ons clai( t!at t!e# ere ac&uainted for !e used to or4 as driver of /o(an 2ercado. 6o!en !is drivers license e3pired on anuar# +, '7, !e ent !o(e to Bu4idnon. On April +!e ent %ac4 to Ca$a#an de Oro Cit# and sta#ed at t!e residence of !is sister, Car(en )an, !o 2acasandi$, Ca$a#an de Oro Cit#. At :0 p.(. of t!e sa(e da#, Car(en as4ed !i( to %u# sna

near%# store. !ile %u#in$ t!e snac4s, !e !eard a s!ot and !en !e loo4ed around, !e sa a (a

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

on t!e $round. )o (en in civilian clot!es po4ed t!eir $uns at !i(. One of t!e( as4ed !i( !et!er !ei f t! l i t! d 6 id )! t % !t !i t t! li

ON )6E C6A/HE O* /OBBE/M I)6 6O2ICIDE, )6E COU/) - <6

E//AD2I))INH IN EVIDENCE )6E )AIN)ED E)/A UDICIA CON*ESSION O*



as a co(panion of t!e (an l#in$ on t!e $round. 6e said no. )!e to (en %rou$!t !i( to t!e policestation. )!e (an l#in$ on t!e $round as %rou$!t to t!e !ospital. At t!e police station, t!e to (enas4ed !i( to confess !et!er !e as a co(panion of t!e person !o as s!ot. 6e said no. )!e# as4ed!i( !et!er !e as one of t!ose !o ro%%ed Is(ael E%on. A$ain, !e said no. 6e as &uestioned for a%out an !our durin$ !ic! !e as !it at t!e ri$!t and left %reast, at t!e ri$!t and left ri%s, and at t!eleft side of 8!is9 face. Afterards, !e as loc4ed up in 5ail. In t!e (ornin$ of t!e folloin$ da#, !e asinvesti$ated and (auled for to !ours. A$ain, !e as as4ed !et!er Orlando a%tan as !isco(panion. 6e insisted t!at !e as not a%tans co(panion for !e does not even 4no !i(. After t!einvesti$ation, a police(an approac!ed !i( and %rou$!t a piece of paper for !i( to si$n. 6e as4ed!et!er it as possi%le for !i( to read t!e contents. )!e police(an ansered, No need, 5ust si$n so

t!at e can finis! it. )!e# t!en started to (aul !i(. 6e as forced to si$n t!e paper. At around :0ocloc4 in t!e afternoon of April ++, '7, !e as %rou$!t to t!e office of Att#. Pepito C!aveK. 6e astold to sit don !ile Att#. C!aveK si$ned t!e papers. 6e did not 4no !at as !appenin$. Att#.C!aveK did not even tal4 to !i( %efore si$nin$ t!e docu(ent. 6e as t!en %rou$!t %ac4 to 5ail. (

*indin$ t!e sorn state(ent e3ecuted %# *eliciano credi%le, t!e trial court convicted !i( and i(posedt!e folloin$ penalties0 10

6E/E*O/E, pre(ises considered, t!is court !ere%# finds accused 6enr# *eliciano $uilt# %e#ondreasona%le dou%t as principal %# direct participation in t!e cri(e of ro%%er# it! !o(icide and !ere%#sentences t!e accused to reclusion perpetua and to inde(nif# t!e offended part# t!e su( of P1,.and to pa# t!e offended part# t!e su( of P71,. representin$ funeral e3penses and to pa# t!e cost.

)!is court !ere%# finds also t!e accused 6enr# *eliciano $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of t!e cri(e of !i$!a# ro%%er# co((itted on 2arc! +@, '7 and sentences t!e accused to an indeter(inate penalt#of telve ;'+< #ears of prision mayor as t!e (ini(u( ter( to fourteen ;':< #ears, ei$!t ;@< (ont!sof reclusion temporal in its (ini(u( period as t!e (a3i(u( ter( and to inde(nif# /o(an S. 2ercadot!e su( of P@,., representin$ t!e value of t!e P?. cas!, stereo, %ooster, and titter and toinde(nif# Is(ael E%on t!e su( of P+,1., t!e value of t!e Sei4o rist atc! divested fro( !i( andto pa# t!e cost.

SO O/DE/ED. 11

6ence, t!is appeal !ere accused-appellant assi$ns t!e folloin$ errors co((itted %# t!e trial court0

I

AD2I))INH IN EVIDENCE, )6E )AIN)ED E)/A-UDICIA CON*ESSION O*ACCUSED EECU)ED IN )6E ABSENCE O* AN E**EC)IVE AND VIHIAN) COUNSE

II

ON )6E C6A/HE O* 6IH6AM /OBBE/M, )6E COU/) - <6 E//ED IN BEIEVINCO2PAINAN) D/IVE/ 6O, I) )U/NED OU), */O2 )6E POICE BO))E/, SAID)6E PE/PE)/A)O/S E/E INI)IAM UNIDEN)I*IED PE/SONS )6EN A)E/ IDENACCUSED *EICIANO 6O2 6E RNE VE/M E AS A *EO D/IVE/.

III

)6E COU/) - <6 E//ED IN *INDINH )6E ACCUSED HUI)M BEMOND /EASONDOUB) O* )6E C/I2ES O* /OBBE/M I)6 6O2ICIDE AND 6IH6AM /OBBE/M.

)!e appeal is (eritorious.

Under Article III, Section '+ of t!e '@? Constitution, t!e ri$!ts of persons under cuinvesti$ation are provided as follos0

;'< An# person under investi$ation for t!e co((ission of an offense s!all !ave t!e ri$!t to %e inof !is ri$!t to re(ain silent and to !ave co(petent and independent counsel prefera%l# of !c!oice. If t!e person cannot afford t!e services of counsel, !e (ust %e provided it! one. )!ese

cannot %e aived e3cept in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel.

;+< No torture, force, violence, t!reat, inti(idation, or an# ot!er (eans !ic! vitiate t!e free i %e used a$ainst !i(. Secret detention places, solitar#, incommunicado, or ot!er si(ilar fodetention are pro!i%ited.

;7< An# confession or ad(ission o%tained in violation of t!is or t!e precedin$ section sinad(issi%le a$ainst !i(.

In People v. Macam 12, t!e rational for t!e $uarantee, as e3plained in t!is ise

6istoricall#, t!e counsel $uarantee as intended to assure t!e assistance of counsel at t!e trial, inas t!e accused as confronted it! %ot! t!e intricacies of t!e la and t!e advocac# of t!e prosecutor. 6oever, as t!e result of t!e c!an$es in t!e patterns of police investi$ation, toda#s confronts %ot! e3pert adversaries and t!e 5udicial s#ste( ell %efore !is trial %e$ins ;U.S. v. A

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

U.S. 7, 7? Ed +d >', 7 S Ct +1>@ 8'?79<. It is t!erefore appropriate to e3tend t!e counsel$uarantee to critical sta$es of prosecution even %efore t!e trial )!e la enforce(ent (ac!iner# at

0 Mou alread# investi$ated t!e accused in t!is case at @0 ocloc4 in t!e (ornin$ on April ++, '



$uarantee to critical sta$es of prosecution even %efore t!e trial. )!e la enforce(ent (ac!iner# at present involves critical confrontations of t!e accused %# t!e prosecution at pre-trial proceedin$s !eret!e result (i$!t ell settle t!e accuseds fate and reduce t!e trial itself to a (ere for(alit#.

)!us, in People v. $amboa 1$, e stated t!at0

8)9!e ri$!t to counsel attac!es upon t!e start of an investi$ation, i.e. !en t!e investi$atin$ officer startsto as4 &uestions to elicit infor(ation andLor confessions or ad(issions fro( t!e respondentLaccused. Atsuc! point or sta$e, t!e person %ein$ interro$ated (ust %e assisted %# counsel to avoid t!e pernicious practice of e3tortin$ false or coerced ad(issions or confessions fro( t!e lips of t!e person under$oin$

interro$ation, for t!e co((ission of an offense. )!e (o(ent t!ere is a (ove or even ur$e of saidinvesti$ators to elicit ad(issions or confessions or even plain infor(ation !ic! (a# appear innocentor inocuous at t!e ti(e, fro( said suspect, !e s!ould t!en and t!ere %e assisted %# counsel, unless !e

aives t!e ri$!t, %ut t!e aiver s!all %e (ade in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel.

e find t!at accused-appellant *eliciano !ad %een denied of !is ri$!t to !ave a co(petent andindependent counsel !en !e as &uestioned in t!e Ca$a#an de Oro Cit# Police Station. SPO' AlfonsoCuareK testified t!at !e started &uestionin$ *eliciano at @0 a.(. of April ++, '7 re$ardin$ !isinvolve(ent in t!e 4illin$ of 5eepne# driver *lorentino Bolasito, notit!standin$ t!e fact t!at !e !ad not %een apprised of !is ri$!t to counsel.

On cross-e3a(ination0

Att#. Carlo 2e5ia

0 !at 8ti(e9 did #ou report to #our office on April ++, '7Q

SPO' Alfonso CuareK

A0 I reported at ei$!t ocloc4 in t!e (ornin$.

333 333 333.

0 !at ti(e as 6enr# *eliciano %rou$!t to #our office on April ++, '7Q !at ti(e did #ou start toinvesti$ate 6enr# *eliciano on April ++, '7Q

A0 In t!e (ornin$, at @0 ocloc4, !en I reported for or4.

A0 Mes, sir.

0 Of course, !en #ou investi$ated t!e accused in t!e (ornin$, !e !ad no counsel #etQ

A0 I 5ust intervieed !i(.

0 e ill 5ust use t!e ord intervie. as !e assisted %# counsel !en #ou intervieed !i((ornin$Q

A0 None.

0 !at as t!e su%5ect (atter of t!e intervie in t!e (ornin$ of April ++, '7 to t!e accused*elicianoQ ; sic<

A0 A%out t!e PU driver t!at as 4illed.

0 Of course, !e related to #ou ever#t!in$ t!at transpired re$ardin$ t!at alle$ed deat! of a PU dri

A0 Mes, sir.

0 So t!at in t!e (ornin$ of April ++, '7 #ou alread# !ad an idea, (ore or less, !o co((i!o 4illed t!e PU driver %# t!e fa(il# na(e Bolasito, a( I correctQ

A0 Mes, sir.

0 All t!at ti(e in t!e (ornin$ of April ++, '7 t!e accused as not assisted %# a le$al counsel.

A0 Not #et.

0 !at ti(e did #ou decide to %rin$ t!e accused to t!e office of Att#. C!aveK on April ++, '7Q

A0 A%out '0 ocloc4 in t!e (ornin$ of April ++, '7.

0 Are #ou tr#in$ to i(press us t!at in t!e (ornin$ of April ++, '7 #ou also %rou$!t t!e a6enr# *eliciano to t!e office of Att#. C!aveKQ

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

A0 At @0 in t!e (ornin$, I 5ust intervieed !i( and at '0 ocloc4 in t!e (ornin$ I %rou$!t !i( tot!e office of Att# C!aveK

0 Do #ou re(e(%er !avin$ assisted in t!e investi$ation of one 6enr# *eliciano on April ++, a%out 707 in t!e afternoon !en t!e said 6enr# *eliciano as ;sic< investi$ated !ose



t!e office of Att#. C!aveK.

0 Are #ou tr#in$ to i(press 8upon9 us t!at #ou %rou$!t accused 6enr# *eliciano to t!e office of Att#.C!aveK at '0 ocloc4 in t!e (ornin$ and in t!e afternoon also #ou %rou$!t !i( to t!e office of Att#.C!aveKQ

A0 No (ore. In t!e afternoon Att#. C!aveK as t!e one !o ca(e to our office %ecause t!at as !ate a$reed in t!e (ornin$. 1'

At t!at point, accused-appellant !ad %een su%5ected to custodial investi$ation it!out a counsel.

In 7avallo v.Sandiganbayan 15

, e said t!at a person is dee(ed under custodial investi$ation !ere t!e police investi$ation is no lon$er a $eneral in&uir# into an unsolved cri(e %ut !as %e$an to focus on a particular suspect !o !ad %een ta4en into custod# %# t!e police !o carr# out a process of interro$ation t!at lends itself to elicit incri(inatin$ state(ents.

!en SPO' CuareK investi$ated accused-appellant *eliciano, t!e latter as alread# a suspect in t!e4illin$ of 5eepne# driver Bolasito as s!on %# t!e 5oint affidavit of SPO: o!n# Salcedo and SPO'*lorencio Ba$aipo !o ere t!e ones !o arrested *eliciano. In t!eir affidavit dated April +', '7, t!eto police officers stated0

in t!e investi$ation conducted to ; sic< 6enr# *eliciano, !e ad(itted and confessed to us for ; sic< !isinvolve(ent of ; sic< t!e deat! of t!e PU driver to$et!er it! !is co(panion Be%ot a%tan, and t!e sa(eas identified %# (an# victi(s of ro%%er# !old-up in t!is Cit#. And also durin$ t!e investi$ation, 6enr#*eliciano ad(itted to us re$ardin$ t!eir confiscated %laded 4nife as t!e ver# eapon used in t!esta%%in$ of t!e PU (inica driver.

)!e prosecution tried to esta%lis! t!at Att#. Pepito C!aveK provided effective and independentcounsellin$ to accused-appellant *eliciano !ic! cured t!e initial lac4 of counsel. 6oever, t!is is %elied %# t!e ver# testi(on# of Att#. C!aveK s!oin$ !e perfor(ed !is dut# in a lac4adaisical fas!ion0

Assistant Cit# Prosecutor Nicolas C. Ca%allero, r.

0 Att#. C!aveK, #ou stated t!at #ou are a practicin$ la#er in Ca$a#an de Oro Cit# as ell as in2isa(is OrientalQ

Att#. Pepito C!aveK

A0 Mes, sir.

a%out 707 in t!e afternoon !en t!e said 6enr# *eliciano as ; sic< investi$ated !ose state(ent as ta4en %# SPO' CuareK in t!e presence of Ca%i$onQ

A0 Mes, sir.

0 !ere as t!is state(ent ta4enQ

A0 At t!e office of t!e )!eft and /o%%er# Section at Operation Ra!usa# u$ Ralina.

0 6o did #ou !appen to assist 6enr# *eliciano in t!e ta4in$ of !is ritten state(entQ

A0 Because SPO7 CuareK approac!ed (e in (# office and re&uested (e to assist 6enr# *elicianta4in$ of !is testi(on#.

0 !at ti(e as t!at !en SPO' Alfonso CuareK ca(e to #our office and re&uested #ou to6enr# *elicianoQ

A0 If I can re(e(%er ri$!t, Police Officer CuareK ca(e to (# office a%out t!ree ocloc4afternoon.

0 !ere is #our office in Ca$a#an de Oro Cit#Q

A0 ocated at Pa%a#o-Ho(eK.

0 !at did #ou do after Alfonso CuareK ca(e to #our office and re&uested #ou to assist in t!e tat!e ritten state(ent or sorn state(ent of 6enr# *elicianoQ

A0 I told !i( I ill follo later %ecause at t!at ti(e !en !e ca(e to (# office I as or4in$ o paper or4s.

0 !en #ou said !i(, #ou ere referrin$ to Alfonso CuareKQ

A0 Mes, sir.

0 !at !appened after #ou told !i( #ou ill follo laterQ

A0 At a%out 70+1, if I re(e(%er ri$!t, I as a%le to co(e to Operation Ra!usa# u$ Ralina partt!e office of t!e )!eft and /o%%er# Section.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

0 !en #ou arrived at t!e Operation Ra!usa# u$ Ralina, !o ere t!ereQ A0 A%out one ar(slen$t! ; sic<.



A0 Police Officer Ca%i$on and CuareK.

0 !o else ere t!ereQ !at a%out 6enr# *elicianoQ

A0 Mes, I !ave also seen 6enr# *eliciano.

0 If #ou see a$ain 6enr# *eliciano, ill #ou %e a%le to identif# !i(Q

A0 Mes, sir.

0 oo4 around if !e is present in t!e courtroo(Q

A0 ;itness pointin$ to a person it! a $reen t-s!irt and !en as4ed !is na(e !e ansered 6enr#*eliciano.<

0 !at did #ou do after #ou arrived at t!e office of t!e )!eft and /o%%er# Section and sa 6enr#*eliciano, Ca%i$on and CuareKQ

A0 I started (# investi$ation or confrontation it! 6enr# *eliciano infor(in$ !i(, appraisin$ !i( of !is constitutional ri$!t to counsel, t!at !e !as a ri$!t to re(ain silent and appraise !i( if it is !is desiret!at I %e !is la#er %ecause I told !i( if !e !as no desire t!at I ill %e !is la#er, t!en !e can loo4 for anot!er.

0 !at else did #ou infor( !i( or as4ed !i( aside fro( !at #ou testified alread#Q

A0 I told !i( did #ou co(e to confess or testif# %ecause of fact t!at t!e police offered #ou so(e

consideration or (one# !ere #ou pro(ised of release.

0 And !at as t!e reaction of t!e said 6enr# *elicianoQ

A0 As far as I can re(e(%er, 6enr# *eliciano told (e t!at !e is forced to testif# onl# to tell t!e trut!.

0 !ile #ou ere conferrin$ it! 6enr# *eliciano, !ere as Eleuterio Ca%i$on and Alfonso CuareKQ

A0 Alfonso CuareK as t!ere listenin$ to us.

0 6o far aa# fro( #ouQ

0 !at a%out Eleuterio Ca%i$onQ

A0 A%out t!ree (eters near.

0 Did Alfonso CuareK participate in #our discussions or conference it! 6enr# *elicianoQ

A0 Mes. 6e so(eti(es clarified so(e ansers propounded %# 6enr# *eliciano in t!e courseinvesti$ation.

0 *or e3a(ple, !at anserQ

A0 As far as I can re(e(%er, t!e &uestion as reduced into ritin$.

0 Before t!at, I a( referrin$ to t!e point !ere #ou !ad a conference it! 6enr# *eliciano %ef

start of t!e investi$ation= !ere as Alfonso CuareKQ

A0 6e as listenin$ to us.

0 as t!ere a participation of Alfonso CuareK durin$ #our discussionQ

A0 Mes, !e as t!e one t#pin$ t!e &uestions as4ed %# (e and t!e ansers propounded %# *eliciano.

0 And t!ese &uestions ere t!e ones #ou testified a !ile a$o.

A0 Mes, sir.

0 After t!at, !at !appened after #ou as4ed t!ese &uestions and #ou $ot t!e anser fro( !i(did Alfonso CuareK do to !i(Q

A0 Alfonso CuareK told !i( t!at is it reall# !is desire . . . e are $ivin$ #ou Att#. C!aveK acounsel. Are #ou illin$Q And !e said #es.

0 !at as t!e anser of 6enr# *elicianoQ

A0 6e ansered in t!e affir(ative.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

0 E3actl#, !o did !e anserQ 0 !ile t!ese &uestions ere as4ed of 6enr# *eliciano, as #ou testified a series of ro%%erieco((itted, !at did #ou doQ !at as #our reactionQ



A0 Mes, I a( ver# (uc! illin$.

0 After t!at, !en did t!e investi$ation startQ

A0 A%out 707 in t!e afternoon.

0 After 6enr# *eliciano, as #ou said, ansered in t!e affir(ative, !at !appened t!enQ

A0 Before I started t!e for(al investi$ation to 8 sic9 !i(, I reiterated t!at &uestion a%out !is desire to

ta4e (e as !is counsel, and !e a$ain ansered in t!e affir(ative.

0 After t!at, for t!e second ti(e, !at !appenedQ

A0 )!en I started !is investi$ation.

0 ere #ou t!e one !o investi$ated !i(Q

A0 At first, it as Alfonso CuareK. So(eti(es, I interrupted in t!e investi$ation.

0 6o did Alfonso CuareK start t!e investi$ationQ

A0 In t!e appraisal of 6enr# *eliciano of !is constitutional ri$!ts.

0 After t!at, !at !appenedQ

A0 As far as I can re(e(%er, !e proceeded it! t!e incident !ere 6enr# *eliciano as involved in aseries of ro%%eries.

0 !ile t!ese &uestions ere %ein$ as4ed of 6enr# *eliciano, !ere ere #ouQ

A0 I as t!ere.

0 6o (an# (eters aa# fro( 6enr# *elicianoQ

A0 A%out one ar(s len$t!, I sat %e!ind !i(.

, # #

A0 At first, I interrupted it! t!e anser of 6enr# *eliciano t!in4in$ t!at it as not t!e trut! or i %e t!at t!e testi(on# ill %e counted a$ainst !i( in t!e court. So, I !ispered to !i( if it is t!and !e insisted it is t!e trut!.

0 !en #ou !ispered to !i(, #ou are referrin$ to 6enr# *elicianoQ

A0 Mes, sir.

0 Att#. C!aveK, after t!e ter(ination of t!e investi$ation !ic! as ta4en %# SPO' Alfonso Cu#our presence of SPO: Eleuterio Ca%i$on on one 6enr# *eliciano, !at !appened after t!atQ

A0 I e3a(ined t!e &uestion and anser ta4en, t!en I read it to 6enr# *eliciano, appraisetranslated to !i(, clarified to !i( after !e testified.

0 !at as t!e reaction of 6enr# *elicianoQ

A0 6e illin$l# listened to (# e3planation and clarification a%out !at !e confessed.

0 And after listenin$ to #our e3planation, !at !appenedQ

A0 I re&uired !i( to si$n. Before finall# re&uirin$ to si$n, if #ou ill c!an$e #our (ind a%out

confessed, #ou still !ave t!e ri$!t to.

0 !at did 6enr# *eliciano sa#Q

A0 It is t!e trut!= and after %ein$ clarified, !e illin$l# si$ned t!e confession.

0 After 6enr# *eliciano si$ned t!e sa(e ritten state(ent of ; sic< !i(, !at did #ou doQ

A0 After t!at, Alfonso CuareK, 6enr# *eliciano and (e ; sic< ent to (# office to !ave t!at notart!at !en I ca(e to t!e Operation Ra!usa# u$ Ralina for t!e ta4in$ of t!e confession of *eliciano, I as not %rin$in$ it! (e (# %ill and ot!er parap!ernalias ; sic<.

0 !en 6enr# *eliciano si$ned t!e ritten state(ent, !ere ere #ou, Ca%i$on and Alfonso Cu

A0 )!e sa(e location at t!at ti(e !en 6enr# *eliciano as ta4en !is confession ; sic<.16

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

)!e ri$!t to counsel is a funda(ental ri$!t and conte(plates not a (ere presence of t!e la#er %esidet!e accused. In People v. Bacamante 1+, t!e ter( effective and vi$ilant counsel as e3plained t!us0

0 6o (an# ti(es !ave #ou utiliKed Att#. C!aveK to assist prisoners under t!e custod# of t!e Cde Oro Police Depart(entQ



p $ p

necessaril# and lo$icall# 8re&uires9 t!at t!e la#er %e present and a%le to advise and assist !is clientfro( t!e ti(e t!e confessant ansers t!e first &uestion as4ed %# t!e investi$atin$ officer until t!esi$nin$ of t!e e3tra5udicial confession. 2oreover, t!e la#er s!ould ascertain t!at t!e confession is(ade voluntaril# and t!at t!e person under investi$ation full# understands t!e nature and t!e

conse&uence of !is e3tra5udicial confession in relation to !is constitutional ri$!ts. A contrar# rule ouldundou%tedl# %e anta$onistic to t!e constitutional ri$!ts to re(ain silent, to counsel and to %e presu(edinnocent.

In People v. dela %ru& 18, an effective counsel as c!aracteriKed as0

one !o can %e (ade to act in protection of !is 8accuseds9 ri$!ts, and not %# (erel# $oin$ t!rou$! t!e(otions of providin$ !i( it! an#one !o possesses a la de$ree.

A$ain, a%out t!e onl# (atter t!at %ears out t!e presence of suc! counsel at t!at sta$e of custodialinterro$ation are t!e si$natures !ic! s!e affi3ed on t!e affidavit. it!al, a cursor# readin$ of t!econfession itself and SPO' Atanacios version of t!e (anner in !ic! !e conducted t!e interro$ation#ields no evidence or indication pointin$ to !er !avin$ e3plained to t!e appellant !is ri$!ts under t!eConstitution. Indeed, fro( our earliest 5urisprudence, t!e la vouc!safes to t!e accused t!e ri$!t to aneffective counsel, one !o can %e (ade to act in protection of !is ri$!ts, and not %# (erel# $oin$t!rou$! t!e (otions of providin$ !i( it! an#one !o possesses a la de$ree.

Att#. C!aveK did not provide t!e 4ind of counsellin$ re&uired %# t!e Constitution. 6e did not e3plain to

accused-appellant t!e conse&uences of !is action t!at t!e sorn state(ent can %e used a$ainst !i(and t!at it is possi%le t!at !e could %e found $uilt# and sent to 5ail.

e also find t!at -tty. %have&/s independence as counsel is suspect !e is re$ularl# en$a$ed %# t!eCa$a#an de Oro Cit# Police as counsel de o!!icio for suspects !o cannot avail t!e services of counsel.6e even received (one# fro( t!e police as pa#(ent for !is services0

On cross-e3a(ination0

Att#. Carlo 2e5ia

0 2r. Alfonso CuareK, !o lon$ !ave #ou 4non Att#. C!aveKQ

A0 I 4no !i( for a lon$ ti(e a$o ; sic<.

p

A0 As far as I can re(e(%er, t!ree ti(es alread#.

0 Is Att#. C!aveK %ein$ paid %# #our office to assist detained prisonersQ

A0 So(eti(es e pa# !i( P:. %ut if e !ave none, !e ill assist for free.

0 So Att#. C!aveK is paid %# t!e Ca$a#an de Oro Police StationQ

A0 It is not t!e Ca$a#an de Oro Police !o paid %ut it is onl# (# initiative to $ive !i(.

0 It is onl# on #our on personal initiative to pa# Att#. C!aveKQ

A0 Mes.

0 And, of course, Att#. C!aveK, if #ou !ave t!e (one#, also accepts t!e (one# #ou pa# to !i(Q

A0 Mes, sir.

In People v. eniega 1(, e3poundin$ on t!e constitutional re&uire(ent t!at t!e la#er provico(petent and independent, e stated t!at0

It is noteort!# t!at t!e (odifiers co(petent and independent ere ter(s a%sent in all or$an previous to t!e '@? Constitution. )!eir addition in t!e funda(ental la of '@? as (eant to st pri(ac# accorded to t!e voluntariness of t!e c!oice, under t!e uni&uel# stressful conditiocustodial investi$ation, %# accordin$ t!e accused, deprived of nor(al conditions $uara

individual autono(#, an infor(ed 5ud$(ent %ased on t!e c!oices $iven to !i( %# a co(peteindependent la#er.

)!us, t!e la#er called to %e present durin$ suc! investi$ation s!ould %e as far as possi%le, t!eof t!e individual under$oin$ &uestionin$. If t!e la#er ere one furnis!ed in t!e accuseds %e!ai(portant t!at !e s!ould %e co(petent and independent, i.e., t!at !e is illin$ to full# safe$uconstitutional ri$!ts of t!e accused, as distin$uis!ed fro( one !o ould (erel# %e $ivin$ a r

pere(ptor# and (eanin$less recital of t!e individuals constitutional ri$!ts. In People v. Bas

Court stressed t!at an accuseds ri$!t to %e infor(ed of t!e ri$!t to re(ain silent and to cconte(plates t!e trans(ission of (eanin$ful infor(ation rat!er t!an 5ust t!e cere(on

perfunctor# recitation of an a%stract constitutional principle.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

Ideall#, t!erefore, a la#er en$a$ed for an individual facin$ custodial investi$ation ;if t!e latter couldnot afford one< s!ould %e en$a$ed %# t!e accused ;!i(self<, or %# t!e latters relative or person

Perfunctoril# infor(in$ a confessant of !is constitutional ri$!ts, as4in$ !i( if !e ants to avaiservices of counsel and tellin$ !i( t!at !e could as4 for counsel if !e so desires or t!at one co



aut!oriKed %# !i( to en$a$e an attorne# or %# t!e court, upon proper petition of t!e accused or personaut!oriKed %# t!e accused to file suc! petition. a#ers en$a$ed %# t!e police, !atever testi(onialsare $iven as proof of t!eir pro%it# and supposed independence, are $enerall# suspect, as in (an# areas,t!e relations!ip %eteen la#ers and la enforce(ent aut!orities can %e s #(%iotic.

In People v. Sahagun 20, e stated t!at t!e constitutional re&uire(ent t!at a la#er s!ould %eindependent as not co(plied it! !en a la#er !o 5ust !appened to %e folloin$-up a case at t!e NBI as as4ed to counsel t!e accused0

8)9!e counsellin$ $iven %# Att#. DiKon to Villareal as not sufficientl# protective of Villareals ri$!ts asan accused as conte(plated %# t!e Constitution. )o start it!, Att#. DiKon is not reall# 4non toVillareal. 6e as re&uested to act as counsel %ecause !e !appened to %e at t!e NBI folloin$-up a

clients case. Hiven t!at circu(stance, it cannot %e e3pected t!at Att#. DiKon ould $ive an advice toVillareal t!at ould offend t!e a$ent conductin$ t!e investi$ation. )!us, it appears t!at Att#. DiKon didno (ore t!an recite to Villareal !is constitutional ri$!ts. 6e (ade no independent effort to deter(ine!et!er Villareals confessions ere free and voluntar#. . . .. 6e did not in&uire fro( Villareal !o !eas treated in t!e last +:-!ours. 6e did not see4 an# of Villareals relatives or friends to find out if !e!as an# defense !ic! Villareal as not free to disclose due to !is confine(ent.

Att#. DiKons lac4 of vi$ilance as a counsel is li4eise underscored %# t!e fact t!at !e !i(self testifiedt!at Villareal $ave !is confession under t!e i(pression t!at !e as onl# a itness and not an accused int!e case. )!is revelation s!ould !ave 5olted Att#. DiKon and s!ould !ave driven !i( to e3ert e3traefforts to find out !et!er Villareal as tric4ed in (a4in$ !is confession. A$ain, !e did not ta4e an

e3tra effort.

In People v. Januario 21, t!e (ain evidence relied upon for t!e conviction of appellants as t!eir on

e3tra5udicial confessions !ic! ad(ittedl# ere e3tracted and si$ned in t!e presence and it! t!eassistance of a la#er !o as appl#in$ for or4 in t!e NBI. e !eld t!at

;s<uc! counsel cannot in an# ise %e considered independent %ecause !e cannot %e e3pected to or4 a$ainst t!e interest of a police a$enc# !e as !opin$ to 5oin, as a fe (ont!s later !e in fact asad(itted into its or4 force. *or t!is violation of t!eir constitutional ri$!t to independent counsel,appellants deserve ac&uittal. After t!e e3clusion of t!eir tainted confessions, no sufficient and credi%leevidence re(ains in t!e Courts records to overturn anot!er constitutional ri$!t0 t!e ri$!t to %e presu(ed

innocent of an# cri(e until t!e contrar# is proved %e#ond reasona%le dou%t.

provided !i( at !is re&uest, are si(pl# not in co(pliance it! t!e constitutional (andate. In t!appellant Canape as (erel# told of !is constitutional ri$!ts and post!aste, as4ed !et!er !illin$ to confess. 6is affir(ative anser (a# not, %# an# (eans, %e interpreted as aiver of !to counsel of !is on c!oice.

e also find t!e fact t!at Att#. C!aveK notariKed t!e sorn state(ent seriousl# co(pro(iindependence. B# doin$ so, !e vouc!ed for t!e re$ularit# of t!e circu(stances surroundin$ t!e tat!e sorn state(ent %# t!e police. 6e cannot serve as counsel of t!e accused and t!e police at t!ti(e. )!ere as a serious conflict of interest on !is part. 22

In People v. de Jesus 2$, e stated t!at an independent counsel cannot %e a special counsel, pu private prosecutor, counsel of t!e police, or a (unicipal attorne# !ose interest is ad(ittedl# ad

t!e accused.

e !ave e3a(ined t!e t!ree-pa$e sorn state(ent alle$edl# e3ecuted %# *eliciano and e failean# %ad$e of spontaneit# and credi%ilit# to it. It s!os si$ns of !at e call stereot#pe advice toe !ave alread# called t!e attention of police officers. In People v. Jarra 2', e said0

8)9!e stereot#ped advice appearin$ in practicall# all e3tra5udicial confessions !ic! arepudiated !as assu(ed t!e nature of le$al for( or (ode. Police investi$ators eit!er auto(t#pe it to$et!er it! t!e curt Opo as t!e anser or as4 t!e accused to si$n it or even cop# it !andritin$. Its tired, punctilious, fi3ed and artificiall# statel# st#le does not create an i(presvoluntariness or even understandin$ on t!e part of t!e accused. )!e s!oin$ of a spontaneous, f

unconstrained $ivin$ up of a ri$!t is (issin$.

Since April +?, '+ !en /epu%lic Act No. ?:7@ 25 as enacted, t!e constitutional ri$!ts of under custodial investi$ation !ave %een furt!er operationaliKed0

Sec. +. /i$!ts of Persons Arrested, Detained, or Under Custodial Investi$ation= Duties of Officers.

;a< An# person arrested, detained or under custodial investi$ation s!all at all ti(es %e assiscounsel.

;%< An# pu%lic officer or e(plo#ee, or an#one actin$ under !is order or in !is place, !o arrests,or investi$ates an# person for t!e co((ission of an offense s!all infor( t!e latter, in a lan$ua$e

to and understood %# !i(, of !is ri$!ts to re(ain silent and to !ave co(petent and independent c

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

prefera%l# of !is on c!oice, !o s!all at all ti(es %e alloed to confer privatel# it! t!e personarrested, detained or under custodial investi$ation. If suc! person cannot afford t!e services of !is on

On t!e c!ar$e of ro%%er# it! !o(icide, t!e onl# evidence presented %# t!e prosecution as t!state(ent !ic! e !ave found inad(issi%le. )!us, e are forced to a%solve accused-appellant



counsel, !e (ust %e provided it! a co(petent and independent counsel %# t!e investi$atin$ officer.

;c< )!e custodial investi$ation report s!all %e reduced to ritin$ %# t!e investi$atin$ officer, providedt!at %efore suc! report is si$ned, or t!u(%(ar4ed if t!e person arrested does not 4no !o to read andrite, it s!all %e read and ade&uatel# e3plained to !i( %# !is counsel or %# t!e assistin$ counsel

provided %# t!e investi$atin$ officer in t!e lan$ua$e or dialect 4non to suc! arrested or detained person, ot!erise, suc! investi$ation report s!all %e null and void and of no effect !atsoever.

;d< An# e3tra5udicial confession (ade %# a person arrested, detained or under custodial investi$ations!all %e in ritin$ and si$ned %# suc! person in t!e presence of !is counsel or in t!e latters a%sence,upon a valid aiver, and in t!e presence of an# of t!e parents, older %rot!ers and sisters, !is spouses, t!e(unicipal (a#or, t!e (unicipal 5ud$e, district sc!ool supervisor, or priest or (inister of t!e $ospel as

c!osen %# !i(= ot!erise, suc! e3tra5udicial confession s!all %e inad(issi%le as evidence in an# proceedin$.

;e< An# aiver %# a person arrested or detained under t!e provisions of Article '+1 of t!e /evised PenalCode, or under custodial investi$ation, s!all %e in ritin$ and si$ned %# t!e person in t!e presence of !is counsel= ot!erise suc! aiver s!all %e null and void and of no effect.

;f< An# person arrested or detained or under custodial investi$ation s!all %e alloed visits %# or conferences it! an# (e(%er of !is i((ediate fa(il#, or an# (edical doctor or priest or reli$ious(inister c!osen %# !i( or %# an# (e(%er of !is i((ediate fa(il# or %# !is counsel, or %# an# nationalnon-$overn(ental or$aniKation dul# accredited %# t!e Co((ission on 6u(an /i$!ts or %# an#

international non-$overn(ental or$aniKation dul# accredited %# t!e Office of t!e President. )!e personsi((ediate fa(il# s!all include !is or !er spouse, fiance or fiancee, parent or c!ild, %rot!er or sister,$randparent or $randc!ild, uncle or aunt, nep!e or niece, and $uardian or ard.

Conse&uentl#, it is disappointin$ to see !o up to no so(e police officers still sidestep t!econstitutional (andate, t!e conse&uence of !ic! is all too fa(iliar t!e inad(issi%ilit# of t!estate(ent, confession, or ad(ission ta4en. 26

In People v. dela %ru& 2+, e stated t!at a confession (ade in an at(osp!ere c!aracteriKed %#deficiencies in infor(in$ t!e accused of all ri$!ts to !ic! !e is entitled ould %e rendered valuelessand inad(issi%le, perforated, as it is, %# non-co(pliance it! t!e procedural and su%stantive safe$uardsto !ic! an accused is entitled under t!e Bill of /i$!ts and as no furt!er i(ple(ented and ra(ified %#statutor# la.

c!ar$e. it! respect to t!e c!ar$e of !i$!a# ro%%er#, t!e prosecution presented t!e testi(Is(ael E%on. 6oever, E%on failed to identif# *eliciano as t!e perpetrator !en !e reported police i((ediatel# after t!e incident0

CASE NO. +':7 dated 7 6 + 2arc! 7. Is(ael I%on # Petalcorin, +? ( ; sic<, of /e#e

CDO, driver of PU Bu$o iner %earin$ Plate No. RB-?:@, and C!ristop!er I(poc # A(%a, '>of one :, )a%lon, t!is Cit#, 5ointl# ca(e to t!is ORR-CIS and reported t!at t!e# ere allvicti(iKed %# to unidentified ro%%ers !o as ; sic< ar(ed it! a ; sic< 4nives and ta4en fr possession of t!e a%ove driver !is cas! (one# P?. and too4 our stereo Pioneer Brand it! and titter. )!e incident as ; sic< occurred at A$usan, t!is Cit#, and t!e suspect as dese(%ar4at Ca(a(an-an, t!is Cit# at '07 p.(., t!is date. 28

Is(ael E%on and accused-appellant *eliciano are ac&uainted. )!ere is no reason for E%on to t!e identit# of t!e perpetrator e3cept for t!e fact t!at !e as not certain of it. 2( Conse&uentl#, t!eevidence pointin$ to *eliciano as one of t!ose !o !eld-up E%on.

IN VIE 6E/EO*, t!e decision of t!e trial court is SE) ASIDE. Accused-appellant 6enr# *is ACUI))ED on %ot! c!ar$es of ro%%er# it! !o(icide and !i$!a# ro%%er# due to levidence to sustain a conviction. )!e Director of t!e Ne Bili%id Prisons ;NBP< is directed to

t!is Court co(pliance it! t!e Decision it!in ten ;'< da#s fro( its receipt. No costs.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

EN BANC *ro( t!e facts found %# t!e court a .uo, it appears t!at on Dece(%er '1, '>, at or around 0



G.R. No. 1'5566 March (, 200'

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,vs.INO <*E*OT< MO9ELLO, appellant.D E C I S I O N

YNARES#SANTIAGO, J .7

On auto(atic revie is a decision of t!e /e$ional )rial Court ;/)C< of Bo$o, Ce%u, Branc! >', findin$appellant Dindo Be%ot 2o5ello $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of t!e cri(e of rape it! !o(icidedefined and penaliKed under Article 771 of t!e /evised Penal Code, as a(ended %# /epu%lic Act No.?>1, and sentencin$ !i( to t!e supre(e penalt# of deat!.'

Appellant Dindo 2o5ello, alias Bebot as c!ar$ed it! t!e cri(e of rape it! !o(icide in anInfor(ation dated 2a# ++, '?, as follos0+

)!at on t!e '1t! da# of Dece(%er '>, at a%out ''0 ocloc4 in t!e evenin$, at Sitio Rota, Baran$a#)alisa#, 2unicipalit# of Santa *e, Province of Ce%u, P!ilippines and it!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!is6onora%le Court, t!e a%ove-na(ed accused, (oved %# led desi$n and %# (eans of force, violence andinti(idation, did t!en and t!ere illfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl# succeed in !avin$ carnal4noled$e it! enlen /a#co under telve ;'+< #ears of a$e and it! (ental deficienc#, a$ainst !er

ill and consent, and %# reason andLor on t!e occasion t!ereof, purposel# to conceal t!e (ost %rutal actand in pursuance of !is cri(inal desi$n, t!e a%ove-na(ed accused, did t!en and t!ere illfull#,unlafull# and feloniousl# it! intent to 4ill, treac!erousl# and e(plo#in$ personal violence, attac4,assault and 4ill t!e victi( enlen /a#co, t!ere%# inflictin$ upon t!e victi( ounds on t!e different parts of !er %od# !ic! caused !er deat!.

CON)/A/M )O A.

Appellant as arrai$ned on ul# +:, '?, enterin$ a plea of not guilty. )rial folloed.

On anuar# +', ', t!e trial court rendered 5ud$(ent findin$ appellant $uilt# %e#ond reasona%ledou%t of t!e cri(e of rape it! !o(icide, and sentencin$ !i( to suffer t!e deat! penalt#.

/o$elio /a#co as !avin$ so(e drin4s it! a $roup !ic! included /o$er Capacito and !is t!e spouses Bora! and Arsolin Illustris(o at t!e Capacito residence located at Baran$a# )alisa#, Ce%u.7

/o$elio /a#co left t!e $roup to $o !o(e a%out an !our later. On !is a# !o(e, !e sa !isenlen /a#co, it! appellant Dindo 2o5ello, a nep!e of /o$er Capacito, al4in$ to$et!et!irt# (eters aa# toards t!e direction of Sitio Rota.: Since !e as used to seein$ t!e( to$eot!er occasions, !e did not find an#t!in$ stran$e a%out t!is. 6e proceeded to !is !ouse. 1

On Dece(%er '>, '>, %eteen 10 to >0 a.(., t!e /a#co fa(il# as infor(ed t!at t!e %enlen as found at t!e seas!ore of Sitio Rota. /o$elio /a#co i((ediatel# proceeded to t!e ssa t!e lifeless, na4ed and %ruised %od# of !is niece. /o$elio as devastated %# !at !e re(orse of conscience enveloped !i( for !is failure to protect !is niece. 6e even atte(pted to ton life several da#s after t!e incident.>

Appellant as arrested at Banta#an !ile atte(ptin$ to %oard a (otor launc! %ound for CadiK Can investi$ation conducted %# SPO+ ilfredo Hiducos, !e ad(itted t!at !e as t!e perpetratodastardl# deed. Appellant as assisted %# Att#. Isaias Hidu&uio durin$ !is custodial interro$aticonfession as itnessed %# Baran$a# Captains ilfredo Bato%alanos and 2anolo Bato%alanos testified t!at after it as e3ecuted, t!e contents of t!e docu(ent ere read to appellalater on voluntaril# si$ned it.? Appellants e3tra5udicial confession as sorn %efore ud$e Coraca of t!e 2unicipal Circuit )rial Court ;2C)C< of Sta. *e-Banta#an.@ On Dece(%er +', 'autops# as conducted on t!e victi(s cadaver %# Dr. Nestor Sator of t!e 2edico-e$al Branc!

PNP Cri(e a%orator#, /e$ion VII.

Dr. Sator testified t!at t!e sellin$ of t!e labia ma:ora and !#(enal lacerations positivel# indict!e victi( as raped.' 6e o%served t!at frot! in t!e lun$s of t!e victi( and contusions on !s!o t!at s!e as stran$led and died of asp!#3ia.'' 6e indicated t!e cause of deat! as cardio-resarrest due to asp!#3ia %# stran$ulation and p!#sical in5uries to t!e !ead and t!e trun4. '+

In t!is auto(atic revie, appellant raises to issues0 !et!er t!e e3tra5udicial confession e3ecuappellant is ad(issi%le in evidence= and !et!er appellant is $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%tcri(e of rape it! !o(icide.

e no resolve.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

Appellant alle$es t!at t!e loer court $ravel# erred in ad(ittin$ in evidence t!e alle$ed e3tra5udicialconfession !ic! !e e3ecuted on Dece(%er +7, '>. In !is Brief, appellant avers t!at t!e confession

!i ! ! t d t f l i t lli tl d l t il t d i t '7 6 t! t ! t

di$nit# and respect. )!e (ain focus is t!e suspect, and t!e underl#in$ (ission of custodial inves J to elicit a confession.


































!ic! !e e3ecuted as not freel#, intelli$entl# and voluntaril# entered into.'7 6e ar$ues t!at !e as not4noin$l# and intelli$entl# apprised of !is constitutional ri$!ts %efore t!e confession as ta4en fro(!i(.': 6ence, !is confession, and ad(issions (ade t!erein, s!ould %e dee(ed inad(issi%le in evidence,under t!e !ruit o! the poisonous tree doctrine.

e are not convinced.

At t!e core of t!e instant case is t!e application of t!e la on custodial investi$ation ens!rined inArticle III, Section '+, para$rap! ' of t!e Constitution, !ic! provides0

An# person under investi$ation for t!e co((ission of an offense s!all !ave t!e ri$!t to %e infor(ed of !is ri$!t to re(ain silent and to !ave co(petent and independent counsel prefera%l# of !is on c!oice.If t!e person cannot afford t!e services of counsel, !e (ust %e provided it! one. )!ese ri$!ts cannot %eaived e3cept in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel.

)!e a%ove provision in t!e funda(ental C!arter e(%odies !at 5urisprudence !as ter(ed as Miranda

rights ste((in$ fro( t!e land(ar4 decision of t!e United States Supre(e Court, Miranda v"

-ri&ona.'1 It !as %een t!e linc!pin of t!e (odern Bill of /i$!ts, and t!e ulti(ate refu$e of individualsa$ainst t!e coercive poer of t!e State.

)!e Miranda doctrine re&uires t!at0 ;a< an# person under custodial investi$ation !as t!e ri$!t to re(ainsilent= ;%< an#t!in$ !e sa#s can and ill %e used a$ainst !i( in a court of la= ;c< !e !as t!e ri$!t to tal4 to an attorne# %efore %ein$ &uestioned and to !ave !is counsel present !en %ein$ &uestioned= and ;d< if

!e cannot afford an attorne#, one ill %e provided %efore an# &uestionin$ if !e so desires.

In t!e P!ilippines, t!e ri$!t to counsel espoused in t!e 2iranda doctrine as %ased on t!e leadin$ caseof People v" $alit '> and Morales, Jr" v" 'nrile,'? rulin$s su%se&uentl# incorporated into t!e presentConstitution. )!e Miranda doctrine under t!e '@? C!arter too4 on a (odified for( !ere t!e ri$!t tocounsel as specificall# &ualified to (ean competent and independent counsel pre!erably o! the

suspect/s o)n choice. aiver of t!e ri$!t to counsel li4eise provided for stricter re&uire(entsco(pared to its A(erican counterpart= it (ust %e done in )riting , and in t!e presence o! counsel .

Veril#, it (a# %e o%served t!at t!e P!ilippine la on custodial investi$ation !as evolved to providefor >or" r3"3 a34ar4 t!an !at as ori$inall# laid out in Miranda v" -ri&ona. )!e purpose of t!e constitutional li(itations on police interro$ation as t!e process s!ifts fro( t!e investi$ator# to t!eaccusator# see(s to %e to accord even t!e loliest and (ost despica%le cri(inal suspects a (easure of

)!e e3tra5udicial confession e3ecuted %# appellant on Dece(%er +7, '>, appl#in$ Art. III, S par. ' of t!e Constitution in relation to /ep. Act No. ?:7@, Sec. + co(plies it! t!e strict constire&uire(ents on t!e ri$!t to counsel. In ot!er ords, t!e e3tra5udicial confession of t!e appevalid and t!erefore ad(issi%le in evidence.

As correctl# pointed out %# t!e Solicitor Heneral, appellant as undou%tedl# appri!is Miranda ri$!ts under t!e Constitution.'@ )!e court a .uo o%served t!at t!e confessioe3pressl# states t!at t!e investi$atin$ officers infor(ed !i( of suc! ri$!ts. ' As furt!er proosa(e, Att#. Isaias Hidu&uio testified t!at !ile !e as attendin$ a San$$unian$ Ba#an session, re&uested %# t!e C!ief of Police of Sta. *e to assist appellant. + Appellant (anifested on recdesire to !ave Att#. Hidu&uio as !is counsel, it! t!e latter cate$oricall# statin$ t!at %ef

investi$ation as conducted and appellants state(ent ta4en, !e advised appellant of !is constitri$!ts. Att#. Hidu&uio even told appellant to anser onl# t!e &uestions !e understood freel# anddo so if !e as not sure of !is anser .+' Att#. Hidu&uio represented appellant durin$ t!e initial st!e trial of t!e present case.

Att#. Hidu&uio as a co(petent and independent counsel of appellant it!in t!e conte(plationConstitution. No evidence as presented to ne$ate !is co(petence and independence in repre

appellant durin$ t!e custodial investi$ation. 2oreover, appellant (anifested for t!e record t!aHidu&uio as !is c!oice of counsel durin$ t!e custodial proceedin$s.

)!e p!rase pre!erably o! his o)n choice does not conve# t!e (essa$e t!at t!e c!oice of a la#

person under investi$ation is e3clusive as to preclude ot!er e&uall# co(petent and indepattorne#s fro( !andlin$ t!e defense= ot!erise t!e te(po of custodial investi$ation ill %e solel!ands of t!e accused !o can i(pede, na#, o%struct t!e pro$ress of t!e interro$ation %# si(pl# s

a la#er !o, for one reason or anot!er, is not availa%le to protect !is interest.++

e ruled in People v" %ontinente+7 t!at !ile t!e c!oice of a la#er in cases !ere t!e personcustodial interro$ation cannot afford t!e services of counsel J or !ere t!e preferred la#eravaila%le J is naturall# lod$ed in t!e police investi$ators, t!e suspect !as t!e final c!oice as re5ect t!e counsel c!osen for !i( and as4 for anot!er one. A la#er provided %# t!e investi$dee(ed en$a$ed %# t!e accused !en !e does not raise an# o%5ection a$ainst t!e counsels appodurin$ t!e course of t!e investi$ation, and t!e accused t!ereafter su%scri%es to t!e veracit#

state(ent %efore t!e searin$ officer .+:

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

)!e ri$!t to counsel at all ti(es is intended to preclude t!e sli$!test coercion as ould lead t!e accusedto ad(it so(et!in$ false. )!e la#er, !oever, s!ould never prevent an accused fro( freel# andvoluntaril# tellin$ t!e trut! In People v umalahay +1 t!is Court !eld0

aiver of t!e ri$!t to counsel as it as not (ade in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel. 6oeDece(%er +7, '> custodial investi$ation !ic! elicited t!e appellants confession s!ould neve%e up!eld for !avin$ co(plied it! Art III Sec '+ par ' Even t!ou$! i(proper interr









































voluntaril# tellin$ t!e trut!. In People v" umalahay, t!is Court !eld0

)!e sorn confessions of t!e t!ree accused s!o t!at t!e# ere properl# apprised of t!eir ri$!t tore(ain silent and ri$!t to counsel, in accordance it! t!e constitutional $uarantee.

At @0 in t!e (ornin$ of t!e ne3t da#, t!e t!ree accused proceeded to t!e office of Att#. /e3elPacuri%ot, Cler4 of Court of t!e /e$ional )rial Court of Ca$a#an de Oro Cit#. All of t!e t!ree accused,still acco(panied %# Att#. U%a#-u%a#, su%scri%ed and sore to t!eir respective ritten confessions.Before ad(inisterin$ t!e oat!s, Att#. Pacuri%ot re(inded t!e t!ree accused of t!eir constitutional ri$!tsunder t!e 2iranda doctrine and verified t!at t!eir state(ents ere voluntaril# $iven. Att#. Pacuri%otalso translated t!e contents of eac! confession in t!e Visa#an dialect, to ensure t!at eac! accusedunderstood t!e sa(e %efore si$nin$ it.

No ill-(otive as i(puted on t!ese to la#ers to testif# falsel# a$ainst t!e accused. )!eir participation in t!ese cases (erel# involved t!e perfor(ance of t!eir le$al duties as officers of t!e court.Accused-appellant Du(ala!a#s alle$ation to t!e contrar#, %ein$ self-servin$, cannot prevail over t!etesti(onies of t!ese i(partial and disinterested itnesses.

2ore i(portantl#, t!e confessions are replete it! details !ic! could possi%l# %e supplied onl# %# t!eaccused, reflectin$ spontaneit# and co!erence !ic! ps#c!olo$icall# cannot %e associated it! a (indto !ic! violence and torture !ave %een applied. )!ese factors are clear indicia t!at t!e confessionsere voluntaril# $iven.

!en t!e details narrated in an e3tra5udicial confession are suc! t!at t!e# could not !ave %eenconcocted %# one !o did not ta4e part in t!e acts narrated, !ere t!e clai( of (altreat(ent in t!ee3traction of t!e confession is unsu%stantiated and !ere a%undant evidence e3ists s!oin$ t!at t!estate(ent as voluntaril# e3ecuted, t!e confession is ad(issi%le a$ainst t!e declarant. )!ere is $reater reason for findin$ a confession to %e voluntar# !ere it is corro%orated %# evidence aliunde !ic!dovetails it! t!e essential facts contained in suc! confession.

)!e confessions dovetail in all t!eir (aterial respects. Eac! of t!e accused $ave t!e sa(e detailednarration of t!e (anner %# !ic! a#a$on and Escalante ere 4illed. )!is clearl# s!os t!at t!eir confessions could not !ave %een contrived. Surel#, t!e t!ree accused could not !ave $iven suc! identicalaccounts of t!eir participation and culpa%ilit# in t!e cri(e ere it not t!e trut!.

Concededl#, t!e Dece(%er '?, '> custodial investi$ation upon appellants appre!ension %# t!e police

aut!orities violated t!e Miranda doctrine on to $rounds0 ;'< no counsel as present= and ;+< i(proper

%e up!eld for !avin$ co(plied it! Art. III, Sec. '+, par. '. Even t!ou$! i(proper interr(et!ods ere used at t!e outset, t!ere is still a possi%ilit# of o%tainin$ a le$all# valid confessioon %# properl# interro$atin$ t!e su%5ect under different conditions and circu(stances t!an t!os prevailed ori$inall#.+>

)!e records of t!is case clearl# reflect t!at t!e appellant freel#, voluntaril# and intelli$entl# entet!e e3tra5udicial confession in full co(pliance it! t!e Miranda doctrine under Art. III, Sec. '+of t!e Constitution in relation to /ep. Act No. ?:7@, Sec. +. SPO+ ilfredo A%ello Hiducos, conductin$ !is investi$ation, e3plained to appellant !is constitutional ri$!ts in t!e :a)a3 nota%l# "-a3o, a lan$ua$e 4non to t!e appellant, vi& 0+?

PASIUNA ;P/EI2INA/M< 0 20a) 0aron indo Mo:ello ubos sa usa 0a inbestigasyon di

gituhon nga adunay 0alabutan sa 0amatayon ni L'7L'7 #-=%6 ug nahitabong paglugos

bos sa atong Bata0ang Balaod, i0a) adunay 0atungod sa pagpa0ahilom ning maong inbes

0aron 0animo ug aduna usab i0a) ug 0atungod nga 0atabangan ug usa 0a abogado nga mo

0aron 0animo ning maong inbestigasyon" 2mo ba nasabtan 0ining tananQ ;DINDO 2OEO, !ere%# re(inded t!at #ou are under investi$ation in !ic! #ou ere suspected a%out t!e dearapin$ of ENEN /AMCO. Under t!e Constitution #ou !ave t!e ri$!t to re(ain silent a%oinvesti$ation on #ou no and #ou !ave also t!e ri$!t to !ave counsel of #our on c!oice to assin t!is investi$ation no. 6ave #ou understood ever#t!in$Q<

)UBAH ;ANSE/< 0 6o, sir . ;Mes, sir.<

PANHU)ANA ;UES)ION< 0 >uman i0a) sayri sa imong 0atungod ubos s a atong Bata0ang sa pagpa0ahilom, gusto ba nimo nga ipadayon nato 0ining i nbestigasyon 0aron 0animoQ ;Af!ave %een apprised of #our ri$!ts under our Constitution to re(ain silent, do #ou ant to proce

investi$ation on #ou noQ<

)UBAH ;UES)ION< 0 6o, sir . ;Mes, sir.<

PANHU)ANA ;UES)ION< 0 $usto ba usab nimo ug abogado nga ma0atabang 0animo ning

inbestigasyonQ ;Do #ou ant counsel to assist #ou in t!is said investi$ationQ<


APPEA/ANCE 0 Att#. Isaias Hidu&uio is appearin$ as counsel of t!e affiant.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

PANHU)ANA ;UES)ION< 0 -0o usab i0a) pahinumdoman nga unsa man ang imo isulti 0aron dinhi

magamit pabor o bato0 0animo sa >u0manan, nasabtan ba nimo 0ining tanan mo nga mga 0atungod

nga )alay naghulga nagpugos o nagdagmal 0animo o nagsaad ba ug ganti sa 0aulihanQ ;Mou are also

In People v" Pia,7 e !eld t!at !ere appellants did not present evidence of co(pulsion or duviolence on t!eir persons= !ere t!e# failed to co(plain to officers !o ad(inistered t!e oat!st!e# did not institute an# cri(inal or ad(inistrative action a$ainst t!eir alle$ed (altreat(ent












nga )alay naghulga, nagpugos o nagdagmal 0animo o nagsaad ba ug ganti sa 0aulihanQ ;Mou are also!ere%# re(inded t!at all #our state(ents no ill %e used as evidence a$ainst or in #our favor in an#court of 5ustice. 6ave #ou understood all #our ri$!ts it! no%od# coercin$ or forcin$ #ou, or (aulin$ or pro(isin$ a reard in t!e endQ<

)UBAH ;ANSE/< 0 6o ;Mes.<

PANHU)ANA ;UES)ION< 0 -ndam 0a nga mohatag ug libre ug boluntaryo nga pamahayag Q ;Are#ou no read# to $ive #our free and voluntar# state(entQ<


3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

;S)A/) O* CUS)ODIA INVES)IHA)ION<

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.

)!e trial court o%served t!at as to t!e confession of appellant, !e as full# apprised of !is constitutionalri$!ts to re(ain silent and !is ri$!t to counsel, as contained in suc! confession. +@ Appellant as properl# assisted %# Att#. Isaias Hidu&uio. )!e e3tra5udicial confession of appellant as su%scri%ed andsorn to %efore ud$e Cornelio ). aca, 2unicipal ud$e of 2edellin-Daan%anta#an and actin$ ud$e of 2C)C Sta. *e-Banta#an and 2adredi5os. ud$e aca declared t!at !e e3plained to t!e appellant t!e

contents of t!e e3tra5udicial confession and as4ed if !e understood it. 6e su%se&uentl# ac4noled$edt!at !en appellant su%scri%ed to !is state(ent, Att#. Hidu&uio, itness Bato%alonos and !is Cler4 of Court ere present as ell as ot!er people.+

)!e e3tra5udicial confession e3ecuted %# t!e appellant folloed t!e ri$id re&uire(ents of t!e 2irandadoctrine= conse&uentl#, it is ad(issi%le as evidence. )!e loer court as correct in $ivin$ credence tot!e e3tra5udicial confession of t!e appellant.

On cross-e3a(ination, appellant 2o5ello clai(ed !is life as t!reatened, t!ere%# inducin$ !i( toe3ecute an e3tra5udicial confession, )" h" 3"h"r ?"4 a3) ca" aa3 h" @"ro3 ho hr"a"3"4h>, 3or h" r"@or h o h co-3" . 6e furt!er clai(ed t!at !e did not understand t!e contents of t!e confession !ic! as read in t!e Visa#an dialect, )" h" a4> ha h" -" h" :a)a3 4a"c3 h 4a) 4co-r".

t!e# did not institute an# cri(inal or ad(inistrative action a$ainst t!eir alle$ed (altreat(entt!ere appears no (ar4s of violence on t!eir %odies and !ere t!e# did not !ave t!e(selves e3a(a reputa%le p!#sician to %uttress t!eir clai(, all t!ese s!ould %e considered as factors indvoluntariness of confessions. )!e failure of t!e appellant to co(plain to t!e searin$ officer oc!ar$es a$ainst t!e persons !o alle$edl# (altreated !i(, alt!ou$! !e !ad all t!e c!ances to(anifests voluntariness in t!e e3ecution of !is confessions .7' )o !old ot!erise is to faciliretraction of !is state(ents at t!e (ere alle$ation of t!reat, torture, coercion, inti(idainduce(ent, it!out an# proof !atsoever. People v" 'nanoria furt!er declared t!at anot!er indivoluntariness is t!e disclosure of details in t!e confession !ic! could !ave %een 4non onl#declarant.7+

)!e confessant %ears t!e %urden of proof t!at !is confession is tainted it! duress, co(pulscoercion %# su%stantiatin$ !is clai( it! independent evidence ot!er t!an !is on self-servin$t!at t!e ad(issions in !is affidavit are untrue and unillin$l# e3ecuted.77 Bare assertions ill cnot suffice to overturn t!e presu(ption.7:

)!e test for deter(inin$ !et!er a confession is voluntar# is !et!er t!e defendants over%orne at t!e ti(e !e confessed.71 In cases !ere t!e Miranda arnin$s !ave %een $iven, t!evoluntariness s!ould %e su%se&uentl# applied in order to deter(ine t!e pro%ative ei$!tconfession.

Accordin$l#, t!e presu(ption of voluntariness of appellants confession re(ains unre%utted failure to present independent evidence t!at t!e sa(e as coerced.

It cannot %e $ainsaid t!at t!e constitutional dut# of la enforce(ent officers is to ensure t!at a !as %een properl# apprised of !is Miranda ri$!ts, includin$ t!e ri$!t to counsel. It is in t!e para

pu%lic interest t!at t!e foundation of an effective ad(inistration of cri(inal 5ustice relies on t!e ad!erence to t!e Mirandadoctrine. Co(pliance it! Art. III, Sec. '+, par. ' %# police aut!orcentral to t!e cri(inal 5ustice s#ste(= Miranda ri$!ts (ust in ever# case %e respected, it!out e3

)!us, t!e confession, !avin$ strictl# co(plied it! t!e constitutional re&uire(ents under Art. I'+, par. ', is dee(ed ad(issi%le in evidence a$ainst appellant. It follos t!at t!e ad(isculpa%ilit# (ade t!erein is ad(issi%le. It is t!erefore not !ruit o! the poisonous tree since t!e tris not poisonous.

Appellant also alle$es t!at t!e loer court $ravel# erred in !oldin$ !i( $uilt# %e#ond reasona%l

of t!e cri(e of rape it! !o(icide, t!ere%# sentencin$ !i( to suffer t!e deat! penalt# desp

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

$larin$ insufficienc# of circu(stantial evidence a$ainst !i(. In !is Brief, !e ar$ues t!at t!e evidencea$ainst !i( is insufficient to arrant !is conviction of rape it! !o(icide.

2o5ello is found $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of t!e cri(e of statutor# rape and sentenced tot!e penalt# of reclusion perpetua. 6e is also ordered to pa# t!e !eirs of t!e victi(, enlen P1,. as civil inde(nit# and P1,. as (oral da(a$es.






















)!e cate$orical ad(ission of t!e appellant to t!e cri(e of rape, coupled it! t!e corpus delicti asesta%lis!ed %# t!e 2edico-e$al /eport and t!e testi(on# of /o$elio /a#co, leads us to no ot!er conclusion t!an t!at of appellants $uilt for t!e rape of enlen /a#co on Dece(%er '1, '>. It passest!e test of (oral certaint# and (ust t!erefore %e sustained.

6oever, t!e records do not ade&uatel# s!o t!at appellant ad(itted to 4illin$ t!e victi(. Neit!er is t!ecircu(stantial evidence sufficient to esta%lis! t!at %# reason or on t!e occasion of t!e rape a !o(icideas co((itted %# t!e appellant. )!e lac4 of p!#sical evidence furt!er precludes us fro( connectin$ t!esla#in$ of t!e victi( to !er se3ual assault, $iven t!e &uantu( of proof re&uired %# la for conviction.

No esti(ated ti(e of deat! as $iven, !ic! is essential in (a4in$ a connection it! t!e appellantsstor# t!at !e ent !o(e after a ni$!t of drin4in$. )!e ti(e !en !e and t!e victi( ere !eaded toards

t!e seas!ore at or a%out 0 to '0 p.(. of Dece(%er '1, '> until t!e ti(e !en t!e victi(slifeless %od# as found at or a%out :0 a.(. of Dece(%er '>, '> !ad a ti(e variance of %eteen si3to seven !ours. Alt!ou$! t!e circu(stances (a# point to t!e appellant as t!e (ost li4el# perpetrator of t!e !o(icide, t!e sa(e do not constitute an un%ro4en c!ain of events !ic! ould lead us to areasona%le conclusion t!at appellant as $uilt# of 4illin$ t!e victi(. In ot!er ords, t!ere are $aps int!e reconstruction of facts and inferences surroundin$ t!e deat! of enlen. Appellant onl# ad(itted to %o3in$ t!e victi( !en s!e s!outed, t!en !urriedl# ran aa#. )!e cause of deat! of enlen as cardio-respirator# attac4 due to asp!#3iation and p!#sical in5uries= s!e as stran$led to deat! and left on t!eseas!ore as (anifested %# t!e frot!in$ in !er lun$s. No p!#sical, scientific or DNA evidence as presented to pinpoint appellant as t!e person !o 4illed t!e victi(. *in$erprints, if availa%le, ould!ave deter(ined !o co((itted t!e !o(icide. )!us, appellant cannot %e convicted of rape it!

!o(icide considerin$ t!e insufficienc# of evidence !ic! t!ere%# created a reasona%le dou%t as to !is$uilt for t!e said special co(ple3 cri(e.

Appellant s!ould instead %e !eld lia%le onl# for t!e cri(e of statutor# rape, t!e victi( enlen /a#co %ein$ t!en eleven #ears old. )!e se3ual assault as necessaril# included in t!e special co(ple3 cri(ec!ar$ed in t!e Infor(ation dated 2a# ++, '?.

)!e trial court s!ould !ave aarded da(a$es to t!e !eirs of t!e victi(. Civil inde(nit# in t!e a(ountof P1,. is aarded upon t!e findin$ of t!e fact of rape. 7> 2oral da(a$es in t!e a(ount of P1,. (a# li4eise %e $iven to t!e !eirs of t!e victi( it!out need of proof in accordance it!current 5urisprudence.7?

/HEREFORE, in vie of t!e fore$oin$, t!e decision of t!e /e$ional )rial Court of Bo$o, Ce%u,

Branc! >' in Cri(inal Case No. B-++: is A**I/2ED it! 2ODI*ICA)ION. Appellant Dindo

P1,. as civil inde(nit# and P1,. as (oral da(a$es.

Costs de o!icio.

SO ORERE.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11








ONSTI II !S"c. 11

)6I/D DIVISION

G.R. No. (508( A-- 11, 1((+

CON)/A/M )O A0 it! t!e &ualif#in$ circu(stances of treac!er#, evident pre(editatireard. $



,

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.NIOMEES FA*RO, FRANISO IMALANTA, AMAO ALALA, /ILLIAM HOGEa34 <9OHN OE,< acc-"4, NIOMEES FA*RO, accused-appellant.

PANGANI*AN, J.:

)!e '@? Constitution $uarantees persons under$oin$ custodial investi$ation t!e ri$!ts to re(ain silent

and to !ave co(petent and independent counsel. )!ese ri$!ts cannot %e aived e3cept in ritin$ and int!e presence of counsel. )!e Constitution i(pels strict co(pliance it! t!ese re&uire(ents %ecause aconfession of $uilt $iven durin$ suc! investi$ation constitutes for(ida%le evidence a$ainst t!e accusedon t!e principle t!at no one ill 4noin$l#, freel# and deli%eratel# ad(it aut!ors!ip of a cri(e unless pro(pted %# trut! and conscience, particularl# !ere t!e facts $iven could !ave %een 4non onl# %#appellant. On t!e ot!er !and, an# alle$ation of force, duress, undue influence or ot!er for(s of involuntariness in e3actin$ suc! confession (ust %e proven %# clear, convincin$ and co(petentevidence %# t!e defense. Ot!erise, t!e confessions full pro%ative value (a# %e used to de(onstratet!e $uilt of t!e accused %e#ond reasona%le dou%t.

Statement o! the %ase

)!ese doctrines are applied %# t!e Court in decidin$ t!is appeal fro( t!e Decision 1 of t!e /e$ional

)rial Court of Olon$apo Cit#, Branc! ?+, 2 in Cri(. Case No. 7>:-@?, findin$ t!e accused $uilt# of (urder and sentencin$ t!e( toreclusion perpetua.

In an Infor(ation dated une '', '@?, Second Assistant *iscal of Olon$apo Cit#, esus P. Duranto,c!ar$ed Nico(edes *a%ro, *rancisco Di(alanta, A(ado Alcala, illia( 6o$e and a certain o!n Doeit! (urder co((itted as follos0

)!at on or a%out t!e telft! ;'+t!< da# of April '@?, in t!e Cit# of Olon$apo, P!ilippines, and it!int!e 5urisdiction of t!is 6onora%le Court, t!e a%ove-na(ed accused, conspirin$ confederatin$ to$et!er and (utuall# !elpin$ one anot!er, accused Nico(edes *a%ro ar(ed it! a $un, it! intent to 4ill andit! treac!er#, evident pre(editation and in consideration of pro(ise of reard, did t!en and t!ereilfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl# assault, attac4 and s!ot ; sic< t!ereit! one Dionisio oa&uin and asa result t!ereof, t!e latter suffered s!oc4 and 6e((or!a$e 2assive, Secondar# to Hun S!ot ound

!ic! directl# caused !is deat! s!ortl# t!ereafter.

On Au$ust ', '@?, Di(alanta and Appellant *a%ro, it! t!e assistance of Counsel de o!icio /oAlinea, pleaded not $uilt#. On Septe(%er @, '@?, Accused Alcala entered t!e sa(e plea. )!e otaccused, illia( 6o$e and o!n Doe, ere never arrested or arrai$ned.

In t!e course of t!e trial, %ot! Accused Di(alanta and Alcala 5u(ped %ail. ' )!us, onl# appell presented as itness %# t!e defense.

On une +1, ', t!e trial court rendered its assailed Decision, t!e dispositive portion of !ic! r

6E/E*O/E, pre(ised on all t!e fore$oin$ consideration, t!e Court finds accused NICO2*AB/O, */ANCISCO DI2AAN)A and A2ADO ACAA $uilt# %e#ond t!e s!ado of a dt!e cri(e of 2U/DE/ as c!ar$ed in t!e infor(ation, it! t!ree a$$ravatin$ circu(stanc pursuant to Article +:@, and !ere%# sentences t!e( ;to< t!e (a3i(u( penalt# of deat!. 6oevt!e a%olition of deat! penalt#, accused s!all suffer reclusion perpetua, it! costs a$ainst t!e a)!e Court orders t!e accused collectivel# to inde(nif# t!e !eirs of Dionisio oa&uin ;in< t!e P7,.. 5

On une +, ', a Notice of Appeal direct to t!e Supre(e Court as filed in t!e trial court in t!e penalt# i(posed, reclusion perpetua. As Di(alanta and Alcala 5u(ped %ail durin$ t!e proce %efore t!e court a .uo, t!eir appeal is dee(ed dis(issed pursuant to /ule '+:, Section @ of t!e /Court 6 and Supre(e Court Ad(inistrative Circular +-+. + 6ence, onl# t!e appeal of *a%ro ill %upon. +#A /eferences to Di(alanta and Alcala in t!is Decision are (ade onl# to co(plete t!e na

of t!e case, and t!us ill affect onl# *a%ro.

The Facts

+ersion o! the Prosecution

)!e prosecution presented five itnesses0 ;'< Dr. /ic!ard Patilano !o conducted t!e autops#re(ains of t!e victi(= ;+< S$t. *elipe Bolina, t!e police investi$ator= ;7< Ant!on# Bec4, co(pat!e victi(= ;:< Conrado oa&uin, t!e victi(s fat!er= and ;1< Att#. Isa$ani un$co, t!e IBP Pr;a(%ales C!apter< !o as presented as re%uttal itness. A(on$ t!e docu(entar# esu%(itted ere t!e sorn state(ents of appellant, Bec4, Di(alanta and oa&uin, and t!e 5oint aof S$ts. Bolina and appa#. )!e prosecutions version of t!e facts, as su((ariKed %# t!e SoHeneral in t!e Appellees Brief, 8 is as follos0

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

So(eti(e in t!e second ee4 of April, '@?, a stri4e as !eld %# or4ers on t!e pre(ises of t!e CasaBlanca located at Barrio Barretto, Olon$apo Cit#. Dionisio oa&uin, t!e victi(, as one of or$aniKerst!ereof. 6e sou$!t t!e assistance of friends, a(on$ !o( as Ant!on# Bec4, a stevedore and resident

)!e defense presented its onl# itness in t!e person of t!e appellant. No docu(entar# evidensu%(itted. )!e counter-state(ent of facts, as narrated in t!e si3-pa$e Brief for t!e Appellants, ( rfollos0



of Olon$apo Cit# ;pp. +@-7', )SN, 2a# +:, '@@<.

At a%out >0 P.2. on April '', '@?, oa&uin and Bec4 ere at !is4# Bar frontin$ t!e Casa Blanca,at Barrio Barretto, Olon$apo Cit#. )!e# ere conversin$ !ile restin$ at t!e veranda of said !is4#

Bar, frontin$ t!e Casa Blanca !ere a pic4et as %ein$ conducted %# t!eir co-stri4ers. Bot! !ad fallenasleep, as t!e# lac4ed sleep t!e previous ni$!ts, on a c!air near eac! ot!er it! t!eir feet restin$ on t!everanda railin$s ;pp. 7-:>, ibid <.

Ant!on# Bec4 fell asleep at a%out :0 ocloc4 in t!e earl# (ornin$ of April '+, '@?. S!ortl#

t!ereafter, at a%out 10 to 107 in t!e (ornin$, !e as aa4ened %# $un report. Openin$ !is e#es, !esa oa&uin dead, it! a sin$le %ullet ound on t!e fore!ead. Blood as ooKin$ fro( oa&uins !ead.

Seein$ a (an runnin$ aa# fro( !ere !e and oa&uin ere seated, Ant!on# Bec4 t!en $ave c!ase.)!e fleein$ (an turned left on an alle# and t!en ri$!t on anot!er. Bec4 lost !i( at t!e second turn. 6esa an old (an !o in&uired !# !e as c!asin$ t!e fleein$ (an. Bec4 told t!e old (an of t!es!ootin$ incident. )!en and t!ere t!e old (an told Bec4 t!at t!e (an !e ;Bec4< as runnin$ after asBadon$, later identified as t!e accused Nico(edes *a%ro ;pp. 1:->+, ibid <.

Police officers fro( t!e Olon$apo 2etrodisco(, led %# S$t. *elipe Bolina, proceeded to *a%ros

residence at a%out noon t!at sa(e da#. )!e# failed to appre!end *a%ro as !e as alle$edl# t!en asleep.)!e accused ;*a%ro< as surrendered %# !is sister to t!e CIS t!e folloin$ da# ;pp. '+-':, )SN, ul#'@, '@<.

At >0 ocloc4 t!at ni$!t, April '7, '@?, *a%ro as interro$ated %# CIS personnel and $rilled for a%outto ;+< !ours ;pp. '>-', supra<.

At t!at 5uncture, CIS investi$ator Santia$o re&uested *a%ro to si$n a docu(ent, !ic! turned out to %e!is e3tra-5udicial confessionLad(ission ;E3!. *<. Accused *a%ro ;clai(s t!at !e< as not alloed toread t!e docu(ent, neit!er ere its contents read to !i( ;pp. +:-+><. A certain Att#. Isa$ani un$co as!oever present !en !e si$ned t!e docu(ent ;p. +@, supra= pp. +-'@, )SN, 2arc! ', '<.

!ile it appears fro( t!e transcript t!at co-accused *rancisco Di(alanta e3ecuted an e3tra-5udicialstate(ent ;confession< ;pp. +:-+1, )SN, *e%. +, '@@<, Di(alanta !i(self as never presented in courtas defense itness, as %ot! accused Di(alanta and Alcala 5u(ped %ail durin$ trial.

+ersion o! the e!ense

)!e version of t!e defense as testified to %# Nico(edes *a%ro as t!at at to ocloc4 in t!e (orApril '+, '@?, !e stopped ferr#in$ passen$ers and slept on a sofa at t!e !is4e# /iver Clu%, lon a terrace of said clu%. !en !e laid don and rested at t!e sofa, t!ere as also anot!er perso

as seated on t!e sofa and as (ore or less one ar(s len$t! aa# fro( !i(. )!e (an as t!en %ut ;*a%ro< onl# 4ne !is face %ut not !is na(e. !ile sleepin$, !e as aa4ened %# t!e s!outof !is co(panion sa#in$ (a# %inaril, (a# %inaril. )!e s!out as ver# loud and after s!outin$ tran toards Olon$apo Cit#. Accused accordin$ to !i( as standin$ and loo4in$ at t!e %loodied!o as (ore or less to ar(s len$t! aa# fro( !i(. )!e %loodied person as at t!e %alcon#

!is4e# /iver Clu%.

Accused as surrendered to t!e CIS %# !is sister on April '7, '@?. Nico(edes *a%ro clai(ed as (ade to si$n a docu(ent it!out alloin$ !i( to read t!e contents. Accordin$ to accused investi$ator Santia$o told !i( t!at if !e ill not si$n t!e docu(ent so(et!in$ ill !appen to !i(Isa$ani un$co as present !en !e si$ned !is na(e, !oever, t!e docu(ent as alread# preparead# for si$nature.

Trial %ourt/s Findings

In its Decision, t!e trial court leaned toards t!e version of t!e prosecution= 10

*ro( t!e evidence presented %# t!e prosecution, %ot! testi(onial and docu(entar#, t!e Cou

t!ese facts to %e indu%ita%le. )!at in t!e earl# (ornin$ of April '+, '@?, %eteen 10 and 10deceased Dionisio oa&uin !o as sleepin$ side %# side it! Ant!on# Bec4 on t!e terrace!is4e# Bar, opposite Casa Blanca, Barrio Barretto, Olon$apo Cit#, as s!ot in t!e !ead at clos %# accused Nico(edes *a%ro. )!e deceased as %leedin$ it! %lood ooKin$ fro( t!e fore!eafound %# so(e Olon$apo police and S$t. Bolina, a PC soldier !o arrived at t!e scene. )!e deas found on a c!air, !is feet raised on t!e veranda it! !is !ead inclined %ac4.

333 333 333

Ant!on# Bec4 !o as asleep side %# side it! t!e deceased as aa4ened %# a s!ot and event!e 4alansin$ of t!e %ullet, c!ased t!e person !o( !e sa runnin$ aa# after t!e s!ot as fitestified t!at !en !e as c!asin$ t!e (an !e did not #et 4no !is na(e %ut !e could identifBec4 (ade t!e identification !en accused *a%ro as (i3ed it! ot!er people $ettin$ clear

'>:t! PC Co(pan# Office. Bec4 positivel# identified t!e accused !en !e testified in Court.ONSTI II !S"c. 11

333 333 333

Bec4 testified t!at Dionisio oa&uin as an or$aniKer of a la%or or$aniKation and t!at t!e latter invited

)!e confession of Di(alanta coincide in all (aterials points it! t!e confession of *a%ro. Di(narrated !o !e as pro(ised t!e a(ount P', %# a certain Bill 6o$e and !o !e as pP1,. as initial pa#(ent and t!e %alance to %e paid after t!e 4illin$ is acco(plis!ed. )!e P1



t!e for(er to support t!e stri4ers.

S$t. Bolina t!ru !is investi$ation learned t!e identit# of t!e (an !o as runnin$ aa# fro( t!e sceneof t!e cri(e as Nico(edes *a%ro. Upon learnin$ t!e identit# of t!e suspect, Bolina ent to t!e parentsof *a%ro !o( !e 4ne personall# and re&uested t!at *a%ro %e surrendered to !i(. Bolina learned later t!at t!e suspect as surrendered to t!e CIS. After t!e CIS investi$ation, Nico(edes *a%ro $ave !isconfession in t!e presence of Att#. Isa$ani un$co !o as called to assist t!e suspect. In !isconfession, *a%ro i(plicated *rancisco Di(alanta and A(ado Alcala.

*ro( relia%le infor(ation received %# S$t. Bolina and t!e ot!er police(en, t!e# learned t!e identit# of to ot!er suspects, na(el#0 *rancisco Di(alanta and A(ado Alcala. *ro( unconfir(ed reports t!eseto Di(alanta and Alcala participated in t!e 4illin$ of Dionisio oa&uin. )!e confession of *a%roconfir(ed t!at indeed Di(alanta and Alcala ere !is co-conspirator.

333 333 333

. . . . ;S$t.<. appa# testified t!at !e as present durin$ t!e investi$ation of *a%ro. *a%ro in !is presencead(itted !is participation and pointed to *rancisco Di(alanta and A(ado Alcala and one Ernesto deHuK(an. It as in earl# (ornin$ of April ':, '@? t!at de HuK(an and Di(alanta ere appre!endedalon$ /iKal E3tension, t!e# %ein$ nei$!%ors. Alcala as arrested at a%ove street.

After anal#Kin$ and ei$!in$ all t!e pieces of testi(onial and docu(entar# evidence, t!e trial court

declined to $ive credence to t!e uncorro%orated clai( of appellant t!at !e as asleep at t!e terrace of t!e !is4e# Clu% at t!e ti(e of t!e incident. )!e court a .uo also re5ected !is contention t!at !e ascoerced into si$nin$ a confession, since t!e solitar# ver%al t!reat alle$edl# (ade %# t!e investi$ator as va$ue and not %ac4ed up %# t!e use of actual p!#sical force. After considerin$ t!e presence of t!ecounsel ;Att#. un$co< !o assisted t!e appellant and !is co-accused durin$ t!e custodial investi$ationas ell as in t!e e3ecution of t!eir respective sorn state(ents, t!e loer court ad(itted in evidencet!eir e3tra5udicial confessions.

)!e confession of Appellant *a%ro as su((ariKed %# t!e loer court, t!us0

In t!e confession of Nico(edes *a%ro !e narrated !o *rancisco Di(alanta offered !i( P',. to4ill a (an, !o t!e $un as $iven !i( and !o t!e# o%served t!e (ove(ents of t!e victi( to t!e ti(eof t!e 4illin$. !ile Nico(edes *a%ro did t!e actual s!ootin$, accused Alcala and Di(alanta ere

present aaitin$ t!e outco(e of t!e s!ootin$.

initial pa#(ent as s!ared %# t!e t!ree accused.

*ro( t!e fore$oin$, t!e trial court esta%lis!ed t!e e3istence of conspirac# a(on$ t!e t!ree accustrial court furt!er found t!e testi(on# of Bec4 un%iased, trut!ful and credi%le.

*inall#, t!e court %elo !eld t!at t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e as attended %# t!e a$$racircu(stances of treac!er#, evident pre(editation and consideration of price or reard.

-ssignment o! 'rrors

Appellant interposes t!e present appeal, faultin$ t!e trial court0

I

*or not considerin$ t!e defense of ali%i !en t!ere is dou%t as to t!e identit# of t!e suspect.

II

*or not considerin$ t!e ad(issions and confessions as inad(issi%le as violative of t!e Constitutio

III

*or not considerin$ t!e state(ents and testi(onies of prosecution itnesses as !earsa#.

IV

*or presu(in$ t!at conspirac# e3ists.

The %ourt/s #uling

)!e appeal is not (eritorious. In vie of t!e incri(inator# nature of appellants confession, t!ill tac4le t!e second assi$ned error a!ead of t!e first.

First 2ssue0 -dmissibility o! -ppellant/s %on!ession

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

A confession is defined in 5urisprudence as a declaration (ade voluntaril# and it!out co(pulsion or induce(ent %# a person, statin$ or ac4noled$in$ t!at !e !as co((itted or participated in t!eco((ission of a cri(e. 11 But %efore it can %e ad(itted in evidence, several re&uire(ents !ave to %e

ti fi d

conscience. 16 !en all t!ese re&uire(ents are (et and t!e confession is ad(itted in eviden %urden of proof t!at it as o%tained %# undue pressure, t!reat or inti(idation rests upon t!e accu

Ad i dl ! f ! i !i ll f i )! d f i i



satisfied.

Article III, Section '+ of t!e '@? Constitution, !ic! ca(e into effect on *e%ruar# +, '@?, re&uirest!at0

;'< An# person under investi$ation for t!e co((ission of an offense s!all !ave t!e ri$!t to %e infor(edof !is ri$!t to re(ain silent and to !ave co(petent and independent counsel prefera%l# of !is onc!oice. If t!e person cannot afford t!e services of counsel, !e (ust %e provided it! one. )!ese ri$!tscannot %e aived e3cept in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel.

333 333 333

;7< An# confession or ad(ission o%tained in violation of t!is or section '? !ereof s!all %e inad(issi%lein evidence a$ainst !i(.

2oreover, Article III, Section '? of t!e Constitution, $uaranteein$ t!e ri$!t of t!e accused a$ainst self-

incri(ination, provides0

Sec. '?. No person s!all %e co(pelled to %e a itness a$ainst !i(self.

In 5urisprudence, no confession can %e ad(itted in evidence unless it is $iven0

'. *reel# and voluntaril#, it!out co(pulsion, induce(ent or tric4er#= 12

+. Rnoin$l# %ased on an effective co((unication to t!e individual under custodial investi$ation of !isconstitutional ri$!ts= 1$ and

7. Intelli$entl# it! full appreciation of its i(portance and co(pre!ension of its conse&uences.1'

Once ad(itted, t!e confession (ust inspire credi%ilit# or %e one !ic! t!e nor(al e3perience of (an4ind can accept as %ein$ it!in t!e real( of pro%a%ilit#. 15

A confession (eetin$ all t!e fore$oin$ re&uisites constitutes evidence of a !i$! order since it issupported %# t!e stron$ presu(ption t!at no person of nor(al (ind ill 4noin$l#, freel# and

deli%eratel# confess t!at !e is t!e perpetrator of a cri(e unless pro(pted %# trut! and

Ad(ittedl#, t!e case of t!e prosecution !in$es on appellants confession. )!e defense (aintains sa(e is inad(issi%le for t!e folloin$ reasons0 ;'< appellants confession as e3tracted under t!rinti(idation= ;+< t!e la#ers ;Att#. un$cos< participation as onl# as a itness durin$ t!e si$t!e prepared confession and not durin$ t!e investi$ation or interro$ation itself= and ;7< appella

(ade to si$n t!e confession it!out !avin$ read it and it!out t!e presence of counsel.

As proof t!ereof, t!e defense &uotes appellants state(ents durin$ direct e3a(ination0 18

. And !at did ;CIS Investi$ator< Santia$o tell #ou if !e told #ou an#t!in$Q

A. Santia$o told (e t!at if I ill not si$n it, so(et!in$ ill !appen to (e.

. But #ou ill ad(it %efore t!is Court t!at %efore #ou affi3ed #our si$nature, t!e docu(ent asto #ou %# Santia$o, did !e notQ

A. No (ore, I as 5ust (ade to si$n.

. Do #ou ant to i(press t!e Court t!at #ou 5ust affi3ed #our si$nature it!out #ou %ein$ alloread t!e docu(ents or t!e investi$ator Santia$o did not even read unto #ou t!e contents docu(entsQ

A. No sir.

Suc! uncorro%orated and ane(ic alle$ations are insufficient to render appellants coninad(issi%le. /at!er, t!e# appear to %e a (ere su%terfu$e desi$ned to i(pute constitutional infirt!e conduct of t!e custodial interro$ation.

)!e (ore credi%le evidence is t!e re%uttal testi(on# of Att#. un$co s!oin$ ad!erenceconstitutional re&uire(ents. Att#. un$co testified t!at after !e apprised appellant of !is constitri$!ts to %e silent and to !ave counsel durin$ t!e investi$ation, t!e latter aived t!e( in !isun$cos< presence. )!us0 1(

A))M. DE DIOS0

Att#. un$co, I ould li4e to %rin$ #our attention to April '7, '@?, do #ou re(e(%er !avin

called to assist an accused detained at t!e CIS Office, Ca(p 2a&uina#a, Olon$apo Cit#QONSTI II !S"c. 11

A Mes, I as t!en t!e President of t!e IBP of a(%ales-Olon$apo C!apter and t!e CIS peopleapproac!ed (e if I ill !elp t!e( in t!e aiver, to %e present !en aiver ill %e si$ned %# t!e person %efore t!e CIS,

A 6e understood %ecause !e said Mes.

333 333 333



aiver of !atQ

A aiver of t!e ri$!t to counsel and t!e presence of counsel durin$ t!e ta4in$ of !is investi$ation.

333 333 333

)o refres! #our (e(or#, Att#. un$co, I a( s!oin$ #ou a state(ent !ic! !as %een (ar4ed asE3!i%it * for t!e prosecution, please $o over t!is %efore I as4 (# &uestion.

A ;itness $oin$ over t!e docu(ent !anded to !i(< I reco$niKe t!is state(ent.

333 333 333

Can #ou e3plain !at is t!is Pa$papatuna# !erein #ou are itness to t!atQ

A I as present !en Nico(edes *a%ro durin$ t!e ti(e t!at I as t!ere si$ned !is aiver of t!e ri$!t to!ave counsel at t!e ti(e of t!e ta4in$ of !is testi(on#.

No, it is t!e aiver of t!e accused to counsel, ill #ou please tell t!e Court if #ou advised !i( of !is ri$!ts and effect of suc! aiverQ

333 333 333

A Before !e si$ned t!is aiver, I apprised !i( of !is ri$!ts under t!e Constitution, t!at is, t!e ri$!t to %e

silent, t!e ri$!t to counsel and t!at an# state(ent t!at !e ill (a4e in an# investi$ation (a# %e used for or a$ainst !i( in an# court of la and after t!at, I as4ed !i( if despite !is ri$!t to !ave counsel presentdurin$ t!e ta4in$ of !is testi(on#, !e still aives t!at ri$!t to counsel and !e said Mes and !e si$nedt!at state(ent t!ere. As a (atter of fact, in t!is Pa$papatuna#, t!e last sentence Pu(ir(a a4o . . . . sa!arapan ni Att#. Isa$ani un$co, IBP President. ;S $d< Nico(edes *a%ro.

Att#. un$co, as t!at advice $iven in )a$alo$ or in En$lis!Q

A It as $iven in )a$alo$ and in En$lis!.

Did !e understand #our ad(onition or #our re(inders concernin$ !is ri$!tQ

)!an4 #ou. Att#. un$co, at t!e last pa$e and t!is is t!e end of !is confession, t!ere is a si$na Nico(edes *a%ro, ere #ou present !en !e si$ned t!e last pa$e of !is testi(on#Q

A At t!e ti(e t!at !e si$ned t!is, I as t!ere present %ecause I as tal4in$ t!en it! t!eir C!ie!ic! is I t!in4 Capt. *lores and %efore I left, t!is state(ent as co(pleted.

A))M. DE DIOS0

)!an4 #ou. Att#. un$co, !en #ou si$ned t!is first pa$e and !en Nico(edes *a%ro si$naiver, do #ou re(e(%er !et!er or not t!ere as alread# a state(ent preparedQ

333 333 333

A At t!e ti(e t!at !e si$ned t!is, t!e investi$ation !as not #et %e$an %ecause precisel#, I as as4 present %ecause of t!e aiver. And after !e si$ned !is aiver and I si$ned it also in !is presenctal4in$ it! Capt. *lores and t!e# ere ta4in$ !is testi(on# at t!at ti(e.

)!en, afterards, %efore I left.

)!is ad!erence to t!e Constitution is furt!er confir(ed %# t!e confession itself. It starts oa Pasubali 20!erein appellant as infor(ed of !is constitutional ri$!ts and a Pagpapatunay

confir(ed t!at !e understood said ri$!ts. Bot! parts also serve as a ritten proof of appellants fulfill(ent of t!e re&uire(ents of t!e Constitution.

As pointed out %# t!e Solicitor Heneral, t!e testi(on# of Att#. un$co as replete it! details as !e infor(ed and arned appellant of t!e conse&uences of t!e aiver of !is ri$!t to counsel. )!ar$ues t!at t!ere is no roo( for dou%t t!at appellant as indeed assisted %# counsel !en !e airi$!t to counsel durin$ t!e ti(e t!at !is state(ent as ta4en, and not onl# at t!e ti(e !e si$nclai(ed %# appellant.

)!e Constitution furt!er re&uires t!at t!e counsel %e independent= t!us, !e cannot %e a special c pu%lic or private prosecutor, counsel of t!e police, or a (unicipal attorne# !ose interest is ad(adverse to t!at of t!e accused. Att#. un$co does not fall under an# of said enu(eration. Nor is t!evidence t!at !e !ad an# interest adverse to t!at of t!e accused. 21 )!e indeli%le fact is t!at

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

president of t!e a(%ales C!apter of t!e Inte$rated Bar of t!e P!ilippines, and not a lac4e# of t!ela(en.

Dou%ts t!at Att# un$cos assistance to appellant as not independent since !e as en$a$ed %# t!e CIS

Per!aps t!e (ost tellin$ indication t!at appellants confession as voluntar# is t!e fact t!confession contained e3culpator# clai(s $2 ;uestion Nos. 1, ?, @ and < and facts t!at onl# t!e apcould !ave 4non ;uestion Nos. 1, >, ?, @, , ':, '1, '?, + and +<. $$



Dou%ts t!at Att#. un$co s assistance to appellant as not independent since !e as en$a$ed %# t!e CISInvesti$ators are furt!er dispelled %# t!e fact t!at !e as sent 22 to t!e CIS Office %# S$t. Bolina !o personall# 4ne appellants parents and as a friend of !is %rot!er-in-la. 2$ 6e too4 t!e trou%le toensure t!at a la#er as present durin$ t!e ta4in$ of appellants state(ent, even t!ou$! !e ;Bolina<

ould not %e t!ere. Inelucta%l#, appellant, %# !is uncorro%orated, puerile and (atter-of-fact clai(,failed to overco(e t!e presu(ption t!at Att#. un$co re$ularl# perfor(ed !is official dut# as an officer of t!e court in $ivin$ assistance to persons under$oin$ custodial interro$ation. 2' Upon t!e ot!er, t!eover!el(in$ evidence is t!at !e did perfor(s suc! dut# fait!full#.

After t!e prosecution !as s!on t!at t!e confession as o%tained in accordance it! t!e aforesaidconstitutional $uarantee, t!e %urden of provin$ t!at undue pressure or duress as used to o%tain it rests

on t!e accused. 25 In -ntillon vs. Barcelon, 26 t!e Court i(posed a !i$! de$ree of proof to overt!ro t!e presu(ption of trut! in t!e recitals contained in a pu%lic instru(ent e3ecuted it! all t!e le$alfor(alities.

In People vs. Pia, 2+ t!e Court !eld t!at !ere t!e accused failed to present credi%le evidence of co(pulsion or duress or violence on t!eir person, e. g ., !ere t!e# failed to co(plain to t!e officers !oad(inistered t!e oat!s= !ere t!e# did not institute an# cri(inal or ad(inistrative action a$ainst t!eir

alle$ed inti(idators for (altreat(ent= !ere t!ere appeared to %e no (ar4s of violence on t!eir %odies=and !ere t!e# did not !ave t!e(selves e3a(ined %# a reputa%le p!#sician to %uttress t!eir clai(, t!eir confession s!ould %e considered voluntar#. 28

Appellant !as (isera%l# failed to present an# convincin$ evidence to prove t!e use of force or inti(idation on !is person to secure !is confession. )!e records s!o t!at appellants confession assorn and su%scri%ed to %efore *iscal esus Dorante, to !o( !e could !ave and s!ould !ave voiced

!is o%5ection, if an#. uite t!e contrar#, *iscal Dorante certified t!at !e personall# e3a(ined appellantand as convinced t!at t!e latter $ave !is state(ent freel# and voluntaril# and t!at !e understood t!econtents of !is confession. Appellants failure to voice out !is co(plaints is tanta(ount to a(anifestation t!at indeed !e aived !is ri$!t to counsel in t!e presence of Att#. un$co in accordanceit! t!e Constitution. 2( 6is assertion on appeal t!at !e as inti(idated into $ivin$ said confession rin$s!ollo and too late. $0

)!is clai( is furt!er %elied %# appellants lac4 of co(plaint, or even an# (ention t!ereof, to !is sister

and relatives !o visited !i( at Ca(p 2a&uina#a !ere !e as detained for one #ear. $1 )!is reinforcest!e trial courts rulin$.

)!us, e can onl# affir( t!e folloin$ findin$s of t!e trial court0

Neit!er can t!e Court accept t!at accused Nico(edes *a%ro as onl# forced into $ivin$ a con)!e Court cannot even for a !ile %elieve t!at !e as onl# forced to $ive !is state(ent !accused !i(self stated t!at !e as not even once !urt %# an# of t!e CIS investi$ators. In ;fact<,even told to rest.

Att#. Alinea0

And i((ediatel# after #our sister left, #our interro$ation %# t!e CIS a$ents started, t!at isor it is notQ

A No, sir I as as4ed to clean.

!at portion or portions of t!e CIS !ead&uarters ere #ou ordered to cleanQ

A )!e ceilin$s.

And after cleanin$ t!e ceilin$ of t!e CIS !ead&uarters, !at as t!e ne3t order to #ouQ

A They as0ed me to rest .

;)SN, ul# '@, '@, pp. '1-'>.<

333 333 333

And after cleanin$ t!e car of Capt. *lores, !at as #our ne3t c!ore or activit#Q

A I coo4ed food for t!e(.

And t!ese activities %eca(e routinar# and ordinar# for !o (an# da#sQ

A I sta#ed t!ere for a #ear and t!at as t!e routinar# or4 I did. ;)SN, ul# '@, '@, p. +7<

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

)!e onl# alle$ed t!reat to !i( as t!at Santia$o told (e t!at if I ill not si$n it so(et!in$ ill !appento (e. ;)SN, ul# '@, '@, p. +><. Not!in$ as (entioned a%out actual p!#sical force used onaccused. $' . . .

Bac4s testi(on# t!at appellant as t!e (an !e c!ased contravenes t!e contention t!at appellasleepin$ one ar(s len$t! aa# fro( t!e victi(= t!at appellant as onl# aa4ened %# s!ouso(e%od# as s!ot= and t!at !e sta#ed at t!e cri(e scene for a ti(e durin$ t!e investi$ation. 2ot!e denial is directl# contravened %# !is confession t!at !e s!ot t!e victi(



e !old t!at appellants confession as properl# ad(itted %# t!e trial court as part of t!e prosecutionevidence.

Second 2ssue0 e!ense o! ?-libi? vs. Positive 2denti!ication

)!e defense ar$ues t!at, alt!ou$! ali%i is t!e ea4est defense, easil# fa%ricated and concocted,nevert!eless is $ains stren$t! !en t!ere is dou%t as to t!e identit# of t!e suspect. Alt!ou$! appellantad(itted t!at !e as sleepin$ ne3t to t!e victi( !en t!e latter as s!ot, !e clai(s t!at itness Bec4

could not !ave seen t!e face of t!e person runnin$ aa# fro( t!e cri(e scene since it as still dar4 att!at ti(e. Bec4 !ad 5ust aa4ened, so it ould !ave ta4en so(e ti(e %efore !is e#es could !avead5usted. )!us, t!e defense speculates t!at t!e identification of appellant %# Bec4 as coac!ed andsu$$ested %# t!e investi$ators !o fetc!ed !i( and prepared !is second state(ent.

)!ese ar$u(ents do not inspire %elief. Bec4 clai(ed t!at !e sa appellant runnin$ aa# fro( t!e sceneof t!e s!ootin$. In anser to t!e trial 5ud$es clarificator# &uestions durin$ t!e cross-e3a(ination, t!eitness replied t!at, !en !e opened !is e#es after !earin$ t!e $un report, !e sa a person !oi((ediatel# ran aa#. $5 Bec4 testified t!at !e as appellants face !ile c!asin$ t!e latter, alt!ou$! !edid not catc! up it! appellant. $6 )!erefore, fro( t!e ti(e !e as aa4ened until t!e lost t!e appellantdurin$ t!e c!ase, Bec4 sa appellants face. Su%se&uentl#, in open court, !e pointed to appellant as t!e(an !e !ad c!ased. )!is fact as not lost on t!e defense= t!us, t!e defense clai(ed t!at, considerin$ t!eti(e of t!e incident ;10 to 107 a.(. in (id-April<, t!ere ould !ave %een insufficient da#li$!t to

per(it clear and positive identification of t!e culprit %# t!e itness.

)!e defense clai(s t!at t!is ea4 identification %# Bec4 stren$t!ened appellants ali%i, !ic! isactuall# and (ore accuratel# a denial in vie of appellants ad(ission t!at !e as at t!e scene of t!ecri(e. 6oever, $ivin$ it a different na(e does not increase its pro%ative value. A denial, li4e ot!er defenses, re(ains su%5ect to t!e stren$t! of t!e prosecution evidence !ic! is independentl# assessed.!en t!e evidence for t!e prosecution convincin$l# connects t!e cri(e and t!e culprit, t!e pro%ativevalue of t!e denial is ne$li$i%le. Ot!erise, credi%ilit# of testi(onies and t!eir evidentiar# ei$!t co(einto pla#. )!e ell-settled rule is t!at t!e assess(ent %# t!e trial court of credi%ilit# and ei$!t of evidence is accorded t!e !i$!est respect and ill not %e distur%ed on appeal in t!e a%sence of an# clear s!oin$ t!at t!e trial court overloo4ed, (isunderstood or (isapplied so(e facts or circu(stances of

su%stance !ic! ould !ave affected t!e result of t!e case.

t!e denial is directl# contravened %# !is confession t!at !e s!ot t!e victi(.

In li$!t of t!is confession, t!e denial is actuall# a %elated retraction of said confession. )!e rule 5urisdiction is t!at repudiation and recantation of confessions !ic! !ave %een o%tained in acco

it! t!e Constitution are loo4ed upon it! disfavor as unrelia%le. $+ )!e# !ave ne$li$i%le prei$!t.

)!us, e a$ree it! t!e trial court t!at appellants denial is totall# unconvincin$. Appuncorro%orated testi(on# is0 ;'< t!at !e 5ust !appened to %e asleep at t!e terrace of t!e !is4e#

t!at appellant !o resided near%#, for no e3plaina%le reason, elected to sleep on t!e sa(e vdurin$ t!e ver# sa(e ni$!t t!at t!e victi( as s!ot= ;7< t!at !e as aa4ened onl# %# t!e s!ou

people and not %# t!e sound of t!e $uns!ot= ;:< and finall#, t!at !e sta#ed at t!e scene of t!e cra%out 7 (inutes it!out an#%od# noticin$ t!at !e as t!ere at all. $8

Third 2ssue0 -lleged >earsay 'vidence

)!e defense clai(s t!at t!e identification of appellant as !earsa# %ecause appellants na(alle$edl# $iven to itness Bec4 %# a certain Eduardo /a$onton !o, !oever, as not presenitness. e cannot sustain t!is. )!e fact re(ains t!at itness Bec4 as a%le to identif# appelopen court %ecause !e !ad seen t!e latters face t!at fateful ni$!t. $( !ile Bec4 (a# not !ave 4nna(e of t!e appellant, !e as certain a%out t!e latters identit#. Indeed, appellants na(e !isupplied %# anot!er person to itness Bec4 (a# %e considered !earsa#= %ut appellants identit#

t!e said itness personall# 4ne is not.

Fourth 2ssue0 ';istence o! %onspiracy

)!e defense raises t!is issue it!out ela%oratin$ furt!er or offerin$ an# evidence in support t!ere

e are not persuaded. In fact, t!e conspirac# %eteen appellant and !is co-accused appears indu)!e decision of t!e trial court states t!at0

*ro( relia%le infor(ation received %# S$t. Bolina and ot!er police(en, t!e# learned t!e identit#ot!er suspects, na(el#0 *rancisco Di(alanta and A(ado Alcala. *ro( unconfir(ed reports t!eseDi(alanta and Alcala;,< participated in t!e 4illin$ of Dionisio oa&uin. )!e confession ofconfir(ed t!at indeed Di(alanta and Alcala ere !is co-conspirators.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

333 333 333

In t!e confession of Nico(edes *a%ro !e narrated !o *rancisco Di(alanta offered !i( P',. to4ill a (an, !o t!e $un as $iven !i( and !o t!e# o%served t!e (ove(ents of t!e victi( to t!e ti(e

)!at t!e cri(e as co((itted in consideration of a price !as %een satisfactoril# s!on %# appconfession. *ro( t!e confession also, evident pre(editation is (anifest fro( t!e fact t!at on A'@?, appellant as approac!ed and !ired %# Di(alanta to 4ill t!e victi(= t!at t!e appellant clundeter(ination to 4ill t!e victi( even after an unsuccessful first atte(pt on April '', '@? at t!e



4ill a (an, !o t!e $un as $iven !i( and !o t!e# o%served t!e (ove(ents of t!e victi( to t!e ti(eof t!e 4illin$. !ile Nico(edes *a%ro did t!e actual s!ootin$, accused Alcala and Di(alanta ere present aaitin$ t!e outco(e of t!e s!ootin$. '0

)!e said decision furt!er ela%orates0

)!e confession of Di(alanta coincided in all (aterial points it! t!e confession of *a%ro. Di(alantanarrated !o !e as pro(ised t!e a(ount of P',. %# a certain Bill 6o$e and !o !e as paidP1,. initial pa#(ent as s!ared %# t!e t!ree accused. '1

)!e acts of t!e accused s!o t!at t!e# ere ani(ated %# t!e sa(e purpose and ere united in t!eir e3ecution. !en, %# t!eir acts, to or (ore persons proceed toard t!e acco(plis!(ent of t!e sa(eunlaful o%5ect eac! doin$ a part so t!at t!eir acts t!ou$! apparentl# independent ere in factconnected, indicatin$ a closeness of for(al association and a concurrence of senti(ent conspirac#(a# %e inferred. '2

*ro( appellants confession, it is clear t!at Di(alanta offered !i( (one# to 4ill oa&uin= t!at, to$et!er it! Alcala, t!e# o%served t!e (ove(ents of t!e victi(= t!at prior to t!e s!ootin$, t!e# !ad atte(ptedto 4ill t!e victi( at t!e D E *ast *ood /estaurant= and t!at at t!e ti(e of t!e s!ootin$, on April '+,'@?, Di(alanta and Alcala ere at or near t!e scene of t!e cri(e, actin$ as loo4outs and aaitin$ t!eoutco(e of t!e 4illin$. '$

-ggravating %ircumstances

)!e trial court !eld t!at t!e folloin$ circu(stances attended t!e 4illin$0

'. )!e cri(e as co((itted in consideration of a price. Di(alanta as pro(ised P',. %# 6opeto loo4 for a 4iller. P1,. as actuall# paid. In turn Di(alanta secured t!e services of t!etri$$er(an, *a%ro in e3c!an$e for (one#. Alcala as paid for !is participation in t!e plan.

+. it! evident pre(editation, t!e accused directl# ai(in$ t!e $un at a ; sic< close ran$e= and

7. )reac!er#, %# s!ootin$ t!e !elpless victi( !ile asleep to insure its e3ecution it!out ris4 to t!e4iller. ''

p p ,*ast *ood /estaurant= and t!at a sufficient lapse of ti(e !ad passed $ivin$ t!e appellant a c!reflect upon t!e conse&uences of !is act.

In .S . vs. Manalinde, '5 t!e Court !eld t!at t!e a$$ravatin$ circu(stances of evident pre(editatoffer of (one#, reard or pro(ise are not inco(pati%le and (a# %e appreciated to$et!er, oneindependent of t!e ot!er.

)reac!er# is s!on %# t!e fact t!at appellant, after several da#s of o%servin$ t!e (ove(ents

victi(, s!ot t!e latter !ile !e as asleep. '6 )!e (eans of e3ecution ;'< $ave t!e person attacopportunit# to defend !i(self or to retaliate= and ;+< s!oed t!at suc! (et!od as deli%era

consciousl# adopted. '+

Alt!ou$! all t!ree circu(stances ;price, pre(editation and treac!er#< ere proven, onl# one appreciated to &ualif# t!e 4illin$ to (urder and t!e to ot!ers can %e used onl# as $eneric a$$rcircu(stances.

6oever, t!e (iti$atin$ circu(stance of voluntar# surrender s!ould also %e appreciated in appfavor, as !e surrender to t!e CIS in Ca(p 2a&uina#a on April '7, '@?, t!us, offsettin$ one $a$$ravatin$ circu(stance. Accordin$l#, t!e proper penalt# is reclusion perpetua.

6E/E*O/E, t!e assailed Decision is !ere%# A**I/2ED it! sli$!t (odification, i.e., t!e ind

is INC/EASED to P1,. in line it! current 5urisprudence. '8

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



ONSTI II !S"c. 11

*I/S) DIVISION

G.R. No. 10(1'$ Oco"r 11, 2000

sa inyo layunin ng sulat 0ong ito upang ipahi)atig sa yo na ang pa0i0iba0a pang 0ala

pa0i0iba0a ay humihingi ng tulong sa iyo Tay ?'rning? Siguro alam mo na amg aming pa0ay la

aming pangangailangan pinansyal upang magamit sa 0ilusan bigyan mo po 0ami ng halagang A

at ito po ang aming inaasahan ?o0ey? inaasahan 0o po at maghihintay 0ami doon sa 0abila



PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.PERO G. TALIMAN, *ASILIO M. *AY*AYAN, AMAO *. *ELANO, ANILO O*ENIAa34 RUFINO :ALERA, 9R., accused,PERO G. TALIMAN, *ASILIO M. *AY*AYAN a34 AMAO *. *ELANO, accused-appellants.

D E C I S I O N

PARO, J.:

)!e case is an appeal fro( t!e decision of t!e /e$ional )rial Court, Ca(arines Norte, Branc! :,Daet' findin$ accused Pedro )ali(an, Basilio Ba#%a#an and A(ado Belano $uilt# %e#ond reasona%ledou%t of (urder, sentencin$ eac! of t!e( to reclusion perpetuaand orderin$ t!e( to pa# t!e !eirs of t!e victi(, /enato Cuano, inde(nit# of fift# t!ousand pesos ;P1,.<, funeral e3penses of tent!ousand pesos ;P',.< and actual da(a$es for unrealiKed inco(e in t!e a(ount of one (illion

fort# si3 t!ousand pesos ;P',:>,.<. )!e trial court also ordered t!at alias arrants of arrest %eissued a$ainst accused Danilo O%enia and /ufino Valera, r. !o are at lar$e. +

e state t!e facts.

)!e victi( as /enato Cuano ;!ereinafter referred to as /enato<. Prosecution itness Ernesto acson

;!ereinafter referred to as acson< as t!e uncle and e(plo#er of /enato, !o as t!e careta4er of !is $ravel and sand truc4 .7

On ul# +', ', /enato ca(e to see acson and infor(ed !i( t!at ar(ed and !ooded persons : ereas4in$ for (one# a(ountin$ to si3 t!ousand pesos ;P>,.<. )!e a(ount as reduced to si3 !undred pesos ;P>.< and finall# to to !undred pesos ;P+.<.1

On ul# ++, ', acson arrived !o(e fro( c!urc!. 6is ife !anded !i( a letter delivered to !er %# ac!ild. In t!e letter, purportedl# (e(%ers of t!e N.P.A. de(anded ei$!t t!ousand pesos ; P@,.< fro(!i(.> e &uote t!e letter0?

?Sayo TaTay 'rning

?#ebolusyonaryong pagbati sa yo@

papuntang nalisbitan dalhin mo ang ?:eep? mo iyan ang aming palatandaan alas C3 p"m" Ju

inaasahan po namin ang iyong pa0i0ipa0aupira at inaasahan po namin na )alang ibang ma0a0

?60ey salamat sigi po maghihintay 0ami alas C3 mamaya"

?M'L%6 $#6P

?K- B67$

?M-B>-= -7$ 7"P"-"?

On t!e sa(e da#, at around ei$!t o"cloc4 in t!e (ornin$ ;@0 a. (.<, acson instructed /enato!is passen$er 5eep and to proceed to !is $old field in Nalis%itan to $et !is collecti%les fro( t!)!is as t!e last ti(e acson sa /enato alive.@

Also on t!e sa(e da#, acson told !is e(plo#ee, prosecution itness EliKer O%re$on ;!erreferred to as EliKer<, to $o to t!e crossin$ of Nalis%itan, ' t!e place (entioned in t!e linvesti$ate !o t!e persons de(andin$ (one# ere.''

EliKer co(plied and reac!ed t!e place at around five o"cloc4 in t!e afternoon ;10 p.(.< of t!da#.

Upon reac!in$ t!e place, EliKer sa /enato and spo4e it! !i(. In t!e vicinit#, EliKer sa aBasilio Ba#%a#an, Pedro )ali(an and A(ado Belano. At t!at ti(e, accused S$t. Pedro )ali(C'C Basilio 2. Ba#%a#an ere (e(%ers of t!e Ca(arines Norte Consta%ular#LInte$rated NPolice Co((and.'+ EliKer sa to ot!er civilians in t!eir co(pan#.'7

EliKer t!en sa accused Pedro )ali(an and Basilio Ba#%a#an ta4e /enato ': to a !illtop, !ere$uarded %# accused !o ere ar(ed. EliKer !eard one of t!e accused sa# t!at /enato (ust %e t!e (ust %e actin$ as a loo4out ;for acson<.'1

EliKer t!en proceeded to Ba$on$ Silan$ and reported to acson t!at /enato as ta4en %# accuse)ali(an, Basilio Ba#%a#an and A(ado Belano.

A custodial investi$ation as conducted.ONSTI II !S"c. 11

On ul# +7, ', Attorne# Nicolas V. Pardo as (a#or of a%o, Ca(arines Norte. 6e ent to t!e police station upon invitation of police corporal Cereno to assist accused durin$ t!eir custodialinvesti$ation. '> Accused e3ecuted e3tra-5udicial state(ents, confessin$ to t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e.

On *e%ruar# +>, '', accused Pedro H. )ali(an, Basilio 2. Ba#%a#an and A(ado B. Belanarrai$ned. )!e# pleaded not $uilt#.+7 Accused Danilo O%enia+: and /ufino Valero, r. arrai$ned %ecause t!e# re(ained at lar$e.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_109143_2000.html#fnt1


















































It as durin$ t!is custodial investi$ation t!at accused Basilio Ba#%a#in confessed to prosecutionitness S$t. Bonifacio Ar$arin t!at !e participated in t!e 4illin$ of /enato %ecause /enato did not $ivet!e( t!e (one# t!e# ere de(andin$. )!is confession as $iven it!out t!e assistance of counsel and

as not reduced to ritin$.'?

On ul# +7, ', police aut!orities, acco(panied %# accused Basilio Ba#%a#an ent to t!e placeindicated in a s4etc! prepared %# accused Pedro )ali(an.'@ It as in t!e place indicated t!at t!e# foundt!e cadaver of /enato.' )!is as t!e sa(e place or !illtop !ere prosecution itness EliKer sa

/enato %ein$ $uarded.+

On ul# +:, ', a (edical officer of a%o, Ca(arines Norte issued a certificate of deat! of /enatoacson Cuao, statin$ as cause of deat!, t!e folloin$0+'

I((ediate cause 0 a. Irreversi%le s!oc4 due to (assive !e(orr!a$es

Antecedent cause 0 %. Internal and E3ternal secondar# to

Underl#in$ cause 0 c. Huns!ot ound and (ultiple sta% ounds.

On Dece(%er '@, ', Provincial Prosecutor Pascualita Duran-Cereno filed it! t!e /e$ional )rialCourt, Ca(arines Norte an infor(ation for (urder a$ainst accused Pedro )ali(an, Basilio Ba#%a#an,

A(ado Belano, Danilo O%enia and /ufino Valera, r. alle$in$0

)!at on or a%out 10 o"cloc4 in t!e afternoon of ul# ++, ', at Crossin$ of sitio 2alis%itan, Br$#.E3i%en, (unicipalit# of a%o, province of Ca(arines Norte, P!ilippines, and it!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!is 6onora%le Court, t!e a%ove-na(ed accused, conspirin$, confederatin$ to$et!er and (utuall#!elpin$ one anot!er, did t!en and t!ere illfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl#, it! deli%erate intent to4ill, it! treac!er#, evident pre(editation and ta4in$ advanta$e of superior stren$t!, assault, attac4, sta%and s!oot one /ENA)O CUAWO alias APOM, t!ere%# inflictin$ upon t!e latter $uns!ot ound and(ultiple sta% ounds on t!e different parts of !is %od#, and !ic! in5uries ere t!e pro3i(ate cause of t!e deat! of said /enato Cuano alias apo#, to t!e da(a$e and pre5udice of t!e !eirs of t!e victi(.

CON)/A/M )O A.++

On 2arc! +', '', accused aived t!e pre-trial conference+1 and trial ensued.+>

On 2a# +, '+, t!e trial court declared t!e case su%(itted for decision.+?

On Septe(%er +:, '+, t!e trial court rendered a decision, t!e decretal portion of !ic! provide

6E/E*O/E, in vie of t!e fore$oin$, t!e accused Pedro )ali(an, Basilio Ba#%a#an and Delano are all found $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of t!e cri(e of 2urder as c!ar$ed, and are

eac! sentence ; sic< to suffer t!e penalt# of reclusion perpetua ;or life i(prison(ent< ; sic<. )!e are furt!er(ore 5ointl# and severall# ordered to pa# t!e !eirs of t!e victi( for !is deat! t!e a(ofift# t!ousand pesos ;P1,.< and for funeral e3penses t!e a(ount of ten t!ousand ;P', pesos, and considerin$ t!at t!e deceased victi( as onl# +? #ears old !en 4illed and appl#for(ula ;+L7 3 8@-+?9 - life e3pectanc# of t!e A(erican )a%le of 2ortalit#, said deceased vicstill :: #ears (ore to live ere !e not 4illed %# t!e accused. )!erefore, since !e as e(plo#receivin$ (ont!l# salar# of P+,. !is unrealiKed inco(e for t!e :: (ore #ears of is P',:>,. for !ic! t!e accused li4eise are 5ointl# and severall# ordered to pa#.

Considerin$ t!at accused Danilo O%enis and /ufino Valera, r., are still at lar$e, let an alias aArrest %e issued a$ainst t!e(. In t!e (eanti(e, let t!e records of t!e case %e arc!ived and reinssoon as t!e# are appre!ended.

SO O/DE/ED.+@

On Octo%er +@, '+, t!e decision as pro(ul$ated.+ 6oever, accused Basilio 2. Ba#%a#an present,7 despite due notice.7'

On Octo%er 7, '+, t!e trial court issued a arrant for t!e arrest of accused BasBa#%a#an.7+ )!e arrant of arrest as returned unserved as !e could not %e found.77

On Nove(%er '', '+, accused Pedro H. )ali(an filed a notice of appeal it! t!e trial court .7:

On 2a# +>, '7, e resolved to accept t!e appeal.71

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

e state at t!e onset t!at !ile counsel for accused represents all five accused in t!is appeal, t!e %enefitof t!is appeal is onl# accorded accused-appellants Pedro H. )ali(an, Basilio 2. Ba#%a#an 7> and A(adoB. Belano.

7?

If in t!e aforecited cases, e disre$arded t!e e3tra-5udicial state(ents of t!e accused, !o (uc(ust e do so no, $iven t!at it as t!e (a#or !i(self, and not 5ust t!e provincial attorneassisted accused-appellantsQ

:7




















































)!e ot!er to accused Danilo O%enia and /ufino Valera, r., ere not arrai$ned.7? )!us, t!e trial courtdid not ac&uire 5urisdiction over t!eir persons.

)!e rule on trial in absentia cannot appl# to Danilo O%enia and /ufino Valera, r. In People v"

Salas,7@ t!e Court declared t!at one of t!e re&uisites for trial to proceed in absentia is t!at t!e accused!ad %een arrai$ned.

No, t!e (erits.

Accused-appellants su%(it t!at t!e e3tra-5udicial confessions on !ic! t!e trial court relied ereinad(issi%le in evidence %ecause t!e# ere o%tained in violation of t!eir constitutional ri$!ts. 7 ea$ree it! accused-appellants on t!is point. )!e e3tra-5udicial state(ents alone cannot %e a %asis for conviction.

Article III, Section '+ ;'< of t!e Constitution provides0

An# person under custodial investi$ation for t!e co((ission of an offense s!all !ave t!e ri$!t to %einfor(ed of !is ri$!t to re(ain silent and to !ave co(petent and independent counsel prefera%l# of !ison c!oice. If t!e person cannot afford t!e services of counsel, !e (ust %e provided it! one. )!eseri$!ts cannot %e aivede3cept in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel ;underscoring ours<.

2a#or Pardo cannot %e considered as an independent counsel for accused durin$ t!eir custodialinvesti$ation.

In People v" %ulala,: e !eld t!at t!e e3tra-5udicial confession of t!e accused-appellant asinad(issi%le as !e as assisted %# t!e incu(%ent (unicipal attorne#. In People vs" Bandula,:' e !eldt!at a (unicipal attorne# could not %e an independent counsel as re&uired %# t!e Constitution. ereasoned t!at as le$al officer of t!e (unicipalit#, !e provides le$al assistance and support to t!e (a#or and t!e (unicipalit# in carr#in$ out t!e deliver# of %asic services to t!e people, includin$ t!e(aintenance of peace and order. It is t!erefore seriousl# dou%ted !et!er !e can effectivel# underta4et!e defense of t!e accused it!out runnin$ into conflict of interests.

Besides, la#ers en$a$ed %# t!e police, !atever testi(onials are $iven as proof of t!eir pro%it# andsupposed independence, are suspects. In (an# areas, even less o%vious t!an t!at o%tainin$ in t!e presentcase, t!e relations!ip %eteen la#ers and la enforce(ent aut!orities can %e s#(%iotic.:+

Even assu(in$ t!at t!e ri$!t to counsel as orall# aived durin$ custodial investi$ation,:7 defect as not cured. )!e Constitution e3pressl# provides t!at t!e aiver (ust %e in ritin$ an presence of counsel.::)!is, accused-appellants did not do.

6oever, !ile e a$ree t!at t!e e3tra-5udicial state(ents of t!e accused are inad(issi%le in eve find t!at t!ere is still sufficient evidence to convict.

!ile no one sa t!e actual 4illin$ of /enato, circu(stantial evidence proved its co((ission. /

circu(stantial evidence is essential, !en to insist on direct testi(on# ould set felons free.:1

/ule '77, Section : of t!e '@ /evised /ules on Evidence provides0:>

SEC. :. Circu(stantial evidence, !en sufficient - Circu(stantial evidence is sufficient for conif0

;a< )!ere is (ore t!an one circu(stance=

;%< )!e facts fro( !ic! t!e inferences are derived are proven= and

;c< )!e co(%ination of all t!e circu(stances is suc! as to produce conviction %e#ond reasdou%t.

In t!e present case, e find t!e folloin$ circu(stances attendant0

Fr, /enato as last seen alive in t!e co(pan# of accused-appellants. )!is as t!e su%staEliKer"s testi(on#. )!e trial court did not find reason not to %elieve !i(. Neit!er do e.

It is t!e trial court and not t!is Court t!at !ad t!e opportunit# to o%serve EliKer"s (anner of test!is furtive $lances, !is cal(ness, si$!s or t!e scant or full realiKation of !is oat!. :? )!e trialassess(ent of t!e credi%ilit# of itnesses is entitled to respect.:@

S"co34, accused-appellants, to ot!er civilians, /enato and EliKer ere t!e onl# persons presen Nalis%itan crossin$, on ul# ++, ', at five o"cloc4 in t!e afternoon. )!e place and t!e tsi$nificant. )!is as t!e ver# place, t!e ver# date and (ore or less t!e ti(e of da# indicated in t!

of de(and t!at acson received.

:

!ile /enato"s and EliKer"s presence in t!e area as e3plainONSTI II !S"c. 11

presence of accused-appellants in t!at area and durin$ t!at crucial ti(e can %e onl# e3plained %# t!efact t!at accused-appellants ere t!e ver# ones de(andin$ (one# fro( acson.

*acts or circu(stances !ic! are not onl# consistent it! t!e $uilt of t!e accused %ut also inconsistentit! !i i tit t id !i ! i i !t d % ti f di t

333

a. I sa, sir, /enato Cuao as ta4en %# 2r. )ali(an and Belano, sir.



































it! !is innocence, constitute evidence !ic!, in ei$!t and pro%ative force, (a# surpass even directevidence in its effect upon t!e court.1

Thr4, (otive is apparent. /enato as first approac!ed %# accused-appellants it! an oral de(and./enato rela#ed t!e de(and to acson.1'

)!e oral de(and as folloed up it! a ritten de(and.1+

!en /enato passed t!rou$! t!e Nalis%itan crossin$, !e as drivin$ acson"s 5eepne#. )!is as t!ever# 5eepne# indicated in t!e letter. )!e letter instructed acson to %rin$ (one# and to drive a specific 5eepne# to Nalis%itan. Met, !en accused-appellants confronted /enato, !e did not !ave t!e (one# t!e#de(anded.

)!e fact t!at /enato as t!e driver of t!e 5eepne# indicated in t!e letter can e3plain accused-appellants"reason for 4illin$ !i(.

)!is conclusion is supported %# EliKer"s testi(on#.1()phi1 e &uote t!e pertinent portions017

&. No, #ou said #ou ere re&uested %# 2r. acson to proceed to t!at crossin$ of Nalis%itan for #ou tosee t!e person !o as de(andin$ (one# and identified t!e(selves as (e(%ers of NPA. ere #oua%le to $o to t!at placeQ

a. Mes, sir.

&. !at ti(e as t!atQ

a. I reac!ed t!e place (ore or less 10 o"cloc4 in t!e afternoon of t!at sa(e date ul# ++, ', sir.

&. !at did #ou do !en #ou reac!ed t!at Nalis%itan Crossin$Q

a. Upon reac!in$ t!e place at t!e crossin$ of Nalis%itan I !ave tal4ed it! /enato Cuao !o as4ed

!ere I as $oin$. I !ave not confided to !i( t!at I as doin$ surveillance or4 on t!e personde(andin$ (one# fro( Ernesto acson and so I proceeded. I al4ed and upon reac!in$ a point I !aveseen Basilio Na#%a#an in t!e co(pan# of to ;+< civilians and I continued it! (# al4 and a!ead of

t!e( I sa 2r. )ali(an it! Belano and I did not notice t!at I as folloed %# 2r. /enato Cuao.

333

&. No, !en #ou $o %ac4 ta4in$ t!e sa(e route !at did #ou see if an#Q

a. !en I as on (# a# %ac4 ta4in$ t!e sa(e route (# a# as %loc4ed %# Belano and )acco(panied %# civilian and in&uired fro( (e !et!er I as t!e driver of t!e 5eep.

&. !at as #our anser if an#Q

a. I denied %ein$ t!e driver of t!e 5eep, sir.

&. !# did #ou den# %ein$ t!e driver of t!e 5eepQ

a. I denied %ein$ t!e driver of t!e 5eep %ecause I sa alread# /enato Cuao on top of t!e !ill o$uarded %# Ba#%a#an it! a ccivilian in t!eir co(pan#, sir.

333

&. )!e &uestion of t!is Court is !# did #ou sa# t!at t!is /enato Cuao is %ein$ $uardedQ

a. )!e# are $uardin$ /enato Cuao, sir, %ecause t!at is t!e person t!e# !ave conferred it! to

t!e# !ave rela#ed t!e de(and of (one# and !e is t!e driver of t!e 5eep. 6e is t!e one !o prete %e t!e driver of t!e 5eep.

333

&. No, !en A(ado Belano as4ed #ou !et!er #ou 4no /enato Cuao and #ou denied it, !did A(ado Belano as4 #ou if an#Q

a. A(ado Belano furt!er (ade a state(ent t!at it is %etter for t!e( to ta4e alon$ t!at (an, refer/enato Cuao, %ecause /enato Cuao (i$!t %e actin$ as a loo4out.

)!e letter 1: provided t!at no one else s!ould 4no11 a%out t!e de(and. )!us, /enato"s pould naturall# alar( accused-appellants.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

2otive is a 4e# ele(ent !en esta%lis!in$ $uilt t!rou$! circu(stantial evidence. 1> Coupled it!enou$! circu(stantial evidence or facts fro( !ic! it (a# %e reasona%l# inferred t!at t!e accused ast!e (alefactor, (otive (a# %e sufficient to support a conviction.1?

Fo-rh /enato"s corpse as discovered in t!e sa(e place !ere !e as !eld and $uarded %# accused

/HEREFORE, t!e decision of t!e /e$ional )rial Court, Ca(arines Norte, Branc! :, DaetSepte(%er +:, '+ is A**I/2ED it! 2ODI*ICA)ION. Accused-appellants Pedro H. )aBasilio 2. Ba#%a#a% and A(ado B. Belano are found $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of 6O2defined and penaliKed under Article +: of t!e /evised Penal Code, and in t!e a%sence (odif#in$ circu(stance are sentenced to an indeter(inate penalt# of ten ;'< #ears of prision






















Fo-rh, /enato s corpse as discovered in t!e sa(e place !ere !e as !eld and $uarded %# accused-appellants.1@

F?h is t!e facts of deat! of /enato, !ic! is t!e corpus delicti of t!e cri(e.

6oever, !ile /enato"s deat! in t!e !ands of accused-appellants as proven, e find t!at the manner

o! 0illing as not so evidenced. )!ere as no s!oin$ of treac!er#.

)reac!er# e3ists !en t!e accused e(plo#s (eans, (et!ods, and for(s !ic! directl# and speciall#ensure its e3ecution, it!out ris4 to !i(self arisin$ fro( t!e defense !ic! t!e offended part# (i$!t(a4e.1 )reac!er#, li4e t!e cri(e itself, (ust %e proved %e#ond reasona%le dou%t.>

In t!e a%sence of proof as to !o t!e 4illin$ as perpetrated, t!e cri(e co((itted as !o(icide.>'

)!e i(posa%le penalt# for !o(icide is reclusion temporal . In t!e a%sence of an# (iti$atin$ or a$$ravatin$ circu(stances, t!e penalt# is i(posed in its (ediu( period. >+ )!e Indeter(inate Sentencea applies.

)!e trial court aarded t!e !eirs of /enato Cuao one (illion fort# si3 t!ousand pesos ;P',:>,.<as actual da(a$es for unrealiKed inco(e. e delete t!is aard as it is not supported %# receipts. )!etesti(on# of /enato"s fat!er as to !o (uc! /enato as earnin$ at t!e ti(e of !is deat! is self-servin$

and !earsa#.

)!e trial court"s aard of actual da(a$es for funeral e3penses in t!e a(ount of ten t!ousand;P',.< pesos is li4eise deleted. )!e clai( is not supported %# an# receipt. )!e rule is t!at ever# pecuniar# loss (ust %e esta%lis!ed %# credi%le evidence %efore it (a# %e aarded.>7

An aard of (oral da(a$es in t!e a(ount of fift# t!ousand pesos ;P1,.< is proper .>: /enato"sfat!er testified t!at %ecause of !is son"s deat!, !e felt $reat pain and !is ife suffered so(e sleeplessni$!ts and cried for several da#s.>1

)!e trial court"s aard of fift# t!ousand pesos ;P1,.< as civil inde(nit# for ron$ful deat! isaffir(ed. )!is can %e aarded it!out need of proof ot!er t!an t!e deat! of t!e victi(.>>

(odif#in$ circu(stance, are sentenced to an indeter(inate penalt# of ten ;'< #ears of prision

as (ini(u(, to seventeen ;'?< #ears and four ;:< (ont!s of reclusion temporal, as (a3i(u(.

Accused-appellants are 5ointl# and severall# ordered to pa# t!e !eirs of /enato Cuao, (oral din t!e a(ount of fift# t!ousand pesos ;P1,.< and civil inde(nit# in t!e a(ount of fift# t! pesos ;P1,.<. )!e aard of actual da(a$es for funeral e3penses and unrealiKed incDEE)ED.

)!e case is arc!ived as to accused Danilo O%enis and /ufino Valera, r., until t!eir arresu%(ission to t!e 5urisdiction of t!e trial court.

Costs a$ainst accused-appellants.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11























ONSTI II !S"c. 11

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1$$188 9-) 2$, 200'

As presented %# t!e prosecution, t!e facts are as follos0

At around ''0 in t!e evenin$ of Dece(%er ':, '>, appellant EliKar )o(a&uin X 6apon, tit! /ico and /o(# 2a$dasal Noel a%a# and a certain Cardo ere drin4in$ /ed 6orse



PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, appellee,vs.ELIZAR TOMA;UIN, appellant.

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA#MARTINEZ, J .7

Once a$ain, t!e Court is confronted it! t!e issue of t!e ad(issi%ilit# of an e3tra5udicial confession.)!is appeal particularl# involves t!e &uestion of !et!er a barangay captain !o is a la#er can %econsidered an independent counsel it!in t!e purvie of Section '+, Article III of t!e '@?Constitution.

On Dece(%er '?, '>, t!e Ce%u Cit# Prosecutor filed an Infor(ation c!ar$in$ appellant it! 2urder,co((itted as follos0

)!at on or a%out t!e '1t! da# of Dece(%er, '>, a%out +07 a.(., in t!e Cit# of Ce%u, P!ilippines, andit!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!is 6onora%le Court, t!e said accused, ar(ed it! a %laded instru(ent ;tres

cantos<, it! deli%erate intent, it! intent to 4ill, it! treac!er# and evident pre(editation, did t!en andt!ere suddenl# and une3pectedl# attac4, assault and use personal violence upon one a&uel#n uc!aveK

)ato#, %# sta%%in$ !er it! said %laded instru(ent, !ittin$ !er on t!e vital parts of !er %od#, t!ere%#inflictin$ upon !er p!#sical in5uries causin$0

CA/DIO /ESPI/A)O/M A//ES) DUE )O S6OCR 6E2O//6AHE SEC. )O S)ABOUNDS )O )6E )/UNR ;POS)E/IO/ ASPEC)<

as a conse&uence of !ic!, a&uel#n uc!aveK )ato# died al(ost instantaneousl#.

CON)/A/M )O A.'

On arrai$n(ent, appellant pleaded not $uilt# to t!e c!ar$e,+ and trial t!ereafter ensued.

)!ere ere no e#eitnesses to t!e incident, and t!e prosecution"s evidence, aside fro( appellant"s

e3tra5udicial confession, as (ainl# circu(stantial.

it! /ico and /o(# 2a$dasal, Noel a%a#, and a certain Cardo, ere drin4in$ /ed 6orse Ito( Muta, ore$a, Ce%u Cit#. Appellant left t!e $roup at around '0 in t!e (ornin$, sa#in$ !!eadac!e. At t!e %e!est of /ico 2a$dasal, t!e $roup transferred to ore$a proper. A fe (inutt!e# !eard /ustica Iso$an s!outin$ for !elp as t!e latter !eard a&uel#n7 )ato#, !er $oddau$!terfor !elp. Iso$an $ot to flas!li$!ts and t!e# proceeded upstairs to a&uel#n"s !ouse. )!e first tas a certain 2oises, folloed %# t!e %rot!ers /ico and /o(# 2a$dasal, !ile Noel andre(ained donstairs. /ico noticed t!at t!e !in$e and t!e allin$ of t!e (ain door ere da(aif it ere 4ic4ed open, and onl# t!e li$!t in t!e 4itc!en as turned on. /ico also sa a %lac4 s!oe

stairs and anot!er in t!e sala, !ic! !e clai(s %elon$ to appellant. !en t!e# ent into t!e 4t!e# sa a&uel#n %loodied and spraled face-up on t!e floor, it! !er !ead inside a plastic co

a&uel#n as %rou$!t to t!e !ospital, !ere s!e e3pired. A nei$!%or later found a tres cantos iton it %# t!e stairs, !ic! /ico also identified to %e appellant"s. : A certain /e# $ot t!e %lac4 pair oand tres cantos for safe4eepin$ !ic! ere later turned over to Police(an )ariao of t!e 6oSection, /a(os Police Station. )!e person !o turned over t!e o%5ects to Police(an )ariao identified.1

At around '+0 in t!e afternoon of Dece(%er '1, '>, %aran$a# tanods ulius Mosores and A

a%ate of ore$a, Ce%u Cit#, searc!ed for appellant %ecause of t!e infor(ation $iven %# /ico 2t!at t!e s!oes andtres cantos found in t!e scene of t!e cri(e %elon$ed to appellant. )o$et!er itt!e# ent to t!e !ouse of ilson 2a$dasal !ere appellant as te(poraril# sta#in$, and fousleepin$. Appellant as earin$ a %loodstained maong s!orts. )!e tanods told appellant t!at suspect in t!e 4illin$ of a&uel#n, and %rou$!t !i( to t!e !ouse of barangay captain Att#. *oParaan. )!ere, appellant as as4ed a%out t!e s!irt !e as earin$ and !e told t!e( t!at it ilson 2a$dasal"s !ouse. It as Ed$ar 2a$dasal !o found !is s!irt, et and %loodstained, a(soiled clot!es. Att#. Paraan t!en told !is tanods to ta4e appellant to t!e police station. >

In t!e (ornin$ of t!e ne3t da#, Dece(%er '>, '>, appellant as investi$ated %# SPO+ 2ario 2of t!e 6o(icide Section, /a(os Police Station in Ce%u Cit#. After %ein$ apprised of !is constiri$!ts, appellant told SPO+ 2onilar t!at !e as illin$ to confess and as4ed for Att#. Pat!e barangay captain, to assist !i(. SPO+ 2onilar called Att#. Paraan %ut t!e latter told !i( ill %e availa%le in t!e afternoon. !en Att#. Paraan arrived at +0 in t!e afternoon, !e coit! appellant for around fifteen (inutes. Att#. Paraan t!en called SPO+ 2onilar and told !appellant as read# to $ive !is state(ent.? Appellant"s e3tra5udicial confession, !ic! as ta4eco(pletel# in t!e Ce%uano dialect,@ reads0

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

Pasiuna0 2r. EIA/ )O2AUIN, pa!i%aloon 4o i4a n$a u%os sa aton$ %ata4an$ %alaod;Constitution< aduna 4a# 4atun$od n$a pa!i%aloon sa i(on$ ($a 4atun$od, sa(a sa i(on$ 4atun$od sa pa$pa4a!ilu(, in$on (an duna 4a# 4atun$od sa pa$da($opLpa$pili$ sa a%o$ado o (anlala%an aron(ota%an$ 4ani(o niinin$ (aon$ i(%esti$!as#on n$a (a# 4ala%utan sa 4a(ata#on ni a&ueline )ato#niadton$ ($a alas +07 sa 4aadlaon 4apin 4on$4ulan$ niadton$ petsa '1 sa %ulan sa Dis#e(%ra '>,

A4o ' an#os an$ panui$on, ulitao u$ 4asa(tan$an n$a na$pu#o sa Br$# ore$a proper d4apila#a San /o&ue apan a4o lu(ad n$a ta$a Bo. )un$a, 2oal%oal, Ce%u diin didto ano na4atu$rade si3.

Pan$utana0 Niadton$ 4aadlaon sa petsa '1 sa %ulan sa Dis#e(%re '>, diin 4a (anQ

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/gr_133188_2004.html#fnt1
























$ $ p $ $ $ p # ,didto sa Br$# ore$a proper, Si#udad sa Su$%o. Ron$ u$alin$ dili 4a (a4a-a%ot pa$%a#ad o pa$pan$ita$o a%o$ado aron (ota%an$ 4ani(o 4aron, a4o isip ne$representtar sa Estado (o!ata$ a4on$a%o$ado 4ani(o. Nasa%tan %a 4ini ni(oQ

)u%a$0 OO, nasa%tan 4a an$ a4on$ 4atun$odQ

Pan$utana0 Pa!a%loon 4o usa% i4a n$a su(ala usa% sa aton$ Bata4an$ Balaod, anf$ tanan n$a i(on$

isulti 4aron din!i, (a!i(on$ (a$a(it e%edens#a pa%or o %ato4 4ani(o sa %isan asain$ !us$ado saaton$ nasud. Nasa%tan %e usa% 4ini ni(oQ

)u%a$0 OO, nasa%tan 4o usa% 4anan$ taan.

Pan$utana0 )inuod %a $a#od n$a nasa%tan pa$-a#o ni(o anf (ao ni(on$ ($a 4atun$od u$ anada( 4a %a n$a (oper(a 4aron din!i ti(ail!an sa i(on$ tina-a n$a n$a pa$sa%utQ in$on (an anda( 4a %a sa pa$sulti sa (atuod ala# lain 4on 4ili an$ (atuod la(an$ $a#udQ

)u%a$0 O

)u%a$0 Oo, anda( a4o n$a (pe(ar Sir u$ ania 4aron din!i ai Att# Paraan an$ a(on$ Br$# Captainn$a (ao# a4on$ $iisip n$a a%o$ado n$a a4on$ pinili n$a (ao# (ota%an$ 4ana4o 4aron. Aron sa pa$(atuod, a4o 4inin$ pir(a!an nin$ i4a petsa '> sa %ulan sa Dis#e(%re '>.

. . .

Pan$utana0 Sunlion 4o, anda(a %as a pa$sulti sa (atuod EliKar )o(a&uin 4on dili an$ (atuod la(an$$a#udQ In$on (an anda( 4a %a n$a (odaat sa resulta o linu$dan$an niiniQ

)u%a$0 Oo, anda( $#ud a4o.

Pan$utana0 Pali!o$ isulti an$ i(on$ n$alan inon$ (an an$ tanan n$a circu(stacia o r(a# 4ala(%i$itansa i(on$ pa$4atao, sa i(on$ $rado, i(on$ tra%a!o, i(on$ pinu#-anan u$ u%an paQ

)u%a$0 A4o si EliKar )o(a&uin 4insa na$dala sa %ansa$on o apel#edo sa a4on$ (a(a san$lit dili (an4asado and a4on$ (a(a u$ papa. An$ apel#edo sa a4on$ papa, Ca%a$ui u$ and a4on an$$a 6apon.

$ $ p # ,

)u%a$0 Sa sinu$danan nianan$ ($a ala una 4apin 4on 4ulan$ 4au%a 4o sa pa$-ino( si /ico 2adidito sa Br$# ore$a Proper u$ taodtaod niadto nila4a a4o li%ot sa sitio Ito( )uta u$ da#on sa4a sa %ala# nila ni a&ueline )ato# sa Br$# ore$a nianan$ pa$4a ($a alas +0+ sa petsaL4adlaon a$ii sa a%erto n$a %entana sa a4on$ tu#o sa pa$4aat sa ilan$ colored n$a )V.

Pan$utana0 N$anon$ na4a!ia%o 4a (an na duna sila# )V n$a coloredQ

)u%a$0 Sueto (an 4o 4a# per(i 4o (a$tan-aan sa ilan$ colored )V.

Pan$utana0 Niadton$ nia$i 4a sa ilan$ %entana aron pa$4aat sa ilan$ )V, diin 4a (an punta dere

)u%a$0 Deretso a4o sa (a# la(esa sa ilan$ sala diin didto $i%utan$ ilan$ )V.

Pan$utana0 Na4u!a %a $a#od ni(o anf (aon$ )VQ

)u%a$0 ala, 4a# sa a4on$ pa$-alsa sa a(on$ )V nis#a$it (an si a&ueline )ato# n$a na$!id$a (a# terrace u$ nida$an si#a padulon$ sa 4usina nila u$ di!a-di!a a4on$ si#an$ $insunod, $ila

$idun$$a% (a4ada$!an pinaa$i sa a4on$ tres 4antps n$a !ina$i%an ;Hidtudo ni EliKa ran$ )res n$a na4it-an didto sa pat#an$ laas n$a a&ueline )ato#<.

Pan$utana0 Rapila ni(o dun$$a%a u$ diin (ai$o si a&ueline )ota#Q

)u%a$0 Dili na 4o na4a!inu(do(, in$on (an dili s%a 4o (a4a!inu(do( 4on diin to si#a (ai$o(anada$!an to na4o si#a dun$$a%a $ina(it 4o an$ a4on$ )res 4antos.

Pan$utana0 Haas n$a i(o to si#an$ $idun$$a%, ala %a ni(o pa!i(udsi and i#an$ pa$4ap%ala 4a %a# plano sa pa$ rape 4ani#a niadton$ !i$a#onaQ

)u%a$0 ala $#ud to na4o si#a pa!i(udsi o$ ala $#ud 4o# tu#o sa pa$ rape ni#a. An$ a4o ra $#

tu#o (ao ra $#ud and pa$4aat sa ilan$ )V apan 4a# nisi#a$it (an si#an$ na4aila (an 4a#o si#na!adlo4 4on$ (a!i%a-an sa a4o untan$ pa$4aat sa ilan$ )V, !inun$dan n$a a4o si#an$ $ila$idun$$a% (a4ada$!an.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

Pan$utana0 N$ano$ na4a!i%ao or na4aila 4a (an n$a si a&ueline )ato# ton$ naisi#a$it u$ i(on$$idun$$a%Q

)u%a$0 Duna (a !a#a$ n$a su$a sa ele4tresidad sa ilan$ (a# 4usina.

)u%a$0 ala na a4o# i4adu$an$ pa$sulti ni %a4ion %a !innon. Nao 4ana an$ tanan.

Pan$utana0 Anda( 4a %a pa$per(e niini sa pa$(atuod n$a la# tao n$a na$pu$os, na$!ul$a, nu$ $nate o na$ !adlo4 %a !inoon 4on dili sa i(on$ 4au$alin$on n$a 4a%u%ut-on la(an$.



Pan$utana0 Raila %a ni(on$ daan si a&ueline )ato#Q

)u%a$0 Oo, Sir 4a sa ala pa an$ a(on$ !ita%o per(i (an 4on$ na$tan-aan sa ilan$ )V.

Pan$utana0 6u(an ni( dun$$a%a si a&ueline )ato# unsa (a# sunod ni(on! $i%u!atQ

)u%a$0 Di!an$ sa a4on$ pa$too n$a pata# na si#a, a4o naida$an a$i sa pulta!an n$a a4on$ $isi4aran

da#on 4anao$ su%a# sa !a$dan didto na%i#aan na4o an$ a4on$ sapatos.

Pan$utana0 Diin 4a (an paduion$ da$anQ

)u%a$0 Didto a4o padulon$ sa a4on$ $ipu#a-an sa ilan$ ilson 2a$dasal sa (aon$ Br$#.

Pan$utana0 Un#a unsa (a# sunod ni(on! $i%u!at o$ na!i%a-anQ

)u%a$0 Niadton$ !apon sa petsa '1 sa %ulan sa Dis#e(%re '>, didto# ($a Br$# )anods sa %ala# niilson 2a$dasal diin ila a4on$ $ipan$utaan tali sa (aon$ !ita%o o$ i$o lan a4o nitudlo sa a4on$ !iteSlave s!irt n$a a4on$ $i!u(ulan u$ tu%i$ sa plan$$ana sa tu(on$ n$a (a4u!a an$ (ansa sa du$o n$a pinisi4 sa a4on$ pa$$dun$$a% pata# ni a&ueline )ato#.

Pan$utana0 N$ano u$ unsa (a# dia# 4ala%utan niadton$ (aon$ slaveless !ite s!irt ni(oQ

)u%a$0 2ao na an$ a4on$ $isul-o% di!an$ a4o$ 4aaton unta an$ )V nila ni a&ueline u$ sa i#an$

pa$si#a$it a4o si#an$ $idun$$a%-dun$$a% pata#. ;EliKar Mo(a&uin postivo n$a nitudlo u$ nian$4on sa(aon$ !itel sleve less s!irt<

Pan$utana0 Rini$n nia 4aron din!i n$a sapatos ito( n$a na4u!a didto so !a$dan sa %ala# nila nia&ueline )ato# !u(an si#a na4it-i n$a pata#, unsa (a# i(on$ i4asulti niiniQ

)u%a$0 2ao 4ana an$ a4on$ sapatos n$a na%i#aan didto sa ilan$ !a$dan !u(an sa !ita%o u$ $ain saa4on$ pa$da$an a4on$ napatiran 4adton$ ilan$ container.

Pan$utana0 Sa pa$4a4aron, ala na a4o# ipan$utana 4ani(o. I4a# aduna 4a pa %a# i4asul ti o %a4ion

%a !inoon sa (ao ni(on$ $ipa(a!a#a$ n$a na$lan$4o% sa du!a 4a pa!ina la4ip niinin$ (aon$ pa!inaQ

)u%a$0 Oo, anda( a4o pa$era(. Aron (atuoron 4inin$ tanan 4ini a4on$ per(aa!n nin$ petsaDius#e(%re '>, Si#udad Su$%o, Pilipinas.

On t!e itness stand, appellant did not den# t!at !e !ad a drin4in$ spree it! /ico 2a$dasal anot!er persons. 6is version of t!e incident is t!at it as /ico !o co((itted t!e cri(e and nAppellant testified t!at /ico as4ed !is !elp in stealin$ t!e television set fro( t!e )ato#"s res!en ac&uel#n sa t!e(, s!e ran toards t!e 4itc!en %ut s!e did not reac! it as /ico !ad sta%

on t!e %ac4 it! t!e tres cantos. Appellant clai(s t!at it as /ico !o ons t!e tres cantos, ast!e pair of s!oes, left inside )ato#"s !ouse. Afraid of !at !appened, appellant ent !o(e to 2a$dasal"s !ouse and slept t!ere. 6e as aa4ened t!e ne3t (ornin$ %# barangay tano

Mosores !o 4ic4ed !i(. Mosores also %o3ed and po4ed a $un at !i(. Appellant clai(s t!at /iEd$ar 2a$dasal (altreated !i( in t!e presence of barangay captain Att#. *ortunato Paraan as %rou$!t to t!e latter"s !ouse. 6e as (ade to ad(it co((ittin$ t!e cri(e %ecause /icfa(il# !ile !e is sin$le.'

Appellant also repudiated !is e3tra5udicial confession, sa#in$ t!at Att#. Paraan (erel# as4edsi$n a %lan4 s!eet of paper and in e3c!an$e, Att#. Paraan pro(ised to assist and !elp !i( e3penses.''

After trial, t!e /e$ional )rial Court of Ce%u Cit# ;Branc! '@< ;/)C for %revit#< rendered its deciOcto%er +:, '?, convictin$ appellant of t!e cri(e of 2urder, to it0

6E/E*O/E, in vie of all t!e fore$oin$ considerations, accused EliKar )o(a&uin is found %e#ond reasona%le dou%t of t!e cri(e of 2urder and is !ere%# i(posed t!e penalt# of /ECPE/PE/)UA, it! t!e accessor# penalties of t!e la= to inde(nif# t!e !eirs of a&uel#n )atosu( of P1,. and to pa# t!e costs. )!e accused is, !oever, credited in full durin$ t!e period of !is detention provided !e ill si$nif# in ritin$ t!at !e ill a%ide %# all t!e rure$ulations of t!e penitentiar#.

SO O/DE/ED.'+

6ence, t!is appeal.

In !is Brief, appellant raises t!e folloin$ Assi$n(ent of Errors0

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

'. )6E )/IA COU/) E//ED 6EN S6E ;SIC< CONVIC)ED ACCUSED-APPEAN) BASEDON 6IS UNCOUNSEED CON*ESSION=

+. )6E )/IA COU/) IREISE E//ED 6EN S6E ;SIC< HAVE *U C/EDENCE AND*U *AI)6 ON )6E )ES)I2ONM O* )6E P/OSECU)ION I)NESSES= '7

)!e ords competent and independent counsel in t!e constitutional provision is not an e(pt# rIt stresses t!e need to accord t!e accused, under t!e uni&uel# stressful conditions of a cuinvesti$ation, an infor(ed 5ud$(ent on t!e c!oices e3plained to !i( %# a dili$ent and capa%le la

As !eretofore stated, Att#. *ortunato Paraan, at t!at ti(e, as t!e barangay captain of Ba















Appellant"s e3tra5udicial confession as ta4en and transcri%ed entirel# in t!e Ce%uano dialect. /ule'7+, Section 77 of t!e /evised /ules on Evidence provides0

Sec. 77. ocumentary evidence in an uno!!icial language.-- Docu(ents ritten in an unofficiallan$ua$e s!all not %e ad(itted as evidence, unless acco(panied it! a translation into En$lis! or *ilipino. )o avoid interruption of proceedin$s, parties or t!eir attorne#s are directed to !ave suc!

translation prepared %efore trial.

)!e rule is t!at !en t!ere is presented in evidence an e3!i%it ritten in an# lan$ua$e ot!er t!an t!eofficial lan$ua$e ;*ilipino or En$lis!<, if t!ere is an appeal, t!at e3!i%it s!ould %e translated %# t!eofficial interpreter of t!e court, or a translation s!ould %e a$reed upon %# t!e parties, and %ot! ori$inaland translation sent to t!is court.': In t!is case, t!ere is no official translation of appellant"s e3tra5udicialconfession in t!e *ilipino or En$lis! lan$ua$e. If t!e Court ere to strictl# follo t!e rule, t!enappellant"s e3tra5udicial confession s!ould not !ave %een ad(itted %# t!e trial court as evidence for t!e prosecution.

Nevert!eless, considerin$ t!at appellant did not interpose an# o%5ection t!ereto, and t!e parties and t!e 5udicial aut!orities or personnel concerned appeared to %e fa(iliar it! or 4noled$ea%le of Ce%uanoin !ic! t!e docu(ent as ritten,'1 suc! e3tra5udicial confession as appropriatel# considered %# t!etrial court as evidence for t!e prosecution.

As stated at t!e outset, t!e crucial issue in t!is case is !et!er or not t!e e3tra5udicial confessione3ecuted %# appellant, it! t!e assistance of Att#. *ortunato Paraan, is ad(issi%le in evidence a$ainst!i(. )!ere is no need at t!is point to secure an official translation of t!e confession to En$lis!.

Section '+, Article III of t!e '@? Constitution provides0

;'< An# person under investi$ation for t!e co((ission of an offense s!all !ave t!e ri$!t to %e infor(edof !is ri$!t to re(ain silent and to !ave co(petent and independent counsel prefera%l# of !is onc!oice. If t!e person cannot afford t!e services of counsel, !e (ust %e provided it! one. )!ese ri$!tscannot %e aived e3cept in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel.

ore$a, Ce%u Cit#. Under t!e '' ocal Hovern(ent Code, a barangay captain perfor(s t!e foduties and functions0

;a< )!e punon$ %aran$a#, as t!e c!ief e3ecutive of t!e %aran$a# $overn(ent, s!all e3ercise suc!and perfor( suc! duties and functions, as provided %# t!is Code and ot!er las.

;%< *or efficient, effective and econo(ical $overnance, t!e purpose of !ic! is t!e $eneral el

t!e %aran$a# and its in!a%itants pursuant to Section '> of t!is Code, t!e punon$ %aran$a# s!all0

;'< Enforce all las and ordinances !ic! are applica%le it!in t!e %aran$a#=

. . .

;7< 2aintain pu%lic order in t!e %aran$a# and, in pursuance t!ereof, assist t!e cit# or (unicipaland t!e san$$unian (e(%ers in t!e perfor(ance of t!eir duties and functions= . . .'?

Si(pl# put, Att#. Paraan, as barangay captain, is called upon to enforce t!e la and ordina!is barangayand ensure peace and order at all ti(es.

In fact, as barangay captain, Att#. Paraan is dee(ed a person in aut!orit# under Article '1+

/evised Penal Code, to it0

A/). '1+. Persons in authority and agents o! persons in authority. J ho shall be deemed as su

appl#in$ t!e provisions of t!e precedin$ and ot!er articles of t!is Code, an# person directl# vest 5urisdiction, !et!er as an individual or as a (e(%er of so(e court or $overn(ent corporation

or co((ission, s!all %e dee(ed a person in aut!orit#. A %arrio captain and a %aran$a# c!air(aalso %e dee(ed a person in aut!orit#.

On t!ese %ases, it is not le$all# possi%le to consider Att#. Paraan as an independent couappellant.

In People vs" %ulala,'@ t!e Court reiterated t!e rule t!at a (unicipal attorne# cannot %e an indepcounsel %ecause as a le$al officer of t!e (unicipalit#, !e provides le$al assistance and suppor(a#or and t!e (unicipalit# in carr#in$ out t!e deliver# of %asic services to t!e people, includ

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

maintenance o! peace and order , and it as seriousl# dou%ted !et!er !e can effectivel# underta4e t!edefense of t!e accused it!out runnin$ into conflict of interests. )!us, t!e Court !eld t!at !e is no %etter t!an a fiscal or a prosecutor !o cannot represent t!e accused durin$ custodial investi$ations.'

)!is is reiterated in People vs" Taliman,+ and People vs" +elarde,+' !ere e furt!er ruled t!at a

!at transpired durin$ t!at conversation it! t!e accused.

A I as4ed !i(. Are #ou $oin$ to $et (e as #our la#erQ

And (a# e 4no !at did !e anserQ
























(unicipal (a#or cannot li4eise %e an independent counsel as re&uired %# t!e Constitution.

Si(ilarl# in t!is case, considerin$ t!at Att#. Paraan"s role as a barangay captain, as a peace4eepin$officer of !is barangay and t!erefore in direct conflict it! t!e role of providin$ co(petent le$alassistance to appellant !o as accused of co((ittin$ a cri(e in !is 5urisdiction, Att#. Paraan couldnot %e considered as an independent counsel of appellant, !en t!e latter e3ecuted !is e3tra5udicialconfession. !at t!e Constitution re&uires is t!e presence of an independent and co(petent counsel,

one !o ill effectivel# underta4e !is client"s defense it!out an# intervenin$ conflict of interest.

++

Neit!er does Att#. Paraan &ualif# as a co(petent counsel, i"e", an effective and vi$ilant counsel. Aneffective and vi$ilant counsel necessaril# and lo$icall# re&uires t!at t!e la#er %e present and a%le toadvise and assist !is client fro( t!e ti(e t!e confessant ansers t!e first &uestion as4ed %# t!einvesti$atin$ officer until t!e si$nin$ of t!e e3tra5udicial confession. As !eld in People vs" +elarde0+7

. . . )!e co(petent and independent la#er so en$a$ed s!ould %e present at all sta$es of t!e intervie,counselin$ or advisin$ caution reasona%l# at ever# turn of t!e investi$ation, and stoppin$ t!einterro$ation once in a !ile eit!er to $ive advice to t!e accused t!at !e (a# eit!er continue, c!oose tore(ain silent or ter(inate t!e intervie.+:

2oreover, t!e la#er s!ould ascertain t!at t!e confession is (ade voluntaril# and t!at t!e person under investi$ation full# understands t!e nature and t!e conse&uence of !is e3tra5udicial confession in relationto !is constitutional ri$!ts. A contrar# rule ould undou%tedl# %e anta$onistic to t!e constitutionalri$!ts to re(ain silent, to counsel and to %e presu(ed innocent.+1

)!e assistance rendered %# Att#. Paraan to appellant cannot %e fittin$l# descri%ed as effective andvi$ilant. As testified %# Att#. Paraan, !erein%elo &uoted ver%ati(, t!is as !at transpired !en !eent to t!e /a(os police station to assist appellant durin$ t!e investi$ation0

!at !appened !en #ou arrived at t!e /a(os Police Station at around +0 o"cloc4 in t!e afternoonof Dece(%er '>, '>Q

A I $o ;sic< to t!e roo( !ere Police(an 2onilar and t!e accused and !ad a conversation it! t!eaccused.

A Mes, Cap. O4a# Cap.

!en #ou said Cap !at did !e (ean %# t!at ord Cap.

A Bein$ a Baran$a# Captain.

After t!e accused told #ou t!at #ou ere !is counsel of c!oice. !at did #ou do ne3t if an#Q

A I infor(ed EliKar )o(a&uin t!at do #ou 4no !at ill %e t!e i(plication of #our ad(issioill %e i(prisoned.

After #ou as4ed !i( !et!er !e 4ne of t!e i(plication of !is confession t!at could %e Y %ect!at confession. !at as !is reactionQ

A Mes Cap. I 4no. And t!en I told !i( as follos0 Because of t!is confession #ou ill %e i(pris

And !at did !e sa# after #ou told !i( a$ain t!at if !e ould e3ecute t!at affidavit of confesould surel# %e i(prisonedQ

A No I even continue t!at !# did !e do t!atQ

And !at did !e anserQ

A 6e ansered to (e t!at !e as drun4 at t!at ti(e.

And so !at transpired ne3tQ

A So I told !i( are #ou illin$ no to $ive #our confession, t!en police(an 2onilar ent insroo( and e !ad t!at investi$ation.

No !o as t!e investi$ation of t!e accused doneQ

A It as (ade in a &uestion and anser for(. ONSTI II !S"c. 11

And in !at lan$ua$e ere t!e &uestions fra(edQ

A In t!e vernacular, vesa#a.

!at did #ou do durin$ t!e &uestion and anser for( of investi$ationQ

or e3plain to appellant t!e &uestions %ein$ propounded %# SPO+ 2onilar. 6e did not even %ot!eappellant if t!e e3tra5udicial confession !e as a%out to e3ecute as %ein$ voluntaril# $iven.

2oreover, t!at Att#. Paraan is not an effective and vi$ilant counsel is %olstered %# !is on test!at !e alread# suspected appellant as !avin$ co((itted t!e cri(e !en t!e latter as %rou$!! % ! b d i











A I 5ust o%served t!e(.

But did #ou sta# t!ere until t!e !ole ta4in$ of t!e confession as overQ

A Mes I as t!ere in t!e presence of to persons co(in$ fro( (# Baran$a#.

. . .

!en #ou arrived and sa 2r. 2onilar it! t!e accused as an Attorne# did #ou i((ediatel# in&uire!at !ad !appened %efore #ou arrived li4e= Did #ou start t!e investi$ationQ did #ou in&uire fro( t!at

fro( 2r. 2onilarQ

A 6e as alread# preparin$ t!is top portion !ere.

IN)E/P/E)E/0

itness pointin$ to t!e upper portion of t!e certification up to t!e si$nature to t!at portion a%ove t!ena(es t#peritten t!ereon.

. . .

And t!at (eans to sa# t!at !en !e prepared t!is fro( t!e top (ost portion to t!at portioni((ediatel# ri$!t %efore t!e t#peritten na(e EliKar )o(a&uin and Att#. *ortunato Paraan #ou erenot around. CorrectQ

A I as not around %ut e !ave alread# a conversation earlier it! 2onilar .+>

/ecords also s!o t!at appellant as presented to SPO+ 2onilar in t!e (ornin$ of Dece(%er '>, '>.!en appellant inti(ated t!at !e as illin$ to confess and re&uested t!e presence of Att#. Paraan,SPO+ 2onilar called up Att#. Paraan and infor(ed !i( of appellant"s decision. Att#. Paraan arrivedat t!e /a(os Police Station onl# at +0 in t!e afternoon. +? B# t!e ti(e Att#. Paraan arrived, t!einvesti$ation !ad alread# started and SPO+ 2onilar !ad alread# as4ed and elicited infor(ation fro(appellant. orse, Att#. Paraan (erel# o%served durin$ t!e entire investi$ation and failed to advise

!ouse %# t!ebarangay tanods, viK.0

Bein$ an attorne# naturall# #our first &uestion to #our arrestin$ tanods as !ere as !e arres!o as !e arrested and !at is t!e reason !# !e as arrested. CorrectQ

A Mes.

. . .

Mou are tellin$ t!is Court no Att#. Paraan t!at %efore t!e Baran$a# )anods could e3plaint!e circu(stances of !is arrest #ou alread# started to as4 &uestions li4e= !# did #ou !ave %#our pants. !ere is #our t-s!irt #ou ore. !ere did #ou $et t!at infor(ation since #ou eret!e !ouse of a&ueline )ato# !en s!e as 4illedQ

A It as li4e t!is. I !eard t!at t!e victi( suffered (ultiple sta% ounds. So !en I sa %loodit! all pro%a%ilit# it (i$!t co(e fro( t!e victi(. It as conclusion so(et!in$ li4e !en I sas!irt stained it! %lood.

So #ou (ean to t!is Court t!at #ou alread# reac!ed t!e conclusion of (ine ;sic< t!at EliKar )oone of #our constituents in t!e Baran$a# as alread# on #our conclusion in (ine ;sic< t!e 4ac&uil#n )ato# %efore #our tanods turned it over to t!e police for investi$ation. Is t!at !at tellin$ Att#. ParaanQ

A It is so(e!at li4e t!at. )!at is !# I ordered (# tanod to %rin$ !i( to t!e 6o(icide.+@

)!e Court cannot i(a$ine !o Att#. Paraan could !ave effectivel# safe$uarded appellant"s rian accused durin$ t!e investi$ation !en !e !i(self entertained t!e suspicion t!at appellant is $t!e cri(e c!ar$ed, and naturall#, !e ould ant appellant to ad(it !avin$ co((itted it.

It as posited t!at appellant cannot c!allen$e Att#. Paraan"s &ualification as a co(peteindependent counsel %ecause !e as !is c!oice.

As provided in Section '+, Article III of t!e '@? Constitution, ;A<n# person under investi$att!e co((ission of an offense s!all !ave t!e ri$!t Y to !ave co(petent and indep

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

counsel prefera%l# of !is on c!oice. Ideall#, t!e la#er called to %e present durin$ suc! investi$ationss!ould %e as far as reasona%l# possi%le, t!e c!oice of t!e individual under$oin$ &uestionin$, %ut t!eord prefera%l# does not conve# t!e (essa$e t!at t!e c!oice of a la#er %# a person under investi$ation is e3clusive as to preclude ot!er e&uall# co(petent and independent attorne#s fro(!andlin$ !is defense.+ !at is i(perative is t!at t!e counsel s!ould %e competent and independent .)!at appellant c!ose Att# Paraan does not estop appellant fro( co(plainin$ a%out t!e latter"s failure

Clearl#, Att#. Paraan failed to (eet t!e e3actin$ standards of an independent and competent coure&uired %# t!e Constitution. )!us, t!e e3tra5udicial confession e3ecuted %# appellant, even iftrut!, is dee(ed an uncounselled confession and t!erefore, inad(issi%le in evidence.

In t!is re$ard, it (a# not %e a(iss to repeat t!e declaration of t!e Court in Peop

i 7+ t i t! l f t! t i t i i t! t t 5 di i l f i t t!















)!at appellant c!ose Att#. Paraan does not estop appellant fro( co(plainin$ a%out t!e latter"s failureto safe$uard !is ri$!ts.

It appears t!at appellant c!ose Att#. Paraan %ecause !e as t!e barangay captain of Br$#. ore$a!ere appellant resides, and apparentl#, appellant trusts Att#. Paraan to protect !is ri$!ts. )!e latter,!oever, fell s!ort in tendin$ to t!e trust reposed on !i(. Appellant did not finis! Hrade ' and does not4no !o to read and rite.7 As %eteen !i( and Att#.

Paraan !o presu(a%l# 4nos t!e intricacies of t!e la and appellant"s predica(ent, Att#. Paraan

s!ould !ave 4non %etter and e3ercised !is sound 5ud$(ent %efore concedin$ to appellant"s c!oice. Butit did not occur to !i( to in!i%it !i(self fro( actin$ as appellant"s counsel and instead, !e even letappellant $o t!rou$! t!e investi$ation and e3ecute t!e e3tra5udicial confession 4noin$ full# ell t!at!e as %iased as re$ards appellant"s innocence. uoted ver%ati(, Att#. Paraan testified t!us0

Att#. Paraan co(parin$ #ourself to t!e accused !o is a $raduate of Batc!elor ;sic< of aco(pared to #our constituent !o is 5o%less, illiterate 8and9 of lo intelli$ence. )!e &uestion is t!is0 It

did not occur to #our (ine ;sic< to in!i%it #ourself despite t!e re&uest %# tellin$ t!e accused as %aran$a#Captain t!ere could %e a conflict of interest and %ias t!at I ould not %e in ;sic< effective counsel or assistance to #ou. Did it not occur to# our (ine ;sic< or notQ

A It did not occur to (# ni(e ;sic<.

. . .

But as e3perienced attorne# #ou 4no ver# ell t!at !en #ou assist a suspect in t!e police stationand t!e circu(stances !e as arrested t!e %est assistance a la#er could $ive is ould %e to tell t!eaccused to re(ain silent. ould #ou a$reeQ

. . .

A It did not occur to (# (ine ;sic< t!at ti(e. 7'

eniega,7+ stressin$ t!e role of t!e courts in ascertainin$ t!at e3tra5udicial confessions (eet t!e estandards of t!e Constitution0

Ever# so often, courts are confronted it! t!e difficult tas4 of ta4in$ a !ard loo4 into t!e sufficie3tra-5udicial confessions e3tracted %# la enforce(ent aut!orities as t!e sole %asis for conaccused individuals. In cases of cri(es nota%le for t!eir %rutalit# and rut!lessness, t!e i(pulse t!e culprits at an# cost occasionall# te(pts t!ese a$encies to ta4e s!ortcuts and disre$ard constiand le$al safe$uards intended to %rin$ a%out a reasona%le assurance t!at onl# t!e $u punis!ed. O-r co-r, 3 h" @roc" o? "ah3 - ")o34 r"ao3a" 4o-, @a) a cro" 3 r33 ao- h a-ra3c" ) 4""r>33 h"h"r or 3o h" "B4"3c" ah"r"4"3?orc">"3 a"3c" cr-@-o-) >"" "Cac3 a34ar4 ?C"4 ) h" o3-o3.a34ar4 ar" 3o >", h" o3-o3 @roB4" h" corr"@o343 r">"4) ) @roB43 a"Cc-o3ar) r-", ."., ha <Da3) co3?"o3 or a4>o3 oa3"4 3 Boao3 o? !ArcS"co3 12!1% . . . h"r"o? ha " 3a4>" 3 "B4"3c".

it!out appellant"s e3tra5udicial confession, t!e prosecution"s case no teeters precariou

circu(stantial evidence, na(el#0

;'< /ico 2a$dasal"s testi(on# t!at0

;a< appellant left t!eir drin4in$ session at '0 in t!e (ornin$ of Dece(%er '>, '>=

;%< t!e tres cantos and pair of s!oes found inside a&uel#n"s residence %elon$s to appellant= and

;c< appellant as earin$ a pair of maong s!orts and !ite sando s!irt on t!e ni$!t of t!e cri(e %lood-stained s!irt as found a(on$ t!e soiled clot!es in ilson 2a$dasal"s !ouse=

;+< 2edical )ec!nolo$ist ude Daniel 2endoKa"s testi(on# t!at t!e %lood staappellant"s sando s!irt and t!e tres cantos as of !u(an ori$in.77

)!ese circu(stances, !oever, are not sufficient to de(onstrate positivel# and convincin$l# t!aappellant !o 4illed a&uel#n.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

Under Section :, /ule '77 of t!e /ules of Court, circu(stantial evidence ould %e sufficient to convictif ;a< t!ere is (ore t!an one circu(stance= ;%< t!e facts fro( !ic! t!e inferences are derived are proven= and ;c< t!e co(%ination of all t!e circu(stances is suc! as to produce a conviction %e#ondreasona%le dou%t.7: As 5urisprudentiall# for(ulated, a 5ud$(ent of conviction %ased on circu(stantialevidence can %e up!eld onl# if t!e circu(stances proven constitute an un%ro4en c!ain !ic! leads toone fair and reasona%le conclusion pointin$ to t!e accused to t!e e3clusion of all ot!ers as t!e $uilt#

And even if appellant did on t!e pair of s!oes and tres cantos, t!e fact t!at it as found in t!e st!e cri(e (erel# proved t!at !e as in t!e residence of a&uel#n at so(e point in ti(e. But it d prove !en particularl# !e as t!ere, !is aut!ors!ip of t!e cri(e or !is (otive for %ein$

t!ere. !ile t!e (otive of an accused in a cri(inal case is $enerall# !eld to %e i((aterial, not %ele(ent of t!e cri(e (otive %eco(es i(portant !en as in t!is case t!e evidence of t!e co((

















one fair and reasona%le conclusion pointin$ to t!e accused, to t!e e3clusion of all ot!ers, as t!e $uilt# person, i.e., t!e circu(stances proven (ust %e consistent it! eac! ot!er, consistent it! t!e !#pot!esist!at t!e accused is $uilt#, and at t!e sa(e ti(e inconsistent it! an# ot!er !#pot!esis e3cept t!at of $uilt#.71

)!e circu(stantial evidence in t!is case does not constitute an un%ro4en c!ain leadin$ to one fair andreasona%le conclusion t!at appellant is t!e $uilt# person.

*or one, appellant"s act of leavin$ t!e drin4in$ session at '0 in t!e (ornin$ does not esta%lis!

appellant"s !erea%outs at t!e ti(e t!e cri(e as co((itted. )!ere is not!in$ in t!e testi(on# of /ico2a$dasal and t!e ot!er prosecution itnesses t!at ill s!o if appellant indeed ent to a&uel#n"s!ouse after !e left t!e $roup. No one sa !i( enter or leave !er residence. If at all, !at as proved ist!at appellant as found %# t!e barangay tanods sleepin$ at !o(e in t!e afternoon of t!e sa(e da#.

Added to t!at is t!e prosecution"s failure to esta%lis! t!e c!ain of custod# of t!ese valua%le pieces of evidence.

Prosecution itness Ar(ando a%ate testified t!at t!e pair of %lac4 s!oes and tres cantos ere $iven toa certain /e# for safe4eepin$. )!ese ere later turned over to a Police(an )ariao of t!e /a(os PoliceStation. a%ate, !oever, did not identif# t!e person !o turned over t!e o%5ects to t!e police. 7> )!ereas no s!oin$ !o turned over t!ose articles to t!e police and /e# as not presented to identif# if

t!ese ere t!e sa(e pair of s!oes and tres cantos found in a&uel#n"s !ouse and turned over to t!e police. Police(an )ariao as not called to t!e itness stand so as to confir( if t!ose articles ere t!e

sa(e evidence turned over to !i( and later presented in court. Ordinaril#, it ould not %e indispensa%lefor t!e prosecution to alle$e and prove ever# sin$le fact of t!e case. But in t!is case, t!e pieces of evidence are crucial to t!e prosecution"s case. Also, t!e fact t!at a civilian o%tained and received t!eevidence, t!e possi%ilit# t!at t!e inte$rit# of t!ese articles could !ave %een co(pro(ised cannot %ei$nored. )!e Court even noted t!at durin$ !is direct e3a(ination, SPO+ 2onilar as confused as to!et!er t!e pair of s!oes presented in court as t!e sa(e ones t!at ere turned over to t!e police. Itturned out t!at t!e (ar4in$ !e (ade on t!e s!oes ere as!ed off %ecause at one ti(e, t!e s!oes fell int!e canal located in front of t!e police station and t!e# !ad to clean and as! t!e s!oesZ 7? Suc! slopp#!andlin$ renders t!e c!ain of custod# of t!ose pieces of evidence du%ious, and da(a$in$ to t!e prosecution"s case.

ele(ent of t!e cri(e, (otive %eco(es i(portant !en, as in t!is case, t!e evidence of t!e co((of t!e cri(e is purel# circu(stantial.7@

)!e prosecution"s evidence t!at is perceived to %e conclusive of appellant"s $uilt is (aitesti(on# of /ico 2a$dasal. Suc! testi(on#, !oever, is uncorro%orated. )!e rule is t!at t!e tesof one itness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, ? -ch ">o3) @oB") "ah" h" h" acc-"4 ")o34 r"ao3a" 4o-.7 2oreover, t!e doctrine of lon$ standin$ t!at t!e testi(a lone itness, if credi%le and positive, is sufficient to convict an accused a@@" o3) o ")")!us, an uncorro%orated circu(stantial evidence is certainl# not sufficient for conviction !

evidence itself is in serious dou%t.:/ico"s lone testi(on# is not sufficient to esta%lis! appellan %e#ond reasona%le dou%t.

In addition, appellant ve!e(entl# denied /ico"s alle$ations. Accordin$ to appellant, it as /icactuall# ons t!e pair of s!oes and tres cantos= t!at it as !e !o %id appellant to $o to t!e )residence and lift t!eir )V set= and t!at it as /ico !o sta%%ed a&uel#n. Considerin$ appedenial and !is different version of t!e incident, it %eca(e incu(%ent upon t!e prosecution t

appellants alle$ations it! furt!er evidence to corro%orate t!e state(ent of /ico. It (ust %e not!ere ere ot!er persons present durin$ t!eir drin4in$ spree, na(el#, /o(# 2a$dasal, Noel a%a certain Cardo. )!ese persons could !ave %een presented as itnesses to %ac4 up /ico"s clai( prosecution did not do so. /ico testified t!at appellant oned t!e tres cantos found %# t!e sta/ico also stated !e onl# !eard t!at t!e tres cantos as found %# t!e stairs.:'!o found

cantos t!at as supposed to !ave %een used to sta% a&uel#nQ )!e nei$!%or !o alle$edl# fount!e stairs as not presented in court to identif# if t!e tres cantos presented %# t!e prosecution alle$ed eapon in t!e sta%%in$ of a&uel#n. Suc! failure of t!e prosecution to corro%orate t!e ( points of /ico"s testi(on# ea4ened t!eir case.

)!e Court also !as serious (is$ivin$s on t!e pro%ative value of t!e !ite sando s!irt t!at appellalle$edl# earin$ at t!e ti(e of sta%%in$ a&uel#n, !ic! Ed$ar 2a$dasal later found %looda(on$ t!e soiled clot!es.

*irst, !en appellant as as4ed %# t!e barangay tanods a%out t!e s!irt !e as earin$, !e to

t!at it as in ilson 2a$dasal"s !ouse. Accordin$ to barangay tanod Ar(ando a%ate, it a2a$dasal !o found t!e s!irt, so(e!at et and %lood#, a(on$ t!e soiled clot!es.:

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

2a$dasal, !oever, as not presented to testif# as to !ere !e found t!e s!irt, t!e state t!e s!irt as in!en !e found it, and !o !e 4ne t!at it as t!e s!irt orn %# appellant.

Second, 2edical )ec!nolo$ist ude Daniel 2endoKa testified t!at t!e %loodstains onappellant"s sando s!irt, as ell as t!e tres cantos, ere !u(an %lood.:7 2endoKa, !oever, did notconduct furt!er tests to ascertain t!e t#pe of %lood found on t!ese pieces of evidence nor did !e (atc! it

























conduct furt!er tests to ascertain t!e t#pe of %lood found on t!ese pieces of evidence nor did !e (atc! itit! t!e victi("s %lood t#pe,:: !ence, it does not connect t!e %loodstains to t!e !erein victi(. In People

vs" #odrigue& , t!e Court ruled t!at t!e maong pants alle$edl# %elon$in$ to appellant and found positiveof t#pe O %lood !as no pro%ative value since t!e %lood t#pe of appellant and t!e victi( ere not ta4enfor purposes of co(parison.:1

)!e sa(e rulin$ applies it! re$ard to t!e %loodstains found on t!e tres cantos.

Appellant en5o#s in !is favor t!e presu(ption of innocence until t!e contrar# is proven. Proof of t!e$uilt of t!e accused s!ould not %e tainted it! a(%i$uit#. Alt!ou$! appellant"s defense is ea4,conviction (ust co(e fro( t!e stren$t! of t!e prosecutions evidence and not fro( t!e ea4ness of t!edefense. In t!is case, t!e prosecution"s evidence is not stron$ enou$! to 5ustif# a findin$ of $uilt %e#ondreasona%le dou%t.:> Ac&uittal, t!erefore, is inevita%le.

6E/E*O/E, appellant EliKar )o(a&uin is !ere%# A;UITTE andordered RELEASE i((ediatel#, unless !e is %ein$ detained for so(e ot!er le$al cause.

)!e Director of t!e Bureau of Corrections is directed to cause t!e i((ediate release of appellant unless!e is %ein$ lafull# !eld for anot!er cause, and to infor( t!is Court of t!e date of !is release, or t!e$round for !is continued confine(ent, it!in ten ;'< da#s fro( notice of !erein decision.

Costs de o!icio.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. (+($6 Ma) 2(, 1((5

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs

Onl# t!e accused Ec!aveK %rot!ers and Ale5andro ucero ere appre!ended. )!e ot!ers re(alar$e.

)rial proceeded onl# as a$ainst t!e t!ree.

)!e evidence on record s!os t!at on 2a# > '@@ private co(plainant D/ DE2E)/IO 2A












vs.ALE9ANRO LUERO ) ORTEL, accused-appellant.

PUNO, J.:

If t!e Constitution !as an# value, it is %ecause it stands up for t!ose !o cannot stand up for t!e(selves. )!us, it protected t!ose under custodial investi$ation it! t!e all-i(portant ri$!t to counsel.

e !old t!at t!e ri$!t to counsel cannot %e diluted it!out ta(perin$ t!e scales of 5ustice. *or denial of !is ri$!t to counsel, e ac&uit accused-appellant.

Ale5andro ucero, Bienvenido Ec!aveK, Bal%ino Ec!aveK, Peter Doe, /ic!ard Doe and o!n Doe erec!ar$ed it! t!e cri(e of ro%%er# it! !o(icide. )!e Infor(ation a$ainst t!e( reads0

)!at on or a%out t!e ?t! da# of 2a#, '@@, in ueKon Cit#, P!ilippines, and it!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!is 6onora%le Court, t!e a%ove-na(ed accused, conspirin$ to$et!er, confederatin$ it! and (utuall#!elpin$ one anot!er , did t!en and t!ere, ilfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl# ro% one D/. DE2E)/IO. 2AD/ID, in t!e (anner as follos0 on t!e date and in t!e place afore(entioned, t!e said accused,one ar(ed it! !and$un, pursuant to t!eir conspirac# %loc4ed t!e a# of t!e said co(plainant !o ason %oard a 2ercedeK BenK crusin$ alon$ /oad ': near ;t!e< corner ;of< 2indanao Avenue, Pa$-asa, t!isCit#, and did t!en and t!ere, %# (eans of violence and inti(idation a$ainst persons, ta4e, ro% and carr#aa# !is cas! (one# a(ountin$ to P>,>.= one $old nec4lace it! cross pendant, ? 4arat, ort!

P:1,.= one ;'< $old /ole3 atc! ort! P'11,.= one ;'< 7 4arat $old rin$ ort! P@,.=one + 4arat $old rin$, do(ino st#le, ort! P+?,.= one ;'< solid $old %racelet ort! 7>7,>.,P!ilippine Currenc#, %elon$in$ to said D/. DE2E)/IO . 2AD/ID, to t!e da(a$e and pre5udice of t!e said offended part# in t!e total a(ount afore(entioned= t!at on t!e occasion of t!e ro%%er# and pursuant to t!eir conspirac#, t!e a%ove-na(ed accused, it! intent to 4ill, and ta4in$ advanta$e t!e;ir<superior stren$t!, it! t!e use of !and$un, s!ot O/ENO BE/NAES # AE/IA, a driver of t!esaid offended part#, t!us inflictin$ upon !i( serious and (ortal ounds !ic! resulted to t!einsta;n<taneous deat! of t!e said O/ENO BE/NAES # AE/IA, to t!e da(a$e and pre5udice of t!e !eirs of said O/ENO BE/NAE # AE/IA in suc! a(ount as (a# %e aarded to t!e( under t!e provisions of t!e Civil Code.

Contrar# to la. 1

)!e evidence on record s!os t!at on 2a# >, '@@, private co(plainant D/. DE2E)/IO . 2Aspent t!e ni$!t at !is %oardin$ !ouse, located at T71 Ilocos Norte Street, Ba$o-Banta#, ueKon Canted to return t!at ni$!t to !is residence at Pro5ect >, ueKon Cit#. 6oever, !is driver, Bernales, advised !i( not to leave t!at ni$!t for Bernales over!eard t!at t!e $roup of Bal%iBienvenido Ec!aveK ould ro% !i( on !is a# !o(e. 6e !eeded t!e advice.

It as around ?0 a.(., t!e ne3t da#, t!at Dr. 2adrid a$ain as4ed !is driver to %rin$ !i( to !iresidence in Pro5ect >, ueKon Cit#. !ile traversin$ /oad ':, a $ra#-reddis! car overto2ercedes BenK !e as ridin$ and %loc4ed t!eir a#. )!ree ;7< (en siftl# ali$!ted fro( %loc4in$ t!e( and %ar$ed into !is BenK. )!e first $ra%%ed t!e drivers seat and pus!ed !is driveot!er side of t!e seat. )!e second occupied t!e ri$!t side of !is driver. )!e t!ird sat %eside Dr. 2t!e %ac4 sent and punc!ed !i(. Si(ultaneousl#, t!e (an at t!e ri$!t side of !is driver pulled out and announced a !old-up. 2

)!e (an %eside Dr. 2adrid divested !i( of t!e folloin$0 a $old /ole3 atc!, studded it! diaort! P'11,., a t!ree ;7< carat dia(ond rin$ ort! P@,., anot!er to ;+< carat do(inrin$, surrounded it! dia(onds ort! P+?,., a nec4lace ort! P+?,., a %raceleP1,., and !is allet containin$ P>,>.. $

After drivin$ t!e( around t!e area for a couple of !ours, t!e (alefactors stopped !is car and al)!e orst ca(e. )!e (an at t!e ri$!t side of !is driver s!ot t!e latter at t!e c!est %efore fleei

2adrid and !is driver ere rus!ed %# concerned citiKens to t!e Veterans 2e(orial 6ospital. )later, !is driver died of !e(orr!a$e as a result of t!e $uns!ot ound !e sustained. ' Dr. survived. 5 6e reported t!e incident to t!e ueKon Cit# police. !en no action as ta4en on !is cfiled !is co(plaint it! t!e Special Operations Hroup of t!e Central Intelli$ence Service ;CIS<. 6

)o (ont!s later, t!e CIS efforts paid-off. On ul# +7, '@@, t!e Special Operations Hroup !eaCapt. /aul Boac, after a surveillance of t!e suspects, interro$ated Bienvenido Ec!aveK in Ca(p )o da#s later, t!e# appre!ended Bal%ino Ec!aveK and Ale5andro ucero. )!e# turned t!e( oveInvesti$ation Depart(ent of t!e CIS. +

Pfc. Al%erto Pursal as assi$ned to conduct t!e investi$ation of t!e suspects. 6e declared t!a %efore t!e investi$ation started, ucero ver%all# ad(itted !is participation in t!e cri(e and t!at t!e one !o s!ot Bernales, t!e driver of Dr. 2adrid. 8

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

In an# event, Pfc. Pursal ent t!ru t!e (otions of investi$ation. 6e infor(ed ucero of !isconstitutional ri$!ts to re(ain silent and to counsel. !en ucero told !i( t!at !e !ad no la#er, Pursalinfor(ed t!at CIS e$al Depart(ent a%out uceros need for a la#er. ( In due ti(e, Att#. DiosdadoPeralta appeared at t!e investi$ators office at around 0 p.(. 6e identified !i(self as t!e la#er !oas re&uested to assist ucero and in&uired a%out t!e latters !erea%outs. 6e as t!en directed to!ere ucero as.

co(plainant. A couple of da#s lapsed and a CIS a$ent %rou$!t !i( to a clinic inside Ca(p Cra(doctor sa t!e contusions on !is %od#. 6e advised t!at !e %e treated. )!e CIS a$ent refused anleft t!e clinic.

ucero denied 4noin$ Dr. 2adrid, t!e Ec!aveK %rot!ers and t!e ot!er accused in t!is case. 6eonl# (et Dr. 2adrid at t!e CIS Office durin$ t!e police line-up. >e )as made to lineup !our 8C



Att#. Peralta conferred it! ucero. 6e also apprised ucero of !is constitutional ri$!ts. 6e e3plainedto ucero t!at !e !as t!e ri$!t to re(ain silent, t!at !e is not o%li$ed to $ive an# state(ent to t!einvesti$ators, and t!at even if !e !as alread# $iven a state(ent, !e (a# refuse to si$n it. >e observed no

reaction !rom Lucero" 7onetheless, -tty" Peralta gathered the impression that Lucero understood his

advice.

)!ereafter, t!e CIS investi$ator %e$an ta4in$ don uceros state(ent. hen the investigator started

as0ing the preliminary .uestions, -tty" Peralta le!t to attend the )a0e o! his !riend, %apt" 'milio

acanay, at Fort Boni!acio. 6e $ave ord t!at in case of need, !e could %e reac!ed at !is residence.

)!e ne3t (ornin$, ucero as acco(panied %# to ;+< CIS a$ents to Att#. Peraltas !ouse. )!ee3tra5udicial state(ent of ucero ;E3!i%it C<, as presented to Att#. Peralta. 2t )as already signed by

Lucero" 2n the presence o! the t)o 8D9 %2S agents, Att#. Peralta e3a(ined E3!i%it C and e3plained toucero its e$al i(plications. 6e as4ed ucero !et!er !e $ave t!e state(ents voluntaril#. ucero

replied in t!e affir(ative. Att#. Peralta t!en si$ned E3!i%it C. 10

)!e t!ree ;7< accused denied co(plicit# in t!e in t!e cri(e c!ar$ed.

Appellant uceros defense is ali%i. 6e testified t!at on 2a# ?, '@@, !e as at !is !ouse in Caloocan

Cit#. 6e o4e up at >07 a.(., sta#ed at !is !ouse t!e !ole da# repairin$ t!e up!olster# of acusto(ers c!air. 6e as t!en it! !is cousin 2arcelino Seneta and !is ife 2#len ucero. 6e or4eduntil 1 p.(. t!at da#.

ucero as appre!ended on ul# +1, '@@, (ore t!an to ;+< (ont!s after t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e.6e said !e as surprised !en several unidentified (en accosted !i( !ile !e as al4in$ toards !is!ouse. )!e# c!ased !i(, !andcuffed and %lindfolded !i( and pus!ed !i( into a 5eep. 6e as 6e as %lindfolded t!e !ole ni$!t and did not 4no !ere !e as ta4en. )!e (en turned out to %e policeofficers. ater, !e identified one of t!e (en to %e Capt. Boa4, !ead of t!e CIS Special OperationsHroup.

)!e ne3t da#, !e learned !e as in Ca(p Cra(e. 6e clai(ed t!at !e as tortured. 6e as not infor(edof t!e offense for !ic! !e as %ein$ investi$ated. Neit!er did t!e# reveal t!e identit# of t!e

# $ p p p ! 8

be!ore r" Madrid !inally identi!ied him on the !ourth time.

ucero also clai(ed !e si$ned t!e e3tra5udicial confession ;E3!i%it C< 11 under duress. 6een$a$in$ t!e services of Att#. Peralta. 6e li4eise confir(ed t!at Att#. Peralta as not present!is actual custodial interro$ation.12

After trial, t!e court a .uo ac&uitted t!e Ec!aveK %rot!ers for insufficient evidence. )!e tria!oever, convicted accused ucero. )!e dispositive portion of t!e Decision 1$ reads0

ACCO/DINHM, 5ud$(ent is !ere%# rendered as follos0

'. )!e accused %rot!ers BIENVENIDO EC6AVE # VAIDA and BABINO EC6AVE # Vare !ere%# ACUI))ED for insufficienc# of evidence= and

+. Accused AEAND/O UCE/O # CO/)E is !ere%# found HUI)M %e#ond reasona%le d principal %# direct participation of /o%%er# it! 6o(icide. Ale5andro ucero is !ere%# sentesuffer an i(prison(ent ter( of #'%LS267 P'#P'T-.

On t!e civil aspect, Ale5andro ucero is !ere%# ordered a< to pa# t!e !eirs of t!e deceased orenKo Bernales # Aleria t!e su( of P7,. as actual da(a$es and P1,. as (oral d

for t!e (ental an$uis! suffered %# !is fa(il#= and %< to pa# Dr. De(etrio . 2adrid t!e P7>7,>. representin$ t!e cas! (one#, and (one# value of t!e 5eelries and ristatc! !e lto t!e ro%%er# at %ar.

SO O/DE/ED. 1'

6ence t!is appeal %# ucero, raisin$ t!e folloin$ assi$n(ents of error0

'. )6E OE/ COU/) E//ED IN HIVINH 2O/E EIH6) )O )6E EVIDENCES ; S

)6E P/OSECU)ION 6IC6 E/E INCONSIS)EN), NO) C/EDIBE, UN/EDOUB)*U AND INSU**ICIEN) )O SUPPO/) ACCUSED-APPEAN)S CONVI

BEMOND /EASONABE DOUB).

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

+. )6E OE/ COU/) E//ED IN NO) ACUI))INH ACCUSED-APPEAN) O* )6EAEHED C/I2E O* /OBBE/M I)6 6O2ICIDE INSPI)E O* )6E *AC) )6A)CONSPI/ACM AS NO) P/OVEN IN )6IS CASE.

7. )6A) )6E OE/ COU/) E//ED IN CONVIC)INH ACCUSED-APPEAN) O* )6EC/I2E C6A/HED ON )6E BASIS O* 6IS AEHED E)/AUDICIA CON*ESSION ;2ADE

point, Dr. 2adrid said !e could identif# to of t!e (alefactors. 16 In !is affidavit, Dr. 2adrid pr!e could identif# all t!ree. 1+ Appellants conviction cannot %e (ade to rest on t!is nidentification %# Dr. 2adrid.

Secondl#, appellants conviction cannot %e %ased on !is e3tra-5udicial confession.



IN CUS)ODIA INVES)IHA)ION< 6IC6 AS OB)AINED )6/U *O/CE, VIOENCE AND

I)6OU) )6E P/ESENCE O* COUNSE O* 6IS ON C6OICE O/ ENHAHED BM ANMPE/SON ON 6IS BE6A* O/ APPOIN)ED BM )6E OE/ COU/) AND )6E/E*O/ESU**E/ED CONS)I)U)IONA IN*I/2I)IES.

: )6A) )6E OE/ E//ED IN CONVIC)INH ACCUSED-APPEAN) O* )6E C/I2EC6A/HED INSPI)E O* )6E *AC) )6A) )6E ACCUSED-APPEAN) AS NO) POSI)IVEM

IDEN)I*IED I)6 CE/)I)UDE BM )6E P/OSECU)ION.

1. )6A) )6E OE/ COU/) E//ED IN CONVIC)INH ACCUSED-APPEAN) O* )6EC/I2E C6A/HED P/I2A/IM ON )6E BASIS O* )6E EARNESS O* 6IS DE*ENSE O*AIBI AND NO) ON )6E S)/ENH)6 O* )6E P/OSECU)ION EVIDENCE= AND INSPI)E O*)6E ACR O* POSI)IVE IDEN)I*ICA)ION O* ACCUSED-APPEAN).

>. )6A) )6E OE/ COU/) E//ED IN CONVIC)INH ACCUSED-APPEAN) AND NO)ACUI))INH 6I2 IRE 6IS CO-ACCUSED AND AEHED CO-CONSPI/A)O/S 8)6EEC6AVE B/O)6E/S9 O* )6E C/I2E C6A/HED.

e find t!e appeal (eritorious.

)!e conviction of appellant rests on to ;+< facts0 ;a< !is positive identification %# t!e co(plainant, and;%< !is e3tra-5udicial confession ad(ittin$ !is participation in t!e cri(e. e find t!at t!e evidence provin$ t!ese facts cannot stand scrutin#.

*irstl#, t!e credi%ilit# of t!e (ain prosecution e#eitness, Dr. De(etrio 2adrid !o identifiedappellant, is seriousl# open to dou%t. It stands unre%utted on t!e record t!at appellant !ad to participateat t!e police line-up !our 8C9 times %efore !e as finall# identified %# Dr. 2adrid. )!ere is no reason for

t!e a(%ivalence. )!e ro%%er# too4 place in %road da#li$!t and t!e t!ree (alefactors ore no (as4.)!e# drove t!e( around for t!ree ;7< !ours. Considerin$ t!ese circu(stances, t!ere is no reason for Dr.2adrids failure to i((ediatel# identif# appellant.

e are also disconcerted %# t!e vacillatin$ testi(on# of Dr. 2adrid durin$ t!e trial. Initiall#, Dr.2adrid clai(ed t!at !e could identif# onl# one of t!e ro%%ers !o sta$ed t!e !old-up. 15 At anot!er

)!e '@? Constitution 18 re&uires t!at a person under investi$ation for t!e co((ission of a cri(e %e provided it! counsel. e !ave constitutionaliKed t!e ri$!t to counsel %ecause of our !a$ainst t!e use of duress and ot!er undue influence in e3tractin$ confessions fro( a suspect. *ofraud tarnis! confessions and render t!e( inad(issi%le. 1(e ta4e pride in constitutionaliKin$ t!to counsel even !ile ot!er countries !ave desisted fro( elevatin$ t!is ri$!t to a !i$!er pedest!ave sustained t!e inviola%ilit# of t!is precious ri$!t it! vi$or and it!out an# apolo$#.

)!e trial court did not displa# t!e re&uired sensitivit# to appellants ri$!t to counsel. Indeed, it i(pose a ri$orous respect for t!e ri$!t. It as satisfied t!at t!ere as su%stantial co(pliance re&uire(ents of ri$!t to counsel. )!is is far fro( t!e intent of t!e Constitution. )!e records s!oAtt#. Peraltas, !o as not t!e counsel of c!oice of appellant, arrived at t!e CIS Office an t!e ni$!t of appellants detention. 2ore e3actl#, !e arrived at t!e CIS Office at around 0 p.(. andit! appellant a%out !is ri$!ts. Att#. Peralta !i(self ad(itted !e received no reaction fro( apalt!ou$! his impression )as that appellant understood him. 20 orse, -tty" Peralta le!t appella

custody o! the %2S agents )hen his real interrogation started . 6e said !e !ad to attend t!e a

friend. 6is attitude did not spea4 ell of t!e i(portance !e $ave to !is role as counsel to a persocustodial interro$ation for t!e co((ission of a ver# serious offense. It as durin$ !is a%senappellant $ave an uncounselled confession. )!e# tried to cure !is uncounselled confession for tda#, appellant as %rou$!t %# to ;+< CIS a$ents to Att#. Peraltas !ouse. 2n the presence o

agents, Att#. Peralta as4ed appellant if !e understood t!e state(ents !e $ave and if !e si

voluntaril#. Appellant, of course, affir(ed t!e voluntariness of t!e e3ecution of t!e confessionPeralta as satisfied and t!e trial court ruled t!at appellants ri$!t to counsel as not infrin$edisa$ree.

e !old t!at !en t!e Constitution re&uires t!e ri$!t to counsel, it did not (ean any 0ind of %ut e!!ective and vigilant counsel. )!e circu(stances in t!e case at %enc! clearl# de(onstrappellant received no effective counselin$ fro( Att#. Peralta. In People v" e $u&man, 21 e !eldcustodial investi$ation, t!e ri$!t to counsel attac!es fro( t!e (o(ent t!e investi$ation starts, i"e

t!e investi$atin$ officer starts to as4 &uestions to elicit infor(ation and confessions or ad(issiot!e accused. In t!is case, at t!e crucial point !en t!e interro$ation as :ust starting , Att#. Perappellant to attend t!e a4e of a friend . At t!at critical sta$e, appellant $ave !is uncounselled 5udicial a confession. Surel#, suc! a confession !ere appellant as unprotected fro( (isc!iefconvict.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

Neit!er can t!e trial court convict appellant on t!e $round t!at ali%i is in!erentl# a ea4 defense.C!iseled in our 5urisprudence is t!e rule t!at t!e onus is on t!e prosecution to prove t!e $uilt of t!eaccused %e#ond reasona%le dou%t. Hiven t!e uncertaint# of appellants identification and t!einad(issi%ilit# of !is uncounselled confession, t!ere is no t!read of evidence to cri(inall# inculpateappellant.



IN VIE 6E/EO*, t!e Decision in Cri(inal Case No. -@@-+' of t!e /e$ional )rial Court of

ueKon Cit# , Branc! CIII, convictin$ appellant Ale5andro ucero # Cortel of ro%%er# it! !o(icide is!ere%# /EVE/SED AND SE) ASIDE.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 102+86 A-- 1', 1((8

ALE9ANRO *. E LA TORRE, petitioner,vs.

$roup !ic! too4 don t!e electric (eters fro( t!e CAPASSCO pre(ises, %ut !e did not reco$nt!ree ;7< ot!er cre(e(%ers.

Based on t!e state(ents of Ale3ander 2analo, *elino Ole$ario, Ed$ar Enopia, and Danilo Assistant Cit# Prosecutor De(etrio 2acapa$al filed on ul# '7, '@ an infor(ation c!ar$in$ pede la )orre it! ualified )!eft as defined in Arts. 7 and 7' of t!e /evised Penal Code0



OURT OF APPEALS, a34 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

MENOZA, J.:

)!is case is !ere on appeal fro( t!e decision of t!e Court of Appeals, dated une '@, '', !ic!affir(ed t!e decision of t!e /e$ional )rial Court of ueKon Cit# findin$ petitioner Ale5andro B. de la

)orre $uilt# of &ualified t!eft and sentencin$ !i( to an indeter(inate prison ter( of > #ears, ' (ont!,and '' da#s, as (ini(u(, to @ #ears and ' da#, as (a3i(u(, and orderin$ !i( to inde(nif# t!e 2anilaElectric Co(pan# ;2E/ACO<, t!e offended part#, in t!e a(ount of P:',?@>..

)!e facts are as follos0

In t!e afternoon of April '@, '@, Ale3ander 2analo, an electrical en$ineer of 2E/ACO assi$ned toinspect si3 electric (eters installed in t!e pre(ises of t!e Cat!a# Pacific Steel and S(eltin$Corporation ;CAPASSCO< on De la CruK Street in San Bartolo(e, Novalic!es, ueKon Cit#, discoveredt!at t!e said electric (eters ere (issin$. 6e reported t!e loss to t!e 2E/ACO office in Orti$asAvenue, Pasi$ Cit#. On April +,'@, 2analo and *elino Ole$ario, also of 2E/ACO, $avestate(ents to t!e Nort!ern Police District at Ca(p Rarin$al, Si4atuna Villa$e, ueKon Cit# re$ardin$t!e loss of t!e electric (eters. )!e# suspected t!at CAPASSCO e(plo#ees (ust !ave da(a$ed t!eelectric (eters !ile ta(perin$ it! t!e( and t!at to conceal t!e atte(pt, t!e e(plo#ees (ust !ave

re(oved t!e electric (eters. )!e# e3pressed suspicion t!at 2E/ACO personnel ere involved.

Patrol(an Ed$ar Enopia, !o as assi$ned to t!e case, proceeded to t!e scene of t!e cri(e andin&uired fro( people !e sa t!ere if t!e# !ad seen t!e electric (eters %ein$ ta4en don fro( t!e postnear t!e $ate of CAPASSCO. Accordin$ to Enopia, one of t!ose !e as4ed, Danilo Harcia, said !e !adseen at a%out '0 p.(. on April '', '@ four cre(e(%ers in a 2E/ACO service truc4, it! t!enu(%er 1++ painted on its side, re(ovin$ t!e electric (eters. Actin$ on t!is lead, Enopia as4ed

2E/ACO for t!e identities of t!e (en, one of !o( turned out to %e petitioner de la )orre. It appearst!at 2E/ACO service truc4 nu(%er 1++ !ad specific cre(e(%ers assi$ned to it.

On ul# :, '@, t!e cre(e(%ers ere ta4en to t!e NPD !ead&uarters for investi$ation. )!e# ereincluded in a line-up of ei$!t ;@< persons. Harcia pointed to petitioner de la )orre as t!e leader of t!e

)!at on or a%out t!e ''t! da# of April, '@, in ueKon Cit#, P!ilippines, and it!in t!e 5urisdit!is 6onora%le Court, AEAND/O DEA )O//E M BE/NA, %ein$ t!en e(plo#ed as lead(1-(en service cre of line(en of 2E/ACO, it! $rave a%use of confidence, in conspirac# co-accused O6N DOE, PE)E/ DOE and C6A/ES DOE, conspirin$ to$et!er, confederatinand (utuall# !elpin$ eac! ot!er, it! intent to $ain and it!out t!e 4noled$e and consentoner t!ereof, did t!en and t!ere ilfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl# ta4e, steal and carr# a

folloin$ properties oned %# t!e 2anila Electric Co(pan# ;2E/ACO< !ic! ere installe pre(ises of t!e CA)6AM PACI*IC S)EE AND S2E)INH CO/PO/A)ION ;CAPASSCO<,at No. ++ P. dela CruK Street, San Bartolo(e, Novalic!es, t!is Cit#, custo(ers of t!e af2E/ACO, to it0

One ;'< HE )#pe C-,

'+ volts, Co. No. :+H/2-+' P'7,+1.

One ;'< HE )#pe V->7-A,

'+ volts, Co. No. :'H+@ :,?.>

One ;'< HE )#pe V->7-A,

'+ volts, Co. No. :' HD-11@ +,@?.:

One ;'< HE )#pe H-,

'7 volts, 7 p!ase, No. :+H/I2 '' '7,+1.

One ;'< 6 )#pe

D:A-+, 7 p!ase, Co. No. :'D:A-+ :,?.>

One ;'< /eactive 2eter,

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

No. :'CA-7: +,@?.:

it! an a$$re$ate value of P:',?@>., P!ilippine Currenc#, %elon$in$ to 2ANIA EEC)/ICCO2PANM, represented %# *EINO /. OEHA/IO, to t!e da(a$e and pre5udice of t!e latter in t!eafore(entioned a(ount.

CON)/A/M )O A 1

for t!e purpose of elicitin$ ad(issions, confessions, or an# infor(ation fro( t!e accused. A poliup is not considered part of an# custodial in&uest %ecause it is conducted %efore t!at sta$e is reac

In t!e instant case, petitioner de la )orre, to$et!er it! t!e ot!er cre(e(%ers of 2E/ACnu(%er 1++, as (erel# included in a line-up of ei$!t ;@< persons fro( !ic! !e as pic4ed Harcia as t!e leader of t!e $roup !ic! !ad re(oved t!e electric (eters fro( t!e CAPASSCO prU til t! t! li i ti ti did t f titi I d d ti t



CON)/A/M )O A.1

)!e case as raffled to Branc! + of t!e /)C of ueKon Cit#, presided over %# ud$e Pacita CaiKares- N#e. )rial as !eld fro( Dece(%er +@, '@ to *e%ruar# ', '. In a decision rendered on 2arc! '>,', ud$e CaiKares-N#e, rel#in$ !eavil# on t!e testi(on# of Harcia, found petitioner de la )orre$uilt# of ualified )!eft and t!us sentenced !i( to an indeter(inate prison ter( of > #ears, ' (ont!,and '' da#s of prision mayor , as (ini(u(, to @ #ears and ' da# of prision mayor , as (a3i(u(= and

ordered !i( to pa# 2E/ACO t!e a(ount of P:',?@>..

Petitioner de la )orre appealed to t!e Court of Appeals, contendin$ first, t!at !is constitutional ri$!tsere violated durin$ t!e custodial investi$ation conducted in t!e case= second, t!at t!e /)C erred !enit ad(itted in evidence t!e testi(onies of t!e prosecution itnesses, !en t!e sa(e ere not for(all#offered= t!ird, t!at t!e /)C too4 into account !earsa# evidence in arrivin$ at its 5ud$(ent= and fourt!,t!at t!e uncorro%orated testi(on# of Harcia as insufficient to esta%lis! !is $uilt %e#ond reasona%ledou%t. 6oever, t!e Court of Appeals 2 affir(ed t!e loer courts decision. $ )!e Court of Appealssu%se&uentl# denied reconsideration. 6ence, t!is appeal.

First . Petitioner de la )orre alle$es violation of !is constitutional ri$!ts under Art. III, ['+ ;'< of t!eConstitution !ic! provides t!at an# person under investi$ation for t!e co((ission of an offense s!all!ave t!e ri$!t to %e infor(ed of !is ri$!t to re(ain silent and to !ave co(petent and independent

counsel prefera%l# of !is on c!oice. If t!e person cannot afford t!e services of counsel, !e (ust %e provided it! one. )!ese ri$!ts cannot %e aived e3cept in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel.Petitioner de la )orre clai(s !e as not infor(ed of !is ri$!t to re(ain silent and to !ave t!e assistanceof counsel durin$ t!e investi$ation conducted on ul# :, '@ at t!e NPD !ead&uarters, !ere t!ecre(e(%ers of 2E/ACO service truc4 nu(%er 1++ ere presented in a police line-up. 6e furt!er invo4es t!e e3clusionar# rule in par. 7 of t!e sa(e ['+ t!at an# confession or ad(ission o%tained inviolation of 8t!is rule9 s!all %e inad(issi%le in evidence a$ainst !i(.

In $amboa v" %ru& , ' t!is Court ruled t!at no custodial investi$ation s!all %e conducted unless it %e int!e presence of counsel, en$a$ed %# t!e person arrested, or %# an# person in !is %e!alf, or appointed %#t!e court upon petition eit!er of t!e detainee !i(self, or %# an#one in !is %e!alf, and t!at, !ile t!eri$!t (a# %e aived, t!e aiver s!all not %e valid unless (ade in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel. 5 6oever, t!is applies onl# fro( t!e (o(ent t!e investi$atin$ officer %e$ins to as4 &uestions

Until t!en, t!e police investi$ation did not focus on petitioner. Indeed, no &uestions ere put

/at!er, t!e &uestions ere directed to itnesses of t!e co(plainant. )!ere is, t!erefore, no %a petitioners alle$ations t!at !is ri$!ts as a suspect in a custodial interro$ation ere violated.

Second . Petitioner contends t!at t!e trial court ad(itted in evidence t!e testi(onies of t!e proseitnesses !en t!e fact is t!at %efore t!e# testified, t!eir testi(onies ere not for(all# offere&uired %# /ule '7+, [71 of t!e /ules of Court. Indeed, as !eld in People v" Java0 +

. . . /ule '7+, Section 7: of t!e /evised /ules of Court re&uires t!at for evidence to %e consides!ould %e for(all# offered and t!e purpose specified. . . .

Under t!e ne procedure as spelled out in Section 71 of t!e said rule !ic! %eca(e effective on'@, t!e offer of t!e testi(on# of a itness (ust %e (ade at t!e ti(e t!e itness is called to t)!e previous practice as to offer t!e testi(onial evidence at t!e end of t!e trial after all t!e !ad testified. it! t!e innovation, t!e court is put on notice !et!er t!e itness to %e present(aterial itness and s!ould %e !eard, or a itness !o ould %e testif#in$ on irrelevant (atterfacts alread# testified to %# ot!er itnesses and s!ould, t!erefore, %e stopped fro( testif#in$ furt!

. . . Sec. 7> of t!e afore(entioned rule re&uires t!at an o%5ection in t!e course of t!e oral e3a(ina itness s!ould %e (ade as soon as t!e $rounds t!erefor s!all %eco(e reasona%l# apparent. S

o%5ection to t!e ad(issi%ilit# of evidence as (ade in t!e court %elo, an o%5ection raised for tti(e on appeal ill not %e considered. 8

Petitioner raised t!is point, !oever, onl# in t!e Court of Appeals. 6e t!us aived !is o%5ectionfailure to raise it at t!e close of t!e presentation of t!e prosecution evidence in t!e trial court. As noted, t!e trial in t!is case too4 place fro( Dece(%er +@, '@ to *e%ruar# ', '. )!at as aadoption of t!e ne rule !ic! re&uired t!at t!e offer %e (ade at t!e %e$innin$ of t!e testi(onitness. Petitioner s!ould !ave invo4ed t!is rule and o%5ected to t!e testi(onies of t!e proseitnesses, if not %efore eac! of t!eir testi(onies, t!en at least at t!e ti(e t!eir testi(oniefor(all# offered at t!e close of t!e presentation of t!e prosecution evidence. Not !avin$ done(ust %e dee(ed to !ave aived !is o%5ection %ased on t!is $round. Conse&uentl#, t!e triaco((itted no error in considerin$ t!e testi(onies of t!e prosecution itnesses in its decision t!e fact t!at suc! testi(onies !ad not %een offered %efore t!e# ere $iven.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

Third . Petitioner clai(s t!at, in violation of t!e !earsa# rule, ritten state(ents pertainin$ to disputedfacts ere considered %# t!e trial court in its decision it!out presentin$ t!e declarants at t!e trial for e3a(ination.

/ule '7+, [' of t!e /ules of Court provides t!at t!e e3a(ination of itnesses presented in a trial or !earin$ s!all %e done in open court, and under oat! or affir(ation. Unless t!e itness is incapacitated tospea4 or t!e &uestion calls for a different (ode of anser t!e ansers of t!e itness s!all %e $iven

don t!e si3 electric (eters fro( t!e 2E/ACO post at t!e CAPASSCO co(pound. AccorHarcia, !e noticed t!e 2eralco truc4 par4ed %elo t!e 2eralco post outside t!e CAPASSCO $atruc4 as e&uipped it! a crane-li4e structure to !ic! as attac!ed a %as4et in !ic! to (e)!e %as4et as raised toard t!e 2eralco post !ile to or t!ree (en re(ained on t!e $round t!e 2eralco truc4. One (an as $ivin$ instructions to t!e (en re(ovin$ t!e (eters. Harcia recot!e truc4 to %e t!at of 2eralco %ecause of its fa(iliar oran$e color. )!us, !e testified0



spea4, or t!e &uestion calls for a different (ode of anser, t!e ansers of t!e itness s!all %e $iven

orall#. )!e reason for t!is rule is to-fold0 to afford t!e 5ud$e t!e opportunit# of o%servin$ t!ede(eanor of t!e itness and to allo t!e adverse part# a c!ance of cross-e3a(inin$ !i(.

Alt!ou$! !earsa# evidence (a# %e ad(itted %ecause of lac4 of o%5ection %# t!e adverse part#s counsel,it is nonet!eless it!out pro%ative value. )!e e3planation for t!is is $iven in People v" +alero, t!us0 (

)!e failure of t!e defense counsel to o%5ect to t!e presentation of inco(petent evidence, li4e !earsa#evidence or evidence t!at violates t!e rule of res inter alios acta, or !is failure to as4 for t!e stri4in$ outof t!e sa(e does not $ive suc! evidence an# pro%ative value. )!e lac4 of o%5ection (a# (a4e an#inco(petent evidence ad(issi%le. But ad(issi%ilit# of evidence s!ould not %e e&uated it! ei$!t of evidence. 6earsa# evidence !et!er o%5ected to or not !as no pro%ative value.

In t!is case, docu(ents (aterial to t!e $uilt of t!e accused ere ad(itted it!out t!e prosecution presentin$ in court t!ose !o e3ecuted t!e(, to it0 E3!i%it 2, certification si$ned %# a certain H.B.Pilapil, r., !ic! states t!at 2E/ACO did not send out an# personnel to inspect t!e electricalinstallations at CAPASSCO durin$ t!e period April '', '@ to April '+, '@= E3!i%it N, certificationissued %# one Vitaliano A. DiKon, !ic! states t!at 2E/ACO did not receive an# co(plaint fro(CAPASSCO concernin$ t!e electric (eters in &uestion durin$ t!e sa(e period= and E3!i%it P,certification $iven %# a certain E.2. opeK, r., statin$ t!at 2E/ACO did not aut!oriKe an# of its

e(plo#ees to re(ove t!e su%5ect electric (eters.

)!ese docu(ents contain state(ents of facts and, t!erefore, t!ose !o (ade t!e( s!ould !ave %een presented in court so t!at t!e# could %e cross-e3a(ined %# t!e defense. Ot!erise, !atever (atter t!e#contain is !earsa# and, conse&uentl#, it!out pro%ative value.

Fourth. e li4eise a$ree it! t!e final point raised %# petitioner, na(el#, t!at t!e evidence for t!e prosecution at t!e trial is not sufficient to prove !is $uilt %e#ond reasona%le dou%t. )!e trial courtconvicted petitioner solel# on t!e uncorro%orated testi(on# of Danilo Harcia.

Harcia clai(ed t!at at a%out '0 p.(. on April '', '@, !ile !e as aitin$ for !is ife in front of t!e CAPASSCO co(pound on P. de la CruK Street, San Bartolo(e, Novalic!es, ueKon Cit#, !e sa petitioner supervisin$ t!e ot!er cre(e(%ers of a 2E/ACO service truc4 nu(%er 1++ in %rin$in$

0 !ile conversin$ it! #our friends at a sideal4 %eside CAPASSCO, did #ou o%serve an# uincidentQ

A0 )!ere is, sir.

0 Could #ou please tell us !at is t!is unusual incident t!at #ou o%servedQ

A0 Mes, sir, a 2E/ACO truc4 as par4ed and t!e %as4et as %ein$ raised to t!e post.

0 And could #ou please tell us !at !appened after t!e %as4et as raised to t!e post, 2r. itnes

A0 !ile t!e %as4et as %ein$ raised to t!e post it! to ;+< (en on %oard, anot!er one asinstructions fro( %elo.

333 333 333

0 After t!e ad5ust(ent of t!e %as4et, !at !appened, 2r. itnessQ

A0 )!en, t!e# opened t!e %o3 t!at as attac!ed to t!e all of CAPASSCO !ile t!e ot!er o

ta(perin$ t!e (eters and !andin$ it to !is co(panion !o as it! !i( in t!e %as4et.

333 333 333

0 2r. itness, could #ou reco$niKe t!e to ;+< (en a%oard t!e %as4et if #ou !ave t!e opportuseein$ t!e( a$ainQ

A0 Mes, sir.

0 6o a%out t!e ot!er (an !o as $ivin$ instructions on t!e $roundQ Can #ou reco$niKe t!atif #ou !ave t!e opportunit# of seein$ !i( a$ainQ

A0 Mes, sir.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

333 333 333

0 ill #ou loo4 around inside t!e courtroo( if !e is !ereQ

A0 No, sir.

0 I ill s!o #ou p!oto$rap!s of several persons Can #ou identif# t!e person !o( #ou sa $ivin$

. . . t!e presence of (inor inconsistencies in t!e testi(on# of a itness could %e an indication of itness !ose testi(on# is perfect in all aspects, it!out a fla and re(e(%erin$ even t!e (details !ic! 5i%e %eautifull# it! one anot!er, la#s !i(self open to suspicion of !avin$ %een cor !avin$ (e(oriKed state(ents earlier re!earsed.

On t!e ot!er !and, if, as Harcia said, !e noticed t!at t!e 2E/ACO (en ere ta(perin$ (eters it is a source of onder !# !e did not report t!e (atter to t!e %aran$a# aut!orities



0 I ill s!o #ou p!oto$rap!s of several persons. Can #ou identif# t!e person !o( #ou sa $ivin$instructions on April '', '@Q

A0 Mes, sir.

333 333 333

;itness pointed to a p!oto$rap! of Ale5andro de la )orre !ic! appears on t!e %ail%ond filed %# t!eaccused.<

333 333 333

0 Can #ou re(e(%er t!e %od# nu(%er of t!e truc4, 2r. itnessQ

A0 Bod# nu(%er 1++, sir.

0 Mou stated t!at it as Bod# No. 1++. !# do #ou sa# t!at it is 1++, 2r. itnessQ

A0 It so !appened t!at I on in t!e 5ueten$, sir. 10

)o %e sure, t!e uncorro%orated testi(on# of a lone itness is sufficient %asis for t!e conviction of t!eaccused if it is credi%le, positive, and constitutes proof %e#ond reasona%le dou%t t!at t!e latter is $uilt#.6oever, in t!e case at %ar, t!e ansers $iven %# Harcia to &uestions as4ed durin$ !is directe3a(ination fall s!ort of t!is standard. *irst, Harcia (ust !ave an e3tre(el# acute sense of perception torecall a feature of t!e 2E/ACO service truc4, suc! as its nu(%er, !ic! at t!e ti(e !ad a%solutel# nosi$nificance for !i(. 6is clai( t!at !e re(e(%ered t!e nu(%er %ecause it as t!e nu(%er of a innin$ %et in 5ueten$ is too facile to %e convincin$. Second, Harcia (ust !ave a p!eno(enal (e(or# to %ea%le to recall al(ost t!ree (ont!s after t!e incident t!e appearance of a co(plete stran$er !o( !e !adseen onl# once. )!e re(oval of electric (eters %# cre(e(%ers of 2E/ACO as !ardl# a

re(ar4a%le event t!at ould !ave deserved t!e attention to detail t!at Harcia, a (ere c!ance passer%#,apparentl# lavis!ed upon it. As t!is Court said in People v" 2bal 0 11

(eters, it is a source of onder !# !e did not report t!e (atter to t!e %aran$a# aut!orities.

Not onl# is t!e testi(on# of Danilo Harcia i(pro%a%le. 6is credi%ilit# as a itness is li4eise din vie of t!e testi(on# of Pio Bautista, a council (e(%er of Baran$a# San Bartolo(e, NovaueKon Cit#. 6e testified t!at Danilo Harcia as not 4non to residents of P. de la CruK StreetBartolo(e, Novalic!es, ueKon Cit#. Accordin$ to Bautista, !e (ade in&uiries upon t!e re& petitioner de la )orre concernin$ t!e residence address of Harcia. Bautista testified0

0 . . . ere #ou a%le to (a4e so(e e3!austive in&uiries of 2r. Danilo Harcia !ic! !e saidsorn state(ent na4atira sa loo%an of P. de la CruK Street, San Bartolo(e, ueKon Cit#Q

A0 Mes, sir.

0 And t!en !at !appened !en #ou ent in loo%an, P. de la CruK Street, San Bartolo(e, NovueKon Cit#Q

A0 No%od# as a%le to tell (e t!at a certain Danilo Harcia resides in t!at place. 12

Evidence to %e %elieved (ust co(e fro( a credi%le itness and (ust itself %e credi%le.

6E/E*O/E, t!e decision appealed fro( is /EVE/SED and petitioner Ale5andro B. de la )ACUI))ED on t!e $round of reasona%le dou%t.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

EN BANC

G.R. No. 11+565 NoB">"r 18, 1((+

ARSENIO P. LUMI;UE !4"c"a"4%, R"o3a r"cor, AR AR, R"@r""3"4 ) hH"r, Fra3cca A. L->-"4, Ma) A. L->-"4, Ar"3" A. L->-"4 a34 Rchar4 A.L->-"4 petitioners

!is unli&uidated cas! advances t!rou$! t!e falsification of accountin$ entries in order not to refCas! advances of ot!er officials under code @-?-> of accountin$ rules.

)!e t!ird affidavit-co(plaint dated Dece(%er '1, '@, $ c!ar$ed u(i&ued it! oppressi!arass(ent. Accordin$ to private respondent, !er to previous co(plaints pro(pted u(i&retaliate %# relievin$ !er fro( !er post as /e$ional Cas!ier it!out 5ust cause.



L->-"4, petitioners,vs.Ho3ora" APOLONIO G. E=E:EA, EROLFO :. *ALA9AIA a34 FELI= T. A*AING,ALL M">"r o? I3B"a3 o>>"", cr"a"4 ) O9 Or4"r No. 1'5 o3 Ma) $0, 1((2HON. FRANLIN M. RILON, SERETARY OF 9USTIE, HON. ANTONIO T. ARPIO,HIEF Pr"4"3a L"a A4B"rJo-3" a34 HON. LEONARO A. ;UISUM*ING, S"3or"@-) EC"c-B" S"cr"ar) o? h" O??c" o? h" Pr"4"3, a34 9EANNETTE O*AR#ZAMUIO,

PrBa" R"@o34"3, respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

Does t!e due process clause enco(pass t!e ri$!t to %e assisted %# counsel durin$ an ad(inistrativein&uir#Q

Arsenio P. u(i&ued as t!e /e$ional Director of t!e Depart(ent of A$rarian /efor( CordilleraAutono(ous /e$ion ;DA/-CA/< until President *idel V. /a(os dis(issed !i( fro( t!at position pursuant to Ad(inistrative Order No. 1+ dated 2a# '+, '7. In vie of u(i&ueds deat! on 2a# ',':, !is !eirs instituted t!is petition for certiorari and (anda(us, &uestionin$ suc! order.

)!e dis(issal as t!e after(at! of t!ree co(plaints filed %# DA/-CA/ /e$ional Cas!ier and private

respondent eannette O%ar-a(udio it! t!e Board of Discipline of t!e DA/. )!e first affidavit-co(plaint dated Nove(%er '>, '@, 1 c!ar$ed u(i&ued it! (alversation t!rou$! falsification of official docu(ents. *ro( 2a# to Septe(%er '@, u(i&ued alle$edl# co((itted at least 7 counts of falsification %# paddin$ $asoline receipts. 6e even su%(itted a vulcaniKin$ s!op receipt ort! P11.for $asoline %ou$!t fro( t!e s!op, and anot!er receipt for P>>. for a sin$le vulcaniKin$ 5o%. it! t!euse of falsified receipts, u(i&ued clai(ed and as rei(%ursed t!e su( of P::,'?+.:>. Privaterespondent added t!at u(i&ued seldo( (ade field trips and preferred to sta# in t!e office, (a4in$ iti(possi%le for !i( to consu(e t!e nearl# '+ liters of $asoline !e clai(ed ever#da#.

In !er second affidavit-co(plaint dated Nove(%er ++, '@, 2 private respondent accused u(i&uedit! violation of Co((ission on Audit ;COA< rules and re$ulations, alle$in$ t!at durin$ t!e (ont!s of April, 2a#, ul#, Au$ust, Septe(%er and Octo%er, '@, !e (ade unli&uidated cas! advances in t!e totala(ount of P''>,.. u(i&ued purportedl# defrauded t!e $overn(ent %# deli%eratel# concealin$

)!e t!ree affidavit-co(plaints ere referred in due course to t!e Depart(ent of ustice ;DOappropriate action. On 2a# +, '+, Actin$ ustice Secretar# Eduardo H. 2ontene$roDepart(ent Order No. ':1 creatin$ a co((ittee to investi$ate t!e co(plaints a$ainst u(i&ueorder appointed /e$ional State Prosecutor Apolinario E3evea as co((ittee c!air(an iProsecutor Erdolfo Bala5adia and Provincial Prosecutor *eli3 Ca%adin$ as (e(%ers. )!e(andated to conduct an investi$ation it!in t!irt# da#s fro( receipt of t!e order, and to su%(

report and reco((endation it!in fifteen da#s fro( its conclusion.

)!e investi$atin$ co((ittee accordin$l# issued a subpoena directin$ u(i&ued to su%(it !is caffidavit on or %efore une '?, '+. u(i&ued, !oever, filed instead an ur$ent (otion tsu%(ission of !is counter-affidavit pendin$ actual receipt of to of private respondents co(plaico((ittee $ranted t!e (otion and $ave !i( a five-da# e3tension.

In !is counter-affidavit dated une +7, '+, ' u(i&ued alle$ed, inter alia, t!at t!e cases ea$ainst !i( to e3tort (one# fro( innocent pu%lic servants li4e !i(, and ere initiated %# respondent in connivance it! a certain Benedict Ballu$ of )arlac and a certain Beni$no A&uinoclai(ed t!at t!e apparent ea4ness of t!e c!ar$e as %olstered %# private respondents e3ecutioaffidavit of desistance. 5

u(i&ued ad(itted t!at !is avera$e dail# $asoline consu(ption as '@.:1 liters. 6e su%!oever, t!at suc! consu(ption as arranted as it as t!e a$$re$ate consu(ption of t!e five ve!icles issued under !is na(e and intended for t!e use of t!e Office of t!e /e$ional DirectorDA/. 6e added t!at t!e receipts !ic! ere issued %e#ond !is re$ion ere (ade in t!e coursetravels to Ifu$ao Province, t!e DA/ Central Office in Dili(an, ueKon Cit#, and a$una, !attended a se(inar. Because t!ese receipts ere (erel# turned over to !i( %# drivrei(%urse(ent, it as not !is o%li$ation %ut t!at of auditors and accountants to deter(ine !et!ere falsified. 6e affi3ed !is si$nature on t!e receipts onl# to si$nif# t!at t!e sa(e ere validl# %# t!e esta%lis!(ents concerned in order t!at official transactions of t!e DA/-CA/ could %e out.

E3plainin$ !# a vulcaniKin$ s!op issued a $asoline receipt, u(i&ued said t!at !e and !is co(pere cruisin$ alon$ Santa *e, Nueva ViKca#a on t!eir a# to Ifu$ao !en t!eir service ve!icle

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

of $as. Since it as al(ost (idni$!t, t!e# sou$!t t!e !elp of t!e oner of a vulcaniKin$ s!op !oreadil# furnis!ed t!e( it! t!e $asoline t!e# needed. )!e vulcaniKin$ s!op issued its on receipt sot!at t!e# could rei(%urse t!e cost of t!e $asoline. Do(in$o ucero, t!e oner of said vulcaniKin$ s!op,corro%orated t!is e3planation in an affidavit dated une +1, '. 6 it! respect to t!e accusation t!at !esou$!t rei(%urse(ent in t!e a(ount of P>>. for one vulcaniKin$ 5o%, u(i&ued su%(itted t!at t!ea(ount as actuall# onl# P>.>. An# error co((itted in postin$ t!e a(ount in t!e %oo4s of t!e/e$ional Office as not !is personal error or accounta%ilit#.

)!e (edical certificate $iven s!o;s< t!at respondent as disc!ar$ed fro( t!e Sacred 6eart 6on ul# '?, '+, t!e date of t!e !earin$, !ic! date as upon t!e re&uest of respondent ;u()!e records do not disclose t!at respondent advised t!e Investi$atin$ co((ittee of !is confine(ina%ilit# to attend despite !is disc!ar$e, eit!er %# !i(self or t!ru counsel. )!e records li4eises!o t!at efforts ere e3erted to notif# t!e Co((ittee of respondents condition on an# reasona%after ul# '?, '+. It is !erein noted t!at as earl# as une +7, '+, respondent as alread#assisted %# counsel.



$ p #

)o refute private respondents alle$ation t!at !e violated COA rules and re$ulations in incurrin$unli&uidated cas! advances in t!e a(ount of P''>,., u(i&ued presented a certification + of DA/-CA/ Ad(inistrative Officer Deo$racias *. Al(ora t!at !e !ad no outstandin$ cas! advances on recordas of Dece(%er 7', '@.

In disputin$ t!e c!ar$es of oppression and !arass(ent a$ainst !i(, u(i&ued contended t!at privaterespondent as not ter(inated fro( t!e service %ut as (erel# relieved of !er duties due to !er prolon$ed a%sences. !ile ad(ittin$ t!at private respondent filed t!e re&uired applications for leave of a%sence, u(i&ued clai(ed t!at t!e e3i$enc# of t!e service necessitated disapproval of !er applicationfor leave of a%sence. 6e alle$edl# re5ected !er second application for leave of a%sence in vie of !er failure to file t!e sa(e i((ediatel# it! t!e !ead office or upon !er return to or4. 6e also assertedt!at no (edical certificate supported !er application for leave of a%sence.

In t!e sa(e counter-affidavit, u(i&ued also clai(ed t!at private respondent as corrupt and dis!onest %ecause a COA e3a(ination revealed t!at !er cas! accounta%ilities fro( une ++ to Nove(%er +7,'@, ere s!ort %# P7,:>.@?. Alt!ou$! private respondent i((ediatel# returned t!e a(ount onanuar# '@, ', t!e da# folloin$ t!e co(pletion of t!e cas! e3a(ination, u(i&ued asserted t!at s!es!ould %e relieved fro( !er duties and assi$ned to 5o%s t!at ould not re&uire !andlin$ of cas! and

(one# (atters.

Co((ittee !earin$s on t!e co(plaints ere conducted on ul# 7 and ', '+, %ut u(i&ued as notassisted %# counsel. On t!e second !earin$ date, !e (oved for its resettin$ to ul# '?, '+, to ena%le!i( to e(plo# t!e services of counsel. )!e co((ittee $ranted t!e (otion, %ut neit!er u(i&ued nor !iscounsel appeared on t!e date !e !i(self !ad c!osen, so t!e co((ittee dee(ed t!e case su%(itted for resolution.

On Au$ust '+, '+, u(i&ued filed an ur$ent (otion for additional !earin$, 8 alle$in$ t!at !e suffereda stro4e on ul# ', '+. )!e (otion as forarded to t!e Office of t!e State Prosecutor apparentl#

%ecauset!e investi$ation !ad alread# %een ter(inated. In an order dated Septe(%er ?, '+, ( State Prosecutor oila C. 2ontero denied t!e (otion, vi& 0

#

2oreover an evaluation of t!e counter-affidavit su%(itted reveal;s< t!e sufficienc#, co(pletent!orou$!ness of t!e counter-affidavit to$et!er it! t!e docu(entar# evidence anne3ed t!ereto, sua 5udicious deter(ination of t!e case %ased on t!e pleadin$s su%(itted is alread# possi%le.

2oreover, considerin$ t!at t!e co(plaint-affidavit as filed as far %ac4 as Nove(%er '>, '

5ustice can not %e dela#ed (uc! lon$er.

*olloin$ t!e conclusion of t!e !earin$s, t!e investi$atin$ co((ittee rendered a report dated '+, 10findin$ u(i&ued lia%le for all t!e c!ar$es a$ainst !i(. It (ade t!e folloin$ findin$s0

After a t!orou$! evaluation of t!e evidences ; sic< su%(itted %# t!e parties, t!is co((ittee fievidence su%(itted %# t!e co(plainant sufficient to esta%lis! t!e $uilt of t!e respondent forDis!onest# and Hrave 2isconduct.

)!at (ost of t!e $asoline receipts used %# t!e respondent in clai(in$ for t!e rei(%urse(ent$asoline e3penses ere !alsi!ied is clearl# esta%lis!ed %# t!e '1 Certified ero3 Copies of t!e dureceipts ;Anne3es H-' to H-'1< and t!e certifications issued %# t!e different $asoline stations !respondent purc!ased $asoline. Anne3es H-' to H-'1 s!o t!at t!e actual avera$e purc!as

%# t!e respondent is a%out @.:> liters onl# at a purc!ase price of P1., in contrast to t!e receip %# t!e respondent !ic! reflects an avera$e of '@.:1 liters at a purc!ase price of P11.. 6$reed of t!e respondent is (ade (anifest %# !is act of clai(in$ rei(%urse(ents of (ore t!an 't!e value of !at !e actuall# spends. !ile onl# '1 of t!e $asoline receipts ere ascertained t %een falsified, t!e (otive, t!e pattern and t!e sc!e(e e(plo#ed %# t!e respondent in defraud$overn(ent !as, nevert!eless, %een esta%lis!ed.

)!at t!e $asoline receipts !ave %een falsified as not re%utted %# t!e respondent. In fact, !eeffect ad(itted t!at !e !ad %een clai(in$ for t!e pa#(ent of an avera$e consu(ption of litersLda# %# 5ustif#in$ t!at t!is as %ein$ used %# t!e : ve!icles issued to !is office. Besides ad(itted !avin$ si$ned t!e receipts.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

/espondents act in defraudin$ t!e $overn(ent of a considera%le su( of (one# %# falsif#in$ receiptsconstitutes not onl# Dis!onest# of a !i$! de$ree %ut also a cri(inal offense for 2alversation t!rou$!*alsification of Official Docu(ents.

)!is co((ittee li4eise finds t!at t!e respondent !ave ; sic< unli.uidated

cas! advances in t!e #ear '@ !ic! is in violation of esta%lis!ed office and auditin$ rules. 6is cas! advances totalin$ to a%outP''>,. ere properl# docu(ented. )!e re&uests for o%li$ation of allot(ents and t!e vouc!ers

t!eDO. 1' Concurrin$ it! t!is vie, Undersecretar# Es$uerra infor(ed u(i&ued t!at t!e investco((ittee could no lon$er act on !is (otion for reconsideration. 6e added t!at t!e (otion pre(aturel# filed %ecause t!e Office of t!e President ;OP< !ad #et to act on Secretar# Dreco((endation. 15

On 2a# '+, '7, President *idel V. /a(os !i(self issued Ad(inistrative Order No. 1+ ;A.



p p # & $

coverin$ t!e a(ounts ere all si$ned %# !i(. )!e (ere certification issued %# t!e Ad(inistrativeOfficer of t!e DA/-CA/ cannot t!erefore re%ut t!ese concrete evidences ; sic<.

On t!e t!ird co(plaint, t!is co((ittee li4eise %elieves t!at t!e respondents act in relievin$ t!eco(plainant of !er functions as a /e$ional Cas!ier on Dece(%er ', '@ as an act of !arass(ent. It isnoted t!at t!is as done %arel# to ee4s after t!e co(plainant filed c!ar$es a$ainst !er ; sic<. )!e

reco((endation of ose H. 2edina of t!e Co((ission on Audit ca(e onl# on 2a# '', ' or al(ostsi3 (ont!s after t!e respondents order relievin$ t!e co(plainant as issued. 6is act in !arassin$ asu%ordinate e(plo#ee in retaliation to a co(plaint s!e filed constitute;s< Hross 2isconduct on t!e partof t!e respondent !o is a !ead of office.

)!e affidavits of osep! In-u#a# and osefina Hutin$ are of no !elp to t!e respondent. In fact, t!is onl#s!o;s< t!at !e is capa%le of $ivin$ %ri%es if onl# to !ave t!e cases a$ainst !i( dis(issed. 6e could not!ave $iven a certain Beni$no A&uino III t!e su( of P',. for an# ot!er purpose.

Accordin$l#, t!e investi$atin$ co((ittee reco((ended u(i&ueds dis(issal or re(oval fro( office,it!out pre5udice to t!e filin$ of t!e appropriate cri(inal c!ar$es a$ainst !i(.

Actin$ on t!e report and reco((endation, for(er ustice Secretar# *ran4lin 2. Drilon adopted t!e

sa(e in !is 2e(orandu( to President *idel V. /a(os dated Octo%er ++, '+. 6e added t!at t!e filin$of t!e affidavit of desistance 11 ould not prevent t!e issuance of a resolution on t!e (atter considerin$t!at !at as at sta4e as not onl# t!e violation of co(plainants ;!erein private respondents< personal ri$!ts %ut also t!e co(petence and fitness of t!e respondent ;u(i&ued< to re(ain in pu%licoffice. 6e opined t!at, in fact, t!e evidence on record could call for a punitive action a$ainst t!erespondent on t!e initiative of t!e DA/.

On Dece(%er '?, '+, u(i&ued filed a (otion for reconsideration of t!e findin$s of t!e Co((itteeit! t!e DO. 12 Undersecretar# /a(on S. Es$uerra indorsed t!e (otion to t!e investi$atin$co((ittee. 1$ In a letter dated April ', '7, t!e t!ree-(e(%er investi$atin$ co((ittee infor(edUndersecretar# Es$uerra t!at t!e co((ittee !ad no (ore aut!orit# to act on t!e sa(e ;(otion for reconsideration< considerin$ t!at t!e (atter !as alread# %een forarded to t!e Office of t!e Presidentand t!at t!eir aut!orit# under Depart(ent Order No. ':1 ceased !en t!e# trans(itted t!eir report to

# ;

1+<, 16 findin$ u(i&ued ad(inistrativel# lia%le for dis!onest# in t!e alteration of fifteen $receipts, and dis(issin$ !i( fro( t!e service, it! forfeiture of !is retire(ent and ot!er %enefits

)!at t!e receipts ere (erel# turned over to !i( %# !is drivers and t!at t!e auditor and account!e DA/-CA/ s!ould %e t!e ones to %e !eld lia%le is untena%le. )!e receipts in &uestion ere si$respondent for t!e purpose of attestin$ t!at t!ose receipts ere validl# issued %# t!e co(

esta%lis!(ents and ere properl# dis%ursed and used in t!e official %usiness for !ic! it as inte

)!is Office is not a%out to s!ift t!e %la(e for all t!ese to t!e drivers e(plo#ed %# t!e DA/-Crespondent ould ant us to do.

)!e OP, !oever, found t!at t!e c!ar$es of oppression and !arass(ent, as ell as t!at of inunli&uidated cas! advances, ere not satisfactoril# esta%lis!ed.

In a petition for appeal 1+ addressed to President /a(os, u(i&ued pra#ed t!at A.O. Noreconsidered and t!at !e %e reinstated to !is for(er position it! all t!e %enefits accorded to la and e3istin$ rules and re$ulations. )!is petition as %asicall# pre(ised on t!e affidavit dat+?, '7, of a certain Di$!t . u(i&ued, a for(er driver of t!e DA/-CA/, !o confessed toaut!ored t!e falsification of $asoline receipts and attested to petitioner u(i&ueds %ein$ an

(an !o !ad no pre(onition t!at t!e receipts !e ;Di$!t< turned over to !i( ere altered.

)reatin$ t!e petition for appeal as a (otion for reconsideration of A.O. No. 1+, t!e OP, t!rou$! Deput# E3ecutive Secretar# eonardo A. uisu(%in$, denied t!e sa(e on Au$ust 7', '7.

Undaunted, u(i&ued filed a second (otion for reconsideration, alle$in$, a(on$ ot!er t!in$s, as denied t!e constitutional ri$!t to counsel durin$ t!e !earin$. 1( On 2a# ', ':, 20 !

%efore !is (otion could %e resolved, u(i&ued died. On Septe(%er +@, ':, 21 Secretar# uisdenied t!e second (otion for reconsideration for lac4 of (erit.

6ence, t!e instant petition for certiorari and mandamus pra#in$ for t!e reversal of t!e /ep/eco((endation of t!e Investi$atin$ Co((ittee, t!e Octo%er ++, '+, 2e(orandu( of t!en Secretar# Drilon, A.O. No. 1+ issued %# President /a(os, and t!e orders of Secretar# uisu(%i

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

nuts!ell, it pra#s for t!e pa#(ent of retire(ent %enefits and ot!er %enefits accorded to deceasedArsenio u(i&ued %# la, pa#a%le to !is !eirs= and t!e %ac4a$es fro( t!e period !e as dis(issedfro( service up to t!e ti(e of !is deat! on 2a# ', ':. 22

Petitioners fault t!e investi$atin$ co((ittee for its !ailure to in!orm Lumi.ued o! his right to counsel

during the hearing . )!e# (aintain t!at !is right to counsel could not be )aived unless the )aiver )as

in )riting and in the presence o! counsel . )!e# assert t!at t!e co((ittee s!ould !ave suspended t!e

Depart(ent Order No. ':1 as dut#-%ound to conduct t!e ad(inistrative investi$ation in accoit! t!e rules t!erefor.

!ile investi$ations conducted %# an ad(inistrative %od# (a# at ti(es %e a4in to a c proceedin$, t!e fact re(ains t!at under e3istin$ las, a part# in an ad(inistrative in&uir# may

not be assisted by counsel , irrespective of t!e nature of t!e c!ar$es and of t!e respondents caparepresent !i(self, and no dut# rests on suc! a %od# to furnis! t!e person %ein$ investi$ate



!earin$ and $ranted u(i&ued a reasona%le ti(e it!in !ic! to secure a counsel of !is on. If suspension as not possi%le, t!e co((ittee s!ould !ave appointed a counsel de o!icio to assist !i(.

)!ese ar$u(ents are untena%le and (isplaced. )!e ri$!t to counsel, !ic! cannot %e aived unless t!eaiver is in ritin$ and in t!e presence of counsel, is a ri$!t afforded a suspect or an accused durin$custodial investi$ation. 2$ It is not an a%solute ri$!t and (a#, t!us, %e invo4ed or re5ected in a cri(inal

proceedin$ and, it! (ore reason, in an ad(inistrative in&uir#. In t!e case at %ar, petitioners invo4et!e right o! an accused in cri(inal proceedin$s to !ave co(petent and independent counsel of !is onc!oice. u(i&ued, !oever, as not accused of an# cri(e in t!e proceedin$s %elo. )!e investi$ationconducted %# t!e co((ittee created %# Depart(ent Order No. ':1 as for t!e purpose of deter(inin$if !e could %e !eld administratively liable under t!e la for t!e co(plaints filed a$ainst !i(. )!e order issued %# Actin$ Secretar# of ustice 2ontene$ro states t!us0

In t!e interest of t!e pu%lic service and pursuant to t!e provisions of e3istin$ las, a Co((ittee to

conduct t!e for(al investi$ation of t!e ad(inistrative co(plaint for oppression, dis!onest#, dis$racefuland i((oral conduct, %ein$ notoriousl# undesira%le and conduct pre5udicial to t!e %est interest of t!eservice a$ainst 2r. A/SENIO P. U2IUED, /e$ional Director, Depart(ent of A$rarian /efor(,Cordillera Autono(ous /e$ion, is !ere%# created . . . 2'

As suc!, t!e !earin$ conducted %# t!e investi$atin$ co((ittee as not part of a cri(inal prosecution.)!is as even (ade (ore pronounced !en, after findin$ u(i&ued ad(inistrativel# lia%le, it !inted at

t!e filin$ of a cri(inal case for (alversation t!rou$! falsification of pu%lic docu(ents in its report andreco((endation.

Petitioners (isconception on t!e nature of t!e investi$ation 25 conducted a$ainst u(i&ued appears to!ave %een en$endered %# t!e fact t!at t!e DO conducted it. !ile it is true t!at under t!eAd(inistrative Code of '@?, t!e DO s!all ad(inister t!e cri(inal 5ustice s#ste( in accordance it!t!e accepted processes t!ereof consistin$ in t!e investi$ation of t!e cri(es, prosecution of offenders andad(inistration of t!e correctional s#ste(, 26 conductin$ cri(inal investi$ations is not its sole function.

B# its poer to perfor( suc! ot!er functions as (a# %e provided %# la, 2+ prosecutors (a# %e calledupon to conduct ad(inistrative investi$ations. Accordin$l#, t!e investi$atin$ co((ittee created %#

counsel. 28 In an ad(inistrative proceedin$ suc! as t!e one t!at transpired %elo, a respondent ;u(i&ued< !as t!e option of en$a$in$ t!e services of counsel or not. )!is is clear fro( t!e proviSection 7+, Article VII of /epu%lic Act No. ++> 2( ;ot!erise 4non as t!e Civil Service ASection 7, para$rap! +, /ule IV ;on Discipline< of t!e O(ni%us /ules I(ple(entin$ BooE3ecutive Order No. ++ $0 ;ot!erise 4non as t!e Ad(inistrative Code of '@?<. E3cerpts frtranscript of steno$rap!ic notes of t!e !earin$s attended %# u(i&ued $1 clearly sho) that

con!ident o! his capacity and so opted to represent himsel!. )!us, t!e ri$!t to counsel is not i(pin ad(inistrative investi$ations %ecause suc! in&uiries are conducted (erel# to deter(ine !et!are facts t!at (erit disciplinar# (easures a$ainst errin$ pu%lic officers and e(plo#ees, it! t!e pof (aintainin$ t!e di$nit# of $overn(ent service.

*urt!er(ore, petitioners reliance on /esolution No. :-1+' of t!e Civil Service Co((issionUnifor( Procedure in t!e Conduct of Ad(inistrative Investi$ation statin$ t!at a respondenad(inistrative co(plaint (ust %e infor(ed of !is ri$!t to t!e assistance of a counselc!oice, $2 is inappropriate. In t!e first place, t!is resolution is applica%le onl# to cases %rou$!tt!e Civil Service Co((ission. $$ Secondl#, said resolution, !ic! is dated anuar# +1, ':, toofifteen da#s folloin$ its pu%lication in a nespaper of $eneral circulation, $' (uc! later t!an t'+ !earin$s of t!e investi$atin$ co((ittee created %# Depart(ent Order No. ':1. )!irdl#, t!co((ittee as not re(iss in t!e (atter of re(indin$ u(i&ued of !is ri$!t to counsel. )!us, at t

7, '+, !earin$, u(i&ued as repeatedl# appraised of !is option to secure t!e services of coun

/SP EEVEA0

)!is is an ad(inistrative case a$ainst Director u(i&ued. Director u(i&ued is presenco(plainant is present, anet O%ar-a(udio. Co(plainant !as 5ust %een furnis!ed it! a cop#counter-affidavit of t!e respondent. Do #ou !ave a counsel, DirectorQ

DI/. U2IUED0

I did not %rin$ an#%od#, Sir, %ecause !en I ent to see !i(, !e told (e, Sir, t!at !e !as alread!earin$, (ornin$ and afternoon toda#.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

/SP EEVEA0

So, )e )ill proceed )ith the hearing even )ithout your counsel5 =ou are )illing to proceed )ith the

hearing even )ithout your counsel Q

DI/. U2IUED0

e ill suspend in t!e (eanti(e t!at e are aitin$ for t!e supple(ental affidavit #ou are $ present to us. Do #ou !ave an# re&uest fro( t!e panel of investi$ators, Director u(i&uedQ

DI/EC)O/ U2IUED0

I as not a%le to %rin$ a la#er since t!e la#er I re&uested to assist (e and as t!e one !o p(# counter-affidavit is alread# en$a$ed for a !earin$ and accordin$ to !i( !e is en$a$ed for t!e



=es, 2 am con!ident . . .

CP BAAADIA0

=ou are con!ident that you )ill be able to represent yoursel! Q

DI/. U2IUED0

That is my concern. $5 ;E(p!asis supplied<

In t!e course of private respondents da(a$in$ testi(on#, t!e investi$atin$ co((ittee once a$ainre(inded u(i&ued of !is need for a counsel. )!us0

CP BAAADIA0

. ;)o Director u(i&ued< =ou really )ish t o go through )ith this even )ithout your counsel Q

DI/EC)O/ U2IUED0

A. 2 thin0 so, Sir .

CP BAAADIA0

Let us ma0e it o! record that )e have been )arning you to proceed )ith the assistance o! counsel but

you said that you can ta0e care o! yoursel! so )e have no other alternative but to proceed . $6 ;E(p!asis

supplied<.

)!ereafter, t!e folloin$ collo&uies transpired0

CP BAAADIA0

(ont! of ul#.

/SP EEVEA0

e cannot ait . . .

CP BAAADIA0

!# dont #ou en$a$e t!e services of anot!er counsel. )!e c!ar$es a$ainst #ou are &uite serious.not sa#in$ #ou are $uilt# alread#. e are 5ust appre!ensive t!at #ou ill $o t!rou$! t!is investit!out a counsel. e ould li4e #ou to %e protected le$all# in t!e course of t!is investi$ationdont #ou $et t!e services of anot!er counsel. )!ere are plent# !ere in Ba$uio . . .

DI/EC)O/ U2IUED0

I ill tr# to see, Sir . . .

CP BAAADIA0

Please select #our date no, e are onl# $iven one (ont! to finis! t!e investi$ation, Du(i&ued.

/SP EEVEA0

e ill not entertain an# postpone(ent. it! or it!out counsel, e ill proceed.

CP BAAADIA0

2ada( itness, ill #ou please su%(it t!e docu(ent !ic! e as4ed for and Director u(i&#ou !ave ot!er itnesses, please %rin$ t!e( %ut reduce t!eir testi(onies in affidavit for( so t!ate3pedite it! t!e proceedin$s. $+

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

At t!e !earin$ sc!eduled for ul# ', '+, u(i&ued still did not avail of t!e services of counsel.Pertinent e3cerpts fro( said !earin$ follo0

*ISCA BAAADIA0

I notice also 2r. C!air(an t!at t!e respondent is not %ein$ represented %# a counsel. )!e last ti(e !eas as4ed to invite !is la#er in t!is investi$ation. 2a# e 4no if !e !as a la#er to represent !i( in

se(inars %ot! !ere and a%road. $( 6ence, !e could !ave defended !i(self if need %e, it!out t!ecounsel, if trut! ere on !is side. )!is, apparentl#, as t!e t!ou$!t !e entertained durin$ t!e !earas a%le to attend. In !is state(ent, )!at is (# concern, one could detect t!at it !ad %een utestil#, if not e3asperatedl#, %ecause of t!e dou%t or s4epticis( i(plicit in t!e &uestion, Mconfident t!at #ou ill %e a%le to represent #ourselfQ despite !is !avin$ positivel# asserted Mes, I a( confident. 6e as o%viousl# convinced t!at !e could a%l# represent !i(self. Brepeatedl# re(indin$ !i( t!at !e could avail !i(self of counsel and as often receivin$ t!e repl#i fid t f !i %ilit t d f d !i lf t! i ti ti itt ld t d O



t!is investi$ationQ

DI/. U2IUED0

)!ere is none Sir %ecause !en I ent to (# la#er, !e told (e t!at !e !ad set a case also at 07 in t!e

ot!er court and !e told (e if t!ere is a possi%ilit# of !avin$ t!is case postponed an#ti(e ne3t ee4,

pro%a%l# ednesda# so e ill !ave $ood ti(e ; sic< of presentin$ t!e a ffidavit.

*ISCA BAAADIA0

Are #ou (ovin$ for a postpone(ent DirectorQ 2a# I t!ro t!is to t!e panel. )!e c!ar$es in t!is caseare &uite serious and !e s!ould %e $iven a c!ance to t!e assistance of a counselLla#er.

/SP EEVEA0

And is ; sic< appearin$ t!at t!e supple(ental-affidavit !as %een furnis!ed !i( onl# no and t!is !as

several docu(ents attac!ed to it so I t!in4 e could $rant !i( one last postpone(ent considerin$ t!at!e !as alread# as4ed for an e3tension.

DI/. U2IUED0

*urt!er(ore Sir, I a( no %ein$ %ot!ered %# (# !eart ail(ent. $8

)!e !earin$ as reset to ul# '?, '+, t!e date !en u(i&ued as released fro( t!e !ospital. Prior tosaid date, !oever, u(i&ued did not infor( t!e co((ittee of !is confine(ent. Conse&uentl# %ecauset!e !earin$ could not pus! t!rou$! on said date, and u(i&ued !ad alread# su%(itted !is counter-affidavit, t!e co((ittee decided to ind up t!e proceedin$s. )!is did not (ean, !oever, t!atu(i&ued as s!ort-c!an$ed in !is ri$!t to due process.

u(i&ued, a /e$ional Director of a (a5or depart(ent in t!e e3ecutive %ranc! of t!e $overn(ent,$raduated fro( t!e Universit# of t!e P!ilippines ;os Baos< it! t!e de$ree of Bac!elor of Science(a5or in A$riculture, as a recipient of various sc!olars!ips and $rants, and underent trainin$

is confident of !is a%ilit# to defend !i(self, t!e investi$atin$ co((ittee could not do (ore. Olead a !orse to ater %ut cannot (a4e !i( drin4.

)!e ri$!t to counsel is not indispensa%le to due process unless re&uired %# t!e Constitution or tIn 7era v. -uditor $eneral , '0 t!e Court said0

. . . )!ere is not!in$ in t!e Constitution t!at sa#s t!at a part# in a non-cri(inal proceedin$ is ent %e represented %# counsel and t!at, it!out suc! representation, !e s!all not %e %ound % proceedin$s. )!e assistance of la#ers= !ile desira%le, is not indispensa%le. )!e le$al professinot en$rafted in t!e due process clause suc! t!at it!out t!e participation of its (e(%ers, t!e sais dee(ed i$nored or violated. )!e ordinar# citiKen is not t!at !elpless t!at !e cannot validl# ace3cept onl# it! a la#er at !is side.

In ad(inistrative proceedin$s, t!e essence of due process is si(pl# t!e opportunit# to e3plain on

One (a# %e !eard, not solel# %# ver%al presentation %ut also, and per!aps even (uc! (ore creditit is (ore practica%le t!an oral ar$u(ents, t!rou$! pleadin$s. '1 An actual !earin$ is not alindispensa%le aspect of due process. '2 As lon$ as a part# as $iven t!e opportunit# to defeinterests in due course= !e cannot %e said to !ave %een denied due process of la, for t!is opport %e !eard is t!e ver# essence of due process. '$ 2oreover, t!is constitutional (andate is dee(ed s

if a person is $ranted an opportunit# to see4 reconsideration of t!e action or rulin$ co(pof. '' u(i&ueds appeal and !is su%se&uent filin$ of (otions for reconsideration cured !irre$ularit# attended t!e proceedin$s conducted %# t!e co((ittee. '5

)!e constitutional provision on due process safe$uards life, li%ert# and propert#. '6 In t!e earof %orne:o v.$abriel and Provincial Board

#i&al '+ t!e Court !eld t!at a pu%lic office is not propert# it!in t!e sense of t!e constitutional $uof due process of la for it is a pu%lic trust or a$enc#. )!is 5urisprudential pronounce(ent !ens!rined in t!e '@? Constitution under Article I, Section ', on accounta%ilit# of pu%lic offifollos0

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

Sec. '. Pu%lic office is a pu%lic trust. Pu%lic officers and e(plo#ees (ust at all ti(es %e accounta%le tot!e people, serve t!e( it! ut(ost responsi%ilit#, inte$rit#, lo#alt#, and efficienc#, act it! patriotis(and 5ustice, and lead (odest lives.

!en t!e dispute concerns ones constitutional ri$!t to securit# of tenure, !oever, pu%lic office isdee(ed analo$ous to propert# in a li(ited sense= !ence, t!e ri$!t to due process could ri$!tfull# %einvo4ed. Nonet!eless, t!e ri$!t to securit# of tenure is not a%solute. Of e&ual ei$!t is t!e

t ili d t f t! C tit ti t! t ll %li ffi d l t it!



countervailin$ (andate of t!e Constitution t!at all pu%lic officers and e(plo#ees (ust serve it!responsi%ilit#, inte$rit#, lo#alt# and efficienc#. '8 In t!is case, it !as %een clearl# s!on t!at u(i&ueddid not live up to t!is constitutional precept.

)!e co((ittees findin$s pinnin$ culpa%ilit# for t!e c!ar$es of dis!onest# and $rave (isconduct uponu(i&ued ere not, as s!on a%ove, frau$!t it! procedural (isc!ief. Its conclusions ere founded on

t!e evidence presented and evaluated as facts. ell-settled in our 5urisdiction is t!e doctrine t!atfindin$s of fact of ad(inistrative a$encies (ust %e respected as lon$ as t!e# are supported %#su%stantial evidence, even if suc! evidence is not over!el(in$ or preponderant. '( )!e &uantu( of proof necessar# for a findin$ of $uilt in ad(inistrative cases is onl#su%stantial evidence or suc! relevant evidence as a reasona%le (ind (i$!t accept as ade&uate to supporta conclusion. 50

Conse&uentl#, t!e adoption %# Secretar# Drilon and t!e OP of t!e co((ittees reco((endation of

dis(issal (a# not in an# a# %e dee(ed tainted it! ar%itrariness a(ountin$ to $rave a%use of discretion. Hovern(ent officials are presu(ed to perfor( t!eir functions it! re$ularit#. Stron$evidence is not necessar# to re%ut t!at presu(ption, 51 !ic! petitioners !ave not successfull# disputedin t!e instant case.

Dis!onest# is a $rave offense penaliKed %# dis(issal under Section +7 of /ule IV of t!e O(ni%us/ules I(ple(entin$ Boo4 V of t!e Ad(inistrative Code of '@?. Under Section of t!e sa(e /ule, t!e

penalt# of dis(issal carries it! it cancellation of eli$i%ilit#, forfeiture of leave credits and retire(ent %enefits, and t!e dis&ualification for ree(plo#(ent in t!e $overn(ent service. )!e instant petition,!ic! is ai(ed pri(aril# at t!e pa#(ent of retire(ent %enefits and ot!er %enefits, plus %ac4 a$esfro( t!e ti(e of u(i&ueds dis(issal until !is de(ise, (ust, t!erefore, fail.

6E/E*O/E, t!e instant petition for certiorari and mandamus is !ere%# DIS2ISSED andAd(inistrative Order no. 1+ of t!e Office of t!e President is A**I/2ED. Costs a$ainst petitioners.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11



ONSTI II !S"c. 11

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 108'(' S"@">"r 20, 1(('

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.SAMUEL MARRA ) ZARATE, ALLAN TAN, alias <Aa3 Yao,<PETER OE PAUL OE a34 TOM OE accused

)!e prosecutions e#eitness, i((# Din, positivel# identified appellant as t!e tri$$er(an in t!eof Nelson )andoc. Din recounted t!at at around +0 A.2. on 2arc! ?, '+, !e and !is friend, )andoc, ere conversin$ it! eac! ot!er in front of uc4# 6otel located at 2.6. del Pilar Da$upan Cit#, !ic! as oned %# t!e itness fat!er and of !ic! !e as t!e ad(inistranoticed a (an pass %# on t!e opposite side of t!e street. )!e (an (ade a dirt# si$n it! !is finDin infor(ed )andoc t!ereof. )!e (an repeated !is offensive act and called t!e( %# avin$ !isInfuriated, t!e# folloed t!e (an until t!e latter stopped in front of t!e Dun4in Donuts storecorner of Arellano and *ernandeK streets )!e# de(anded an e3planation fro( t!e (an %ut t!e



PETER OE, PAUL OE a34 TOM OE, accused.

SAMUEL MARRA ) ZARATE, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor $eneral !or plainti!!appellee"

Public -ttorney/s 6!!ice !or accusedappellant"

REGALAO, J.:

In an infor(ation filed %efore t!e /e$ional )rial Court, Branc! :7, Da$upan Cit#, Sa(uel 2arra #arate, o!n Doe, Peter Doe, Paul Doe and )o( Doe ere c!ar$ed it! t!e cri(e of (urder for t!efatal s!ootin$ of one Nelson )andoc on 2arc! ?, '+. 1 On une :, '+, an a(ended infor(ation asfiled !erein Allan )an, alias Allan Mao, as indicated as an accused instead of o!n Doe. 2 A arrantof arrest as t!ereafter issued a$ainst Allan )an $ %ut t!e sa(e as returned unserved, ' !ence trial proceeded it! re$ard to !erein accused-appellant Sa(uel 2arra alone.

Dul# assisted %# counsel, appellant pleaded not $uilt# upon arrai$n(ent on 2a# '1, '+. 5 After trialon t!e (erits, 5ud$(ent as rendered %# t!e court %elo on Octo%er @, '+ findin$ appellant $uilt#

%e#ond reasona%le dou%t of t!e cri(e c!ar$ed, attended %# t!e a$$ravatin$ circu(stance of ni$!tti(e,and sentencin$ !i( to suffer t!e penalt# of reclusion perpetua. 6e as furt!er ordered to pa# t!e !eirs of Nelson )andoc t!e su(s of P1,. as deat! inde(nit#, P1,. as actual da(a$es, P',.as (oral da(a$es, and t!e costs. 6

corner of Arellano and *ernandeK streets. )!e# de(anded an e3planation fro( t!e (an %ut t!enot $iven an#. +

At t!at instant, to (en arrived and one of t!e( in&uired !at as $oin$ on. )andoc infor(ed !t!e# ere 5ust de(andin$ an e3planation fro( t!e (an. Din as surprised !en )andoc une3pslapped one of t!e to (en. A %ral ensued, it! )andoc clas!in$ it! t!e to (en !i

e3c!an$ed %los it! t!e (an !o (ade t!e dirt# fin$er si$n. After t!e fisticuffs, t!eir t!ree oppran aa# in a estard direction. 8

)andoc and Din t!en decided to al4 %ac4 to t!e !otel. !en t!e# ere a%out to enter t!e placnoticed t!at t!e (en it! !o( t!e# 5ust !ad a fi$!t ere runnin$ toards t!e(. Sensin$ dan$ran inside t!e anne3 %uildin$ of t!e !otel and i((ediatel# secured t!e loc4 of t!e slidin$ oute)!e# entered a roo( and aited until t!e# felt t!at t!e situation !ad nor(aliKed. After ten to(inutes, t!in4in$ t!at t!e (en ere no lon$er in t!e vicinit#, t!e# left t!e roo(. 6avin$ decide!o(e, )andoc opened t!e slidin$ door. All of a sudden, Din sa Appellant, !o at t!at ti(earin$ a securit# $uards unifor(, s!oot )andoc it! a revolver. )!ere as a fluorescent %ul% iat t!e front of t!e !otel !ic! ena%led Din to identif# t!e assailant. )andoc as s!ot in t!e (iddlec!est and !e fell don. )!en, Din sa four to five (en sca(per aa# fro( t!e scene. (

Aare of !is in5ur#, )andoc told Din, )ol, I as s!ot. )!e latter tried to c!ase appellant aco(panions %ut !e failed to catc! up it! t!e(. Din and !is ife t!en %rou$!t )andoc to t!e V6ospital. )!e victi( as ta4en to t!e e(er$enc# roo( %ut !e e3pired an !our later. 10

At a%out 70:1 A.2. of 2arc! ?, '+, SPO7 /e#naldo de Vera of t!e Da$upan Cit# Police received a report a%out a s!ootin$ incident at t!e anne3 %uildin$ of t!e uc4# 6otel. 6e procet!e cri(e scene alon$ it! SPO: Orlando Harcia, SPO7 2auricio *lores and SPO7 Noli de CUpon t!eir arrival a%out five (inutes later, t!e# ere infor(ed %# t!e ife of i((# Din t!at t!e!ad %een %rou$!t to t!e Villaflor 6ospital. )!e# proceeded to t!e !ospital !ere Din infor(et!at !e could reco$niKe t!e (an !o 4illed )andoc and t!at t!e 4iller as, at t!at ti(e, earin$ t!s!irt of a securit# $uards unifor(. 11

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

)!e# decided to proceed to an eater# called indas I!a-I!a. Seein$ t!e securit# $uard of a near%# %us co(pan#, t!e# in&uired fro( !i( if !e 4ne of an# unusual incident t!at !appened in t!e vicinit#.)!e $uard said t!at !e sa t!e $uard of indas I!a-I!a, to$et!er it! so(e co(panions, c!asin$to persons runnin$ toards 2. 6. del Pilar Street. 6e furt!er added t!at t!e (an as earin$ a polos!irt of a securit# $uards unifor(. As4ed !ere t!at particular $uard (i$!t %e, !e pointed to a (aneatin$ inside t!e eater# near%#. )!e (an eatin$ as not in a securit# $uards unifor(. 12

)!e# approac!ed t!e (an and in&uired !et!er !e as t!e securit# $uard of indas I!a-I!a,

Understanda%l#, appellant $ave a different version of t!e incident. 2arra declared in court t!at to or4 as a securit# $uard at indas I!a-I!a fro( seven ocloc4 in t!e evenin$ to si3 oclt!e (ornin$ of t!e folloin$ da#. On 2arc! >, '+, !e reported for dut# at seven ocloc4 t!at eas as !is usual practice. At around four ocloc4 don of t!e folloin$ da#, !e ent !o(e to c!aclot!es. 6e proceeded to t!e *ive Star Bus )er(inal !ic! as ad5acent to indas I!a-I!asa Nenen$, t!e cas!ier of said eater#, and to$et!er t!e# ordered arro& caldo. ater, at a%out 10!e as approac!ed %# four police(en !o in&uired if !e as a securit# $uard. 6e anseredaffir(ative. 6e as also as4ed a%out !is sidear(. !en !e ansered t!at it as at !is residenc



)!e# approac!ed t!e (an and in&uired !et!er !e as t!e securit# $uard of inda s I!a I!a,!ic! t!e latter ansered in t!e affir(ative. After a series of &uestions, t!e# learned t!at !e as Sa(uel2arra, t!at !is tour of dut# as fro( ?0 P.2. of a precedin$ da# to >0 A.2. t!e folloin$ da#, t!at!e as still on dut# at around +07 in t!e (ornin$ of 2arc! ?, '+, and t!at t!e firear( issued to !i(as in !is !ouse. Upon t!eir re&uest to see t!e firear(, t!e# proceeded to 2arras residence at Interior Nueva Street. 1$

!en t!e# arrived, 2arra too4 a .7@ cali%er revolver fro( inside an aparador and !anded it to De Vera.De Vera also found five live %ullets and one spent s!ell. S(ellin$ $unpoder fro( t!e %arrel of t!e $un,De Vera as4ed 2arra !en !e last fired t!e $un %ut t!e latter denied ever !avin$ done so. A%ruptl#, DeVera as4ed !i( point-%lan4 !# !e s!ot )andoc. 2arra at first denied t!e accusation %ut !en infor(edt!at so(eone sa !i( do it, !e said t!at !e did so in self-defense, firin$ at t!e victi( onl# once. )andocalle$edl# !ad a samurai sord it! !i( at t!e ti(e of t!e incident. 6oever, persistent efforts on t!e part of t!e police(en to t!ereafter locate said %laded eapon proved futile. 2arra also ad(itted t!at prior to t!e incident, !e c!ased t!e victi( and Din. )!e officers t!en too4 2arra to t!e police station!ere !e as detained. 1'

2ean!ile, De Vera ent to Villaflor 6ospital fro( !ere !e fetc!ed Din and %rou$!t !i( to t!e policestation. )!ere, Din definitel# identified 2arra as t!e assailant. Durin$ t!e investi$ation, De Vera alsofound out t!at 2arra !ad not firear( license. 15

Dr. )o(as H. Cornel, Assistant Cit# 6ealt! Officer of Da$upan Cit#, testified t!at !e conducted anautops# on a certain Nelson )andoc. 6e found a $uns!ot ound on t!e victi( it! t!e point of entr# of t!e left side of t!e anterior c!est all and t!e point of e3it at t!e loer left portion of t!e ri$!ts!oulder. 16

Prosecutor Hre$orio Haerlan, stepfat!er of t!e victi(, testified on t!e funeral, %urial and ot!er e3pensesincurred %# t!e fa(il#. 6e declared t!at t!e# paid *uneraria uio$ue P+1,. for its services=Villaflor 6ospital, P+,@?1. for t!e confine(ent of )andoc= St. o!n 2e(orial Cat!edral, P71.=

Eternal Harden, P7,. for t!e inter(ent fee and P'1. for t!e rent of t!e tent durin$ t!e %urial=and t!at t!e# spent P+,7. for t!e video tape e3penses and P'',@. for food and drin4s durin$ t!ea4e. 1+

all ent to !is !ouse to loo4 for it. After !e !anded over t!e firear( to t!e police(en, !e as %rot!e cit# !all !ere !e as detained. 18

Under cross-e3a(ination, !e insisted t!at !en !e !anded t!e $un to t!e police(an, t!ere ere f %ullets, and not four live %ullets and one e(pt# s!ell as clai(ed %# t!e prosecution. Prior

incident, !e !ad never (et i((# Din nor does !e 4no of an# cause !# Din ould !ar%or feelin$s a$ainst !i(. 1(

After a careful scrutin# of t!e records and an o%5ective evaluation of t!e evidence, t!e Courtdisposed to reverse t!e 5ud$(ent of t!e loer court, t!e decision of t!e latter %ein$ a(pl# suppot!e esta%lis!ed facts and full# sustained %# t!e applica%le la.

In assailin$ t!e decision of t!e court %elo, t!e defense ar$ues t!at i((# Din . . . as not

identif# t!e assailant in a definite and %elieva%le (anner. It $oes on to state furt!er t!at i((as inside t!e !otel !en Nelson )andoc as s!ot and !is vision as o;%<structed %# t!e door.Din as also not fa(iliar it! t!e accused. Under t!e circu(stances %# !ic! !e alle$edl# it!e s!ootin$, !o could %e identif# clearl# an assailant at t!e distance of :1 (etersQ 20

Appellants counsel is onl# partl# correct, !avin$ convenientl# failed to (ention ot!er vital pDins testi(on#. An i(partial revie of said testi(on# readil# reveals t!at Din as indeed in a p

to 4no t!e identit# of t!e assailant. *irstl#, Din 4ne for a fact t!at t!e persons !e and )andocit! near t!e Dun4in Donuts store ere t!e sa(e (en !o c!ased t!e( !ile t!e# ere on t! %ac4 to t!e !otel %ecause !e as a%le to ta4e a $ood loo4 at t!e(. Durin$ t!e c!ase, !e naturall#around to loo4 at t!e (en !o ere runnin$ after t!e( and !o ere at t!at ti(e in frontBalin$it )radin$ store !ic! as ell-li$!ted. 21 It lo$icall# follos t!at t!e# ere t!e sa(e p!o ere aitin$ for t!e( !en t!e# later ca(e out of t!e !otel, and !e as fa(iliar itidentities %ecause of t!eir previous encounter.

Secondl#, e do not a$ree it! appellant t!at t!e door %loc4ed t!e vie of Din. Said door, partlof pl#ood, !ad a sprin$ !in$e !ic! (a4es it possi%le for t!e door to close %# itself. 6oeverti(e t!e sprin$ !in$e !ad %een ea4ened %# lon$ and constant use suc! t!at it ould ta4e so(e t

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

it to close t!e door, t!ere%# alloin$ Din sufficient opportunit# to !ave an uno%structed vie of t!escene outside. 22

)!irdl#, Din as &uite near t!e victi( and appellant, !ic! pro3i(it#, ena%led !i( to clearl# see !atreall# !appened. 6e t!us readil# perceived t!e actual s!ootin$ at t!e ti(e !en )andoc pus!ed t!e door open. At t!at precise (o(ent, Din as at t!e left side of )andoc and a%out four to five (eters aa#fro( t!e assailant. 2$

anser &uestions fro( t!e ver# start !en t!e police(en re&uested t!at t!e# all $o to !is residen police in&uir# !ad not #et reac!ed a level !erein t!e# considered !i( as a particular suspecere 5ust pro%in$ into a nu(%er of possi%ilities, !avin$ %een (erel# infor(ed t!at t!e suspeearin$ !at could %e a securit# $uards unifor(. As e !eld in People vs" y3 25 !at as toldaccused to Pat. Padilla as a spontaneous state(ent not elicited t!rou$! &uestionin$, %ut $iveordinar# (anner. No ritten confession as sou$!t to %e presented in evidence as a result of custodial investi$ation. 26 )!e trial Court, t!erefore, cannot %e !eld to !ave erred in !oldico(pliance it! t!e constitutional procedure on custodial investi$ation is not applica%le in t!e



astl#, t!e place as %ri$!tl# illu(inated %# a +-att fluorescent %ul% installed on t!e outside all infront of t!e !otel. 2arra as onl# a%out t!ree (eters aa# t!erefro(. Suc! p!#sical conditions ouldundenia%l# afford a clear vie fro( inside t!e !otel of t!e i((ediate area outside and in front of t!esa(e !ere t!e incident too4 place.

)!e prosecution presented anot!er vital itness in t!e person of S$t. /e#naldo de Vera, !osetesti(on# e s!all repeat !ere for eas# reference. In capsuliKed for(, De Vera narrated t!e se&uence of events t!at !appened after !e and !is co(panions ent to t!e cri(e scene to conduct an investi$ation.6avin$ received infor(ation t!at a (an in a securit# $uards unifor( as involved in t!e incident, t!e#sou$!t infor(ation fro( a securit# $uard of a near%# %us ter(inal. Said securit# $uard pointed t!e( to2arra, !o at t!at ti(e as eatin$ in acarinderia near%#. Infor(ed %# 2arra t!at !is $un as at !isresidence, t!e# all ent to 2arras residence to $et t!e sa(e. After receivin$ said firear(, De Veraas4ed appellant !# !e 4illed )andoc %ut 2arra initiall# denied an# participation in t!e 4illin$.

Nevert!eless, !en confronted it! t!e fact t!at so(e%od# sa !i( do it, 2arra ad(itted t!e actalt!ou$! !e alle$ed it as done in self-defense. )!is testi(on# of De Vera as to t!e confession of 2arrais of si$nificant ei$!t, %ut t!e ad(issi%ilit# t!ereof s!all also %e passed upon.

Section '+;'<, Article III of t!e '@? Constitution provides t!at ;a<n# person under investi$ation for t!eco((ission of an offense s!all !ave t!e ri$!t to %e infor(ed of !is ri$!t to re(ain silent and to !aveco(petent and independent counsel prefera%l# of !is on c!oice. . . . . )!e critical in&uir# t!en is

!et!er or not 2arra as under custodial investi$ation !en !e ad(itted t!e 4illin$ %ut invo4ed self-defense. e %elieve t!at !e as not so situated.

Custodial investi$ation involves an# &uestionin$ initiated %# la enforce(ent officers a!ter a person

has been ta0en into custody or other)ise deprived o! his !reedom o! action in any signi!icant )ay. It isonl# after t!e investi$ation ceases to %e a $eneral in&uir# into an unsolved cri(e and %e$ins to focus ona particular suspect,the suspect is ta0en into custody, and the police carries out a process o!

interrogations that lends itsel! to eliciting i ncriminating statements t!at t!e rule %e$ins to operate. 2'

In t!e case at %ar, appellant as not under custodial investi$ation !en !e (ade t!e ad(ission. )!ereas no coercion !atsoever to co(pel !i( to (a4e suc! a state(ent. Indeed, !e could !ave refused to

p p $ ppcase, . . . .

Accordin$l#, t!e testi(on# of S$t. de Vera assu(es a do(inant di(ension %ecause it totall# destrdefense of denial cum ali%i su%se&uentl# raised %# appellant. In !is ansers to S$t. De Vera, ape3pressl# ad(itted t!at !e s!ot )andoc, al%eit it! an e3culpator# e3planation. )!is ad(ission of

is in co(plete contrast to t!e state(ents !e later (ade in open court.

In addition, t!e la provides t!at t!e declaration of an accused ac4noled$in$ !is $uilt of t!e oc!ar$ed, or of an# offense necessaril# included t!erein (a# %e $iven in evidence a$ainst !i( certain circu(stances, t!is ad(ission (a# %e considered as part of t!e res gestae. In a si(ilar sinvolved in t!e aforecited case of People vs" y, t!is Court !eld0

. . . t!e oral confession (ade %# t!e accused to Pat. Padilla t!at !e !ad s!ot a tourist and t!at t

!e !ad used in s!ootin$ t!e victi( as in !is %ar !ic! !e anted surrendered to t!e C!ief of ;t.s.n., Octo%er '?, '@:, pp. >-< is co(petent evidence a$ainst !i(. )!e declaration of an aac4noled$in$ !is $uilt of t!e offense c!ar$ed (a# %e $iven in evidence a$ainst !i( ;Sec. +Sec. 779, /ule '7<. 2t may in a sense be also regarded as part o! the res gestae. )!e rule is t! person, ot!erise co(petent as a itness, !o !eard t!e confession, is co(petent to testif# assu%stance of !at !e !eard if !e !eard and understood all of it. An oral confession need not %e rver%ati(, %ut in suc! a case it (ust %e $iven in su%stance. ;+7 C..S. '>, cited in People vs. H./. No. >+@?', 2a# +1, '@1, '+ SC/A :7'<. ;Italics supplied.<

In an# event, even it!out !is ad(ission, t!e case a$ainst appellant !as %een dul# esta%lis!edot!er evidence of t!e prosecution, as earlier discussed. 6oever, persistentl# ar$uin$ for an act!e defense points out t!at !en t!e police officers sa 2arra, !e as not in a %lue unifor( Din testified t!at t!e person !o s!ot )andoc as earin$ t!e polo s!irt of a securit# $uards u)!is is a puerile ar$u(ent since appellant !i(self re(oved an# lin$erin$ dou%ts on t!is point. 6t!at on endin$ !is tour of dut# at :0 A.2. of 2arc! ?, '+, !e decided to $o !o(e to c!an$e cafter !ic! !e ent to indas I!a-I!a to eat. )!is e3plains !#, at t!e ti(e t!e police offic!i(, !e as alread# in civilian clot!es. )!e s!ootin$ !ad ta4en place earlier at around +0 A.2ti(e, 2arra as still in !is securit# $uards unifor(, %ein$ t!en on dut#.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

6oever, !ile e a$ree t!at t!e cri(e co((itted %# appellant as (urder &ualified %# treac!er#, ere5ect t!e findin$ t!at t!e sa(e as a$$ravated %# ni$!tti(e. No evidence as presented %# t!e prosecution to s!o t!at nocturnit# as speciall# sou$!t %# appellant or ta4en advanta$e of %# !i( tofacilitate t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e or to ensure !is i((unit# fro( capture. 2+ At an# rate, !et!er or not suc! a$$ravatin$ circu(stance s!ould %e appreciated, t!e penalt# to %e i(posed on appellant ouldnot %e affected considerin$ t!e proscription a$ainst t!e i(position of t!e deat! penalt# at t!e ti(e !ent!e offense in t!e instant case as co((itted.



6E/E*O/E, t!e 5ud$(ent of t!e court a .uo findin$ accused-appellant Sa(uel 2arra # arate $uilt#of t!e cri(e of (urder and i(posin$ upon !i( t!e penalt# and civil lia%ilities t!erein stated is !ere%#A**I/2ED.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

*I/S) DIVISION

G.R. No. 10''(2#($ Ma) $1, 1(('

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ORLANO FRAGO, acc-"4#a@@"a3.

interdiction for life and perpetual a%solute dis&ualification, to pa# icel#n ansap P7,. foda(a$es, and to pa# t!e costs.

In Cri(. Case No. ':1 for atte(pted rape, t!e accused as ac&uitted on reasona%le dou%t occ %# lac4 of clear and convincin$ evidence t!at t!e accused Orlando *ra$o indeed perfor(ed /onal#n Pastera overt acts constitutin$ co((ence(ent of t!e co((ission of t!e cri(e of rape.

In vie of t!e ac&uittal of t!e accused in Cri(. Case No. ':1, e are !ere called upon to revie



The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

V. Dennis M. Socrates for accused-appellant.

*ELLOSILLO, J.:

O/ANDO */AHO as c!ar$ed %efore t!e court a .uo it! rape and atte(pted rape, doc4eted asCri(. Cases Nos. ':: and ':1, respectivel#.

In Cri(. Case No. '::, t!e Infor(ation states t!at in t!e earl# (ornin$ of +> Septe(%er ', at a%outfour ocloc4, in t!e poblacion of ueKon, Palaan, t!e accused Orlando *ra$o

. . . entered t!e sleepin$ roo( of t!e !ouse %elon$in$ to *ortunato 2oral !ere ICEMN ANSAPas sleepin$, t!ere%# icel#n ansap as %odil# carried %# accused Orlando *ra$o to a near%# !ouse %elon$in$ to Dado Andor and it! led desi$n did t!en and t!ere ilfull#, unlafull# and feloniousl#

la# it! and !ave carnal 4noled$e it! said icel#n ansap !o at t!at ti(e as deepl# asleep,a$ainst !er ill and it!out !er consent, to t!e da(a$e and pre5udice of icel#n ansap.

In Cri(. Case No. ':1, t!e Infor(ation alle$es t!at in t!e earl# (ornin$ of +> Septe(%er ', ata%out t!ree fort#-five, in t!e poblacion of ueKon, Palaan, t!e accused Orlando *ra$o

. . . entered t!e roo( of t!e dellin$ !ouse of P!ilip Pastera !ere one /ONAMN PAS)E/A, a $irl #ears of a$e, as sleepin$, and once inside t!e roo(, it! led desi$n did t!en and t!ere ilfull#,unlafull# and feloniousl# !old !er !ead and %odil# carr# said /onal#n Pastera, t!us co((encin$ t!eco((ission of a felon# of /ape directl# %# overt acts %ut did not perfor( all t!e acts of e3ecution!ic! ould produce t!e said felon# %# reason of causes ot!er t!an t!e spontaneous desistance of t!eaccused, t!at is, /onal#n Pastera as aa4ened and s!outed for !elp, t!us forcin$ t!e accused torelease /onal#n Pastera and ran aa#.

On ' Octo%er '', after trial, t!e court a .uo rendered its decision findin$ t!e accused $uilt# of rape inCri(. Case No. ':: and sentenced !i( to reclusion perpetua it! t!e accessor# penalties of civil

!is conviction in Cri(. Case No. ':: for rape.

In !oldin$ appellant lia%le for rape, t!e trial court %ased its decision (ainl# on its findin$ taccused as positivel# identified %# !is victi(, co(plainin$ itness icel#n ansap, and t!at t!no ill (otive on !er part to testif# a$ainst !i(.

icel#n ansap, a '1-#ear old !i$! sc!ool student, as %oardin$ in t!e !ouse of one *austo 2ot!e poblacion to$et!er it! !er cousins Susan and Adea Bansil. )!e version of t!e prosecution %efore proceedin$ to t!e %oardin$ !ouse of icel#n ansap, t!e accused, an ice crea( vendor, firto t!e residence of /onal#n Pastera at around t!ree fort#-five in t!e (ornin$ and surreptitiousl#/onal#ns %edroo( !ere s!e as sleepin$. 6e fanned !er face it! !is !and4erc!ief and t!en!er %odil# fro( t!e floor. 6e as a%out to ta4e !er out of t!e roo( !en s!e suddenl# o4e screa(ed for !elp t!us pro(ptin$ !er fat!er to respond i((ediatel# %# sitc!in$ on t!e li$!tconse&uence, t!e accused !ad to drop /onal#n on t!e floor and run out of t!e !ouse. )!e proseould see( to infer t!at fro( t!e !ouse of /onal#n !ere !e failed in !is alle$ed atte(pt to deft!e accused ne3t ent to t!e %oardin$ !ouse of icel#n so(e fift# (eters aa#.

Accordin$ to icel#n, s!e and !er cousins ent to %ed at a%out ei$!t ocloc4 in t!e evenin$Septe(%er '. )!en at around five-t!irt# t!e folloin$ (ornin$, s!e as aa4ened %# appellaas alread# stran$lin$ !er. S!e s!outed for !elp so t!at !e i((ediatel# ran aa#. S!e felt pain !er %od#, (ore particularl# in !er private part, and discovered t!at s!e as no lon$er earin$ !and underear. )o !er consternation, s!e found !erself in t!e vacant !ouse of a certain Dado Ans!e lost no ti(e loo4in$ for !er a# !o(e. Upon reac!in$ !er %oardin$ !ouse, s!e narrat!arroin$ e3perience to !er cousins !o in turn related t!e incident to !er (ot!er.

At ei$!t ocloc4 t!at (ornin$, icel#n and !er (ot!er ent to t!e !ospital !ere s!e as e3a(Dr. 2arcela /e(e$io !o found icel#n it! a%ia 2a5ora and 2inora still coaptated and it!e3ternal stru$$le . . . contusion, a%rasion all over face . . . around nec4 . . . scratc! (ar4s on %ot!surface of t!i$! . . . vulva sollen . . . presence of fres! !#(enal laceration at si3 oclo8e93a(ination for t!e presence of sper(atoKa as positive . . . p!#sical vir$init# lost. '

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

On t!e sa(e da#, /onal#ns fat!er and icel#n reported t!e incidents to t!e police aut!orities. Bot!/onal#n and icel#n identified t!e accused ast!eir attac4er in t!e police line-up on +@ Septe(%er and @ Octo%er ', respectivel#, and t!en filedt!eir for(al co(plaints a$ainst !i(.

On !is part, appellant see4s sanctuar# in t!e alcove of denial and ali%i. 6e clai(s t!at at nine ocloc4 int!e evenin$ of +1 Septe(%er ', !e as alread# asleep it! !is ife and c!ildren. 6e o4e up at si3

ocloc4 t!e folloin$ (ornin$. 6e as ver# tired t!at ni$!t %ecause !e as vendin$ ice crea( in

!ile t!e infrin$e(ent of t!e constitutional protection to t!e ri$!ts of t!e accused s!ould resulac&uittal of t!e accused in proper cases as a (atter of course, appellants reliance on >

(isplaced and s!os a deficient co(pre!ension of our rationaliKation t!erein. e ac&uitted t!e ain t!at case %ecause, a(on$ ot!er t!in$s, of its peculiar factual (ilieu. )!ere as no line-up of su)!ere as onl# t!e accused. )!us, e o%served0

As it turned out, t!e (et!od of identification %eca(e 5ust a con!rontation. At t!at critical and d

(o(ent, t!e scales of 5ustice tipped unevenl# a$ainst t!e #oun$, poor, and disadvanta$ed accus



t!e poblacion t!e !ole da#.

In !is appeal, appellant i(putes error to t!e trial court in convictin$ !i( on t!e %asis of an identification!ic! as (ade it!out t!e assistance of counsel and accordin$ credence to t!e stor# of icel#n, !ic!!e considers fantastic, t!ere%# den#in$ !is constitutional ri$!t to %e presu(ed innocent until proved

$uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t.

Appellant ar$ues t!at it as durin$ !is detention, !en !e as not assisted %# counsel, t!at !e asidentified %# icel#n. )!us !e invo4es People v. >assan + !ere t!is Court affir(ed t!e ri$!t of anaccused to counsel at all sta$es of t!e proceedin$s, t!e (ost crucial of !ic! is !is identification, anddenial t!ereof entitles !i( to ac&uittal.

e cannot sustain t!e ar$u(ent. e &uote !ereunder t!e pertinent portions constitutin$ t!e ratio

decidendi in t!e 6assan case

. . . )!e (anner %# !ic! ose Sa(son, r., as (ade to confront and identif# t!e accused alone at t!efuneral parlor, it!out %ein$ placed in a police line-up, as pointedl# su$$estive, $enerated confidence!ere t!ere as none, activated visual i(a$ination, and, all told, su%verted !is relia%ilit# as e#eitness.)!is unusual, coarse and !i$!l# sin$ular (et!od of identification, !ic! revolts a$ainst t!e accepted principles of scientific cri(e detection, alienates t!e estee( of ever# 5ust (an, and co((ands neit!er our respect nor acceptance ;citin$ People v. CruK, No. -+::+:, 7 2arc! '?, 7+ SC/A '@', '@>=People v. Olvis, et al., H./. No. ?'+, 7 Septe(%er '@?= C!aveK v. Court of Appeals, No. -+'>,+: SC/A >>7, >?<.

2oreover, t!e confrontation arran$ed %# t!e police investi$ator %eteen t!e self-proclai(ed e#eitnessand t!e accused did violence to t!e ri$!t of t!e latter to counsel in all sta$es of t!e investi$ation into t!eco((ission of a cri(e especiall# at its (ost crucial sta$e t!e identification of t!e accused. 7

police procedure adopted in t!is case in !ic! only the accused )as presented to )itness Samso

!uneral parlor, and in the presence o! the grieving relatives o! the victim, is as tainte

uncounselled con!ession . . . ;italics supplied< :

In contrast, Orlando *ra$o as sin$led out %# icel#n in a police line-up co(posed

persons.1

So(e ere stout !ile ot!ers ere sli(, %ut al(ost all of t!e( ere (ustac!ioed aere lon$-!aired. > In$amboa v. %ru& , ? e ere e3plicit

)!e ri$!t to counsel attac!es upon t!e sta rt of an investii.e., !en t!e investi$atin$ officer starts to as4 &uestions to elicit infor(ation andLor confessiad(issions fro( t!e respondentLaccused. At suc! point or sta$e, t!e person %ein$ interro$ated (assisted %# counsel to avoid t!e pernicious practice of e3tortin$ false or coerced ad(issconfessions fro( t!e lips of t!e person under$oin$ interro$ation, for t!e co((ission of an offens

An# person under investi$ation (ust, a(on$ ot!er t!in$s, %e assisted %# counsel. )!e a%ov provisions of t!e Constitution are clear. )!e# leave no roo( for e&uivocation. Accordin$l#, in cases, t!is Court !as consistentl# !eld t!at no custodial investi$ation s!all %e conducted unless t!e presence of counsel, en$a$ed %# t!e person arrested, or %# an# person in !is %e!alf, or appoit!e court upon petition eit!er of t!e detainee !i(self, or %# an#one in !is %e!alf, and t!at, !ri$!t (a# %e aived, t!e aiver s!all not %e valid unless (ade in ritin$ and in t!e prese

counsel.

As aptl# o%served, !oever, %# t!e Solicitor Heneral, the police lineup 8at least, in this case9

part o! the custodial in.uest, hence, petitioner )as not yet entitled, at such stage, to coun

Solicitor Heneral states0

!en petitioner as identified %# t!e co(plainant at t!e police line-up, !e !ad not %een !eldanser for a cri(inal offense. )!e police line-up is not a part of t!e custodial in&uest, !ence, !e #et entitled to counsel. )!us, it as !eld t!at !en t!e process !ad not #et s!ifted fro( t!e investo t!e accusator# as !en police investi$ation does not elicit a confession t!e accused (a# not #of t!e services of !is la#er ;Esco%edo v. Illinois of t!e United States *ederal Supre(e Court, 7

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

:?@, '>:<. Since petitioner in the course o! his identi!ication in the police l ineup had not yet been held to ans)er !or a criminal o!!ense, he )as, there!ore, not deprived o! his right to be assisted by counsel

because the accusatory process had not yet set in. )!e police could not !ave violated petitioners ri$!t tocounsel and due process as t!e confrontation %eteen t!e State and !i( !ad not %e$un. 2n !act, )hen he

)as identi!ied in the police lineup by complainant he did not give any statement to the police. 6e as,t!erefore, not interro$ated at all as !e as not facin$ a cri(inal c!ar$e. Far !rom )hat he pro!esses, the

police did not, at that stage, e;act a con!ession to be used against him. *or it as not !e %ut t!eco(plainant !o as %ein$ investi$ated at t!at ti(e. 6e as ordered to sit don in front of t!e

l i t !il t! l tt % i i ti t d ; 7 7 P titi < P titi i !t t l

applied. )!ere as no positive identi!ication of Orlando *ra$o %# icel#n. 6er testi(on# one3a(ination supports t!is conclusion. !ile s!e ould (a4e it appear t!at s!e as a%le to poidentif# t!e accused, !er account of t!e incident proved ot!erise.

)!ere see(s to %e no &uestion t!at, on t!e part of t!e Pastera sisters, t!e# (a# !ave recoappellant positivel# %ecause t!eir roo( as li$!ted it! a ic4L$as la(p '+ and !e as not an#t!in$ on !is face. '7 )!e# identified !i( on +@ Septe(%er ', ': !ereas icel#n pointed

onl# @ O % ' '1 )! i%ili ! i l ! d f d i ! ! P i d



co(plainant !ile t!e latter as %ein$ investi$ated ;par. 7.7, Petition<. Petitioners ri$!t to counsel!ad not accrued ;Italics supplied<. @

)!is rulin$ as reiterated in t!e recent case of People v. Santos. e si(ilarl# find in t!e case at %enc!.)!ere is not!in$ in t!e records !ic! s!os t!at in t!e course of t!e identification fro( t!e police line-

up t!e police investi$ator sou$!t to e3tract an# ad(ission or confession fro( appellant. )!us far, ea$ree it! t!e prosecution.

But e sustain t!e defense on t!e insufficienc# of t!e identification of appellant Orlando *ra$o.

A careful dissection of t!e testi(on# of icel#n !erself indu%ita%l# s!os t!at s!e !as no relia%le %asisfor pointin$ to t!e accused as t!e person !o raped !er. S!e sa#s t!at !is face as covered= t!at !e !adlon$ !air= t!at !ile t!e person !o raped !er !ad !i$! nose ;matangos< !is nose is 5ust 4ata(ta(an=

t!at s!e did not !ave t!e opportunit# to o%serve t!e !ei$!t of t!e rapist= and, t!at t!e onl# evidence of se3ual intercourse is t!e result of t!e (edical e3a(ination.

Appellant ar$ues t!at t!e contusion, a%rasion all over t!e face, around t!e nec4, presence of scratc!(ar4s on %ot! (edial surface of t!i$! ' did not necessaril# indicate resistance on !er part, contendin$furt!er t!at it is a (atter of 5udicial notice t!at passionate 4issin$ and pettin$ could nor(all# producein5uries. Accordin$ to !i(, icel#n !erself disclosed t!at s!e !ad a suitor for !o( s!e !ad feelin$s

of affection, t!us concludin$ t!at s!e (a# !ave su%(itted !erself to !i(.

A rule of lon$ standin$ in t!is 5urisdiction, reverence to !ic! re(ains undi(inis!ed to t!is da#, is t!att!e Court ill not interfere it! t!e 5ud$(ent of t!e trial court in passin$ upon t!e credi%ilit# of opposin$ itnesses unless t!ere appears in t!e record so(e fact or su%stance of ei$!t and influence!ic! !as %een overloo4ed or t!e si$nificance of !ic! !as %een (isinterpreted. )!is is due to t!e factt!at t!e trial court is in a %etter position to ei$! conflictin$ testi(onies, !avin$ !eard t!e itnessest!e(selves and o%served t!eir deport(ent and (anner of testif#in$. ''

)!ere are indeed reasons to deviate fro( t!e $eneral rule. e !ave e3a(ined carefull# t!e entiretranscript of steno$rap!ic notes and e do not !esitate to conclude t!at t!e e3ception to t!e rule (ust %e

@ Octo%er '. '1 )!e possi%ilit# t!at icel#n !ad conferred it! t!e Pastera sisters re$ardidentit# of t!e accused %efore s!e testified is not re(ote %ecause t!e# ere nei$!%ors.conse&uence, !en icel#n testified '7 Au$ust '', s!e $ave t!e sa(e description of !er attac4er as t!at $iven %# /onal#n Pastera.

Under t!e circu(stances, e are inevita%l# dran to t!e conclusion t!at icel#ns identificaOrlando *ra$o as (erel# patterned after t!e identification (ade %# t!e Pastera sisters. )!is aderivative, not positive, identi!ication. )!e identification t!en of appellant %# icel#n is dou%tfutesti(on#, standin$ alone, does not satisf# t!at &uantu( of proof re&uired to support a 5ud$(conviction. )!e (aterial discrepancies t!erein en$ender perple3it# as to its veracit# and relia%ilit

Besides, it appears !i$!l# incredi%le t!at icel#n could %e %odil# lifted fro( !er roo( in !er %!ouse and ta4en so(e t!ree !undred (eters aa# to t!e vacant !ouse of Dado Andor !ere s

supposedl# a%used '@ it!out aa4enin$ !er and !er to cousins !o ere all sleepin$ side %it!!er. ' 2oreover, e find t!e folloin$ o%servations of t!e Solicitor Heneral decidedl# specu!ence, unaccepta%le

. . . appellants earlier act of fannin$ !is !and4erc!ief over t!e face of /onal#n Pastera evidentl#t!at t!ere as so(et!in$ in it, (ost li4el# dru$, to induce !er to re(ain sleepin$. )!is sa(e (et!

apparentl# e(plo#ed %# appellant to icel#n ansap t!at 4ept !er sleepin$ !ile %ein$ ta4en to !ouse and t!erein raped %# !i(, +

%ecause a (ere readin$ of /onal#ns testi(on# on cross-e3a(ination ould indicate t!at s!e s(ell an# su%stance e(anatin$ fro( !er attac4er.

Appellants denial and ali%i are in!erentl# ea4, %ut t!e prosecution cannot rel# on t!eir fraen!ance its cause. )!e prosecution (ust dra its stren$t! fro( its on evidence. As !as %erepeated, ever# circu(stance favorin$ t!e innocence of t!e accused (ust %e ta4en into account proof a$ainst !i( (ust survive t!e test of reason. Onl# !en t!e conscience is satisfied t!at t!

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

!as %een co((itted %# t!e person on trial s!ould t!e sentence %e for conviction. +' Unfortunatel# for t!e prosecution, its evidence !as (isera%l# failed to pass t!at conscience test.

6E/E*O/E, t!e decision of t!e court a .uo findin$ accused-appellant O/ANDO */AHO $uilt# of rape in Cri(. Case No. ':: is /EVE/SED and SE) ASIDE, and !e is ACUI))ED as !is $uilt !asnot %een proved %e#ond reasona%le dou%t. It appearin$ t!at !e is detained, !is i((ediate release fro(custod# is ordered unless !e is !eld for anot!er cause.

C t d !i i



Costs de o!icio.

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

EN BANC

G.R. No. L#$2(51#2 S"@">"r 1+, 1(+1

RIARO E LA AMARA, petitioner,vs.HON. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, Pr"43 9-4" o? h" o-r o? Fr I3a3c" o? A-a3 4"Nor" a34 *--a3 ) !*ra3ch II%, respondents.

/espondent ud$e, on Au$ust ', '?, issued an order $rantin$ petitioners application fad(ittin$ t!at t!ere as a failure on t!e part of t!e prosecution to prove t!at petitioner ould flif !e !ad t!e opportunit#,%ut fi3ed t!e a(ount of t!e %ail %ond at t!e e3cessive a(oP','1,+.,t!e su( of P@:,. for t!e infor(ation c!ar$in$ (ultiple (urder and P711,for t!e offense of (ultiple frustrated (urder. )!en ca(e t!e alle$ation t!at on Au$ust '+, 'Secretar# of ustice, Vicente A%ad Santos, upon %ein$ infor(ed of suc! order, sent a tele$respondent ud$estatin$ t!at t!e %ond re&uired is e3cessive and su$$estin$ t!at a P:,.eit!er in cas! or propert#, ould %e reasona%le. )!ere as li4eise a (otion for reconsiderareduce t!e a(ount /espondent ud$e !oever re(ained ada(ant 6ence t!is petition



emosthenes Mediante, Puro +ele&, Francisco Fabe, Federico del Puerto and Pelae&, Jalandoni G

Jamir !or petitioner"

>on" Manuel Lope& 'nage in his o)n behal!"

/ E S O U ) I O N

FERNANO, J.:

An order of respondent ud$e 2anuel opeK Ena$e, fi3in$ t!e %ail of petitioner, /icardo de la Ca(ara,in t!e su( of P','1,+. is assailed in t!is petition for certiorari as repu$nant to t!e constitutional(andate pro!i%itin$ e3cessive %ail. 1 )!e (erit of t!e petition on its face is t!us apparent. Nonet!eless,relief sou$!t settin$ aside t!e a%ove order %# reducin$ t!e a(ount of %ail to P:,. cannot %e$ranted, as in t!e (ean!ile, petitioner !ad escaped fro( t!e provincial 5ail, t!us renderin$ t!is case(oot and acade(ic. It is dee(ed advisa%le, !oever, for t!e $uidance of loer court 5ud$es, to set fort!ane t!e controllin$ and aut!oritative doctrines t!at s!ould %e o%served in fi3in$ t!e a(ount of t!e %ailsou$!t in order t!at full respect %e accorded to suc! a constitutional ri$!t.

)!e facts are not in dispute. Petitioner, /icardo, de la Ca(ara, 2unicipal 2a#or of 2a$sa#sa#,2isa(is Oriental, as arrested on Nove(%er ?, '>@ and detained at t!e Provincial ail of A$usan, for !is alle$ed participation in t!e 4illin$ of fourteen and t!e oundin$ of telve ot!er la%orers of t!e)irador o$$in$ Co., at Nato, EsperanKa, A$usan del Sur, on Au$ust +', '>@. )!ereafter, on Nove(%er +1, '>@, t!e Provincial *iscal of A$usan filed it! t!e Court of *irst Instance a case for (ultiplefrustrated (urder 2 and anot!er for (ultiple (urder $ a$ainst petitioner, !is co-accused Na(%inalot)a$unan and *ortunato Hal$o, resultin$ fro( t!e aforesaid occurrence. )!en on anuar# ':, '>, ca(ean application for %ail filed %# petitioner it! t!e loer court, pre(ised on t!e assertion t!at t!ere asno evidence to lin4 !i( it! suc! fatal incident of Au$ust +', '>@. 6e li4eise (antained !isinnocence. /espondent ud$e started t!e trial of petitioner on *e%ruar# +:, '>, t!e prosecution restin$its case on ul# ', '>. As of t!e ti(e of t!e filin$ oft!e petition, t!e defense !ad not presented itsevidence.

reduce t!e a(ount. /espondent ud$e !oever re(ained ada(ant. 6ence t!is petition.

)!e anser filed %# respondent ud$e on 2arc! 1, '?' set fort! t!e circu(stances concernissuance of t!e a%ove order and t!e ot!er incidents of t!e case, !ic!, to !is (ind ould disproc!ar$e t!at !e as$uilt# of $rave a%use of discretion. It stressed, (oreover, t!at t!e c!allen$ould find support in circulars of t!e Depart(ent of ustice $iven sanction %# t!is Court. 6e soudis(issal of t!e petition for lac4 of (erit.

In t!e !earin$ of t!e case set for 2arc! 7', '?', t!ere as no appearance for %ot! t!e petitionrespondents it! t!e for(er, upon ritten (otion, %ein$ $iven t!irt# da#s it!in !ic! to su(e(orandu( in lieu of oral ar$u(ent, respondent ud$e in turn !avin$ t!e sa(e period fro( t!ereofto file !is repl#. Suc! a (e(orandu( as dul# su%(itted %# petitioner on April >, '?'.

Instead of a repl#, respondent ud$e su%(itted, on 2a# +>, '?', a supple(ental anser !ealle$ed t!at petitioner escaped fro( t!e provincial 5ail on April +@, '?' and !ad since t!en re(alar$e. )!ere as a reiteration t!en of t!e dis(issal of t!is petition for lac4 of (erit, to!ic! petcountered in a pleadin$ dated une ?, '?', and filed it! t!is Court t!e ne3t da# it! t!is pleaundersi$ned counsel, t!erefore, ve!e(entl# interpose opposition, on %e!alf of petitioner, to respo pra#er for dis(issal of t!e present petition for lac4 of (erit. *or, t!e issue in t!is case is not al

fate of petitioner /icardo de la Ca(ara. )!e issue in t!e present petition t!at calls for t!e resolut!is 6onora%le )ri%unal is the !ate o! countless other #icardo de la %amaras )ho maybe a)ai

clearcut de!inition and declaration o! the po)er o! trial courts in regard to the !i;ing o! bail . '

!ile under t!e circu(stances a rulin$ on t!e (erits of t!e petition for certiorari is not arranteas set fort! at t!e openin$ of t!is opinion, t!e fact t!at t!is case is (oot and acade(ic s!ou preclude t!is)ri%unal fro( settin$ fort! in lan$ua$e clear and un(ista4a%le, t!e o%li$ationof fidt!e part of loer court 5ud$es to t!e une&uivocal co((and of t!eConstitution t!at e3cessive %anot %e re&uired.

'. Before conviction, ever# person is %aila%le e3cept if c!ar$ed it! capital offenses !en t!e evof $uilt is stron$. 5 Suc! a ri$!t flos fro( t!e presu(ption of innocence in favor of ever# accus

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

s!ould not %e su%5ected to t!e loss of freedo( as t!ereafter !e ould %e entitled to ac&uittal, unless !is$uilt %e proved %e#ond reasona%le dou%t. )!ere%# a re$i(eof li%ert# is !onored in t!e o%servance andnot in t!e %reac!. It is not %e#ondt!e real( of pro%a%ilit#, !oever, t!at a person c!ar$ed it! a cri(e,especiall# so !ere !is defense is ea4, ould 5ust si(pl# (a4e !i(self scarceand t!us frustrate t!e!earin$ of !is case. A %ail is intended as a $uarantee t!at suc! an intent ould %e t!arted. It is, in t!elan$ua$e of Coole#, a (ode s!ort of confine(ent !ic! ould, it! reasona%le certaint#, insure t!eattendance of t!e accused for t!e su%se&uent trial. 6 Nor is t!ere, an#t!in$ unreasona%le in den#in$ t!isri$!t to one c!ar$ed it! a capital offense !en evidence of $uilt is stron$, as t!e li4eli!ood is, rat!er t!an aait t!e outco(e of t!e proceedin$ a$ainst !i( it! a deat! sentence, an ever-present t!reat,

7. )!ere is an atte(pt on t!e part of respondent ud$e to 5ustif# !at, on its face, appearindefensi%le %# t!e alle$ed reliance on +illase4or v" -bano. ( )!e $uidelines in t!e fi3in$ of %t!ere su((ariKed, in t!e opinion of ustice Sanc!eK, as follos0 ;'< a%ilit# of t!e accused to $i;+< nature of t!e offense= ;7< penalt# for t!e offense c!ar$ed= ;:< c!aracter and reputationaccused= ;1< !ealt! of t!e accused= ;>< c!aracter and stren$t! of t!e evidence= ;?< pro%a%ilit#accused appearin$ in trial= ;@< forfeiture of ot!er %onds= ;< !et!er t!e accused asa fu$itiv 5ustice !en arrested= and ;'< if t!e accused is under %ond for appearance at trial incases. 10 /espondent ud$e, !oever, did i$nore t!is decisive consideration appearin$ at t!e enda%ove opinion0 Discretion, indeed, is it! t!e court called upon to rule on t!e &uestion of %ail.



t!an aait t!e outco(e of t!e proceedin$ a$ainst !i( it! a deat! sentence, an ever present t!reat,te(ptation to flee t!e 5urisdiction ould %e too $reat to %e resisted.

+. !ere, !oever, t!e ri$!t to %ail e3ists, it s!ould not %e rendered nu$ator# %# re&uirin$ a su( t!at ise3cessive. So t!e Constitution co((ands. It is understanda%le !#. If t!ere ere no suc! pro!i%ition,t!e ri$!t to %ail %eco(es (eanin$less. It ould !ave %een (ore fort!ri$!t if no (ention of suc! a$uarantee ere found in t!e funda(ental la. It is not to %e lost si$!t of t!at t!e United StatesConstitution li(its itself to a pro!i%ition a$ainst e3cessive %ail. + As construed in t!e latest A(ericandecision, t!e sole per(issi%le function of (one# %ail is to assure t!e accuseds presence at trial, anddeclared t!at %ail set at a !i$!er fi$ure t!an an a(ount reasona%l#calculated to fulfill t!us purpose ise3cessive under t!e Ei$!t! A(end(ent. 8

Not!in$ can %e clearer, t!erefore, t!an t!at t!e c!allen$ed order of Au$ust ', '? fi3in$ t!e a(ountof P','1,+. as t!e %ail t!at s!ould %e posted %# petitioner, t!e su( of P@:,. for t!einfor(ation c!ar$in$ (ultiple (urder, t!ere %ein$ fourteen victi(, and t!e su( of P711,+ for t!eot!er offense of (ultiple frustrated (urder, t!ere %ein$ telve victi(s, is clearl# violative of constitutional provision. Under t!e circu(stances, t!ere %ein$ onl# to offenses c!ar$ed, t!e a(ountre&uired as %ail could not possi%l# e3ceed P1,. for t!e infor(ation for (urder and P+1,.for t!e ot!er infor(ation for frustrated (urder. Nor s!ould it %e i$nored in t!is case t!at t!e Depart(ent

of ustice did reco(end t!e total su( of P:,. for t!e tooffenses.

a%ove opinion0 Discretion, indeed, is it! t!e court called upon to rule on t!e &uestion of %ail. stress, !oever, t!at !ere conditions i(posed upon a defendant see4in$ %ail ould a(ount to at!ereof and render nu$ator# t!e constitutional ri$!t to %ail, e ill not !esitate to e3ercsupervisor#poers to provide t!e re&uired re(ed#. 11

No atte(pt at rationaliKation can t!erefore $ive a color of validit# to t!e c!allen$ed order. )!ereiron# in an accused %ein$ told t!at !e !as a ri$!t to %ail %ut at t!e sa(e ti(e %ein$ re&uired to poan e3or%itant su(. !at a$$ravates t!e situation is t!at t!e loer court 5ud$e ould apparentl# t!e co((and of t!e funda(ental la. In realit#, suc! a sancti(onious avoal of respect for a (of t!e Constitution as on a purel# ver%al level. )!ere is reason to %elieve t!at an# person position of petitioner ould under t!e circu(stances %e una%le to resists t!ou$!ts of escapinconfine(ent, reduced as !e (ust !ave %een to a stateof desperation. In t!e sa(e %reat! t!at !e !e could %e %ailed out, t!e e3cessive a(ount re&uired could onl# (ean t!at provisional li%ert# %e%e#ond !is reac!. It ould !ave %een (ore fort!ri$!t if !e ere infor(ed cate$oricall# t!atri$!t could not %e availed of. )!ere ould !ave %eenno disappoint(ent of e3pectations t!en. It dto (ind t!ese ords of ustice ac4son, a pro(ise to t!e ear to %e %ro4en to t!e !ope, a teasin$

li4e a (unificent %e&uest in a paupers ill. 12 It is no onder t!at t!e resultin$ frustratresent(ent and %itterness in its a4e.Petitioners su%se&uent escape cannot %e condoned. )!at is is not entitled to t!e relief pra#ed for. !at respondent ud$e did, !oever, does call for repud

fro( t!is Court.

Nor is t!ere an# 5ustification t!en for i(putin$ !is ina%ilit# to fi3 a lesser a(ount %# virtue of an reliance on a decision of t!is )ri%unal. Even if one ere c!arita%l# inclined, t!e (ildest c!aracte

of suc! a result is t!at t!ere as a clear readin$ of t!e A%ano opinion !en suc! a (eaninascri%ed to it. No doctrine refine(ent (a# elicit approval if to doso ould %e to reduce t!e ri$!to a %arren for( of ords. Not onl# ist!e order co(plained of a%solutel# %ereft of support in laflies in t!e face of co((on sense. It is not too (uc! to sa# t!at it is at ar it! t!eco((and of r

it! petitioner, !oever, !avin$ escaped fro( t!e provincial 5ail, no rulin$ can %e !ad on !is nullif# t!e a%ove order.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11

6E/E*O/E, t!is case is dis(issed for %ein$ (oot and acade(ic. it!out pronounce(ent as tocosts.



ONSTI II !S"c. 11#

)6I/D DIVISION

G.R. No. 1'152( 9-3" 6, 2001

FRANISO YAP, 9R., aKa E/IN YAP, petitioner,vs.OURT OF APPEALS a34 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

GONZAGA#REYES, J .7

;'< 6e ;accused-appellant< secures a certificationL$uarant# fro( t!e 2a#or of t!e place of !is ret!at !e is a resident of t!e area and t!at !e ill re(ain to %e a resident t!erein until final 5ud$(rendered or in case !e transfers residence, it (ust %e it! prior notice to t!e court=

;+< )!e Co((ission of l((i$ration and Deportation ;CID< is !ere%# directed to issue a !old deorder a$ainst accused-appellant= and

;7< )!e accused-appellant s!all fort!it! surrender !is passport to t!e Division Cler4 of Cosafe4eepin$ until t!e court orders its return=



,

)!e ri$!t a$ainst e3cessive %ail, and t!e li%ert# of a%ode and travel, are %ein$ invo4ed to set aside toresolutions of t!e Court of Appeals !ic! fi3ed %ail at P1,1,. and i(posed conditions on

c!an$e of residence and travel a%road.

*or (isappropriatin$ a(ounts e&uivalent to P1,1,., petitioner as convicted of estafa %# t!e/e$ional )rial Court of Pasi$ Cit#' and as sentenced to four #ears and to (ont!s of prision

correctional,as (ini(u( to ei$!t #ears of prision mayor as (a3i(u(, in addition to one ;'< #ear for eac! additional P',. in e3cess of P++,. %ut in no case s!all it e3ceed tent# ;+<#ears.+ 6e filed a notice of appeal, and (oved to %e alloed provisional li%ert# under t!e cas! %ond !e

!ad filed earlier in t!e proceedin$s. )!e (otion as denied %# t!e trial court in an order dated *e%ruar#'?,'.

After t!e records of t!e case ere trans(itted to t!e Court of Appeals, petitioner filed it! t!e saidcourt a 2otion to *i3 Bail *or t!e Provisional i%ert# of Accused Appellant Pendin$ Appeal, invo4in$t!e last para$rap! of Section 1, /ule '': of t!e '? /evised /ules of Court. As4ed to co((ent on t!is(otion, t!e Solicitor Heneral opined t!at petitioner (a# %e alloed to post %ail in t!e a(ount of

P1,1,. and %e re&uired to secure a certificationL$uarant# fro( t!e 2a#or of t!e place of !is

residence t!at !e is a resident of t!e area and t!at !e ill re(ain to %e so until final 5ud$(ent isrendered or in case !e transfers residence, it (ust %e it! prior notice to t!e court and privateco(plainant.7 Petitioner filed a /epl#, contendin$ t!at t!e proposed %ail ofP1,1,. as violativeof !is ri$!t a$ainst e3cessive %ail.

)!e assailed resolution of t!e Court of Appeals:, issued on Octo%er >, ', up!eld t!e reco((endation

of t!e Solicitor Heneral= t!us, its dispositive portion reads0

6E/E*O/E, pre(ises considered, t!e 2otion to *i3 Bail *or Provisional i%ert# of Accused-Appellant Pendin$ Appeal is !ere%# H/AN)ED. Accused-appellant *rancisco Map, r., a.4.a. EdinMap is !ere%# AOED )O POS) BAI in t!e a(ount of *ive 2illion *ive 6undred )!ousand;P1,1,.< Pesos, su%5ect to t!e folloin$ conditions, viK. 0

p $ =

;:< An# violation of t!e aforesaid conditions s!all cause t!e forfeiture of accused-appellants %at!e dis(issal of appeal and !is i((ediate arrest and confine(ent in 5ail.

SO O/DE/ED.

1

A (otion for reconsideration as filed, see4in$ t!e reduction of t!e a(ount of %ail fi3ed %# respcourt, %ut as denied in a resolution issued on Nove(%er +1, '. 6ence, t!is petition.

Petitioner sets out t!e folloin$ assi$n(ents of error0

)!e respondent Court of Appeals co((itted $rave a%use of discretion in fi3in$ t!e %ail provisional li%ert# of petitioner pendin$ appeal in t!e a(ount of P1 .1 (illion.

)!e respondent Court of Appeals co((itted $rave a%use of discretion in %asin$ t!e %ail provisional li%ert# of t!e petitioner on !is civil lia%ilit#.

)!e respondent Court of Appeals undul# restricted petitioners constitutional li%ert# of a%ode anin i(posin$ t!e ot!er conditions for t!e $rant of %ail.

Petitioner contends t!at t!e Court of Appeals, %# settin$ %ail at a pro!i%itor# a(ount, effectivel#!i( !is ri$!t to %ail. 6e c!allen$es t!e le$al %asis of respondent court for fi3in$ %ail at P1,1,!ic! is e&uivalent to t!e a(ount of !is civil lia%ilit# to private co(plainant 2anila 2a2ar4etin$ Corporation, and ar$ues t!at t!e /ules of Court never intended for t!e civil lia%ilit#accused to %e a $uideline or %asis for deter(inin$ t!e a(ount of %ail. 6e pra#s t!at %ail %e reducleast P:,., citin$ t!e (a3i(u( a(ount of %ail t!at can %e posted for t!e cri(e of estafa un'> Bail Bond Huide, or P+,., e&uivalent to t!e a(ount of %ail !e posted durin$ t!e triacase.>

ONSTI II !S"c. 11#

On t!e ot!er !and, t!e Solicitor Heneral (aintains t!at no $rave a%use of discretion could %e ascri%ed tot!e Court of Appeals for fi3in$ t!e a(ount of %ail at P1,1,. considerin$ t!e severit# of t!e penalt# i(posed, t!e ei$!t of t!e evidence a$ainst petitioner, and t!e $ravit# of t!e offense of !ic! petitioner as convicted %# t!e /)C. 6e asserted t!at t!e P1,1,. not onl# corresponded to civillia%ilit# %ut also to t!e a(ount of fraud i(puted to petitioner. )!e Solicitor Heneral furt!er pointed outt!e pro%a%ilit# of fli$!t in case petitioner is released on %ail, it !avin$ %een esta%lis!ed t!at petitioner as in possession of a valid passport and visa and !ad in fact left t!e countr# several ti(es durin$ t!ecourse of t!e proceedin$s in t!e loer court. It as also s!on t!at petitioner used different na(es in!is %usiness transactions and !ad several a%odes in different parts of t!e countr#.

;e< )!at t!ere is undue ris4 t!at durin$ t!e pendenc# of t!e appeal, t!e accused (a# co((it acri(e.

)!e appellate court (a# revie t!e resolution of t!e /e$ional )rial Court, on (otion and it! nt!e adverse part#.?

)!ere is no &uestion t!at in t!e present case t!e Court of Appeals e3ercised its discretion in faalloin$ %ail to petitioner on appeal. /espondent court stated t!at it as doin$ so for !u(areasons, and despite a perceived !i$! ris4 of fli$!t, as %# petitioners ad(ission !e ent out



As for t!e conditions i(posed %# t!e %ail %ond, t!e Solicitor Heneral advanced t!at all t!at t!e Court of Appeals re&uires is notice in case of c!an$e of address= it does not in an# a# i(pair petitioners ri$!tto c!an$e a%ode for as lon$ as t!e court is apprised of !is c!an$e of residence durin$ t!e pendenc# of t!e appeal.

Petitioners case falls it!in t!e provisions of Section 1, /ule '': of t!e '? /ules of Court !ic!states0

SEC. 1. Bail, )hen discretionary"-- Upon conviction %# t!e /e$ional )rial Court of an offense not punis!a%le %# deat!, reclusion perpetuaor life i(prison(ent, t!e court, on application, (a# ad(it t!eaccused to %ail.

)!e court, in its discretion, (a# allo t!e accused to continue on provisional li%ert# under t!e sa(e %ail %ond durin$ t!e period to appeal su%5ect to t!e consent of t!e %onds(an.

If t!e court i(posed a penalt# of i(prison(ent e3ceedin$ si3 ;>< #ears, %ut not (ore t!an tent# ;+<#ears, t!e accused s!all %e denied %ail, or !is %ail previousl# $ranted s!all %e cancelled, upon a s!oin$

%# t!e prosecution, it! notice to t!e accused, of t!e folloin$ or ot!er si(ilar circu(stances0

;a< )!at t!e accused is a recidivist, &uasi-recidivist, or !a%itual delin&uent, or !as co((itted t!e cri(ea$$ravated %# t!e circu(stance of reiteration=

;%< )!at t!e accused is found to !ave previousl# escaped fro( le$al confine(ent, evaded sentence, or

!as violated t!e conditions of !is %ail it!out valid 5ustification=

;c< )!at t!e accused co((itted t!e offense !ile on pro%ation, parole, or under conditional pardon=

;d< )!at t!e circu(stances of t!e accused or !is case indicate t!e pro%a%ilit# of fli$!t if released on %ail=or

countr# several ti(es durin$ t!e pendenc# of t!e case, for !ic! reason t!e court dee(ed it nece pe$ t!e a(ount of %ail at P1,1,..

)!e pro!i%ition a$ainst re&uirin$ e3cessive %ail is ens!rined in t!e Constitution.@ )!e o%vious raas declared in t!e leadin$ case of e la %amara vs" 'nage, is t!at i(posin$ %ail in an e3cessive could render (eanin$less t!e ri$!t to %ail. )!us, in +illase4or vs" -bano,' t!is Court ( pronounce(ent t!at it ill not !esitate to e3ercise its supervisor# poers over loer courts s!olatter, after !oldin$ t!e accused entitled to %ail, effectivel# den# t!e sa(e %# i(posin$ a pro!su( or e3actin$ unreasona%le conditions.

333 )!ere is $ri( iron# in an accused %ein$ told t!at !e !as a ri$!t to %ail %ut at t!e sa(e ti(ere&uired to post suc! an e3or%itant su(. !at a$$ravates t!e situation is t!at t!e loer courtould apparentl# #ield to t!e co((and of t!e funda(ental la. In realit#, suc! a sancti(onious of respect for a (andate of t!e Constitution as on a purel# ver%al level. )!ere is reason to %eliean# person in t!e position of petitioner ould under t!e circu(stances %e una%le to resist t!ouescapin$ fro( confine(ent, reduced as !e (ust !ave %een to a state of desperation. In t!e sa(eas !e as told !e could %e %ailed out, t!e e3cessive a(ount re&uired could onl# (ean t!at provli%ert# ould %e %e#ond !is reac!. It ould !ave %een (ore fort!ri$!t if !e ere infor(ed cate$

t!at suc! a ri$!t could not %e availed of. )!ere ould !ave %een no disappoint(ent of e3pect!en. It does call to (ind t!ese ords of ustice ac4son, a pro(ise to t!e ear to %e %ro4en to t!a teasin$ illusion li4e a (unificent %e&uest in a paupers ill. ''

At t!e sa(e ti(e, Section , /ule '': of t!e /evised /ules of Cri(inal Procedure advises coconsider t!e folloin$ factors in t!e settin$ of t!e a(ount of %ail0

;a< *inancial a%ilit# of t!e accused to $ive %ail=

;%< Nature and circu(stances of t!e offense=

;c< Penalt# for t!e offense c!ar$ed=

ONSTI II !S"c. 11#

;d< C!aracter and reputation of t!e accused=

;e< A$e and !ealt! of t!e accused=

;f< ei$!t of t!e evidence a$ainst t!e accused=

;$< Pro%a%ilit# of t!e accused appearin$ at t!e trial=

;!< *orfeiture of ot!er %ail=

or over and t!e i(posa%le penalt# + #ears of reclusion temporal9")rue, t!e Court !as !eld t!at tBond Huide, a circular of t!e Depart(ent of ustice for t!e $uidance of state prosecutors, alttec!nicall# not %indin$ upon t!e courts, (erits attention, %ein$ in a sense an e3pression of policE3ecutive Branc!, t!rou$! t!e Depart(ent of ustice, in t!e enforce(ent of cri(inal las.courts are advised t!at t!e# (ust not onl# %e aare %ut s!ould also consider t!e Bail Bond Huidits si$nificance in t!e ad(inistration of cri(inal 5ustice. '? )!is notit!standin$, t!e Court precluded fro( i(posin$ in petitioners case an a(ount !i$!er t!an P:,. ;%ased on t!e BaHuide< !ere it perceives t!at an appropriate increase is dictated %# t!e circu(stances.



;i< )!e fact t!at t!e accused as a fu$itive fro( 5ustice !en arrested= and

;5< Pendenc# of ot!er cases !ere t!e accused is on %ail.

)!us, t!e court !as ide latitude in fi3in$ t!e a(ount of %ail. !ere it fears t!at t!e accused (a# 5u(p %ail, it is certainl# not precluded f ro( installin$ devices to ensure a$ainst t!e sa(e. Options (a#

include increasin$ t!e %ail %ond to an appropriate level, or re&uirin$ t!e person to report periodicall# tot!e court and to (a4e an accountin$ of !is (ove(ents.'+ In t!e present case, !ere petitioner as foundto !ave left t!e countr# several ti(es !ile t!e case as pendin$, t!e Court of Appeals re&uired t!econfiscation of !is passport and t!e issuance of a !old-departure order a$ainst !i(.

Under t!e circu(stances of t!is case, e find t!at appropriate conditions !ave %een i(posed in t!e %ail %ond to ensure a$ainst t!e ris4 of fli$!t, particularl#, t!e co(%ination of t!e !old-departure order and

t!e re&uire(ent t!at petitioner infor( t!e court of an# c!an$e of residence and of !is !erea%outs.Alt!ou$! an increase in t!e a(ount of %ail !ile t!e case is on appeal (a# %e (eritorious, e find t!att!e settin$ of t!e a(ount at P1,1,. is unreasona%le, e3cessive, and constitutes an effective denialof petitioners ri$!t to %ail.

)!e purpose for %ail is to $uarantee t!e appearance of t!e accused at t!e trial, '7 or !enever so re&uired %# t!e Court':. )!e a(ount s!ould %e !i$! enou$! to assure t!e presence of t!e accused !en re&uired

%ut no !i$!er t!an is reasona%l# calculated to fulfill t!is purpose.'1 )o fi3 %ail at an a(ount e&uivalentto t!e civil lia%ilit# of !ic! petitioner is c!ar$ed ;in t!is case, P1,1,.<.is to per(it t!ei(pression t!at t!e a(ount paid as %ail is an e3action of t!e civil lia%ilit# t!at accused is c!ar$ed of=t!is e cannot allo %ecause %ail is not intended as a punis!(ent, nor as a satisfaction of civil lia%ilit#!ic! s!ould necessaril# aait t!e 5ud$(ent of t!e appellate court.

At t!e sa(e ti(e, e cannot #ield to petitioners su%(ission t!at %ail in t!e instant case %e set at

P:,. %ased on t!e '> Bail Bond Huide. ;)!e current Bail Bond Huide, issued on Au$ust +,+, (aintains reco((ended %ail at P:,. for estafa !ere t!e a(ount of fraud is P':+,.

It (ilitates e(p!asis t!at petitioner is see4in$ %ail on appeal" Section 1, /ule '': of t!e /eviseof Cri(inal Procedure is clear t!at alt!ou$! t!e $rant of %ail on appeal is non-capital offediscretionar#, !en t!e penalt# i(posed on t!e convicted accused e3ceeds si3 #ears and circu(e3ist t!at point to t!e pro%a%ilit# of fli$!t if released on %ail, t!en t!e accused (ust %e denied !is %ail previousl# $ranted s!ould %e c ancelled.'@ In t!e sa(e vein, t!e Court !as !eld t!at t!e dito e3tend %ail durin$ t!e course of t!e appeal s!ould %e e3ercised it! $rave caution and forreasons, considerin$ t!at t!e accused !ad %een in fact convicted %# t!e trial court. ' In an earlit!e Court adopted Senator Vicente . *ranciscos dis&uisition on !# %ail s!ould %e denie 5ud$(ent of conviction as a (atter of ise discretion= t!us0

)!e i(portance attac!ed to conviction is due to t!e underl#in$ principle t!at %ail s!ould %e $rant!ere it is uncertain !et!er t!e accused is $uilt# or innocent, and t!erefore, !ere t!at uncertre(oved %# conviction it ould, $enerall# spea4in$, %e a%surd to ad(it to %ail. After a person !tried and convicted t!e presu(ption of innocence !ic! (a# %e relied upon in prior applicare%utted, and t!e %urden is upon t!e accused to s!o error in t!e conviction. *ro( anot!er point it (a# %e properl# ar$ued t!at t!e pro%a%ilit# of ulti(ate punis!(ent is so en!anced %# t!e cont!at t!e accused is (uc! (ore li4el# to atte(pt to escape if li%erated on %ail t!anconviction.333+

Petitioner is see4in$ %ail on appeal. 6e as in fact declared $uilt# %e#ond reasona%le dou%t %# t!and due to t!e serious a(ount of fraud involved, sentenced to i(prison(ent for tent# #ea(a3i(u( penalt# for estafa %# false pretenses or fraudulent acts alloed %# t!e /evised PenalAlt!ou$! it cannot %e controverted t!at t!e Court of Appeals, despite t!e fore$oin$ consideratit!e possi%ilit# of fli$!t still ielded its discretion to $rant petitioner %ail, t!e settin$ of %aila(ount of P1,1,. is un5ustified as !avin$ no le$al nor factual %asis. Huided %# t!e i(posed %# t!e loer court and t!e ei$!t of t!e evidence a$ainst petitioner, e %elieve t!at t!e aof P+,. is (ore reasona%le.

Petitioner also contests t!e condition i(posed %# t!e Court of Appeals t!at !e seccertificationL$uarant# fro( t!e 2a#or of t!e place of !is residence t!at !e is a resident of t!e art!at !e ill re(ain to %e a resident t!erein until final 5ud$(ent is rendered or in case !e tra

ONSTI II !S"c. 11#

residence, it (ust %e it! prior notice to t!e court, clai(in$ t!at t!e sa(e violates !is li%ert# of a%odeand travel.

Nota%l#, petitioner does not &uestion t!e !old-departure order !ic! prevents !i( fro( leavin$ t!eP!ilippines unless e3pressl# per(itted %# t!e court !ic! issued t!e order.+' In fact, t!e petition su%(itst!at t!e !old-departure order a$ainst petitioner is alread# sufficient $uarantee t!at !e ill not escape.)!us, to re&uire !i( to infor( t!e court ever# ti(e !e c!an$ed !is residence is alread# unnecessar#.++

)!e ri$!t to c!an$e a%ode and travel it!in t!e P!ilippines, %ein$ invo4ed %# petitioner, are not

)!e order of t!e Court of Appeals releasin$ petitioner on %ail constitutes suc! laful oconte(plated %# t!e a%ove provision.+7 )!e condition i(posed %# t!e Court of Appeals is consistent it! t!e nature and function of a %ail %ond, !ic! is to ensure t!at petitioner ill!i(self availa%le at all ti(es !enever t!e Court re&uires !is presence. Besides, a closer loo4&uestioned condition ill s!o t!at petitioner is not prevented fro( c!an$in$ a%ode= !e is re&uired to infor( t!e court in case !e does so.

/HEREFORE, t!e petition is PARTIALLY GRANTE. Petitioners %ail pendin$ appeal is rfro( P1,1,. to P+,.. In all ot!er respects, t!e resolutions of t!e Court of AppealO % > ' d % + ' i l A



a%solute ri$!ts. Section >, Article III of t!e '@? Constitution states0

)!e li%ert# of a%ode and of c!an$in$ t!e sa(e it!in t!e li(its prescri%ed %# la s!all not %e i(pairede3cept upon laful order of t!e court. Neit!er s!all t!e ri$!t to travel %e i(paired e3cept in t!e interestof national securit#, pu%lic safet#, or pu%lic !ealt!, as (a# %e provided %# la.

Octo%er >, ' and Nove(%er +1, ', respectivel#, are AFFIRME. No pronounce(ent as t

SO O/DE/ED.

ONSTI II !S"c. 11#

Consti II- Mico

Documents

Transcript of Consti II- Mico