Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

8/21/2016

G.R.No.70091

TodayisSunday,August21,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
G.R.No.70091December29,1986
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
BRIGIDOENCIPIDO,CHARLITOMANATAD,JESUSRUBIO,RUDYLUMARDA,JOSECABAGERAN,EDDIE
DELAPEA,CRISRAMIREZ,andJESUSorJOHNDOE,accused,BRIGIDOENCIPIDO,CHARLITO
MANATAD,andEDDIEDELAPEAaccusedappellants.
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
IgnacioP.Moletaforaccusedappellants.

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.:
OnMarch30,1982,JoseLacumbes(hereinafterreferredtoastheDECEASED),aresidentofBarangayMabiniin
theMunicipalityofTubajon,SurigaodelNorte,wasfoundkilledbyhiswifeandchildrennearthehutintheirfarm
inSitioCapacohaninthesamebarangay.PostMortemfindingsperformedthefollowingmorningwere:
l)Incisedwoundoftheneck.
2)Eight[8]multiplestabwoundsatthebackone[1]inchinlengthandtwoandahalf[2]inchesindepth.
3)Removedrightexternalear.
4)Contusionsleftlumbarregion.
5)Bothhandstiedatthebackwithrattan.
CAUSEOFDEATH:Hemorrhage,severe,secondarytoincisedwoundsoftheneckandmultiplestabwoundsat
theback.
OnFebruary2,1983,inCriminalCaseNo.14oftheRegionalTrialCourt,10thJudicialRegion,Branch32(the
CASE BELOW), the following eight (8) persons: (1) Brigido ENCIPIDO (2) Charlito MANATAD, (3) Eddie DE LA
PENA(hereinafterreferredtoasAPPELLANTS),(4)JesusRubio,(5)RudyLumarda,(6)JoseCABAGERAN(7)
Cris Ramirez, and (8) Jesus or John Doe were charged with Murder for the death of the DECEASED. Only fly
APPELLANTSweretried,theotherfiveaccusedhavingremainedatlarge.
AreviewoftheprosecutionevidencepresentedintheCASEBELOWcanbeginwiththetestimonyofFelicisimo
Alciso. This witness narrated that he went to the hut of the DECEASED in the afternoon of March 30, 1982, in
order to get some chickens which the latter had promised him but that, before reaching the hut, he heard a
gunshot.HestoppedandsawthattheDECEASEDwasbeingtiedandsubjectedtofistblows.Therewerethree
personswhomauledtheDECEASED,whileothersstayedatadistance.Then,somebodystrucktheDECEASED
withthebuttofaguncausingthelattertofalltotheground.HedescribedthatthehandsoftheDECEASEDwere
tiedattheback,ENCIPIDOwasbehindtheDECEASED,whileMANATADandDELAPEAwereonthesides. 1
On orders of ENCIPIDO also known as "Commander Tanga," DE LA PEA, also called "Agosto de la Pena struck the
Deceased'sneckwithabolowhichalmostIseveredthelatter'shead.Frightened,witnessAlcisofledfromthescene.

AfterlearningfromfriendsandneighborsthatthosewhohadkilledtheDECEASEDweredetained,Alcisowentto
the jail to find out for himself if they were among the group responsible for the death of the DECEASED, and
because"IwasafraidthatIwillbethenextonetobekilledbythem."HerecognizedAPPELLANTSasamongthe
suspects.WhenheaskedDELAPENAwhyhewasinjail,thelatteransweredthatitwasbecausetheywerethe
oneswhohadbeheadedtheDECEASED.AlcisowasunabletotalktoENCIPIDOandMANATAD.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/dec1986/gr_70091_1986.html

1/10

8/21/2016

G.R.No.70091

BeforeAlcisotherewasanotherprosecutionwitnesspresented,ArmandoBagacaywhosetestimonyturnedoutto
behearsaybutwhichneverthelessisreproducedheretocompletetheevidencefortheprosecution.Hetestified
thatwhilehewasmassagingoneoftheaccused,RudyLainardaonMarch10,1982,thelattertoldhimthathis
ailmentwascausedbywitchcraftofthevictim,JoseLacumbes,andthathewouldseektheaidoftherebelstocut
Lacumbes'head.Fourdayslater,Bagacaymetoneofthoseoriginallyindicted,JesusRubio,whoconfidedtohim
thattheywouldcutLacumbes'neckformakingLumardasickandforbeingresponsibleforallithewitchcraftin
thecommunity.Subsequently,witnessBagacayheardofthedeathofLacumbesatthehandsoftherebels.
Two other prosecution witnesses supported testimony Alciso Jorge Ortega, INP Station Commander of Loreto,
AgusandelNorte,testifiedthatwhenhehadjustarrivedfromSurigaoCityatabout2:30o'clockP.M.ofMay1,
1982, and while still at the wharf, he was met by ENCIPIDO who introduced himself as "Commander Tanga,"
invitedhim(Ortega)foradrinksohecouldtalktothelatterpersonally.Havingacceptedtheinvitation,thetwo
proceededtoastorewhereENCIPIDOsfourteencompanionswerealreadywaiting.Theyintroducedthemselves
asrebelsandofferedtohelpthemunicipalgovernment.Inthecourseoftheconversation,ENCIPIDOandDELA
PEAdisclosedtotheStationCommanderthattheyweretheoneswhohadbeheadedtheDECEASED,killeda
certainBennyandoneBalaba,andwhowereresponsibleforallthekillingsinDinagatIsland.
Theotherprosecutionwitness,MarianoEspina,theMunicipalMayorofLoreto,testifiedthatintheeveningofthat
samedayofMay1,1982,StationCommanderJorgeOrtegainformedhimthatCommanderTanga"andhismen
wanted to pay him a courtesy call. They arrived at about 8:00 in the evening at his house. They introduced
themselvesandplacedtheirsidearmsonatableasasignofgoodwill.Atthetime,therewereabout2policemen
and 3 CHDF men outside the house but no arrests were made, nor were firearms confiscated, as a sign of
reciprocal goodwill "Commander Tanga" then confided to the Mayor his mission to cooperate with his
administration as they had heard that he was a good Mayor. He also informed the Mayor that he had been a
memberoftheNPAsincehewas13yearsoldthathehadalreadykilledmanypeople,includingtheDECEASED,
sothatthelattercouldnolongerharmotherpeoplewithhiswitchcraft.Forhispart,DELAPEAbroughtouta
sharppointed knife and tried to test its sharpness, admitted having cut the neck of the DECEASED, and even
showedthelatter'sear,driedbythattime.
The foregoing testimonies were buttressed from a most unexpected source. DE LA PEA, to the surprise of
APPELLANTAPPELLANTS'commoncounseltestifiedinopenCourtthat,althoughhebelongedtothegroupof
"CommanderTanga,"thelatter,MANATADandathirdindividualmerelyforcedhimtojoin,threateningtokillhimif
he refused that he was with the group from March 28, 1982 that he was present on March 30, 1982 when
"CommanderTanga"andMANATADkilledtheDECEASEDbutthathewasmerelystandingbythattheduowere
thefirstonesapprehended,andafterthemhewasalsoarrestedbytheCHDF.
Intheirdefense,ENCIPIDOandMANATADdeniedhavingIkilledthevictimandinterposedthedefenseofalibi.
ENCIPIDOclaimedthatonMarch30,1982,hewassawinglumberfrommorningtill3:00P.M.atBarangayBoa
for a certain Norberto Bukid. After working he rested in Bukid's house and did not leave the place. He further
testifiedthathedidnotknowtheDECEASEDnortheStationCommander,northeMunicipalMayorexceptwhen
he surrendered his .45 caliber pistol to the latter on May 2, 1982 after which he was arrested. He decided to
surrenderhispistolbecausehewasafraidhemightbeapprehendedforhavinganunlicensedfirearm.MANATAD
and DE LA PENA were also placed in jail with him. Thereafter, with seven others, he was taken to PC head
quartersatSurigaoCitywheretheywereseverelymaltreatedandhewasforcedtosignanaffidavitadmittingthat
he is "Commander Tanga" responsible for the killing of the DECEASED and other persons. He denied having
admittedtotheStationCommanderandtotheMunicipalMayorhisIdentityas"CommanderTanga"orthathe
hadkilledtheDECEASEDandotherpersonsbesides.
MANATAD,forhispart,alsodeniedallimputationsagainsthim,statingthatheonlycametoknowENCIPIDOin
jailthathedidnotknowtheDECEASEDnorwhokilledhimthatduringthewholedayofMarch30,1982,hewas
plowingthefieldtenantedbyhismotherinlawatBarangayMalinaothathestartedplowingearlyinthemorning
andstoppedatabout5:00o'clockP.M.afterwhichhestayedhome.BarangayCaptainSergioPenionespartially
corroboratedMANATAD'stestimonybystatingthathesawMANATADplowingtheifieldinthemorningofMarch
30, 1982. MANATAD's wife, Bienvenida Edusma also testified that her husband stayed home after 5:00 o'clock
P.M. of that day as he was tired after the day's work that, in fact, she quarreled with her husband because he
refusedtoaccompanyherinbringingtheirsickchildtoTubajononsothatshewentalonecarryingthechildeven
thoughshewasthensevenmonthspregnant.
In a Decision promulgated by the Trial Court on December 5, 1984, APPELLANTS were found guilty of Murder
andsentencedtoreclusionperpetuatopaydamagestotheheirsoftheDECEASEDintheamountofP12,000.00
andtopay3/8ofthecosts.
On behalf of APPELLANTS, counsel de officio filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Trial Court on
December 26, 1984, which the latter denied for having been filed more than fifteen (5) days after the
promulgation date of December 5, 1984. A Notice of Appeal filed before the then Intermediate Appellate Court
wasallowedasanappealnotfromthejudgmentbutfromtheOrderdenyingtheMotionforReconsideration.The
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/dec1986/gr_70091_1986.html

2/10

8/21/2016

G.R.No.70091

penaltyimposedbytheTrialCourtbeingreclusionperpetualtheappealwasindorsedtothisinstance,whichwe
acceptedintheinterestofsubstantialjustice.
APPELLANTSraisethefollowingAssignmentsofError:
A
The lower Court erred in giving credence to the hearsay testimonies of prosecution witnesses Mariano
EspinaandGeorgeOrtegabasingtherefromitsfindingsofconviction
B
ThelowerCourterredingivingcredencetotheincredibleandhearsaytestimonyofFelicisimoAlcisothe
allegedeyewitness
C
The lower Court erred in appreciating the socalled judicial admission of accused Eddie de la Pena as
againsthiscoaccusedBrigidoENCIPIDOandCharlitoManatad
D
ThelowerCourterredinconvictingappellantsBrigidoENCIPIDOandCharlitoManatad
E
ThelowerCourterredinrefusingtogiveduecoursetoappellants'motionforreconsiderationholdingthatit
wasfiledoutoftimewhenitsjudgmentaccordinglyhasbecomefinal
F
ThelowerCourterredinconvictingappellantEddiedelaPea.
TheevidenceagainstAPPELLANTS,takenenconjunto"justifiesthefindingofguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
1.EyewitnessFelicisimoAlcisopositivelyIdentifiedAPPELLANTasamongthegroupwholedtheDECEASEDout
ofhishut,withhishandstiedbehindhisback,andthereaftermauledhimandhackedhisneckintheafternoonof
March 30, 1982. The autopsy findings, particularly, the "incised wound of the neck," "contusions left lumbar
region"and"bothhandstiedatthebackwithrattan"confirmhisdescriptionofwhathehadwitnessed.
Thedefensecontents,however,thatsaidwitnesscouldnothaverecognizedAPPELLANTS.
Itistruethatatthestartofhistestimony,hehadstatedthathedidnotrecognizetheassailants.Thus:
Q.WhowerethepersonswhomauledJoseLacumbesduringthattime?
A. I saw that there were three of them but I could not recognize them and there were some other
personswhowerestayingfromadistance.2
That testimony, however, referred to the early stage of the incident when the victim was being mauled.
Subsequently,inrespectofthekillingitself,thewitnessdeclared:
FiscalSandangal
CouldyounotrecognizethethreepersonswhokilledJoseLacumbes?
Witness:
IcouldrecognizethethreepersonswhokilledJoseLacumbes.3
Thenhedescribedspecifically:
Q.Whatelsedidyousee,ifany?
A. I saw that somebody was beating Jose Lacumbes with the use of a gun, and when Jose
Lacumbesfelldown,CommanderTangacommandedEddiedelaPenatocuttheheadofthevictim
buttheheadwasnotseveredfromthebody.4

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/dec1986/gr_70091_1986.html

3/10

8/21/2016

G.R.No.70091

After pointing to the APPELLANTS in the Courtroom and replying to a question by the Court, Alciso further
explained:
Court(addressingtothewitness)Whendidyouknowtheaccusedbytheirnames?
WITNESS:InthejailyourHonor.BeforeImettheminthejailIalreadyrecognizedtheirfacesbutI
justdonotknowtheirnames.Lateron,Ialreadyknowtheirnames.5
ThedefensefurtherclaimsthatAlcisocouldnothaverecognizedtheassailantsbecausehewasatadistanceof
80to90metersawayfromthesceneof,thecrime.Inanotherinstance,however,hesaidthattheplaceofthe
killing was about "20 arms length" from the hut of the DECEASED, while he was also about the same distance
from the hut at that time. The distances stated were merely his estimates and can be moderately exact or
moderatelyinexactspeciallywithprovincialfolk.Theimportantfactisthatevenfromwherehewas,hewitnessed
the incident and his description of it was corroborated by the admission of APPELLANTS, themselves and
supportedbytheautopsyfindingsonthecadaver.AsthisCourtruledinPeoplevs.Hamtigetal.,6thecredibilityof
the testimony of a witness is not affected by some flaws and inconsistencies in minor details, if as regards the main
incident,theIdentitiesofthemalefactors,thetestimoniesappeartobeconsistentwitheachother."

AndalthoughitwasadmittedlythefirsttimethatAlcisosawthemalefactors,itdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthathe
could not have recognized their faces. Persons observing a startling occurrence would strive to know the ones
involvedspeciallywhereasinthiscasetheDECEASEDwasnotunknowntoAlciso.
Next, it is argued that Alcisos testimony that he went to i the jail to verify the Identity of the malefactors is not
worthy of credence. Concededly, that actuation was unusual However, as the witness explained he did so
because he feared that he may be the next one to be Killed And the fact that he asked DE LA PEA why the
latterwasinjaildoesnotnecessarilyleadtotheconclusion,asalleged,thathehadnotwitnessedtheoccurrence.
Afriendlyquestionwasmorelikelytoevokecandidanswer.
ThereisnothingstrangeeitherinAlcisosnothavingmentionedtheculpritsbynameinhisswornstatementtaken
morethanthreemonthsaftertheincident,havingreferredtothemmerelyas"fivepersons."Asiswenknown"an
affidavitisnotpreparedbytheaffianthimselfOmissionsandmisunderstanding.arenotinfrequent,particularly
undercircumstancesofhurryandimpatience."7
ENCIPIDOandDELAPEAverballyacknowledgedtheirguiltbeforeStationCommanderOrtegaandMunicipal
MayorEspinawhentheyindividuallyboastedthattheyhadkilledtheDECEASEDsothatthelattercouldnolonger
harmotherpeoplewithhiswitchcraft.TheyadmittedthattheyhadbeheadedtheDECEASED.DELAPEAeven
showedtheMayortheDECEASED'sdriedearwhichhehadsevered,Further,whileIiinjail,DELAPEAalso
admittedtoAlcisowhenthelatterIaskedhimthereasonfortheirconfinement,thatitwasbecausetheywerethe
oneswhohadbeheadedtheDECEASED.Theseoralconfessionsindicatingcomplicityinthecommissionofthe
crimewithwhichtheyarechargedareadmissibleinevidenceagainstthedeclarantsENCIPIDOandDELAPEA
pursuanttoSections228and29 9oftheRulesofCourt.ItisthefactthatadmissionsweremadebyAPPELLANTSand
againsttheirowninterestwhichgivesthemtheirevidentiaryvalue.10

ItisalsotobenotedthatAPPELLANTS'extrajudicialconfessionswereindependentlymadewithoutcollusion,are
Identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other. They are, therefore, also
admissible as circumstantial evidence against their coaccused implicated therein to show the probability of the
latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime. 11 They are also admissible as corroborative evidence
against the others, it being clear from other facts and circumstances presented that persons other than the declarants
themselves participated in the commission of the crime charged and proved. 12 They are what is commonly known as
interlocking confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial confessions/admissions are
admissibleinevidenceonlyagainstthedeclarantsthereof.

AndwhileitmaybethatENCIPIDOSwrittenstatementbeforethePConMay6,1982confessingtothekillingof
theDECEASEDwasnotpresentedatthetrialnopresumptionofwilfulsuppressionofevidencemaybelevelled
againsttheprosecutiononaccountofitsnonproduction.Apparently,fortheprosecution,itwasnotimportantor
necessarytobolsterupitscase.
TheargumentthatthetestimoniesofStationCommanderOrtega,MayorEspina,andAlcisoastotheextrajudicial
admissions made to them respectively by ENCIPIDO and/or DE LA PEA constitute hearsay, and thus
inadmissible, is not well taken. Oral confessions may be proved by any competent witness by whom they were
heard,thesameasanyotherfact:
Theruleisthatanyperson,otherwisecompetentasawitness,whoheardtheconfession,iscompetentto
testifyastothesubstanceofwhatheheardifheheardandunderstoodanofit.Anoralconfessionneed
notberepeatedverbatim,butinsuchcaseitmustbegiveninitssubstance.(23C.J.S.196).
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/dec1986/gr_70091_1986.html

4/10

8/21/2016

G.R.No.70091

Proof of the contents of an oral extrajudicial confession may be made by the testimony of a person who
testifies that he was present, heard, understood, and remembers the substance of the conversation or
statementmadebytheaccused.(Underhill'sCriminalEvidence,4thEd.,Niblack,sec.278,p.551).13
ENCIPIDOS and DE LA PEA's extrajudicial acknowledgments of guilt to the Municipal Mayor and the INP
StationCommanderarenotnecessarilyincrediblefor,intheirminds,theywerenot"confessing"butbraggingof
theirexploits"inthebeliefthattheyweresavingthecommunityfromthewitchcraftoftheDECEASEDandtheevil
doingsofsomepeople.Thereisnoproofwhatsoeverthattheextrajudicialadmissionsinquestionwerecoerced
or concocted by those officials, who are responsible public officers and presumed to have regularly performed
their functions and against whose impartiality nothing has been proven. The fact that no arrest were made by
them immediately after the disclosures do not necessarily belie their testimonies since the spirit of "reciprocal
goodwill"pervadedtheencounters.Arrestsweremade,however,thedayafter,oronMay2,1982.
APPELLANTShadtheopportunityduringthetrialtorefutetheirverbaladmissionsasinfact,theydeniedhaving
madethem,buttheirdenialsdonotringwithtruthinthefaceofotherinculpatingevidence.
3.TheadditionalincriminatingevidencewasfurnishedbyDELAPEAwho,inopenCourt,underoath,testified
thathebelongedto"CommanderTanga's"group,waswiththemsincetwodaysbeforetheincident,andthathe
was with ENCIPIDO and MANATAD when they killed the DECEASED. DE LA PEAS declaration confirms the
existenceofthegroup,theirresponsibilityforthekillingand,attheveryleast,hispresenceduringthecommission
ofthecrime.
True, DE LA PEA exculpated himself by stating that he was only forced to join the group and was merely
standing by when the killing occurred. A statement involving guilt does not, however, lose its character as a
confessionfromthefactthatitwasaccompaniedbystatementsofanexculpatorynature, 14 it being "the natural
tendencyofeverytransgressor,withperhapsveryrareexceptions,toacquithimselfwhilehecandosofromallliabilitythat
mightarisefromhisact,oratleastmitigateitintheeyesofthelawandthoseofhisfellowmen". 15Likeotherevidence,it
mustbeweighed,believed,ordisbelievedinwholeorinpart,asreasonmaydecide.Herein,theexculpatorystatementhas
beenprovenfalsebyAlcisoscredibleaccountthatuponENCIPIDOSorders,DELAPEAhackedtheDECEASED'sneck
withabolowhichalmostseveredthelatter'shead,whichtestimonyisconfirmedbytheautopsyfindingof"incisedwound
ontheneck."ItwaslikewiseprovenfalsebyDELAPEAsownextrajudicialadmissiontotheMunicipalMayorthathehad
hacked the DECEASED's neck and severed his ear, which is buttressed by the post mortem finding of "removed right
externalear."

DE LA PEAS judicial admission is admissible not only against him but against his coaccused ENCIPIDO and
MANATADaswell.Thegeneralrulethattheconfessionofanaccusedmaybegiveninevidenceagainsthimbut
that it is not competent evidence against his coaccused, admits of exceptions. Thus, this Court has held that
whereseveralaccusedaretriedtogetherforthesamecomplaint,thetestimonylawfullygivenbyoneduringthe
trialimplicatingtheothersiscompetentevidenceagainstthelatter.16"Theextrajudicialadmissionorconfessionofa
coconspiratoroutofcourtisdifferentfromthetestimonygivenbyacoaccusedduringtrial.Thefirstisadmissibleagainst
thedeclarantalone,butthesecondisperfectlyadmissibleagainsthiscoaccused," 17whohadtherightandopportunityto
crossexaminethedeclarant.Inthiscase,counseldeofficiohadsuchopportunitytocrossexamineDELAPEAbutdid
notavailofitbecauseinhisownwords:

AttyMoleta:IwouldliketoinformtheHonorableCourtthatIaminquandaryItismydutyascounsel
deoficiotobecandidtothisHonorableCourt.ThewitnesshasnotactuallyfollowedwhatIintimated
tohimtobethenatureofhis
testimony.18
In other words, the reason counsel refrained from cross examination was not because he was not given the
opportunitytodosobutbecauseDELAPEAdidnotfollowcounsel'sbiddingastothenatureofhistestimony.
The coached testimony failed but the truth prevailed. Besides, defense counsel could have presented rebuttal
evidencetoovercomeDELAPEA'stestimonyifhehadchosentodosobutdidnot.
Thus, MANATAD's direct participation in the commission of the crime with which he is charged has been
establishedbyDELAPEA'sdeclarationinopenCourtthat"CommanderTangaandCharlitoManatadkilleda
certainperson,"andthecorroborativetestimonyofAlcisowhocategoricallytestifiedthatMANATADwasonone
sideoftheDECEASED,DELAPEAontheotherandENCIPIDOatthebackwhentheyperpetratedtheoffense
with which they are changed. In MANATAD's respect, therefore, it is not necessary to invoke conspiracy" to
supporthisconviction.
The defense of alibi separately interposed by ENCIPIDO and MANATAD cannot prevail over their positive
IdentificationbyeyewitnessAlsobyENCIPIDOSverbalacknowledgmentsofguilt,andbyDELAPEA'sjudicial
and extra i judicial admission/confession, which are interlocking and admissible as against themselves and as
against the others whom they also implicated. Neither were ENCIPIDO and MANATAD able to prove that they
were at some place for such a period of time that it was impossible for them to have been at the scene of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/dec1986/gr_70091_1986.html

5/10

8/21/2016

G.R.No.70091

crime at the time of its commission. Barangay Boa where ENCIPIDO was allegedly sawing lumber was
approximately60kilometersaway, 19andBarangayMalinaowhereMANATADwassupposedlyplowingthefield,about
12kilometers,20fromBarangayMabini,Tubajon,Surigaowheretheincidentoccurred.

Inthelastanalysis,thecoreissueaddressesitselftothecredibilityofwitnesses,amatterthattheTrialCourthad
unequalled competence to consider and decide since it was in a vantage position to observe the conduct and
demeanor of the witnesses of both sides while testifying, an opportunity not afforded to Appellate Courts. Its
findings as to credibility should not be disturbed and are entitled to great weight unless there is some fact of
recordthathasbeenoverlookedorthesignificanceofwhichhasbeenmisconstrued, 21 which exceptions we find
absentherein.

The last assigned error delving on the refusal of the Trial Court to give due course to appellants' Motion for
Reconsiderationonthegroundthatthejudgmenthadbecomefinalisnolongerofanyconsequencesinceallthe
groundsthereforhavebeenelevatedtoandconsideredbythisCourtonappeal.
Infine,thethreadsofevidencewoventogetherestablishAPPELLANTS'guilttoamoralcertainty.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed except as to the civil indemnity, which is hereby
increasedtoP30,000.00inaccordancewithrecentjurisprudence.Withproportionatecosts.
SOORDERED.
Feria,Fernan,Narvasa,Alampay,Gutierrez,Jr.,Cruz,ParasandFeliciano,JJ.,concur.
Teehankee,C.J.,reserveshisvote.

SeparateOpinions
YAP,J.,dissenting:
Idisagreewiththemajorityopinion.Thisdissentwillnotaltertheresults,buttherearetwopointsIwishtostress.
Firstly,itwasprejudicialerrorforthetrialcourt,inajointtrialoftheaccused,tousethetestimonyofoneofthe
accusedagainsttheotheraccused,wherethelatterhadnoopportunitytocrossexaminetheformerbecauseall
oftheaccusedwererepresentedbyoneandthesamecounseldeoficio.
Intheinstantcase,EddiedelaPeaoneofthecoaccused,testifiedincourtthat,underthreatofbeingkilled,he
wasforcedtojointhegroupoftheaccusedBrigidoEncepidoaliasCommanderTanga,onMarch28,1982that
thegroupforciblytookhimalongwiththemandthathewaspresentwhentheykilledJoseLacumbesonMarch
30, 1982. The trial court held that the testimony of De la Pea was admissible not only against him, but also
againsttheothercoaccused.Thecourtcitedthedoctrinethat"ifadefendanttestifiesasawitnessinajointtrial
against him and his coaccused and admits his guilt and at the same time implicating the coaccused, the
testimonyisadmissibleagainstthelatterwhomaycrossexaminehim(U.S.v.Macamay,36Phil.893Peoplev.
Nakpil,52Phil.985Peoplev.TundiaL2576,May25,1951)."
Thetrialcourt,inthefirstplace,erredinapplyingtheabovedoctrinesincetheaccusedEddiedelaPeainhis
testimony, did not admit his guilt. In other words, his declaration was not i an admission against interest, but is
merelyanexculpatorystatement.Itwaspurelyaselfservingstatement,throwingtheblamefortheoffenseonthe
othercoaccusedhence,itshouldnothavebeenadmittedasevidenceagainstthem.
Moreover, under the doctrine cited by the trial court, the testimony of an accused is admissible against his co
accusedwho may crossexamine him. In the case at bar, the other coaccused, Brigido Encepido and Charlito
Manatad did not have the opportunity to crossexamine Eddie de la Pea. They were all represented by the
samelawyerdeoficio.Counseldeoficiocouldnotanddidnotcrossexaminehisownclient,EddiedelaPea
whowasnotamerewitnessbutalsoanaccusedtestifyinginhisownbehalf.Thus,whenitbecameapparentthat
the interest of one accused was in conflict with the interest of the other two coaccused, it should have been
immediately obvious to the trial court that the three accused could not be represented by one and the same
counsel.Thetrialcourtshouldhavesuspendedthetrialandappointedanothercounseldeoficiotorepresentthe
accuseddelaPeaortheothercoaccusedinordertoprovidethelattertheopportunitytocrossexaminethe
former. Unfortunately, this was not done. Hence, for the trial court to have considered the testimony of De la
Peaagainsthiscoaccusedwasaseriousprejudicialerror.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/dec1986/gr_70091_1986.html

6/10

8/21/2016

G.R.No.70091

Furthermore, the version of the killing given by De la Pea did not jibe with the version given by the principal
prosecutionwitness,FelicisimoAlcisowhoclaimedthathesawthekilling,norwiththeautopsyreport.Testifying
oncrossexamination,DelaPeastated:1
Q:Howdidtheykinhim?
A:TheybeathimCommanderTangakickedhimthentheyshothim.
But the autopsy report 2 showed that the deceased had no bullet wounds but only stab wounds and incised
wounds.
Secondly, it was grave error for the trial court to consider as evidence against the accused the supposed
extrajudicial oral confession or admission of guilt by the accused, where there were vital discrepancies in the
testimonies of the witnesses who were presented by the prosecution to establish the same. Police Commander
JorgeOrtegatestifiedthatBrigidoEncepidotoldhimthathewastheonewhobeheadedJoseLacumbes.3 Mayor
Mariano Espina, on the other hand, testified that Eddie de la Pea told him that he was the one who beheaded the
deceasedJoseLacumbes. 4Therewas,therefore,aconflictbetweentheversionofEspinaandthatofOrtegaontheoral
confessionoftheaccused.Apparently,thetrialcourtdidnotnoticethisvitaldiscrepancy.Infact,thecourtalsooverlooked
anotherobviouslyuntruestatementofMayorEspinawhenhetestifiedcategoricallythattheaccusedEddiedelaPeanot
onlyadmittedtohimthathecutoffthetwoearsofthedeceasedand,infact,showedhimthetwoears,alreadydriedup,
which he carried in his pocket. 5 This testimony is obviously false because the autopsy showed that only one ear of the
deceased was cut off. The autopsy also showed that the neck of the deceased was hacked with a bolo, and yet, Mayor
Espina,inhistestimony,recountedvividlyhow,inhispresence,EddiedelaPeabroughtoutasharppointedknifewhich
according to him he used in cutting "little by little" the neck of the deceased. 6 These material discrepancies in the
testimonies of Mayor Espina, as wen as the conflicting versions between his testimony and that of Police Commander
Ortega, were simply overlooked by the trial court. These discrepancies cast a serious doubt on their testimonies that the
accusedorallyconfessedoradmittedtheirguilttothem.Suchdoubtshouldberesolvedinfavoroftheaccused.

WithoutthetestimoniesofMayorEspinaandPoliceCommanderJorgeOrtegaandthatoftheaccusedEddiede
laPeatheonlytestimonythatremainstosupportthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisthatofFelicisimoAlcisowho
claimedtohavewitnessedthekillingHowever,thetestimonyofthiswitnesssuffersfromsomeseriousflawswhich
raisegravedoubtsastoitsvalue.Hence,histestimonyalonecannotbeusedasthesolebasisforconvictingthe
accused.
(1)Inthistestimony,FelicisimoAlcisoatfirstsaidthathecouldnotrecognizethepersonwhokilledthedeceased
Jose Lacumbes, but later, upon prodding by the prosecutor, he changed his testimony and said he could
recognizethreeofthemandpointedtothethreeaccusedwhowerepresentincourtandwhoweretheonlyones
incustody,theotheraccusedbeingatlargeandwerenevertried.
(2)Hetestifiedthathecametoknowthenamesofthekillerswhenhevisitedtheminjailaftertheywerecaught
onMay2,1982.Histestimonyregardingthisvisitstrainsone'scredulity.Accordingtohim,heaskedEddiedela
Peawhyhewasinsidethejailandthelatteransweredthathewasinsidethejailbecausetheyweretheones
whobeheadedJoseLacumbes.WhyDelaPeashouldvolunteertoconfessMscrimetoaperfectstrangeris
incredible. It is also rather hard to believe that Felicisimo Alciso after being supposedly told by a friend that he
wouldbethenextonetobekilledbytheaccused,wouldhavethetemeritytovisittheminjail.
(3)FelicisimoAlcisoexecutedanaffidavitonJuly13,1982inwhichhedeclaredthathewitnessedthekillingof
Jose Lacumbes on March 30, 1982, but did not Identify who the killers were, although at the time when he
executedtheaffidavit,hewasalreadysupposedtoknowwhothekillerswere,havingvisitedtheminjailshortly
aftertheirapprehensiononMay2,1982.
Inthelightofalltheabove,itcannotbesaidthattheevidencepresentedbytheprosecutionisconvincingenough
andsufficienttoestablishtheguiltoftheaccusedwithmoralcertainty.
It is true that the accused Encepido and Manatad relying on alibi as their defense, may have a weak case. But
their conviction should rest on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution, and not on the weakness of the
defense.
Theaccusedshould,therefore,beacquittedsincetheirguilthasnotbeenestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt.

SeparateOpinions
YAP,J.,dissenting:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/dec1986/gr_70091_1986.html

7/10

8/21/2016

G.R.No.70091

Idisagreewiththemajorityopinion.Thisdissentwillnotaltertheresults,buttherearetwopointsIwishtostress.
Firstly,itwasprejudicialerrorforthetrialcourt,inajointtrialoftheaccused,tousethetestimonyofoneofthe
accusedagainsttheotheraccused,wherethelatterhadnoopportunitytocrossexaminetheformerbecauseall
oftheaccusedwererepresentedbyoneandthesamecounseldeoficio.
Intheinstantcase,EddiedelaPeaoneofthecoaccused,testifiedincourtthat,underthreatofbeingkilled,he
wasforcedtojointhegroupoftheaccusedBrigidoEncepidoaliasCommanderTanga,onMarch28,1982that
thegroupforciblytookhimalongwiththemandthathewaspresentwhentheykilledJoseLacumbesonMarch
30,1982.ThetrialcourtheldthatthetestimonyofDelaPeawasadmissiblenotonlyagainsthim,butalso
againsttheothercoaccused.Thecourtcitedthedoctrinethat"ifadefendanttestifiesasawitnessinajointtrial
againsthimandhiscoaccusedandadmitshisguiltandatthesametimeimplicatingthecoaccused,the
testimonyisadmissibleagainstthelatterwhomaycrossexaminehim(U.S.v.Macamay,36Phil.893Peoplev.
Nakpil,52Phil.985Peoplev.TundiaL2576,May25,1951)."
Thetrialcourt,inthefirstplace,erredinapplyingtheabovedoctrinesincetheaccusedEddiedelaPeainhis
testimony,didnotadmithisguilt.Inotherwords,hisdeclarationwasnotianadmissionagainstinterest,butis
merelyanexculpatorystatement.Itwaspurelyaselfservingstatement,throwingtheblamefortheoffenseonthe
othercoaccusedhence,itshouldnothavebeenadmittedasevidenceagainstthem.
Moreover,underthedoctrinecitedbythetrialcourt,thetestimonyofanaccusedisadmissibleagainsthisco
accusedwhomaycrossexaminehim.Inthecaseatbar,theothercoaccused,BrigidoEncepidoandCharlito
ManataddidnothavetheopportunitytocrossexamineEddiedelaPea.Theywereallrepresentedbythe
samelawyerdeoficio.Counseldeoficiocouldnotanddidnotcrossexaminehisownclient,EddiedelaPea
whowasnotamerewitnessbutalsoanaccusedtestifyinginhisownbehalf.Thus,whenitbecameapparent
thattheinterestofoneaccusedwasinconflictwiththeinterestoftheothertwocoaccused,itshouldhavebeen
immediatelyobvioustothetrialcourtthatthethreeaccusedcouldnotberepresentedbyoneandthesame
counsel.Thetrialcourtshouldhavesuspendedthetrialandappointedanothercounseldeoficiotorepresentthe
accuseddelaPeaortheothercoaccusedinordertoprovidethelattertheopportunitytocrossexaminethe
former.Unfortunately,thiswasnotdone.Hence,forthetrialcourttohaveconsideredthetestimonyofDela
Peaagainsthiscoaccusedwasaseriousprejudicialerror.
Furthermore,theversionofthekillinggivenbyDelaPeadidnotjibewiththeversiongivenbytheprincipal
prosecutionwitness,FelicisimoAlcisowhoclaimedthathesawthekilling,norwiththeautopsyreport.Testifying
oncrossexamination,DelaPeastated:1
Q:Howdidtheykinhim?
A:TheybeathimCommanderTangakickedhimthentheyshothim.
Buttheautopsyreport2showedthatthedeceasedhadnobulletwoundsbutonlystabwoundsandincisedwounds.
Secondly,itwasgraveerrorforthetrialcourttoconsiderasevidenceagainsttheaccusedthesupposed
extrajudicialoralconfessionoradmissionofguiltbytheaccused,wheretherewerevitaldiscrepanciesinthe
testimoniesofthewitnesseswhowerepresentedbytheprosecutiontoestablishthesame.PoliceCommander
JorgeOrtegatestifiedthatBrigidoEncepidotoldhimthathewastheonewhobeheadedJoseLacumbes.3Mayor
MarianoEspina,ontheotherhand,testifiedthatEddiedelaPeatoldhimthathewastheonewhobeheadedthe
deceasedJoseLacumbes.4Therewas,therefore,aconflictbetweentheversionofEspinaandthatofOrtegaontheoral
confessionoftheaccused.Apparently,thetrialcourtdidnotnoticethisvitaldiscrepancy.Infact,thecourtalsooverlooked
anotherobviouslyuntruestatementofMayorEspinawhenhetestifiedcategoricallythattheaccusedEddiedelaPeanot
onlyadmittedtohimthathecutoffthetwoearsofthedeceasedand,infact,showedhimthetwoears,alreadydriedup,
whichhecarriedinhispocket.5Thistestimonyisobviouslyfalsebecausetheautopsyshowedthatonlyoneearofthe
deceasedwascutoff.Theautopsyalsoshowedthattheneckofthedeceasedwashackedwithabolo,andyet,Mayor
Espina,inhistestimony,recountedvividlyhow,inhispresence,EddiedelaPeabroughtoutasharppointedknifewhich
accordingtohimheusedincutting"littlebylittle"theneckofthedeceased.6Thesematerialdiscrepanciesinthe
testimoniesofMayorEspina,aswenastheconflictingversionsbetweenhistestimonyandthatofPoliceCommander
Ortega,weresimplyoverlookedbythetrialcourt.Thesediscrepanciescastaseriousdoubtontheirtestimoniesthatthe
accusedorallyconfessedoradmittedtheirguilttothem.Suchdoubtshouldberesolvedinfavoroftheaccused.

WithoutthetestimoniesofMayorEspinaandPoliceCommanderJorgeOrtegaandthatoftheaccusedEddiede
laPeatheonlytestimonythatremainstosupportthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisthatofFelicisimoAlcisowho
claimedtohavewitnessedthekillingHowever,thetestimonyofthiswitnesssuffersfromsomeseriousflawswhich
raisegravedoubtsastoitsvalue.Hence,histestimonyalonecannotbeusedasthesolebasisforconvictingthe
accused.
(1)Inthistestimony,FelicisimoAlcisoatfirstsaidthathecouldnotrecognizethepersonwhokilledthedeceased
JoseLacumbes,butlater,uponproddingbytheprosecutor,hechangedhistestimonyandsaidhecould
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/dec1986/gr_70091_1986.html

8/10

8/21/2016

G.R.No.70091

recognizethreeofthemandpointedtothethreeaccusedwhowerepresentincourtandwhoweretheonlyones
incustody,theotheraccusedbeingatlargeandwerenevertried.
(2)Hetestifiedthathecametoknowthenamesofthekillerswhenhevisitedtheminjailaftertheywerecaught
onMay2,1982.Histestimonyregardingthisvisitstrainsone'scredulity.Accordingtohim,heaskedEddiedela
Peawhyhewasinsidethejailandthelatteransweredthathewasinsidethejailbecausetheyweretheones
whobeheadedJoseLacumbes.WhyDelaPeashouldvolunteertoconfessMscrimetoaperfectstrangeris
incredible.ItisalsoratherhardtobelievethatFelicisimoAlcisoafterbeingsupposedlytoldbyafriendthathe
wouldbethenextonetobekilledbytheaccused,wouldhavethetemeritytovisittheminjail.
(3)FelicisimoAlcisoexecutedanaffidavitonJuly13,1982inwhichhedeclaredthathewitnessedthekillingof
JoseLacumbesonMarch30,1982,butdidnotIdentifywhothekillerswere,althoughatthetimewhenhe
executedtheaffidavit,hewasalreadysupposedtoknowwhothekillerswere,havingvisitedtheminjailshortly
aftertheirapprehensiononMay2,1982.
Inthelightofalltheabove,itcannotbesaidthattheevidencepresentedbytheprosecutionisconvincingenough
andsufficienttoestablishtheguiltoftheaccusedwithmoralcertainty.
ItistruethattheaccusedEncepidoandManatadrelyingonalibiastheirdefense,mayhaveaweakcase.But
theirconvictionshouldrestonthestrengthoftheevidenceoftheprosecution,andnotontheweaknessofthe
defense.
Theaccusedshould,therefore,beacquittedsincetheirguilthasnotbeenestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Footnotes
1T.s.n.,June20,1983,p.51.
2ibid.,p.30.
3ibid.,pp.3031.
4ibid.,p.35.
5ibid.,p.33.
629SCRA14(1969).
7Peoplevs.Mori55SCRA382(1974).
8SEC.22.Admissionsofaparty.Theact,declarationorommissionofapartyastoarelevantfactmaybe
giveninevidenceagainsthim
9SEC.29.Confession.Thedeclarationofanaccusedex
presslyacknowledginghisguiltoftheoffensecharged,maybegiveninevidenceagainsthint
10U.S.vs.Corrales,28Phil362,366(1914).
11Peoplevs.Domondon,43SCRA486(1972).
12Peoplevs.Aquino,57SCRA43(1974).
13citedinPeoplevs,Tawat,129SCRA431(1984)).
14Bortimorevs.State,25Wyo.452,162Pac.766.Peoplevs.Layos,60Phil760(1934).
15Peoplevs.Gumaling,61Phil165(1935)U.S.vs.Macamay,36Phil893(1917)
16Peoplevs.Borromeo,60Phil.691(1934).
17Peoplevs.Mabassa,65Phil538(1938).
18T.s.n.,December1,1983,p.136.
19T.s.n.,September27,1983,p.98.
20T.s.n.,December1,1983,p.149.Peoplevs.Ancheta,60SCRA333(1974)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/dec1986/gr_70091_1986.html

9/10

8/21/2016

G.R.No.70091

21Peoplevs.Caoile,61SCRA73(1974).
Yap,J.:
1T.s.n.,December1,1983,p.143.
2Roll,p.16.
3T.s.n.,August1,1983,p.77.
4T.s.n.,July20,1983,p.58.
5Ibid.,p.69.
6Ibid.,p.58.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/dec1986/gr_70091_1986.html

10/10

Вам также может понравиться