GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Tanenggee v People
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. REYES
G.R. No. 178300
(17 March 2009)

Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide

FACTS:

On July 16, 1999, at about 11pm, the Yao family arrived at the poultry farm in Bulacan. They were riding a
Mazda van. The father of the family, Yao San, while opening the gate of the poultry farm, was poked by the guns of
Reyes and Pataray. Appellants (suspects Reyes etc) dragged him inside the van. Four other male companions entered
the van and started to drive it. Yao family was blindfolded during the ride.

About after about 30 minutes of traveling on the road, the van stopped. Per order of appellants and their
cohorts, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and JonaAbagatnan (Abagatnan) stepped out of the van with appellants
Reyes and Arnaldo, Pataray and one of their male companions. [7] Appellant Flores, with the other male companion, drove
the van with the remaining members of the Yao family inside the vehicle.[8]

Later, the van stopped again. Appellant Flores and his male companion told Yao San to produce the amount of
five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) as ransom in exchange for the release of Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and
Abagatnan. Thereafter, appellant Flores and his male companion left the van and fled; while Yao San, Lenny, Matthew,
Charlene and Josephine remained inside the van. Upon sensing that the kidnappers had already left, Yao San drove the
van towards the poultry farm and sought the help of relatives. [9]

Meanwhile, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and Abagatnan were taken on foot by appellants Reyes and
Arnaldo, Pataray and one male companion to a safe-house situated in the mountainous part of San Jose Del Monte,
Bulacan where they spent the whole night.[10]

On the morning of the following day, at around 4:00 a.m., appellants and their cohorts tried to contact Yao San
regarding the ransom demanded, but the latter could not be reached. Thus, appellants instructed Abagatnan to look for
Yao San in the poultry farm. Appellants Reyes and Arnaldo and one male companion escorted Abagatnan in proceeding
to the poultry farm. Upon arriving therein, Abagatnan searched for Yao San, but the latter could not be found. Appellants
Reyes and Arnaldo told Abagatnan to remind Yao San about the ransom demanded. Thereafter, appellants Reyes and
Arnaldo and their male companion left Abagatnan in the poultry farm and went back to the safe-house. [11]

In the safe-house, appellants told Robert that they would release him so he could help Abagatnan in locating
Yao San. Robert and appellants left the safe-house, and after 30 minutes of trekking, appellants abandoned Robert.
Robert then ran towards the poultry farm. Upon arriving at the poultry farm, Robert found Yao San and informed him
about the ransom demanded by the appellants. Robert also told Yao San that Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were still
held by appellants and their cohorts.

On 18 July 1999, appellants called Yao San through a cellular phone and demanded the ransom of P5 million for
Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond. Yao San acceded to appellants demand. Appellants allowed Yao San to talk with Chua
Ong Ping Sim.

On the morning of 19 July 1999, appellants again called Yao San via a cellular phone and threatened to kill Chua
Ong Ping Sim and Raymond because of newspaper and radio reports regarding the incident. Yao San clarified to
appellants that he did not report the incident to the police and also pleaded with them to spare the life of Chua Ong Ping
Sim and Raymond. Appellants then instructed Yao San to appear and bring with him the ransom of P5 million at 3:00
p.m. in the Usan dumpsite, Litex Road, Fairview, Quezon City. Yao San arrived at the designated place of the pay-of
at 4:00 p.m., but none of the appellants or their cohorts showed up. Yao San waited for appellants call, but none
came.Thus, Yao San left.[

On 23 July 1999, the corpses of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were found at the La Mesa Dam,
Novaliches, Quezon City.[15] Both died of asphyxia by strangulation.

On 26 July 1999, appellant Arnaldo surrendered to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF)
at Camp Crame, Quezon City. Thereupon, appellant Arnaldo, with the assistance of Atty. Uminga, executed a
written extra-judicial confession narrating his participation in the incident. Appellant Arnaldo identified
appellants Reyes and Flores, Pataray and a certain Tata and Akey as his co-participants in the incident. Appellant Arnaldo
also described the physical features of his cohorts and revealed their whereabouts. [17]

Subsequently, appellant Reyes was arrested in Sto. Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Thereafter, appellants
Arnaldo and Reyes were identified in a police line-up by Yao San, Robert and Abagatnan as their kidnappers. [18]

On 10 August 1999, agents of the PAOCTF arrested appellant Flores in Balayan, Batangas. Afterwards,
appellant Flores, with the assistance of Atty. Rous, executed a written extra-judicial confession detailing
his participation in the incident. Appellant Flores identified appellants Reyes and Arnaldo, Pataray and a certain Tata
and Akey as his co-participants in the incident. Appellant Flores was subsequently identified in a police line-up by Yao
San, Robert and Abagatnan as one of their kidnappers. [19]

The prosecution adduced documentary evidence to bolster the aforesaid allegations, to wit:
(1) SinumpaangSalaysay of Abagatnan (Exhibit A);[20] (2) KaragdagangSinumpaangSalaysay of Abagatnan, Robert and
Yao San (Exhibit B);[21] (3) sketch made by Abagatnan (Exhibit C); [22] (4) death certificates of Chua Ong Ping Sim and
Raymond (Exhibits D & E);[23] (5) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Robert (Exhibit F);[24] (6) SinumpaangSalaysay of Yao San
(Exhibit H);[25] (7) joint affidavit of Police Senior Inspector Loreto P. Delelis and PO3 Roberto Jabien (Exhibit I); [26] (8) joint
affidavit of PO3 Alex Alberto and PO3 LeonitoFermin (Exhibit J); [27] (9) written extra-judicial confession of appellant Flores
(Exhibit K);[28] (10) written extra-judicial confession of appellant Arnaldo (Exhibit L); [29] and (11) sketch made by appellant
Arnaldo (Exhibit M).

RTC:

Guilty with the penalty of death.

CA:

Guilty with the penalty of reclusion perpetua without parole.

ISSUES:

1) Weight and Credence of the testimonies of the witnesses

2) The existence of Conspiracy
3) The extra-judicial confessions admissibility
4) The corroborated testimonies of the accused
5) Penalty

SUPREME COURT RULING:

(1)

Prosecution witnesses (the victims) Abatganan, Robert and Yao San positively identified and their cohorts as
their kidnappers during a police line-up and also during the trial. They testified in a clear and candid manner during the
trial. The testimonies were in harmony with the documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.

(On the darkness of the crime scene) The crime was well-lighted during the incident. There was light at the gate
of the poultry, light from the van and the bulb light from the inside of the van. Thus, the victims would have positively
identified the accused.

Although they were blind folded, they werent for the first ten minutes of the incident giving them time to
identify the accused. The victims cannot also be blamed that they reported the incident late because accused were
threatening them if they report it. It should be also considered that that after the bodies of the two were found, they did
not immediately report it because accused were still at large and it is possible that they will come back to them.

(2)

There is conspiracy. Their extra judicial confession also detailed the particular role/participation played by each
of appelants and their cohorts in the kidnapping of the family. There was unity and purpose and design in kidnapping the
Yao family.

(3)

Contentions of the accused:

Appellant Reyes claims that his alleged participation in the kidnapping of the Yao family was based solely on
the written extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores. He maintains, however, that said extra-judicial
confessions are inadmissible in evidence, because they were obtained in violation of his co-appellants constitutional
right to have an independent counsel of their own choice during custodial investigation. Appellant Reyes alleges that the
agents of the PAOCTF did not ask his co-appellants during the custodial investigation whether they had a lawyer of their
own choice, and whether they could aford to hire a lawyer; that the agents of the PAOCTF suggested the availability of
Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous to his co-appellants; and that Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous were associates of the
PAOCTF. Appellant Reyes also asseverates that the extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores cannot be
utilized against him.

Appellant Flores argues that his written extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence, because it was
obtained in violation of his constitutional right to have an independent counsel of his own choice during custodial
investigation. He insists that his written extra-judicial confession was elicited through force, torture and without the
assistance of a lawyer. He avers that he was not assisted by any lawyer from the time he was arrested until he was
coerced to sign the purported confession; that he was forced to sign it because he could not anymore endure the
beatings he sufered at the hands of the PAOCTF agents; and that he never met or knew Atty. Rous who, according to the
PAOCTF, had assisted him during the custodial investigation.

Appellant Arnaldocontends that his written extra-judicial confession should be excluded as evidence, as it was
procured in violation of his constitutional right to have an independent counsel of his own choice during custodial
investigation. He claims that he was not given freedom to choose his counsel; that the agents of the PAOCTF did not ask
him during the custodial investigation whether he had a lawyer of his own choice, and whether he could aford to hire a
lawyer; and that the agents of the PAOCTF suggested the availability of Atty. Uminga to him.

The extra-judicial confession of Flores and Arnaldo were valid and admissible to the courts. The PAOCTF
investigators had informed them that they had a constitutional right to remain silent, and that anything they would say
may be used against them in a court of law and were also told that they were entitled to a counsel of their own choice.

Accused Flores and Arnaldo approved when they were given their lawyers, Atty Rous and AttyUminga. During
the making of their extrajudicial confession, both lawyers were present. They were told to ask them for clarification and
comment if they (accused) did not understand any part of the confession. They were instructed to read and check the
confession.

Both AttysUminga and Rous are held to be competent and impartial.

On the part of Reyes, the extrajudicial confessions of Arnaldo and Flores can be considered as circumstantial
evidence. Although it only admissible only against the confessant, jurisprudence make is admissible as corroborative
evidence of other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his co-accused.
(4)

Alibi is the weakest of all defences for it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove. Clear and convincing
evidence is needed. Flores and Reyes (alibis: Reyes sleeping at his house and Flores also at his house with her sister in
Antipolo) failed to prove convincingly that it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene during the
incident.

Arnaldos contention of frame up was also not clear. It was his only self-serving testimony not backed with some
evidence.

(5)
I think maoniang main issue pero not sure haha

The penalty should be reclusion perpetua with no parole considering the passage of RA 9346 on June 24, 2006
prohibiting the imposition of death penalty.

Side Note:

RTC and
CAs denomination of the crime committed as Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping for Ransom
with Double Homicide since two of the kidnap victims were killed or died during the kidnapping. The word double should
be deleted therein. Regardless of the number of killings or deaths that occurred as a consequence of the
kidnapping, the appropriate denomination of the crime should be the special complex crime of kidnapping
for ransom with homicide.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JOSE ARMANDO CERVANTES CACHUELA and
BENJAMIN JULIAN CRUZ IBAEZ,accused.

BENJAMIN JULIAN CRUZ IBAEZ, accused-appellant

The case:
An appeal filed by appellants Jose Armando Cervantes Cachuela and Benjamin Julian Cruz Ibaez assailing the
August 7, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) where it affirmed with modification the July 14, 2008 decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 196, Paraaque City, finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide, and sentencing them to sufer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. TDc
Antecedents:
The prosecution's evidence revealed that on July 23, 2004, Ibaez went to Weapons System
Corporation (WSC) on board an old car, and told Henessy Auron, WSC's Secretary and Sales Representative, that he was
the one who bought a gun barrel at the company's gun show in SM Megamall. Ibaez inquired from Henessy about the
schedule and the rates of WSC's firing range and the amount of the membership fee of its gun club. He also asked the
days when there are many people in the firing range, and whether Henessy was WSC's only female employee.
At around 9:00 a.m. of July 26, 2004, Henessy arrived at WSC and rang the doorbell, but no one opened the door. She
went to the back of the office where the firing range was located, and called Zaldy Gabao, another employee of WSC.
Zaldy answered from inside the store but Henessy did not understand what he said. Henessy returned to the front door
and called again. Zaldy replied that he could not open the door because his hands were tied. Henessy called Raymundo
Sian, the company's operations manager, and informed him that Zaldy's hands had been tied. After one hour, the police
arrived; they opened the gate at the back using acetylene. When Henessy and the police entered the premises, they
saw that Zaldy had been handcufed to the vault. Zaldy informed the police that the company's gunsmith, Rex Dorimon,
was inside the firing range. The police entered the firing range, and saw the lifeless body of Rex. Dr. Voltaire Nulud
conducted an autopsy on the body of Rex, and found that the victim sufered several gunshot wounds on the head,
thorax and abdomen, caused by a .45 pistol.
Key facts:
There was a robbery at WSC wherein herein accused, the Cachuela was involved according to the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) through an information given to them by an asset. With this, the NBI formed an entrapment
team and proceeded to Bacoor, Cavite to execute the operation. Upon their arrival, a certain Melvin Nabilgas
approached them and told them that he had been sent by Cachuela and Ibaez to look for buyers of firearms. The police
introduced
themselves
and
told
Nabilgas
that
they
were
conducting
an
entrapment
operation
against the suspects of the robbery at WSC. Nabilgas surrendered to the police, and gave the names of the other
persons involved in the crime. Thereafter, the asset contacted Cachuela and informed him that Nabilgas had already

talked to the buyers, and that they would like to see thefirearms being sold. Cachuela set up a meeting with the buyers
at a gasoline station in Naic, Cavite. From there, several agents of the NBI including the asset went to the agreed place
to meet the Cachuela. Cachuela came and talked to them, and brought them inside his house where Cachuelashowed
them
several
firearms.
When the agents
inquired
from Cachuela whether the firearms
had
legal
documentation, the latter sensed that the meeting was a set-up. The NBI agents arrested Cachuela before he could
make any move. The agents recovered four (4) firearms from Cachuela's house, including a .9 mm Bernardelli. This
arrangement was also conducted as a follow-up operation on Ibaez whom the asset also contacted. Said Ibaez was
also arrested and his firearms were also confiscated.
At the NBI Main Office, Zaldy an employee of WSC pointed to the accused, during a police line-up,
as the persons responsible for the robbery at WSC and for the killing of Rex who was the company
gunsmith. Nabilgas also executed a handwritten confession implicating the appellants and Zaldy
in the crime.
The prosecution filed an Information for robbery with homicide before the RTC against the appellants, Nabilgas
and Zaldy, where they all pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. During trial, Zaldy
died.
RTC Ruling
-Found the appellants Nabilgas and Zaldy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, and sentenced them to sufer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Court of Appeals Ruling
-affirmed the RTC decision with modifications and considered the following circumstantial evidences: (1) Ibaez visited
WSC two days before the robbery and asked several questions from Henessy; (2) a robbery occurred at WSC where 53
firearms and several ammunitions had been stolen; (3) among the firearms stolen were a .9 mm Bernardelli; (4) Rex, a
gunsmith working in WSC, was found dead at the firing range; (5) Rex sustained gunshot wounds on diferent parts of his
body; (6) Cachuela and Ibaez were caught trying to sell the .9 mm Bernardelli, with serial number T1102-03E000151,
and the .45 Glock 30, with serial number FML 245, respectively, in separate entrapment operations; and
(7)Cachuela and Ibaez were unable to explain how they came into possession of the stolen firearms.
Issue: whether or not the extra-judicial confession is admissible?
Ruling:
No.
-In the present case, Lino merely stated that Zaldy, during a police line-up, identified the appellants as the persons
involved in the robbery of WSC and in the killing of Rex but he did not state when the line-up took place; how this line-up
had been conducted; who were the persons in the line-up with the appellants (if there were indeed other persons
included in the line-up); and whether the line-up was confined to persons of the same height and built as the
appellants.He likewise did not indicate who accompanied Zaldy before and during the line-up, and whether there had
been the possibility of prior or contemporaneous improper insinuations on Zaldy regarding the appearance of the
appellants. With this, Lino's failure to state relevant details surrounding the police line-up is a glaring omission that
renders unreliable Zaldy's out-of-court identification.
The factors used in determining the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications, are the level of
certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; the length of time between the crime and the
identification; and the suggestiveness of the identification procedure which is wanting in this case.
With regard to the extra judicial confession, Nabilgas' extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence. The
Court has consistently held that an extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must satisfy the following
requirements: "(1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of a
competent and independent counsel preferably of the confessant's choice; (3) it must be express; and (4)
it must be in writing."Nabilgas was already under custodial investigation by the authorities when he executed the
alleged written confession. "A custodial investigation is understood . . . as . . . any questioning initiated by
law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant manner. . . . It begins when there is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime and the investigation has started to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the police
investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged
offense. And because of this, the lawyer called to be present during custodial investigations should, as far as
reasonably possible, be the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. If the lawyer is furnished by
the police for the accused, it is important that the lawyer should be competent, independent and prepared
to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be
giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights. Hence,
Nabilgas' confession was not made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel.
-"An 'efective and vigilant counsel' necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and [be] able to
advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the
investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession."

Ho Waipang vs People of the Philippines

Principle of Law:

Infraction of the rights of an accused during custodial investigation or the so-called Miranda Rights render
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during such investigation. The admissibility of other
evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not afected even if
obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation.

Facts:
September 6, 1991: 13 Hongkong nationals who came to the Philippines as tourists. At the arrival area,
Customs Examiner Gilda L. Cinco (Cinco) examined the baggages of each of the 13 passengers as their turn came
up. During the examination, she noticed chocolate boxes. Becoming suspicious, she took out some and opened one of
them. Instead of chocolates, she saw white crystalline substance contained in a white transparent plastic. Cinco
immediately called the attention of her immediate superiors. They called the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) and the
police. Thereupon, she guided the tourists to the Intensive Counting Unit (ICU) while bringing with her the four chocolate
boxes earlier discovered.

At the ICU, Cinco called the tourists one after the other using the passenger manifest and further examined
their bags. All in all, 18 chocolate boxes were recovered from the baggages of the six accused.NARCOM Agent Neowillie
de Castro corroborated the relevant testimony of Cinco pertaining to the presence of the chocolate boxes. The result of
his examination of the white crystalline substance yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu. Thereafter, the chocolate boxes were bundled together with tape, placed inside a plastic bag and brought to
the Inbond Section.

The following day, the 13 tourists were brought to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further
questioning. Out of the 13 tourists, the NBI found evidence for violation of R.A. No. 6425 only as against petitioner and
his five co-accused.

Accordingly, six separate Informations all dated September 19, 1991 were filed against petitioner and his coaccused. These Informations were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 91-1591 to 97. Subsequently, however, petitioner
filed a Motion for Reinvestigation which the trial court granted. The reinvestigation conducted gave way to a finding of
conspiracy among the accused and this resulted to the filing of a single Amended Information under Criminal Case No.
91-1592 and to the withdrawal of the other Informations.

After pleading not guilty to the crime charged, all the accused testified almost identically, invoking denial as
their defense. They claimed that they have no knowledge about the transportation of illegal substance (shabu) taken
from their traveling bags which were provided by the travel agency.

The RTC rendered a Decision finding all the accused guilty of violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as
amended.

From this judgment, all the accused appealed to this Court. Later, all the accused except for petitioner, filed on
separate dates their respective withdrawal of appeal. This Court, after being satisfied that the withdrawing appellants
were fully aware of the consequences of their action, granted the withdrawal of their respective appeals through a
Resolution. Consequently, petitioner was the only one left to pursue his appeal.Per Resolution, this Court referred the
appeal to the CA for proper disposition and determination.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC. While conceding that petitioners constitutional
right to counsel during the custodial investigation was indeed violated, it nevertheless went on to hold that there were
other evidence sufficient to warrant his conviction. The CA also rebuked petitioners claim that he was deprived of his
constitutional and statutory right to confront the witnesses against him. The CA gave credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and quoted with favor the trial courts ratiocination regarding the existence of conspiracy among
the accused.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:
Whether the violation of the petitioner's right to counsel made the evidence taken from the petitioner inadmissible.

Held:
The petition lacks merit.

Section 12, Article III of the Constitution prohibits as evidence only confessions and admissions of the accused as
against himself.

While there is no dispute that petitioner was subjected to all the rituals of a custodial questioning by the
customs authorities and the NBI in violation of his constitutional right under Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution,
we must not, however, lose sight of the fact that what said constitutional provision prohibits as evidence are only
confessions and admissions of the accused as against himself. Thus, in Aquino v. Paiste, the Court categorically ruled
that the infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission
made during custodial investigation. The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and
[are] not otherwise excluded by law or rules, [are] not afected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial
investigation.

In the case at bench, petitioner did not make any confession or admission during his custodial investigation.
The prosecution did not present any extrajudicial confession extracted from him as evidence of his guilt. Moreover, no
statement was taken from petitioner during his detention and subsequently used in evidence against him. Verily, in
determining the guilt of the petitioner and his co-accused, the trial court based its Decision on the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and on the existence of the confiscated shabu.

Petitioners conviction in the present case was on the strength of his having been caught in flagrante
delicto transporting shabu into the country and not on the basis of any confession or admission. Moreover, the testimony
of Cinco was found to be direct, positive and credible by the trial court, hence it need not be corroborated.Cinco
witnessed the entire incident thus providing direct evidence as eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the
crime. As the Court held in People v Dela Cruz, [n]o rule exists which requires a testimony to be corroborated to be
adjudged credible. x xx Thus, it is not at all uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a
single witness despite the lack of corroboration, where such testimony is found positive and credible by the trial court. In
such a case, the lone testimony is sufficient to produce a conviction.

Petitioner was not denied of his right to confrontation.

Petitioner invokes the pertinent provision of Section 14(2) of Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
providing for the right to confrontation, viz:

Section 14. x xx
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,
and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Petitioner asserts that he was deprived of his right to know and understand what the witnesses testified
to. According to him, only a full understanding of what the witnesses would testify to would enable an accused to
comprehend the evidence being ofered against him and to refute it by cross-examination or by his own countervailing
evidence.

We disagree. As borne out by the records, petitioner did not register any objection to the presentation of the
prosecutions evidence particularly on the testimony of Cinco despite the absence of an interpreter. Moreover, it has not
been shown that the lack of an interpreter greatly prejudiced him. Still and all, the important thing is that petitioner,
through counsel, was able to fully cross-examine Cinco and the other witnesses and test their credibility. The right to
confrontation is essentially a guarantee that a defendant may cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution. In People
v. Libo-on, the Court held:

The right to confrontation is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the
person facing criminal prosecution who should know, in fairness, who his accusers are and must be
given a chance to cross-examine them on their charges. The chief purpose of the right of
confrontation is to secure the opportunity for cross-examination, so that if the opportunity for crossexamination has been secured, the function and test of confrontation has also been accomplished,
the confrontation being merely the dramatic preliminary to cross-examination.

Under the circumstances obtaining, petitioners constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was not
impaired.

Conspiracy among the accused was duly established.

We uphold the trial courts finding of conspiracy which was quoted by the appellate court in its assailed
Decision, and which we once again herein reproduce with approval:

On the allegation of conspiracy, the Court finds [no] direct evidence to conclude
conspiracy. However, just like in other cases where conspiracy is not usually established by direct
evidence but by circumstantial evidence, the Court finds that there are enough circumstantial
evidence which if taken together sufficiently prove conspiracy. First, it cannot be denied that the
accused somehow have known each other prior to their [departure] in Hong Kong for Manila. These
relationships in a way can lead to the presumption that they have the capability to enter into a
conspiracy. Second, all the illegal substances confiscated from the six accused were contained in
chocolate boxes of similar sizes and almost the same weight all contained in their luggages. The
Court agrees with the finding of the trial prosecutor that under the given circumstances, the offense
charged [c]ould have been perpetrated only through an elaborate and methodically planned
conspiracy with all the accused assiduously cooperating and mutually helping each other in order to
ensure its success.

We find no cogent reason to reverse such findings.

Conspiracy is [the] common design to commit a felony. [38] [C]onspiracy which determines criminal culpability
need not entail a close personal association or at least an acquaintance between or among the participants to a crime.
[39]
It need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a
common design.[40] The assent of the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of
facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole as we ruled
in People v. Mateo, Jr.[41] Here, it can be deduced from petitioner and his co-accuseds collective conduct, viewed in its
totality, that there was a common design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments in bringing about the crime
committed.

Petitioners guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Finally, petitioner asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He makes
capital on the contention that no chocolate boxes were found in his traveling bag when it was examined at the ICU. He
claimed that it was his co-accused Sonny Wong who took charge in ascribing upon him the possession of the two
chocolate boxes.

Petitioners contentions fail to persuade.

True, when principal prosecution witness Cinco first testified on June 3, 1992, she declared that she did not see
any chocolate boxes but only personal efects in petitioners bag. Nonetheless, she clarified in her succeeding testimony
that she recalls taking the two chocolate boxes from petitioners bag when they were still at the counter. This sufficiently
explained why Cinco did not find any chocolate boxes from petitioners bag when they were at the ICU. To us, this slight
clash in Cincos statements neither dilute her credibility nor the veracity of her testimony.

Jurisprudence teaches that in assessing the credibility of a witness, his testimony must be considered in its
entirety instead of in truncated parts. The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its isolated parts
and anchor a conclusion on the basis of said parts. In ascertaining the facts established by a witness, everything stated
by him on direct, cross and redirect examinations must be calibrated and considered. Also, where there is nothing in the
records which would show a motive or reason on the part of the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused, identification
should be given full weight. Here, petitioner presented no evidence or anything to indicate that the principal witness for
the prosecution, Cinco, was moved by any improper motive, hence her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

Verily, the evidence adduced against petitioner is so overwhelming that this Court is convinced that his guilt
has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing else can speak so eloquently of his culpability than the
unassailable fact that he was caught red-handed in the very act of transporting, along with his co-accused, shabu into
the country. In stark contrast, the evidence for the defense consists mainly of denials.

All told, we are convinced that the courts below committed no error in adjudging petitioner guilty of transporting
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu into the country in violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as
amended.

WHEREFORE premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed June 16, 2006 Decision and January 16,
2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01459 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.