Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
and Boston streets and parked the cab there. The accused-appellant
G.R. No. 129970 April 5, 2000 and two of the male abductors alighted while the driver and their lady
companion stayed with the complainant in the car. When the
complainant turned to see where the accused-appellant and his
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, companions went he saw his uncle and his cousin in a motorcycle and
vs. together with the kidnappers they entered a mini-grocery. Later the
EDUARDO PAVILLARE y VARONA and SOTERO SANTOS y kidnappers brought the complainant to the mini-grocery where he met
CRUZ, accused, EDUARDO PAVILLARE y VARONA, accused- his relatives. The ransom money was handed to the appellant by the
appellant. complainant's cousin, after which the accused-appellant counted the
money and then, together with his cohorts, immediately left the
PER CURIAM: scene.2
Before us is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lakhvir Singh, the complainant's cousin, testified in court that the
Quezon City, Branch 219 in Criminal Case no. Q96-65214 kidnappers made about three to four phone calls a few minutes apart.
entitled People vs. Eduardo Pavillare y Varona, a prosecution for The kidnappers allowed him to talk to the private complainant to prove
kidnapping for ransom. that he is indeed in their custody. The kidnappers also told Lakhvir
that his cousin, Sukhjinder, raped their companion and threatened that
unless Lakhvir pays one hundred thousand pesos for Sukhjinder's
On March 14, 1996 the accused-appellant and his co-accused were release "tutuluyan namin ito". Lakhvir told the kidnappers he does not
criminally charged as follows: have that much money and after some haggling the kidnappers settled
for twenty five thousand pesos.3 The kidnappers also gave
INFORMATION instructions to deliver the money outside the Aurora Boulevard branch
of the Land Bank near the old Arcega's movie house. Lakhvir stated
in court that he did as instructed. When he and another relative
The undersigned accuses EDUARDO PAVILLARE Y VARONA and reached the designated place three men approached him and one of
SOTERO SANTOS Y CRUZ of the crime of kidnapping for Ransom, them, whom he identified in court as the accused-appellant herein,
committed as follows: asked him "Ano dala mo ang pera?" Lakhvir said "yes" but he refused
to give the money until he saw his cousin. One of the kidnappers told
That on or about the 12th day of February, 1996, in Quezon City, him to follow them and they proceeded to a mini-grocery nearby. A
Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating few minutes later one of the kidnappers came with his cousin. Lakhvir
with another person, whose true name, identity and whereabouts had handed the money to the accused-appellant who counted it before
not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, by leaving with his companions.4
means of force, violence and/or intimidation did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap one SUKHJINDER SINGH SPO1 Eduardo Frias testified for the prosecution that he was the
at the corner of Scout Reyes and Roces Avenue, this City, and police officer who took the sworn statement of the private complainant
thereafter brought him at the corner of Aurora Boulevard and Boston on February 14, 1996 pertaining to the February 12, 1996
street, this City, for the purpose of extorting ransom money in the incident.5 When the accused-appellant was apprehended in
amount of P20,000.00 Philippine currency, thereby detaining and connection with another case involving the kidnapping of another
depriving him of his liberty for more than three hours, to the damage Indian national the private complainant herein again showed up at the
and prejudice of the said offended party. police station on March 11, 1996 and identified the accused-appellant
as one of his kidnappers. Another sworn statement was executed by
On April 29, 1996 both accused were arraigned and both pleaded "not the private complainant after he identified the accused-appellant at the
guilty". police station.6
The accused Sotero Santos y Cruz filed a Motion to Dismiss the For the defense, the accused-appellant testified that on the whole day
charge against him for failure of the private complainant to identify him of February 12, 1996, the alleged date of the incident, he was at the
as one of the malefactors. On February 28, 1997 the trial court granted job site in Novaliches where he had contracted to build the house of a
the motion and acquitted accused Sotero Santos. The trial of the case client and that he could not have been anywhere near Roces Avenue
proceeded only as against the accused-appellant Pavillare. at the time the complainant was allegedly kidnapped. 7One of his
employees, an electrician, testified that the accused-appellant was
indeed at the job site in Novaliches the whole day of February 12,
The private complainant, an Indian national named Sukhjinder Singh
1996. 8
testified in court that at about noon of February 12, 1996 while he was
on his way back to his motorcycle parked at the corner of Scout Reyes
and Roces Avenue, three men blocked his way. The one directly in On July 15, 1997 the trial court rendered judgment as follows:
front of him, whom he later identified as herein accused-appellant,
accused him of having raped the woman inside the red Kia taxi cab WHEREFORE, finding EDUARDO PAVILLARE guilty beyond
parked nearby. Singh denied the accusation, the three men reasonable doubt of having committed the crime of kidnapping for the
nevertheless forced him inside the taxi cab and brought him purpose of ransom, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the
somewhere near St. Joseph's College in Quezon City. One of the penalty of Death; to indemnify the private complainant in the amount
abductors took the key to his motorcycle and drove it alongside the of P20,000.00, as actual damages, with interest at 6% percent per
cab. Singh testified that the accused-appellant and his companions annum from February 12, 1996; to pay him the amount of P50,000.00
beat him up and demanded one hundred thousand pesos as moral damages; and to pay the costs.
(P100,000.00) for his release but Singh told him he only had five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) with him. The accused-appellant forced
him to give the phone numbers of his relatives so they can make their The Branch clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately transmit
demand from them. Singh gave the phone number of his cousin the entire records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic
Lakhvir Singh and the appellant made the call. The private review.9
complainant also stated in court that it was the accused-appellant who
haggled with his cousin for the amount of the ransom.1 When the This case is before us on automatic review.
amount of twenty five thousand was agreed upon the complainant
The accused-appellant Pavillare prays for an acquittal based on alibi does not make it physically impossible for him to be at the crime
reasonable doubt. On March 10, 1996 the accused-appellant was scene at the time it happened. As regards accused-appellant's plea to
apprehended in connection with the kidnapping of another Indian be convicted instead of simple robbery is without legal nor factual
national. While under police custody the appellant was required to basis. The complainant was restrained of his liberty even if only for a
stand in a police line-up where he was supposedly identified by the few hours and his captors demanded money for his release which in
private complainant as one of his abductors. Five separate charges fact they did after the ransom money was paid. Whether or not the
arising from five separate incidents of kidnapping, all of whom were kidnappers only wanted money from the complainant the manner by
Indian nationals, were filed against him. He claims that he was which they compelled him to give money, i.e. by restraining his liberty
identified by the private complainant as one of his abductors because until the ransom money was paid, constitutes kidnapping for ransom.
the Indians needed a "scapegoat" for the other four cases of Finally, the submission that the offenders demanded a bribe and not
kidnapping of Indian nationals then pending. ransom money is likewise unfounded. There is no evidence that any
one of the kidnappers was a public officer in the performance of his
duties when they demanded money from the complainant in exchange
The appellant argues that the private complainant could not identify
his captors by himself which is shown by the inconsistencies in his for his liberty.
testimony and by the improper suggestion made by the investigating
police officer pointing to the accused-appellant as one of the Accused-appellant Pavillare filed Reply brief to reiterate his contention
malefactors. In court the private complainant stated that he described that the prosecution did not controvert his testimony to the effect that
his abductors to the police investigator while the latter typed his sworn the complainant could not recognize his abductors and that it was
statement. He said that two of the abductors look like policemen, the SPO1 Frias who pinpointed him to the private complainant as one of
third one was "tall, a little bit aged" and the other one was the driver. the malefactors. Pavillare cites the complainant's failure to identify his
Their female companion was pretty. Pavillare points out however, that own relative who met him at the police station after the arrest of the
the sworn statement given by the private complainant does not accused-appellant and argues that considering that the complainant
contain a physical description of the kidnappers and that SPO1 Frias, was held captive only for about two hours and the interval of almost
who took the complainant's statement, testified in court that the one month from the day of the incident up to the time the accused-
complainant described one of his abductors as short, bejeweled and appellant was identified at the police line-up, the complainant was
with a pock marked face. The different descriptions allegedly given by deprived of any reliable recollection of his captors. The complainant's
the private complainant and the absence of a physical description of failure to give a physical description of the abductors when he gave a
the kidnappers in his sworn statement supports the accused- sworn statement to the police two days after the incident supports the
appellant's contention that the complainant could not describe his accused-appellant's contention that the complainant could not identify
abductors. Pavillare contends that his arrest in connection with a his captors. It is also claimed that the improper identification of the
different case for the kidnapping of another Indian national provided accused-appellant at the police line-up without the assistance of
the complainant an improper suggestion that he was indeed one of counsel renders the said identification, including that made in court,
the culprits in this case. The appellant claims that SPO1 Frias pointed inadmissible in evidence.
to him and conversed with the private complainant before the latter
was asked to identify the kidnappers. The time interval from the date The appeal is without merit.
of the incident on February 12, 1996 up to the day the accused-
appellant was identified at the police line-up on March 11, 1996 further
weakened the complainant's vague recognition of the culprits. The accused-appellant's defense that the identification made by the
Pavillare finally argues that he should not have been convicted of private complainant in the police line-up is inadmissible because the
kidnapping for ransom but only of simple robbery as it is borne by the appellant stood at the line-up without the assistance of counsel is
undisputed facts that the offenders were motivated by an intent to gain without merit.
and not to deprive the complainant of his liberty. The money
demanded by the offenders was not ransom money but one in the Sec. 12 (1) Art III of the Constitution states that "Any person under
nature of a bribe to drop the accusation for rape of their lady investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
companion. remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services
The Solicitor-General filed brief praying for the affirmance in toto of of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
the appealed decision. The appellee contends that in court the private waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel." Thus the
complainant unhesitatingly and consistently identified the accused- prohibition for custodial investigation conducted without the
appellant Pavillare as one of the kidnappers. Throughout his narration assistance of counsel. Any evidence obtained in violation of the
of the incident in court the complainant referred to Pavillare as one of constitutional mandate is inadmissible in evidence. 10 The prohibition
the kidnappers because he was the one who made the phone call and however, does not extend to a person in a police line-up because that
the one who received the ransom money. The complainant had more stage of an investigation is not yet a part of custodial investigation. 11 It
than adequate opportunity to observe his abductors and he testified in has been repeatedly held that custodial investigation commences
court that Pavillare is one of them. As a sign of the complainant's when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect
candor, he admitted in court that he does not recognize the other co- in the commission of the crime under investigation and the police
accused, Sotero Santos, as one of his abductors and for which reason officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein
the case was dismissed against him. The complainant's failure to state and which tend to elicit an admission. 12 The stage of an investigation
an accurate description of the kidnappers in his sworn statement does wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line-up has been held
not belie his identification of Pavillare in court as it is the general rule to be outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel because
that affidavits are often inaccurate and incomplete. The argument of it involves a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely
the accused-appellant that his identification in the police line-up was investigatory in nature. 13 It has also been held that an uncounseled
made with improper motive either from the other Indian nationals who identification at the police line-up does not preclude the admissibility
were at the police station or from SPO1 Frias is without evidentiary of an in-court identification. 14 The identification made by the private
basis. Moreover, the complainant's testimony is corroborated by the complainant in the police line-up pointing to Pavillare as one of his
testimony of his cousin who met the kidnappers and handed over the abductors is admissible in evidence although the accused-appellant
ransom money to them. The trial court did not err in giving credence was not assisted by counsel. In court, the private complainant
to the complainant's identification of Pavillare as one of the abductors. positively identified Paviallare as one of his captors and testified as
follows:
The Solicitor-General further contends that the accused-appellant's
alibi that he in Novaliches when the crime was committed cannot Q: Were you able to recognize the faces of the men and woman who
stand against the positive identification of two witnesses and that his abducted you on the afternoon of February 12, 1996?
A: Yes, sir I can recognize if I see them again. INTERPRETER:
Q: If you see them in court will you be able to identify them? Again, witness pointing to the accused earlier identified as Pavillare.
Q: Please point to them if the accused are inside the court room? ATTY. CRUZ:
A: That man, sir. Q: Could you tell us what did your abductors tell to Lakhvir while they
are talking over the telephone?
INTERPRETER:
A: They told him that they should pay the amount of money for my
release, sir.
Witness pointing at a man seated inside the court room and when
asked to identify himself he gave his name as Eduardo Pavillare.
Q: Incidentally, can you tell us who among your abductors who
ATTY. CRUZ: actually talked to Lakvir over the telephone?
Q: Other than the accused Pavillare, do you recognize anybody else A: He is the one, sir.
in this court room if among those who abducted you in the afternoon
of February 12, 1996? INTERPRETER:
Q: Tell us how were you abducted by the accused Pavillare and his ATTY. CRUZ:
companions in that particular date in the afternoon of February 12,
1996?
Q: Why do you know that it was the accused Pavillare who was talking
to Lakhvir over the telephone?
A: While I was returning to my motorcycle, they blocked my way and
asked for my name, sir. A: Because I was near him and I saw him talking to Lakhvir, sir.
Q: Who blocked your way and asked for your name? ATTY. CRUZ:
INTERPRETER:
A: Inside the mini-grocery, sir.
Witness referring to accused earlier identified as Eduardo Pavillare. Q: After you went inside this mini-grocery, what happened next, if any?
xxx xxx xxx A: I saw my cousin Lakhvir. He asked me if I am okey and I told him
that they bit me up but I am still fine, sir.
ATTY. CRUZ:
Q: After you told your cousin that you are okey except for the beating
Q: If you know, Mr. Singh, where were you taken by the accused after that you got but you are fine, what transpired next, if any?
they abducted you at the corner of Roces Avenue and Scout Reyes
St., Quezon City? A: Lakhvir gave the P20,000.00, sir.
A: It was a deserted street somewhere in St. Joseph College, Quezon ATTY. CRUZ:
City, sir.
A: To him sir.
A: They asked me for P100,000,00 and I told them that I have only
P5,000.00 and they told me that if I give P100,000.00 they will let me
go, sir. INTERPRETER:
Q: Who demanded the amount of P100,000.00 from you? Witness pointed to the accused Pavillare earlier identified.
Witness pointing to accused Pavillare earlier identified. Q: Who hold your arms?
A: Yes, sir. Witness pointed to accused Eduardo Pavillare which was identified
earlier.
Q: After Pavillare got the P20,000.00, what happened next, if any?
xxx xxx xxx
A: They left immediately and they left me too, and we went to get my
motorcycle, sir. 15 ATTY. MALLABO:
On cross-examination the complainant stood firm on his identification Q: You said that there were 5 persons who abducted you?
of the accused-appellant as one of the abductors. He testified:
A: Yes, sir. 4 male and one female.
ATTY. MALLABO:
Q: On March 11, 1996 your cousin informed you or your friend
Q: You said that at approximately 12:00 o'clock noon of February 12, informed you that there were persons apprehended because also of
1996 while you are going back to your motorcycle you were blocked kidnapping incident?
by four persons, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir. There were 4 of them arrested and when I went to see
ATTY. CRUZ: them I only recognized one of them, sir.
Q: You were blocked by 3 persons, is that correct? Witness pointing to accused Eduardo Pavillare.
Q: Who was the person immediately in front of you when you were That would be all for the witness, your Honor.
blocked?
COURT:
A: He was the one, sir.
Any redirect?
INTERPRETER:
ATTY. CRUZ:
Witness pointing to accused Eduardo Pavillare which was earlier
identified. Few redirect, your Honor.
Q: These 4 people were shown to you, were they not? Q: What was the response of the accused Pavillare after you told him
that Sukhjinder Singh be first shown to you before you turn over the
A: Yes, sir. money?
ATTY. CRUZ: A: One of them told us to follow him and they would bring Sukhjinder
Singh, sir.
Q: But when you were asked to identify who among them were
Q: From that place, where did you go if you can still recall?
involved in your kidnapping you only pointed one of them?
A: Yes, sir. A: We proceeded to a small grocery store near Land Bank, sir.
Q: You did not point to the other accused? Q: After going inside this grocery store near Land Bank, tell us what
happened next, if any?
A: No, sir.
A: After a few minutes, one of the kidnappers arrived together with
Sukhjinder Singh, sir.
Q: The only one whom you pointed as being involved in your
kidnapping was none other than the person of the accused Pavillare?
ATTY. CRUZ:
A: Yes, sir. 16
Q: After you saw Sukhjinder Singh together with one of his kidnappers,
what did you do next, if any?
Moreover, the complainant's cousin Lakhvir Singh who met the
kidnappers to pay the ransom money corroborated the complainant's
A: I immediately approached Sukhjinder Singh and I asked him if he
identification of the accused-appellant Pavillare. Lakhvir Singh
testified as follows: was hurt by the kidnappers and he said "yes but I am now okey."
Q: After reaching the designated area somewhere along Aurora Q: After Sukhjinder confirmed to you that he was previously beaten
Boulevard, what happened next, if any? and that he was already okey at that time, what did you do next, if
any?
Q: How many kidnappers approached you? A: After that, one of the kidnappers said: "Andiyan na ang tao ninyo
ibinigay mo sa akin ang pera".
ATTY. CRUZ:
Q: Who among the kidnappers who said that?
Q: How were you able to know that they are the kidnappers?
A: That person, sir.
Q: Tell us, were you able to recognize the faces of these three persons Witness pointing to the accused earlier identified as Eduardo
who approached you and demanded to you whether you brought the Pavillare.
money?
ATTY. CRUZ:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After Pavillare demanded that you turn-over to him the money, what
did you do next, if any?
Q: If you see anyone inside the courtroom, please point to him.
Witness pointing to accused earlier identified as Eduardo Pavillare. The cited variance between the complainant's testimony in court and
his affidavit on whether or not the complainant gave a physical
ATTY. CRUZ: description of his abductors before the police investigator pertains to
a minor detail. Both the complainant and police investigator SPO1
Frias testified that the former gave a physical description of the
If you recall, how many money all in all did you give to Eduardo abductors to the police. The complainant testified that he gave the
Pavillare that afternoon of February 12, 1996? physical description of the kidnappers while the police typed his
affidavit but no such physical description of the kidnappers is stated in
A: P20,000.00, sir. 17 the affidavit. On the other hand, the police investigator testified that
the said description was entered in the police logbook. The defense
never required SPO1 Frias to produce the logbook in court to
xxx xxx xxx ascertain whether such a description was given during the
investigation. As a rule, variance between the private complainant's
We find that the trial court did not err in giving due weight and affidavit and his testimony in court, as long as it does not deviate from
credence to the identification in open court of the accused-appellant the nature of the crime as stated in the Information, does not weaken
by the private complainant and his cousin as one of the kidnappers. the credibility of the testimony in court. 23
Both witnesses had ample opportunity to observe the kidnappers and
to remember their faces. The complainant had close contact with the Finally, the accused-appellant's argument that he should have been
kidnappers when he was abducted and beaten up, and later when the convicted of simple robbery and not kidnapping with ransom because
kidnappers haggled on the amount of the ransom money. His cousin the evidence proves that the prime motive of the accused-appellant
met Pavillare face to face and actually dealt with him when he paid and his companions is to obtain money and that the complainant was
the ransom money. The two-hour period that the complainant was in detained only for two hours, are both unmeritorious. Art. 267 of the
close contact with his abductors was sufficient for him to have a Revised Penal Code states:
recollection of their physical appearance. Complainant admitted in
court that he would recognize his abductors if he sees them again and
upon seeing Pavillare he immediately recognized him as one of the Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — any private
malefactors as he remembers him as the one who blocked his way, individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner
beat him up, haggled with the complainant's cousin and received the deprive him of liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
ransom money. As an indicium of candor the private complainant death;
admitted that he does not recognize the co-accused, Sotero Santos
for which reason the case was dismissed against him. It bears 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three
repeating that the finding of the trial court as to the credibility of days.
witnesses is given utmost respect and as a rule will not be disturbed
on appeal because it had the opportunity to closely observe the
demeanor of the witness in court. 2 If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
As regards the alibi forwarded by the appellant, we find that the 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the
positive identification made by two eyewitnesses for the prosecution person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been
pointing to the appellant as one of the kidnappers prevails over it. The made.
appellant's employee who testified to corroborate his alibi only stated
that in the month of February 1996 the accused-appellant was at the 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when
Novaliches job site everyday. 18 The trial court properly took judicial the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
notice that it will take only a few hours drive from Novaliches, where
the accused-appellant claimed to be on the day of the incident, to
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was
Roces Ave., in Quezon City, where the complainant was
kidnapped. 19 Absent any competent proof that Pavillare could not committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any
other person, even if none of the circumstances above mentioned
have been at the scene of the crime at the time and day it was
committed, the trial court correctly denied weight and credence to the were present in the commission of the offense.
appellant's alibi.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or
is raped, or is the subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
Pavillare's argument that the complainant could not have identified his
abductors were it not for the improper suggestion made by the police maximum penalty shall be imposed. 24
investigator is based on the bare and uncorroborated allegation of the
accused-appellant himself. The police investigator was not confronted The testimonies of both the private complainant and his cousin are
with this accusation 20 and the defense did not present any evidence replete with positive declarations that the accused-appellant and his
to support it. It is on record that when Pavillare's counsel made an companions demanded money for the complainant's release. The
attempt to question the police investigator, SPO1 Frias, on a matter pretense that the money was supposedly in exchange for the dropping
not covered by the direct examination, i.e., where SPO1 Frias of the charges for rape is not supported by the evidence. The
recorded the physical description given by the complainant of his complainant's cousin testified that at the agreed drop-off point
abductors, the trial court suggested that the defense may later call Pavillare demanded the ransom money and stated, "Andiyan na ang
SPO1 Frias to the stand as a defense witness apparently to give the tao ninyo ibigay mo sa akin ang pera". The accused-appellant
defense a chance to prove its allegation that the complainant did not released the complainant when the money was handed over to him
give any physical description of his abductors and that the and after counting the money Pavillare and his companions
identification at the police line-up is tainted with an improper immediately left the scene. This clearly indicated that the payment of
suggestion. 21 The defense counsel never called SPO1 Frias to the the ransom money is in exchange for the liberty of the private
complainant. The death penalty was properly imposed by the trial Accused-appellant, however, did not call up. Nonetheless, Police
court. 25 Chief Inspector Leleng formed a buy-bust team composed of P/Insp.
Edgar Afalla as team leader, PO2 Dorotheo Supa as poseur-buyer,
and SPO2 Marquez Madlon and PO3 Juan Piggangay, Jr. as back-up
The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours does not
alter the nature of the crime committed.1a\^/phi1 The crime of men.5
kidnapping is committed by depriving the victim of liberty whether he
is placed in an enclosure or simply restrained from going home. 26 As The following day, August 17, 1999, Rose again told the Narcotics
squarely expressed in Article 267, above-quoted the penalty of death agents to wait for a call from accused-appellant. True enough, at
is imposable where the detention is committed for the purpose of around 4:00 p.m., the telephone rang. When PO2 Supa answered the
extorting ransom, and the duration of the detention is not material. telephone, he found that it was accused-appellant who was calling.
Rose introduced on the telephone PO2 Supa to accused-appellant as
Four Members of the court maintain their position that RA 7659 is someone who wanted to buy marijuana. Accused-appellant allegedly
unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. agreed to meet PO2 Supa at around 1:00 p.m. the following day
Nonetheless they submit to the ruling of the majority of this outside Anthony’s Wine and Grocery at the YMCA Building, Post
Court i.e., that the law is constitutional and the death penalty should Office Loop, Upper Session Road. PO2 Supa said he wanted to buy
be imposed in this case. one kilogram of marijuana and accused-appellant said it would
cost P1,500.00. Accused-appellant said he would wear white pants
and a black leather jacket to their meeting the following day. 6
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City in Criminal Case No. Q96-65214 finding the accused-appellant
Eduardo Pavillare y Varona guilty of kidnapping for ransom and On August 18, 1999, at around 1:00 p.m., PO2 Supa and Rose went
to the grocery store. SPO2 Madlon and PO3 Piggangay waited
imposing the DEATH penalty and the awards for actual and moral
damages is AFFIRMED in toto. secretly inside the Post Office building, around 12 meters across the
street, where they could see PO2 Supa and Rose. At around 1:30
p.m., accused-appellant arrived. Rose greeted him, "O Bert, heto na
SO ORDERED.1âwphi1.nêt yung sinasabi ko sa iyong buyer. Bahala na kayong mag-usap. Aalis
na ako." (Bert, here is the buyer I told you about. I’ll leave you two
alone to talk.) Rose then left the two men alone. 7
4. CUSTODIAL PHASE OF INVESTIGATION
PO2 Supa said he had P1,500.00 with him and asked for the
G.R. No. 146277 June 20, 2002
marijuana. Accused-appellant gave the poseur-buyer a paper bag,
which contained an object wrapped in plastic and newspaper. After
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, determining from its appearance and smell that the object inside was
vs. marijuana, PO2 Supa gave a signal for the back-up team to make an
ALBERT CASIMIRO Y SERILLO, accused-appellant. arrest by combing his hair. He testified that he no longer gave the
marked money to accused-appellant because he placed the latter
MENDOZA, J.: under arrest, reciting to him his rights, while the back-up team ran from
across the street.8
This is an appeal from the decision, 1 dated October 17, 2000, of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Baguio City, finding accused-appellant After arresting accused-appellant, the policemen took him to the 14th
Albert Casimiro guilty of violating Republic Act No. 6425, §4, as Narcom Office, where PO2 Supa, SPO2 Madlon, and PO3 Piggangay
amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion wrote their initials on the brick of marijuana before giving it to the
perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and the costs. evidence custodian. The policemen prepared a booking sheet and
arrest report, affidavits, and a request for the laboratory examination
of the confiscated marijuana.9 They also prepared a "receipt of
The information against accused-appellant alleged: property seized," dated August 18, 1999, (Exh. L) which states:
That on or about the 17th day of August 1999, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the 18 August 1999
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell and/or deliver to SPO2 DOROTHEO SUPA of the 14th
Regional Field Office, Narcotics Unit, posing as buyer, about nine RECEIPT OF PROPERTY SEIZED
hundred fifty (950) grams of marijuana dried leaves in brick form,
without any authority of law to do so and knowing fully well that the
article is a prohibited drug, in violation of the aforecited provision of TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
law.2
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that I, SPO2 Marquez K. Madlon PNP, the
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime undersigned seizing Officer have seized and taken possession of the
charged, whereupon the trial of the case followed. 3 property described hereunder from the
Three (3) witnesses testified for the prosecution: PO2 Dorotheo a. Suspect: ALBERT CASIMIRO Y SERILLO, 24 yrs.-old, single,
Supa,4 Alma Margarita D. Villaseñor, and PO3 Juan Piggangay, Jr. waiter, native of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and resident of #2 Happy
Their testimonies established the following: Homes, Old Lucban, Baguio City.
On August 16, 1999, a civilian informer, named Rose, walked into the b. Facts of the case: Suspect was arrested by elements of this office
office of Police Chief Inspector Benson Dagiw-a Leleng at the 14th on or about 181330H August 1999, in front of Anthony’s Grocery along
Regional Narcotics Office, DPS Compound in Baguio City. She the vicinity of Post Office Loop, Baguio City.
informed Chief Inspector Leleng and PO3 Juan Piggangay that a
certain Albert Casimiro, accused-appellant herein, was engaged in the c. Nature of the Case: Violation of Section 4 Art. II of RA 6425 as
distribution or sale of marijuana. As proof, Rose told the police officers amended by RA 7659.
to wait and accused-appellant would call them up on that day.
On October 17, 2000, the trial court rendered a decision finding
EXHIBI QUANTITY/ DESCRIPTION REMARKS accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged. The dispositive portion
T of its decision states:
"A" One (1) Bricks Marijuana Dried Leaves Delivered by the
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Albert Casimiro guilty
wrapped in a newspaper page placed suspect to a poseur
inside a black plastic bag with markings buyer. beyond doubt of Violation of Section 4 of Article II of Republic Act 6425
Prime wear shirt haus place[d] inside a as amended by Sections 13 and 17 of RA 7659 (Sale or delivery of
dark gray paper bag with markings 904.6 grams of marijuana brick) as charged in the Information and
Spencer & SM City hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua and
to pay a Fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency and to pay the costs.
WITNESSES:
The marijuana brick weighing 904.6 grams (Exhs. J to J-4) being the
subject of the crime and a prohibited drug is hereby declared
(signed) (signed)
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State to be destroyed
immediately in accordance with law.
1. PO3 Juan A. Piggangay ALBERT CASIMIRO Y CERILLO
PNP (Suspect/ Owner)
The accused Albert Casimiro, being a detention prisoner, is entitled to
be credited in the service of his sentence 4/5 of his preventive
(signed) (signed) imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of Article 29 of the
Revised Penal Code.
2. PO2 Dorotheo T. Supa SPO2 Marquez K. Madlon
PNP PNP (Seizing Officer) SO ORDERED.20
Accused-appellant signed the receipt without the assistance of Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that the evidence
counsel.10 The dried leaves were then examined by the PNP Crime against him is insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
Laboratory Service, Cordillera Administrative Region. 11 Police officer doubt.21
and forensic chemist Alma Margarita Villaseñor found the specimen
to weigh 904.6 grams. The chemistry report dated August 20, 1999,
We find the appeal meritorious. Although the trial court’s evaluation of
signed by Villaseñor, stated that the leaves were positive for
the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great
marijuana.12
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, the rule does not apply
where it is shown that any fact of weight and substance has been
The defense then presented evidence showing the following: overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.22 In this
Accused-appellant, then 25 years old, residing at No. 1 Old Lucban case, several such circumstances stand out as having been
Street, Happy Homes, Baguio City,13 said that at around 8:00 a.m. of overlooked or misapprehended by the lower court which entitle
August 16, 1999, he took the child of his neighbor to the Christian accused-appellant to an acquittal.
Mission Center School near the Baguio General Hospital. He then
went home and stayed there during the day, as he usually did, except
First. With respect to the receipt of property seized from accused-
when he needed to fetch the boy from school. At around 5:00 or 5:30
appellant, the lower court declared:
p.m., he reported for work at the Perutz Bar14 on Magsaysay Avenue,
where he worked as a waiter, until 3:00 a.m. of the next day.15
The fact that there was a receipt of property seized issued by the
police which was signed by the accused does not affect the liability of
On August 17, 1999, accused-appellant said he received a call from
the accused. The receipt of property seized was issued by the police
Rose, an acquaintance who worked as a guest relations officer at a
in accordance with their standard operating procedure in a buy bust
club on Magsaysay Avenue. Rose offered to help him find a better job
operation to show what property was seized. The receipt should not
and asked that they meet at Anthony’s Wine and Grocery. In the past,
be treated as an admission or confession.23
Rose had offered to sell him shabu or marijuana, but he refused to
buy from her as he had no money.16 At around 1:00 or 2:00 p.m.,
accused-appellant met Rose in front of the grocery store. While she Indeed, the receipt (Exh. L) could not be considered evidence against
talked to him about a job opening in a club in Dagupan City, PO3 accused-appellant because it was signed by him without the
Piggangay grabbed his hands from behind even as he shouted "I- assistance of counsel.24 Art. III, §12(1) of the Constitution provides:
handcuff, i-handcuff!" (Handcuff him, handcuff him!) Accused-
appellant was then taken to the Regional Narcotics Office by the Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
policemen, accompanied by Rose.17 have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If
At the Narcotics Office, PO3 Piggangay confronted accused-appellant the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided
about the marijuana allegedly seized from him. Accused-appellant with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
said he denied having carried the bag of marijuana which he had seen presence of counsel.
Rose carrying earlier.18 After taking pictures of him pointing at the bag,
the policemen threatened to shoot him in a secluded place if he did The receipt states that a brick of dried marijuana leaves was delivered
not admit owning the marijuana. After failing to make him admit by the suspect to a poseur buyer and signed by accused-appellant
ownership of the marijuana, PO3 Piggangay offered to release Albert Casimiro as "suspect/ owner." In effect, accused-appellant
accused-appellant if he gave them money. When accused-appellant admitted that he delivered a prohibited drug to another, which is an
replied that he had no money, PO3 Piggangay said, "If you have no offense under the law. Having been made without the assistance of
money, then we will work on your papers so that you will go to counsel, it cannot be accepted as proof that marijuana was seized
Muntinlupa." The policemen then took accused-appellant to a hospital from him. It is inadmissible in evidence.25
for a physical examination and afterwards asked him to sign a receipt
of property, a booking sheet, and an arrest report without explaining
their contents or allowing him to read them. 19 In People v. Obrero,26 this Court held that an uncounseled statement
is presumed by the Constitution to be psychologically coerced. Swept
into an unfamiliar environment and surrounded by intimidating figures buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately
typical of the atmosphere of a police interrogation, the suspect needs after the alleged apprehension of accused-appellant. One policeman
the guiding hand of counsel. admitted that he marked the seized items only after seeing them for
the first time in the police headquarters. It was held:
PO2 Supa testified that he informed accused-appellant of his Miranda
rights while he was being arrested outside the grocery: This deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics
operations produces doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Were
the bags which the policemen allegedly recovered from the scene of
Q: What happened after you brought out your comb and started
combing your hair? the buy-bust operation the same ones which PO2 Espadera marked
in the police headquarters? This question gives rise only to surmises
and speculations, and cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt
A: Sir, my two companions went to our place and effected the of accused-appellant.
arrest of the suspect.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the crucial first link in the
Q: What else happened after the two members of the team rushed chain of custody. The prosecution witnesses PO2 Supa, SPO2
to your place? Madlon, and PO3 Piggangay admitted they did not write their initials
on the brick of marijuana immediately after allegedly seizing it from
A: We apprised the suspect of his constitutional rights and accused-appellant outside the grocery store but only did so in their
brought him to our Narcotics office. headquarters.34 The narcotics field test, which initially identified the
seized item as marijuana, was likewise not conducted at the scene of
the crime, but only at the narcotics office.35 There is thus reasonable
Q: How did you apprise the suspect of his rights as you said? doubt as to whether the item allegedly seized from accused-appellant
is the same brick of marijuana marked by the policemen in their
A: Sir, we informed him of his constitutional rights by saying, "You headquarters and given by them to the crime laboratory for
are under arrest for violation of 6425. You have the right to remain examination.
silent. You have the rights to call for a lawyer of your own choice.
Anything you say may be used as evidence in favor or against you." According to PO3 Piggangay, the bag that he saw accused-appellant
And we brought him to the office, sir. give PO2 Supa was colored gray or blue, the same color as that of the
bag sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service for laboratory
Q: What happened after that? examination.36 PO2 Supa stated, however, that the bag of marijuana
which accused-appellant was carrying in the grocery was colored
brown.37 The discrepancy in the testimony of these two police officers
A: Sir, we investigated him and the suspect identified himself as casts additional doubt on the identity of the prohibited drug which
Albert Casimiro.27 constitutes the corpus delicti.
The warning was incomplete. It did not include a statement that, if Indeed, there is failure in this case to observe standard operating
accused-appellant could not afford counsel, one would be assigned to procedure for a buy-bust operation. The government’s drive against
him. The warning was perfunctory, made without any effort to find out illegal drugs deserves everybody’s support. But it is precisely when
if he understood it. It was merely ceremonial and inadequate in the government’s purposes are beneficent that we should be most on
transmitting meaningful information to the suspect.28 We cannot say our guard to protect these rights. As Justice Brandeis warned long
that, in signing the receipt without a lawyer, accused-appellant acted ago, "the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment
willingly, intelligently, and freely. What is more, the police investigators by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." 38 Our desire
did not pause long enough and wait for accused-appellant to say to stamp out criminality cannot be achieved at the expense of
whether he was willing to answer their questions even without the constitutional rights. For these reasons, we cannot uphold the
assistance of counsel or whether he was waiving his right to remain conviction of accused-appellant.
silent at all.
Third. The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited G.R. No. 147201 January 15, 2004
drug which constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential
requirement in a drug-related case.30
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
31 vs.
In People v. Mapa, accused-appellant was granted an acquittal after BENJAMIN SAYABOC y SEGUBA, PATRICIO ESCORPISO y
the prosecution failed to clarify whether the specimen submitted to the VALDEZ, MARLON BUENVIAJE y PINEDA, and MIGUEL
NBI for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly taken from BUENVIAJE y FLORES, appellants.
the accused. In People v. Dismuke,32 this Court ruled that the failure
to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic
chemist was that seized from the accused was fatal to the DECISION
prosecution’s case. In People v. Laxa,33 the policemen composing the
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: beer. Thereafter, she went upstairs and chatted with Jaramillo and
some other waitresses. Then the vehicle of Joseph Galam arrived. 4
Before us is the decision of 9 November 2000 of the Regional Trial
Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27, in Criminal Case Shortly thereafter, they heard four gunbursts emanating from the
No. 2912 finding appellant Benjamin Sayaboc guilty beyond ground floor of the building. When Jaramillo looked down, she saw
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer Sayaboc shooting Galam, causing the latter to fall to the ground face
the penalty of death; and (2) finding appellant Marlon Buenviaje guilty up, with blood spurting out of his chest. Sayaboc forthwith ran out and
as principal and appellants Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso disappeared into the darkness.5
guilty as accomplices in the crime of homicide.
Meanwhile, at about 5:30 p.m. of that fateful day, as Joselito
On 17 April 1995, an information was filed charging Benjamin Parungao, Chief Barangay Tanod of BarangayQuezon, Solano,
Sayaboc, Patricio Escorpiso, Marlon Buenviaje, and Miguel Buenviaje Nueva Vizcaya, was on his way to the Kowloon Restaurant located
with murder, the accusatory portion of which reads as follows: along the national road, he saw Marlon Buenviaje with his father
Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso. The three were aboard a
That on or about December 2, 1994, in the Municipality of Solano, tricycle parked in a vacant lot between the Rooftop and Diego Theater.
Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of The younger Buenviaje was on the driver’s seat, while the older
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, Buenviaje and Escorpiso were inside the sidecar. Parungao
confederating together and mutually helping each other, and who ordered pancit bihon. While he was waiting outside of the restaurant,
were then armed with a firearm, did then and there willfully, unlawfully he noticed that the tricycle was still parked in the vacant lot, and the
and feloniously with evident premeditation, by means of treachery and three occupants thereof were talking with each other. After getting his
order and while he was getting out of the restaurant, Parungao heard
with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the
person of Joseph Galam y Antonio, by then and there suddenly firing four gunshots coming from behind the Rooftop building. He thereafter
saw a person, whom he later came to know as Benjamin Sayaboc,
at the said Joseph Galam y Antonio who has not given any
provocation, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which were the walking briskly toward the tricycle and then rode behind Marlon
direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter, to the damage and Buenviaje. Afterwards, the tricycle sped off towards the center of the
prejudice of his heirs.1 town.6
At their arraignment, appellants Benjamin Sayaboc, Patricio The employees of the Rooftop lost no time in bringing Galam to a
hospital, where he was declared dead on arrival. 7 Dr. Antonio R.
Escorpiso, and Miguel Buenviaje pleaded not guilty to the charge of
murder. Marlon Buenviaje, who was arrested only on 10 July 1997, Labasan, who conducted an autopsy on his cadaver, found four
also pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment. gunshot wounds and opined that the first two of which were inflicted
from behind and the last two were frontal. 8
III As to the fourth assigned error, the OSG counters that no exceptional
circumstance exists in this case that may warrant the relaxation of the
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE rule that the denial of a unilateral demurrer to evidence carries with it
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF ACCUSED SAYABOC WHEN a waiver of the accused’s right to present evidence.
IT WAS TAKEN WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A COMPETENT
AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOR BY AN EFFECTIVE AND Beginning with the admissibility of Sayaboc’s extrajudicial confession,
VIGILANT COUNSEL. we hold that such cannot be used in evidence in this case.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING FATHER AND SON Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
BUENVIAJE AND ACCUSED ESCORPISO LIKEWISE GUILTY offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent
WHEN IT DENIED THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
HEARD BY THEMSELVES AND COUNSEL AFTER THEY FILED choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
THEIR DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHOUT FIRST be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
SEEKING EXPRESS LEAVE OF COURT. and in the presence of counsel.
In the first and second assigned errors, the appellants contend that …
the crime committed by Sayaboc was homicide only, there being no
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the has an educational attainment of Grade IV, was a stranger in Nueva
preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. Vizcaya, and had already been under the control of the police officers
for two days previous to the investigation, albeit for another offense.
Jurisprudence provides that extrajudicial confessions are presumed
to be voluntary.22 The condition for this presumption, however, is that We likewise rule that Sayaboc was not afforded his constitutional right
the prosecution is able to show that the constitutional requirements to a competent counsel. While we are unable to rule on the
safeguarding an accused’s rights during custodial investigation have unsubstantiated claim that Atty. Cornejo was partial to the police, still,
been strictly complied with, especially when the extrajudicial the facts show through the testimonies of Sayaboc and prosecution
confession has been denounced. The rationale for this requirement is witness SPO4 Cagungao that Atty. Cornejo remained silent
to allay any fear that the person being investigated would succumb to throughout the duration of the custodial investigation. The trial court
coercion while in the unfamiliar or intimidating environment that is attributed the silence of Atty. Cornejo to the garrulous nature and
inherent in custodial investigations. Therefore, even if the confession intelligence of Sayaboc, thus:
may appear to have been given voluntarily since the confessant did
not file charges against his alleged intimidators for maltreatment, 23 the As already stated, Sayaboc was a garrulous man and intelligent. It
failure to properly inform a suspect of his rights during a custodial was in his character for him to want to be a central figure in a drama,
investigation renders the confession valueless and inadmissible.24 albeit tragic – for others. He would do what he wanted to do regardless
of the advice of others. Hence, Atty. Cornejo could only advise him of
In this case, contrary to SPO4 Cagungao’s claim that he conferred his constitutional rights, which was apparently done. The said counsel
with Sayaboc for half an hour informing him about his constitutional could not stop him from making his confession even if he did try. 28
rights, the extrajudicial confession provides only the following:
We find this explanation unacceptable. That Sayaboc was a
PRELIMINARY: I would like to inform you Mr. Sayaboc that questions "garrulous" man who would "do what he wanted to do regardless of
will be asked to you regarding an incident last December 2, 1994 at the advice of others" is immaterial. The waiver of a right is within the
the Rooftop, Brgy. Quezon, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, in connection rights of a suspect. What is lacking is a showing, to the satisfaction of
with the shooting of Joseph Galam, owner of the said Disco House as this Court, of a faithful attempt at each stage of the investigation to
a result of his death. Before questions will be asked [of] you I would make Sayaboc aware of the consequences of his actions. If anything,
like to inform you about your ri[g]hts under the new Constitution of the it appears that Sayaboc’s counsel was ineffectual for having been
Philippines, as follows: That you have the right to remain silent or cowed by his client’s enthusiasm to speak, or, worse, was indifferent
refuse to answer the questions which you think will incriminate you; to it.
That you have the right to seek the services of a counsel of your own
choice or if not, this office will provide you a lawyer if you wish. The right to a competent and independent counsel means that the
counsel should satisfy himself, during the conduct of the investigation,
QUESTIONS: After informing you all your constitutional rights, are you that the suspect understands the import and consequences of
willing to give your true statement regarding the death of Joseph answering the questions propounded. In People v. Deniega, 29 we
Galam? said:
ANSWER: Yes, sir. The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is
rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice
QUESTIONS: Do you want to get a lawyer to assist in this as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person
investigation? undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so cursory as to be
useless, voluntariness is impaired.
However, as to Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso, there is ACTS CONTARY TO LAW.2
paucity of evidence linking them to the killing. They might have been
with Marlon Buenviaje in that tricycle, but there is nothing to show that The Information in Criminal Case No. T-2875 reads:
they knew of the conspiracy to kill Galam. Absent any active
participation in furtherance of the common design or purpose to kill That on or about the 7th day of August, 1997 at 1:00 o’clock in the
Galam, their mere presence near the crime scene or in the tricycle morning, more or less, at Barangay Buhian, Municipality of Tabaco,
driven by Marlon Buenviaje does not necessarily make them Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
conspirators. Even knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act – Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by
without the cooperation and the agreement to cooperate – is not means of violence, force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
enough to establish conspiracy.49 unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with ROSALIE
RAYALA, against her will and consent, and on the occasion thereof,
Now on the civil liability of Sayaboc and Marlon Buenviaje. The trial with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength and while
court’s award of actual damages, representing the wake and burial armed with a bolo, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
expenses, is reduced to P106,436, this being the amount supported feloniously assault, attack and hack aforenamed Rosalie Rayala,
by receipts. The award of moral damages is, however, increased to thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on the different parts
P50,000 conformably with current jurisprudence. 50 In addition, the of her body, which caused her death, to the damage and prejudice of
heirs of the victim are entitled to P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto. her heirs.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.3
Bayombong, Nueva Ecija, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. 2912 is
MODIFIED. Appellants Benjamin Sayaboc and Marlon Buenviaje are When arraigned on December 1, 1997, Bagnate pleaded "not guilty"
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and
to both charges against him,4 and joint trial on the merits ensued.
are each sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of ten (10)
years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four
(4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay jointly and The evidence for the prosecution established the following facts:
severally the heirs of Joseph Galam the amounts of P106,436 as
actual damages; P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral In the afternoon of August 7, 1997, appellant was turned over to SPO2
damages; and the cost of the suit. Appellants Miguel Buenviaje and Junwel Ambion for custodial investigation. Without asking the name
Patricio Escorpiso are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of of appellant, SPO2 Ambion informed him in the Bicol dialect of his
reasonable doubt. right to remain silent, to be assisted by counsel, that whatever he says
may be used against or in his favor, and that he cannot be tortured or
Costs de oficio. molested. Asked if he is willing to cooperate, the accused assented
and gave his name as Amado Magnate. SPO2 Ambion later learned
that appellant’s real name is Amado Bagnate. When appellant told
SO ORDERED. SPO2 Ambion that he is willing to confess, SPO2 Ambion again
informed appellant of his rights, and asked him further if he wants to
EN BANC be assisted by counsel but appellant said that his counsel was in
Manila. SPO2 Ambion offered the services of Atty. Paterno
Brotamonte, which appellant accepted. SPO2 Ambion then left to
G.R. No. 133685-86 May 20, 2004 fetch Atty. Brotamonte whose office was located several meters away
from the police station. However, Atty. Brotamonte told SPO2 Ambion
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, that he will just follow as he was having his office blessing at that time.
vs. After some time, Atty. Brotamonte arrived at the police station. Before
AMADO BAGNATE, appellant. proceeding with the investigation, Atty. Brotamonte asked the
policemen to leave the investigation room and conferred with
appellant. He introduced himself to appellant and informed him of his
DECISION
rights. He also asked and examined appellant to see if he was
physically harmed by the policemen and found none although Atty. SPO2 Ambion then proceeded with the second and third pages of the
Brotamonte noticed that appellant’s left hand was handcuffed to the confession, following the same procedure of propounding the
table. Appellant told Atty. Brotamonte that he is willing to give a questions in the Bicol dialect and translating it thereafter into English
statement. The investigation was then conducted in the Bicol dialect, for each page.7 Atty. Brotamonte again read and explained the
with SPO2 Ambion asking the questions. It was translated thereafter contents thereof to appellant8 after which they again separately
into English with the help of Atty. Brotamonte, for the purpose of signed on pages two and three thereof. The second and third pages
putting it into writing. After typing the first page of the confession, Atty. are quoted in verbatim, to wit:
Brotamonte translated and explained the contents thereof to
appellant, then Atty. Brotamonte and appellant signed thereon. While 03. Q- Please state your name and other personal circumstances?
all this was going on, SPO1 Rogelio Gonzales was taking
pictures.5 The first page of the confession reads:
A- AMADO BAGNATE Y BRONIA, 28 years old, single, duck
caretaker presently working in Balatong Pulilan, Bulacan and a native
PRELIMINARY : Mr. Amado Bagnate, you are in this office being of Buhian, Tabaco, Albay.
investigated for your involvement in the crimes imputed against you
particularly the killing of Aurea Bronia and Rosalie Rayala and at the
same time having carnal knowledge of the two in Buhian, Tabaco, 04. Q- When and where did the incident happened?
Albay. But before we proceed in this investigation, may I inform you
that under our New Constitution, you have the right to remain silent, A- At on or about 12:30 A.M. August 7, 1997 at Buhian, Tabaco, Albay.
and that anything you may say may be used in your favor or against
you in any court proceedings in the entire Philippines; that you have
the right to be assisted by a counsel of your own choice or if you 05. Q- Will you please narrate in detail, your knowledge of the said
cannot afford to have one, the state represented by our office will incident?
provide you a competent counsel; that you are free from torture or any
form of physical violence which will tend vitiate your statements. Do A- At on or about 6:00 P.M. August 6, 1997 I together with Faustino
you clearly understand your constitutional rights which were related to Bufi9 and Carlito Begil drink a bottle of gin at the store of Yolanda
you in Bicol dialect? Buban at Buhian, Tabaco, Albay and while we were drinking said
Carlito Begil told us that he will have sex with a woman on that night,
ANSWER : Yes sir, I clearly understand my Constitutional Rights however he did not elaborate who the woman is and at about 8:00
because it was related to me in Bicol dialect. P.M. of same date we already consumed the bottle of gin and we
decided to go home.
INVESTIGATOR : Do you want to avail of your Constitutional rights?
06. Q- Please continue
ANSWER : I want to be assisted by a competent counsel.
A- So I proceeded to the house of my brother-in-law Roberto Angeles
to spend the night at the said house however at on or about 12:30
INVESTIGATOR : Do you have a counsel of your own choice? A.M. August 7, 1997 I go out of the house and proceeded to my
grandparents house which is about five arms length from the house of
ANSWER : I have none sir. Roberto Angeles leaving the bolo on the ground and entered my
grandparents Aurea Bronia’s house and go directly on the room where
Rosalie Rayala is sleeping and once inside the room I embraced the
INVESTIGATOR : Since you do not have your own counsel, our office sleeping Rosalie Rayala and started on kissing her however Rosalie
will provide you one, is this acceptable to you? Rayala spank and boxed me but still I continued on kissing her but still
he spank me, so I go out of the room and sits on the door but Rosalie
ANSWER : Yes sir. Rayala followed me so I kissed her again but she spank me again so
I got hold of the bolo and hack Rosalie Rayala hitting her on her neck
INVESTIGATOR : If our office will provide you the services of Atty. which caused her to fall on the ground and I pulled Rosalie Rayala
Paterno Brotamonte, who is a competent lawyer is this acceptable to and have carnal knowledge of her while she is still alive, while Carlito
you? Begil and Roberto Angeles were standing and viewing what I am doing
and after satisfying my lust said Carlito Begil goes on to of Rosalie
Rayala and started on pumping her and after satisfying his lust, my
ANSWER : Yes sir. grandparent Aurea Bronia shouted although she was blind and thinks
that my grandparent Aurea Bronia heard what I am doing I hacked her
INVESTIGATOR : May I again remind you that anything you say in on her neck and when she fall I pulled her away from the house
this investigation may be used in favor or against you in any court towards the grassy portion of the yard wherein Carlito Begil and
proceedings in the entire Philippines. Do you still wish to give your free Roberto Angeles followed me wherein I was unable to determine who
and voluntary statements? from the two had carnal knowledge of my grandparent because I
already left them and I proceeded to the main road to Tabaco, Albay.
ANSWER : Yes sir.
07. Q- Please continue further.
INVESTIGATOR : Do you understand the questions that were asked
from you? A- Before I finally proceeded to the main road I passed by the house
of Jose which I had forgotten his family name and Armando Bosque
both Barangay Tanods of our place and told the two that is being
ANSWER : Yes sir, because they were related to me in Bicol dialect. wanted by my godfather Julian Baloloy that there was something that
happened in the house of my grandparents house, and the two goes
INVESTIGATOR : Are you willing to sign your given statements? with me and because I was already then frightened I just go with them
and hurriedly left the place and proceeded to Roberto Angeles house
and called my sister and I was allowed to enter and I prepared a cup
ANSWER : Yes sir.6 of coffee and after drinking same I hurriedly left the house and finally
proceeded to the highway and boarded a jeep bound for the town
proper and spend the rest of the night at the town plaza and at about
6:00 A.M. August 7, 1997 I proceeded to the church to hear mass and walking, Begil asked him to accompany him to Rosalie Rayala’s house
after that I went to my sister’s house at Tayhi, Tabaco, Albay and I eat but he declined because he was already hungry and he wanted to eat
my breakfast and after eating I left my sister’s house named Avelina first. He then went to the house of Roberto Angeles who is married to
Calla and it came to my mind that I will evade arrest and decided to his sister Maria Nellie Bagnate. While he was on the porch having a
proceed to Metro Manila then to my place of work in Pulilan, Bulacan. smoke, Angeles arrived very drunk. Begil arrived later. Begil and
Angeles drank "kalampunay". He took only one glass of the drink and
08. Q- How were you able to reach the Tabaco Police Station? went inside the house to get a cigarette. When he went back to the
porch, Angeles and Begil were already gone. At around 12:30 in the
morning, he went inside and slept. The shout of his ninong, Julian
A- I was apprehended by residents of Bankilingan, Tabaco, Albay for Baloloy, telling him to fetch a barangay tanod, awakened him. He
accordingly an alarm to apprehend me was set by elements of the fetched Jose Rodriquez and Armando Bosque and they went to the
Tabaco Police wherein one of them was able to trace me but luckily I house of Rosalie, located thirty meters away. He was told to build a
was able to evade them but finally I was apprehended at Bankilingan, fire while the rest searched for "something." After idling in the yard for
Tabaco, Albay and later on was brought to the Tabaco Police. some time, he went back to Angeles’s house to have coffee. Angeles
and Begil then arrived and Angeles told him to flee or he (Angeles)
09. Q- How are you related with the victims namely Rosalie Rayala will kill his (appellant’s) sister. Angeles gave him P10.00. He took a
and Aurea Bronia? jeep to Tabaco and reached the Tabaco plaza at 2:00 in the morning.
He proceeded to his sister’s house, Avelina Bagnate, in Tayhi,
Tabaco, Albay, and passed the time there. Then he went to the
A- This Rosalie Rayala she is my nephew and Aurea Bronia she is my Tabaco town proper. He was finally arrested in Bangkilingan, Tabaco
grandparent. and brought to the police headquarters at 5:00 in the morning of
August 7, 1997.13
10. Q- This investigator, had no more question to ask from you, do
you have anything more to add in this statement of yours? The trial court found appellant’s extra-judicial confession admissible
in evidence on which basis, it convicted appellant of the crimes
A- Now no more sir, but I will just relate other details if the need arises. charged against him. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
11. Q- Are you willing to sign this statement of yours? WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
A- Yes sir.10 1. Finding accused Amado Bagnate guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Murder as charged in Criminal Case No. T-2874 and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to indemnify the
After appellant’s confession was typed and signed, Atty. Brotamonte heirs of Auria Broña the amount of P50,000.00 as damages; and,
left the police station and went back to his office. As far as he could
recall, the entire process took more than an hour. 11
2. Finding accused Amado Bagnate guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Rape with Homicide as charged in Criminal Case No.
The next day, August 8, 1997, appellant was brought before Judge T-2875 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH and
Arsenio Base, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay. Judge to indemnify the heirs of Rosalie Rayala in the amount of P50,000.00
Base requested the presence of Atty. Brotamonte and subsequently as damages.
examined the voluntariness and veracity of the confession as well as
the authenticity of the signatures of appellant and Atty. Brotamonte.
He also explained to appellant the consequences of his confession to SO ORDERED.14
the crimes charged and asked him if he was coerced into admitting
them. Judge Base inspected appellant’s body and asked him if he was In his Brief, appellant raises the following Assignment of Errors:
forced or coerced. Judge Base then asked appellant if he was still
willing to sign it again and appellant answered in the affirmative saying
that his conscience bothered him. Judge Base asked him to sign the I
confession again in the presence of Atty. Brotamonte, after which
appellant affixed his signature.12 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
There were no eyewitnesses to the incident; only the extra-judicial
confession of appellant showed how the crimes were committed by II
him.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE
Appellant repudiated his extra-judicial confession before the trial court EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
and assailed its admissibility alleging that it was executed in violation
of his constitutional rights, particularly his right to a competent and
independent counsel of his own choice; and that he was not fully III
apprised of the consequences of his confession. He testified that the
real perpetrators of the crime were his brother-in-law, Roberto THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY
Angeles, and a certain Carlito Begil, and that he was only forced into BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES OF MURDER
owning up to the crimes because Angeles threatened to harm him or AND RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.15
his sister, Angeles’s wife, if he did not do so.
The main issue in this case is the admissibility of appellant’s
Appellant recounted on the witness stand that in the afternoon of confession. Appellant claims that Atty. Brotamonte was not a
August 6, 1997, he was having a drink with Carlito Begil and Faustino competent and independent counsel as he failed to advise him of the
Bufe at the store of Yolanda Bulan in Buhian, Tabaco, Albay. While penalty to be imposed on the crimes he was accused of committing;
they were drinking, Begil mentioned that he is planning to have sex hence, he was not aware of the consequences of his admissions.
with someone he did not identify. They finished drinking at around 8:00
in the evening and started walking home. While he and Begil were
To be admissible in evidence, an extra-judicial confession must be A: In my observation, the accused was telling the truth. Otherwise, he
express and voluntarily executed in writing with the assistance of an will inform this representation because I already informed him that I
independent and competent counsel, and a person under custodial am a lawyer and I will protect him if somebody harmed him.
investigation must be continuously assisted by counsel from the very
start thereof. The presence of counsel is intended to secure the ...
voluntariness of the extra-judicial confession, and the assistance
given must be independent and competent, that is, providing full
protection to the constitutional rights of the accused. 16 ATTY. BROTAMONTE:
The rule is premised on the presumption that the accused is thrust into As narrated in that affidavit, I explained to the accused that before I
an unfamiliar atmosphere running through menacing police introduced myself, I told him that the policemen informs this
interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion, representation that you are going to give your sworn statement before
physical or psychological is forcefully apparent. 17 It is not intended as the police and I told him that I am a lawyer and I will assist him until
a deterrent to the accused from confessing guilt if he voluntarily and the policemen finished the investigation and I told him to tell the truth
intelligently so desires but to protect the accused from being coerced to the policemen and told him that if you want to give your sworn
to admit any that is untrue.18 To be an effective counsel, a lawyer need statement to the police, you can do it because that is your right under
not challenge all the questions being propounded to his client. The the constitution, to remain silent.
presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying
anything which might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our Q: That is why for example, right to be informed; you have the right to
Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the remain silent, and whatever you said will be used against in you, did
accused to admit something false. The counsel, however, should you not explain these one by one?
never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. 19
ATTY. BROTAMONTE:
In the present case, the assistance rendered by Atty. Brotamonte is
more than perfunctory. Before the onset of the investigation, Atty.
Brotamonte privately conferred with appellant to ascertain the I explained that one by one. In fact I told the accused that the sworn
voluntariness of his confession and to make sure that no force or statement you are going to make now might be used against you by
duress was employed by the police authorities on the latter to make the police but the accused is willing to give his sworn statement.
him admit the crimes charged. He informed appellant of his
constitutional rights and was clear in explaining to him the questions ATTY. MAROLLANO:
propounded by SPO2 Ambion. The testimony of Atty. Brotamonte
during cross-examination leaves no room for doubt that he adequately
assisted appellant during the investigation, viz: Q: I see. Now, you said that you helped in the translation of the sworn
statement in the Bicol dialect. Meaning that the questions were
propounded in English and you helped the police investigator to
ATTY. MAROLLANO: translate it in Bicol dialect?
Q: Now, upon your arrival, were you offered a seat? A: No, when I state that I helped the police in the translation of the
answer, what the policemen were asking the witness in Bicol and they
A: No, because immediately when I arrived I asked the accused to translated in English and I even helped the policemen in the
stand and examined the body of the accused, if there were injury or translation of the question and the answer of the witness in Bicol
what and I asked the accused, if these policemen inflicted injury to dialect.20
him, if he was harmed and according to accused, none.
Clearly, appellant signed the confession with the assistance of a
Q: And in doing that particularly, what did you do to examine the body competent and independent counsel, Atty. Brotamonte, and it was
of the accused of it bare some signs of injury? also sworn to by him before Judge Arsenio Base, Jr. of the Municipal
Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay, who, before administering the oath to
appellant, conferred with him and informed him of his rights and the
A: Because as a lawyer I have to protect the right of the accused. If consequences of his confession. Judge Base testified, thus:
the accused has body injury definitely I will be requiring the policemen
to submit the accused for medical examination before the
investigation will be conducted. Q: Judge, please explain to the Honorable Court the circumstances
how this sworn statement, how the affiant was able to come into your
house and the sworn statement was sworn to?
Q: In doing that, how did you do it to the accused?
ATTY. MAROLLANO:
A: I let the accused to stand and I asked him if any of the policemen
harmed inflicted bodily injury to him and he told me no one of the
policemen. The witness is not sure whether he was in his house or office.
Q: Any of the policemen present? A: The police investigator came to my office and informed me that they
were investigating a rape and murder case that happened somewhere
in the mountain of Tabaco, Albay and informed me that the suspect
A: No, when I arrived, I request two (2) policemen to step-out because has been apprehended and that the suspect is willing to sign an
I have to talk to the accused when I propound question and examine affidavit of confession so I advised the police investigator to comply
the body of the accused and the accused was inside the room. strictly with respect to investigation custodial legis and I informed him
that that case should be assisted by a lawyer and the investigator told
... me that he contacted Atty. Brotamonte to assist the suspect in the
investigation and I said It’s better. So, after that the suspect was
brought to me together with Atty. Brotamonte because I requested
Q: And you were satisfied by the answer of the accused and you did Atty. Brotamonte to be present also and the suspect. I investigated
not even bother to search the body of the accused? the suspect and he admitted to me that what he stated in this affidavit
which is actually a confession that he killed the two women and to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information
actually raped one of them is correct and true. So, after explaining to rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an
him the consequence of his having confession to the crime being abstract constitutional principle."23
charged against him and he was still willing to sign the confession I let
him sign the confession in my presence and in the presence of Atty. As previously stated, Atty. Brotamonte ably assisted appellant during
Brotamonte and after which I subscribed the affidavit. the entire procedure – from the time appellant signified his intention to
give his extrajudicial confession up to the time he signed the same.
PROSECUTOR BERANGO: (To witness) Besides, it cannot be gainsaid that appellant was not aware of the
consequences of his admissions as Judge Base explained it to
Q: Now, Judge could you tell the Honorable Court while the accused appellant when he appeared before the latter to swear to the veracity
was in your presence if there was any pressure or compulsion upon of his confession.
the accused to sign this document?
The Court notes that while Judge Base testified that he asked
appellant to sign anew the extrajudicial confession in his presence,
A: When the police investigator came to me I instructed him not to use
any force and when the suspect was presented to me, actually I the copy thereof marked as Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" attached to the
inspected his body if there was any sign of abrasion and I actually records of the case do not show any subsequent signature made by
asked the suspect if he was forced or coerced into signing the crime appellant. Nevertheless, appellant did not refute Judge Base’s
charged and he said, no. And I asked him if this confession is testimony, and it does not detract the fact that appellant executed the
voluntary and he said, yes. And he said he is being bothered by his extrajudicial confession voluntarily with the assistance of an
conscience.21 independent and competent counsel, and that he subsequently
acknowledged having executed the same voluntarily and swore to its
veracity before Judge Base.
The failure of Atty. Brotamonte to apprise appellant of the imposable
penalty of the crimes he was to admit is not a sufficient ground to strike
down appellant’s extrajudicial confession. Section 12 (1) to (3), Article Appellant failed to substantiate his bare claim that when he was
brought to the Tabaco police station, the police officers boxed and
III of the Constitution provides:
kicked him, telling him to confess to the crimes. 24 As the records show,
like Atty. Brotamonte, Judge Base also asked him if he was forced to
Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an confess but Bagnate said that he was not. If it were true that he was
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent forced to confess to the crime, then appellant should have complained
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own of such abuse to Atty. Brotamonte or Judge Base as he had the
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must opportunity to do so when the two conferred with him on separate
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing occasions.
and in the presence of counsel.
Where the appellants did not present evidence of compulsion or
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means duress or violence on their persons; where they failed to complain to
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him Secret detention the officers who administered the oaths; where they did not institute
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention any criminal or administrative action against their alleged intimidators
are prohibited. for maltreatment; where there appeared to be no marks of violence on
their bodies and where they did not have themselves examined by a
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section reputable physician to buttress their claim, all these should be
1722 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. considered as factors indicating voluntariness of confessions.25
Thus, what the Constitution regards as inadmissible in evidence is To consider appellant’s allegation of maltreatment as true is to
confession given by an accused without having been informed of his facilitate the retraction of solemnly made statements at the mere
right to remain silent, or, without having been given competent and allegation of torture, without any proof whatsoever. 26
independent
The taking of appellant’s confession has conformed to the safeguards
counsel, preferably his own choice, or if he cannot afford the services of the Constitution. It constitutes evidence of a high order, because of
of counsel, he was not provided with one; or the waiver of his rights the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would
was not in writing and not in the presence of counsel; or, that he was deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by
tortured, forced, threatened, intimidated, by violence or any other truth and conscience.27
means that vitiated his free will. There is nothing in the Constitution
that mandates a counsel to inform an accused of the possible penalty Under Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, an extrajudicial
for the crime he committed. Neither would a presumption arise that confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for
the counsel is incompetent or not independent just because he failed conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. The
to apprise the accused that the imposable penalty for the crime he Rule specifically requires that there should be some other evidence
was about to admit is death. After all, the imposable penalty is totally "tending to show the commission of the crime apart from the
immaterial to the resolve of an accused to admit his guilt in the confession."28 Appellant’s confession is corroborated by evidence
commission of a crime. of corpus delicti, that is, the body of the crime and, in its primary
sense, that a crime has actually been committed.29
To be considered competent and independent for the purpose of
assisting an accused during a custodial investigation, it is only The evidence of corpus delicti in both cases consists of the victims’
required for a lawyer to be: deaths, as evidenced by the death certificates of Aurea Broña 30 and
Rosalie Rayala,31 and the findings of the autopsies conducted on the
"….willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, victims’ cadavers by Tabaco Rural Health Officer Dr. Amelia Guiriba
as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, showing that both were hacked to death and Rosalie was raped.
peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual’s constitutional
rights. In People v. Basay (219 SCRA 404, 418) this Court stressed The autopsy on victim Aurea disclosed the following:
that an accused’s right to be informed of the right to remain silent and
Hacked wound back of the neck about four (4) inches in length Roberto Angeles, whose house is located in front of the victims’ house
affecting skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and the cervical bone. about thirty meters away, arrived. Appellant arrived next, saying that
he just came from work and was not able to clean his hands. When
Rodel Baloloy shone his flashlight on appellant, they saw that his
Hacked wound, neck anteriorly affecting larynx about 2 inches in
length. hands were sticky and covered in red. Julian Baloloy then ordered
appellant to fetch a barangay tanod. When Armando Bosque and Jose
Rodriguez arrived, they started to look for Aurea and Rosalie while
CAUSE OF DEATH: Hemorrhage severe secondary to hacked appellant was told to build a fire. At the back of the house, they saw
wound, neck.32 impressions on the yard indicating that an object had been dragged,
after which, they found the dead bodies of Aurea and Rosalie fifty
While the autopsy conducted on Rosalie revealed the following: meters away.36
Stabbed wound neck, posteriorly about 1 ½ inches in length, 2 inches Defense witnesses also testified that appellant did not join the search
depth reaching the cervical bone. and therefore, the latter could not have known or seen the injuries
suffered by the victims when they were found. It has been noted that
appellant, in his confession, had accurately specified the injuries he
Hacked wound left shoulder about 1 ½ inches length superficial inflicted on both victims. Julian Baloloy’s testimony that they saw
slanting direction. marks on the yard indicating that something has been dragged
corroborated appellant’s statement that he dragged Aurea. Moreover,
Hacked wound - right neck about 4 ½ inches length affecting skin that Julian Baloloy saw appellant’s hand sticky and covered in red,
subcutaneous muscle & Blood vessels, right earlobe cut. which Baloloy described "as if you have just slaughtered a pig and you
(sic) hands smudge with blood and when you washed your hands, it
could still (sic) red," bolsters the conclusion that appellant indeed had
Hacked wound below the chin about 3 ½ inches length affecting skin participated in the gruesome crimes.37
and subcutaneous tissue.
However, the Court finds that the trial court erred in appreciating the
CAUSE OF DEATH: Hemorrhage severe secondary to multiple
aggravating circumstance of treachery. The evidence on record does
hacked wound, neck.33
not sufficiently prove that it attended the commission of the crime as
no one actually saw the incident. The fact that Aurea was blind does
The foregoing findings coincide with appellant’s extrajudicial not necessarily qualify her killing as treacherous. Treachery exists
confession. As he stated therein, he hacked both victims on the neck when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
with a bolo and he dragged Aurea towards the grassy portion of the employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
yard. Appellant also admitted that he raped Rosalie. The autopsy tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to
report shows that Rayala had contusions on the floor of her vaginal himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
wall, thus confirming that Rosalie had been raped. The autopsy report make.38 Appellant’s confession merely stated: "after satisfying his lust,
likewise confirmed that the victims suffered hack wounds on their my grandparent Aurea Bronia shouted although she was blind and
necks. The recovery of the bolo after appellant had left the place thinks (sic) that my grandparent Aurea Bronia heard what I am doing
likewise jibes with appellant’s declaration in his confession that he I hacked her on her neck and when she fall (sic) I pulled her away
hacked both victims with a bolo.34 These are details that appellant from the house towards the grassy portion of the yard . . .". There is
could not have known if he did not commit the crimes. nothing in appellant’s confession that demonstrates that he
deliberately employed a particular means, method or form of attack in
It must also be noted that appellant was arrested only five hours from the execution of the crime.
the occurrence of the crimes. It is not possible that within such short
span of time, appellant would be able to know the details of the crimes Neither could nocturnity be considered as an aggravating
as he described them when he gave his confession if it were true that circumstance considering that it was not shown that the darkness of
he really did not commit them. The voluntariness of a confession may the night was purposely sought by appellant to facilitate the
be inferred from its language such that if, upon its face, the confession commission of the crime nor to ensure its execution. 39
exhibits no suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its
integrity, it being replete with details – which could only be supplied
It is not disputed that the crime was committed in Aurea’s house.
by the accused – reflecting spontaneity and coherence, it may be
However, dwelling may not be appreciated as an aggravating
considered voluntary.35
circumstance in the consideration of his criminal liability as it is not
alleged in the Information.40
Lending additional credence to the truthfulness of appellant’s
extrajudicial confession is the defense evidence itself, establishing
Nonetheless, it is alleged in the Information and established by the
that: Around 12:00 midnight of August 7, 1997, defense witness Julian
prosecution that the crime was committed with abuse of superior
Baloloy heard cries for help coming from the house of Aurea. Together
strength. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
with his son, Rodel, who brought a flashlight, they went to the house
by Section 6 of Rep. Act No. 7659,41 any person who shall kill another
and called out to Aurea and Rosalie but there was no response. When
shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by death if committed
they went inside the house, they saw blood and strands of hair on the
floor but there was no sign of the two. They shouted for help and
with abuse of superior strength. Hence, the trial court correctly for the identification and arrest of the other perpetrators of the crimes
imposed the death penalty in Criminal Case No. T-2874.42 to completely bring justice to their victims.
As regards the damages awarded to the heirs of Aurea Broña in the WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 15)
amount of P50,000.00, the Court considers the same as representing of Tabaco, Albay, in Criminal Case No. T-2874 finding appellant
civil indemnity. In murder cases, civil indemnity requires no further Amado Bagnate guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
proof other than death.43 Murder and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty
of DEATH is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as to
The award of civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of damages. Appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of Aurea Broña the
moral damages, which is based on a different jural foundation and amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity;
assessed by the court in the exercise of sound Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages; and Twenty-
discretion.44 Considering that the prosecution failed to show any proof Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages.
that the heirs of Aurea Broña are entitled to moral damages, the same
may not be awarded.45 The decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. T-2875, finding
Amado Bagnate guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape
In accordance with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages with Homicide and imposing on him the penalty of death
may be awarded in criminal cases as part of the civil liability if the is AFFIRMED withMODIFICATIONS. The appellant is ordered to pay
crime was committed with one or more aggravating the heirs of the deceased victim Rosalie Rayala civil indemnity in the
circumstances.46 Considering the generic aggravating circumstances amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00); moral
of disregard of age of the victim and dwelling, the award of P25,000.00 damages in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos
(P75,000.00); and Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as
as exemplary damages is in order.47
exemplary damages.
In Criminal Case No. T-2875, the trial court likewise correctly imposed
the death penalty. Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended Appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of both Aurea Broña and Rosalie
Rayala the amount of Fifty-Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Nine
by Section 11 of Rep. Act No. 7659 imposes the penalty of death when
by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed. Pesos (P54,259.00) as actual damages.
The Court, however, has to modify the award of civil indemnity in favor In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending
of the heirs of Rosalie Rayala. Recent rulings increased the amount Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let
of civil indemnity in cases of rape with homicide to P100,000.00.48 The the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the
President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
heirs of Rosalie must be awarded the amount of P75,000.00 as moral
damages without need of proof,49 in view of the rape suffered by victim
Rosalie. The fact that the heirs suffered the trauma of mental or The Chief of the Tabaco Police Station and the Tabaco Prosecutor’s
physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the basis for Office are hereby ORDERED, with ten (10) days from receipt of copy
moral damages under the Civil Code are too obvious to still require of herein resolution, to apprise the Court whether or not subsequent
recital thereof at trial.50 investigations were conducted to determine the other perpetrator(s) of
the crimes involved herein.
Considering that the crime of rape was committed inside the dwelling
of the victim, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should SO ORDERED.
likewise be awarded to the heirs of Rosalie.
EN BANC
The Court finds that the heirs of both Aurea and Rosalie should be
awarded the amount of P54,259.00 as actual damages in view of the
admission made by the defense that the family of Aurea and Rosalie G.R. No. L-51770 March 20, 1985
incurred expenses in said amount.51
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
Before concluding, the Court observed, as borne by the records of this vs.
case, that appellant could not have been the only perpetrator of the FRANCISCO GALIT, defendant-appellant.
crimes. As appellant revealed in his confession, he hacked each of
the victims on the neck with his bolo only once. The autopsy report,
however, shows that Aurea Broña suffered two neck wounds while
Rosalie Rayala suffered five hack wounds and one stab wound, all on
CONCEPCION, JR., J:
the neck. Appellant confessed that he dragged Aurea towards the
grassy portion of the yard and immediately
1. The prisoner was arrested for killing the victim oil the occasion of a
robbery. He had been detained and interrogated almost continuously
left the scene. Yet, Rosalie was also found on the grassy portion of
for five days, to no avail. He consistently maintained his innocence.
the yard. The autopsy report further showed that Rosalie likewise
There was no evidence to link him to the crime. Obviously, something
suffered multiple linear abrasions on both scapular regions, thus
drastic had to be done. A confession was absolutely necessary. So
giving the impression that she was also dragged towards the yard.
the investigating officers began to maul him and to torture him
Somebody else must have brought Rosalie to the place where she
physically. Still the prisoner insisted on his innocence. His will had to
was found. Indeed, there are clear indications that there are other
be broken. A confession must be obtained. So they continued to
perpetrators of the crimes of murder and rape with homicide.
maltreat and beat him. 'They covered his face with a rag and pushed
Appellant alone could not have inflicted all the injuries sustained by
his face into a toilet bowl full of human waste. The prisoner could not
the victims.
take any more. His body could no longer endure the pain inflicted on
him and the indignities he had to suffer. His will had been broken. He
In view of all these circumstances, the police authorities as well as the admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and he
prosecutor’s office of Tabaco, Albay, should be required to apprise the signed the confession they prepared. Later, against his will, he posed
Court whether or not further investigation of this case was conducted for pictures as directed by his investigators, purporting it to be a
reenactment.
2. This incident could have happened in a Russian gulag or in Hitler's dagger said Natividad Fernando on the different parts of her body,
Germany. But no it did not. It happened in the Philippines. In this case thereby inflicting multiple injuries on the head and extremities, which
before Us. directly caused her death, and the total amount of the loss is
P10,000.00 including valuables and cash.
3. The Revised Penal Code punishes the maltreatment of prisoners
as follows: Trial was held, and on August 11, 1978, immediately after the accused
had terminated the presentation of his evidence, the trial judge
dictated his decision on the case in open court, finding the accused
ART. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. — The penalty of arresto
mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum guilty as charged and sentencing him to suffer the death penalty; to
period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P110,000.00, and to pay
caused, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who the costs. Hence, the present recourse.
shall over do himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or
detention prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of punishments 7. The incriminatory facts of the case, as found by the trial court, are
in a cruel and humiliating manner. as follows:
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain From the evidence adduced in this case, it was gathered that in the
some information from the prisoner, the offender shall be punished early morning of August 23, 1977, a 70-year old woman named
by prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special Natividad Fernando, widow, in the twilight of her life, was robbed and
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his then hacked to death by the accused and two others in her (victim's)
liability for the physical injuries or damage caused. own residence at Montalban, Rizal.
4. This Court in a long line of decisions over the years, the latest being Prosecution witness Florentino Valentino testified that he heard
the case of People vs. Cabrera, 1 has consistently and strongly accused Francisco Galit and his wife having an argument in
condemned the practice of maltreating prisoners to extort confessions connection with the robbery and killing of the victim, Natividad
from them as a grave and unforgivable violation of human rights. But Fernando. It appears that on August 18, 1977, accused Galit and two
the practice persists. Fortunately, such instances constitute the others, namely, Juling Dulay and a certain "Pabling" accidentally met
exception rather than the general rule. each other at Marikina, Rizal, and in their conversation, the three
agreed to rob Natividad Fernando; that it was further agreed among
5. Before Us for mandatory review is the death sentence imposed them to enter the premises of the victim's house at the back yard by
upon the accused Francisco Galit by the Circuit Criminal Court of climbing over the fence; that once inside the premises, they will search
every room, especially the aparador and filing cabinets, with the sole
Pasig, Rizal, in Crim. Case No. CCC-VII-2589 of said court.
aim of looking for cash money and other valuables.
6. The record shows that in the morning of August 23, 1977, Mrs.
Natividad Fernando, a widow, was found dead in the bedroom of her Witness Valentino further testified that on August 22, 1977, at around
6:00 o'clock in the afternoon, accused Francisco Galit and his two
house located at Barrio Geronimo, Montalban, Rizal, as a result of
seven (7) wounds inflicted upon different parts of her body by a blunt companions, Juling Dulay and Pabling, as per their previous
agreement, met at the place where they formerly saw each other in
instrument. 2 More than two weeks thereafter, police authorities of
Montalban picked up the herein accused, Francisco Galit, an ordinary Mariquina, Rizal; that the three conspirators took a jeepney for
construction worker (pion) living in Marikina, Rizal, on suspicion of the Montalban and upon passing the Montalban Municipal Building, they
murder. On the following day, however, September 8, 1977, the case stopped and they waited at the side of the road until the hour of
was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further midnight; that at about 12:00 o'clock that night, the three repaired to
investigation in view of the alleged limited facilities of the Montalban the premises of the victim, Natividad Fernando; that they entered the
police station. Accordingly, the herein accused was brought to the NBI said premises through the back wall of the house; that while entering
the premises of said house, Juling Dulay saw a bolo, lying near the
where he was investigated by a team headed by NBI Agent Carlos
Flores. 3 NBI Agent Flores conducted a preliminary interview of the piggery compound, which he picked up and used it to destroy the back
portion of the wall of the house; that it was Juling Dulay who first
suspect who allegedly gave evasive answers to his questions. 4 But
the following day, September 9, 1977, Francisco Galit voluntarily entered the house through the hole that they made, followed by the
accused Galit and next to him was "Pabling", that it was already early
executed a Salaysay admitting participation in the commission of the
crime. He implicated Juling Dulay and Pabling Dulay as his dawn of August 23, 1977 when the three were able to gain entrance
companions in the crime.5 As a result, he was charged with the crime into the house of the victim; as the three could not find anything
of Robbery with Homicide, in an information filed before the Circuit valuable inside the first room that they entered, Juling Dulay destroyed
Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, committed as follows: the screen of the door of the victim, Natividad Fernando; that upon
entering the room of the victim, the three accused decided to kill first
the victim, Natividad Fernando, before searching the room for
That on or about the 23rd day of August 1977 in the municipality of valuables; that Juling Dulay, who was then holding the bolo, began
Montalban, province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of hacking the victim, who was then sleeping, and accused Galit heard
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and a moaning sound from the victim; that after the victim was killed, the
confederating together with Juling Doe and Pabling Doe, whose true three accused began searching the room for valuables; that they
Identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and three of helped each other in opening the iron cabinet inside the room of the
them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent of gain and victim, where they found some money; that when the three accused
by means of force, intimidation and violence upon the person of one left the room of the victim, they brought with them some papers and
Natividad Fernando while in her dwelling, did, then and there wilfully, pictures which they threw outside; that after killing and robbing the
unlawfully, and feloniously take, steal and carry away from the person victim, the three accused went out of the premises of the house, using
of said Natividad Fernando, cash money of an undetermined amount, the same way by which they gained entrance, which was through the
belonging to said Natividad Fernando, thereby causing damage and back portion of the wall; that the three accused walked towards the
prejudice to the latter in an undetermined amount; that by reason or river bank where they divided the loot that they got from the room of
on the occasion of said robbery, and for purpose of enabling them the victim; that their respective shares amount to P70.00 for each of
(accused) to take, steal and carry away the said cash money in them; and that after receiving their shares of the loot, the three
pursuance of their conspiracy and for the purpose of insuring the accused left and went home.
success of their criminal act, with intent to kill, did, then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab with a
When witness Florentino Valentino was in his room, which was
I. TANONG: Ipinagbibigay-alam ko sa inyo ang inyong mga karapatan sa ilali
adjoining that of accused Francisco Galit, he overheard accused Galit
inyong nanaisin ay maaaring hindi kayo magbigay ng isang salaysay, na h
and his wife quarreling about the intention of accused Galit to leave
pangakuan upang magbigay ng naturang salaysay, na anuman ang inyong sa
their residence immediately; that he further stated that he overheard
laban sa inyo sa anumang usapin na maaaring ilahad sa anumang hukuman o
accused Galit saying that he and his other two companions robbed
na ito ay maaaring katulungin mo ang isang manananggol at kung sakal
and killed Natividad Fernando.
manananggol ay maaaring bigyan ka ng isa ng NBI. Ngayon at alam mo na a
ng isang kusang-loob na salaysay sa pagtatanong na ito?
As a result of the killing, the victim, Natividad Fernando, suffered no
less than seven stab wounds. There was massive cerebral
hemorrhage and the cause of death was due to shock and SAGOT: Opo.
hemorrhage, as evidenced by the Medico-Legal Necropsy Report
(Exhs. 'C' and 'C-2'), and the pictures taken of the deceased victim
12. Such a long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not
(Exhs. 'E', 'E-1' and 'E-2').
satisfy the requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his
rights under the Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be
8. The accused, upon the other hand, denied participation in the several short and clear questions and every right explained in simple
commission of the crime. He claimed that he was in his house in words in a dialect or language known to the person under
Marikina, Rizal, when the crime was committed in Montalban, Rizal. investigation. Accused is from Samar and there is no showing that he
He also assailed the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession understands Tagalog. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused
extracted from him through torture, force and intimidation as described was not permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a
earlier, and without the benefit of counsel. friend. In fact, his sisters and other relatives did not know that he had
been brought to the NBI for investigation and it was only about two
9. After a review of the records, We find that the evidence presented weeks after he had executed the salaysay that his relatives were
by the prosecution does not support a conviction. In fact, the findings allowed to visit him. His statement does not even contain any waiver
of the trial court relative to the acts attributed to the accused are not of right to counsel and yet during the investigation he was not assisted
supported by competent evidence. The principal prosecution witness, by one. At the supposed reenactment, again accused was not
Florentino Valentino merely testified that he and the accused were assisted by counsel of his choice. These constitute gross violations of
living together in one house in Marikina, Rizal, on August 23, 1977, his rights.
because the mother of his wife is the wife of the accused; that when
he returned home at about 4:00 o'clock in the morning from the police 13. The alleged confession and the pictures of the supposed re-
station of Marikina, Rizal, the accused and his wife were quarreling enactment are inadmissible as evidence because they were obtained
(nagtatalo); that he heard that the accused was leaving the house in a manner contrary to law.
because he and his companions had robbed "Aling Nene", the owner
of a poultry farm and piggery in Montalban, Rizal; that the wife of the
14. Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances
accused was imploring him not to leave, but the latter was insistent;
surrounding the taking of any confession, especially where the
that he saw the accused carrying a bag containing about two handfuls
prisoner claims having been maltreated into giving one. Where there
(dakot) of coins which he had taken from Aling Nene; that upon
is any doubt as to its voluntariness, the same must be rejected in toto.
learning of what the accused had done, he went to the Montalban
police the next day and reported to the police chief about what he had
heard; and that a week later, Montalban policemen went to their house 15. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Minister of Justice for
and arrested the accused. 6 whatever action he may deem proper to take against the investigating
officers.
10. This Court, in the case of Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, 7 laid down
the correct procedure for peace officers to follow when making an 16. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is
arrest and in conducting a custodial investigation, and which We hereby, SET ASIDE, and another one entered ACQUITTING the
reiterate: accused Francisco Galit of the crime charged. Let him be released
from custody immediately unless held on other charges. With costs de
oficio.
7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting
officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown
the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional 17. SO ORDERED.
rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might
make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the
EN BANC
right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses
by the most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or by letter
or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to G.R. No. 71523-25 December 8, 2000
see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be
conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the ROLANDO SANTOS y RAMIREZ, petitioner,
person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the vs.
court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE
behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be PHILIPPINES, respondents.
valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement
obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether
exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in x-----------------------x
evidence.
G.R. No. 72420-22 December 8, 2000
11. There were no eyewitnesses, no property recovered from the
accused, no state witnesses, and not even fingerprints of the accused JESUS E. ESTACIO, petitioner,
at the scene of the crime. The only evidence against the accused is vs.
his alleged confession. It behooves Us therefore to give it a close SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.
scrutiny. The statement begins as follows:
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 72384-86 December 8, 2000 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, as follows: Santos from
February 16, 1982 up to the date of the promulgation of this decision;
ALFREDO R. FAJARDO, JR., petitioner, Estacio up to April 29, 1985; Fajardo, Jr. up to April 26, 1982 and
Desiderio up to April 19, 1982.
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents. "Let copies of this decision be furnished the Hon. Governor, Central
Bank; the Citibank; the Bank of the Philippine Islands and the Bankers
Association of the Philippines for their information and guidance.
x-----------------------x
"SO ORDERED."
G.R. No. 72387-89 December 8, 2000
MARCELO S. DESIDERIO, petitioner, On April 15, 1982, the Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan three
vs. (3) informations for estafa thru falsification of public documents
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and against Felipe Salamanca, Mariano Bustamante, Basilio Tan, Alfredo
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents. Fajardo, Jr., Jesus Estacio, Rolando San Pedro, Manuel Valentino,
Rolando Santos, Marcelo Desiderio, Jaime Tan and Emilio
Reyes.2 The informations filed were similarly worded except for the
DECISION dates of commission of the crime charged, the number of the checks
involved, and the amounts allegedly misappropriated. Thus:
BUENA, J.:
"That on or about (October 19, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5949,
Challenged in these four separate petitions for review on certiorari is November 20, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5950, and October 30, 1981 in
the Decision dated July 19, 19851 of the Sandiganbayan disposing of Crim. Case No. 5951), in the City of Manila and within the jurisdiction
Criminal Case Nos. 5949 to 5951 as follows: of this Honorable Court, accused Manuel Valentino, employed as
Bookkeeper detailed at the Clearing Office, Central Bank of the
Philippines and accused Jesus Estacio y Estrella, employed as
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused Janitor-Messenger of the Central Bank of the Philippines, and as such
Alfredo Fajardo, Jr. alias Boy Fajardo, Marcelo Desiderio y Silvestre, are public employees, with abuse of confidence and taking advantage
Jesus Estacio y Estrella and Rolando Santos y Ramirez alias Mickey of their official position, in order to implement a plan or scheme to
Mouse, GUILTY as co-principals in the three (3) separate complex defraud the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch, which
crimes of Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Documents and hereby plan or scheme was previously formulated and agreed upon by all the
sentences them as follows: herein accused immediately prior to (October 19, 1981 in Crim. Case
No. 5949, November 20, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5950, and October
"1. In Criminal Case No. 5949, there being no modifying circumstance 30, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5951), accused Manuel Valentino
in attendance, each of said accused to suffer the indeterminate pursuant to said plan or scheme, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
penalty ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE and feloniously and taking advantage of his official position and with
(1) DAY ofprision correccional as the minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS intent to gain and to defraud, falsify the Clearing Statement prepared
and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine by the Central Clearing office of the Bank of the Philippine Islands and
of P5,000.00 each, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Bank of the submitted to the Clearing Section of the Central Bank of the
Philippine Islands and/or the Central Bank of the Philippines in the Philippines as well as the Manifest prepared by the Central Bank
amount of P1 million representing the amount defrauded, and to pay Clearing Office in connection thereto by crossing out the entry in the
their proportionate costs of said action; duplicate copies of the aforesaid Clearing Statement and Manifest
which entries refer to Check No. (27101 in Crim. Case No. 5949,
27111 in Crim. Case No. 5950, and 27108 in Crim. Case No. 5951)
"2. In Criminal Case No. 5950, there being no modifying circumstance and Check No. (27105 in Crim. Case No. 5949, 27118 in Crim. Case
in attendance, sentences each of said accused to suffer the No. 5950 and 27121 in Crim. Case No. 5951) issued by accused
indeterminate penalty ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) Bustamante against his checking account at the Bank of Philippine
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as the minimum, Islands, Laoag City Branch, which has only an outstanding balance
to TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the of P1,000.00 and which checks were deposited in the current account
maximum, to pay a fine of P5,000.00 each, to indemnify, jointly and of Magna Management Consultant with the Citibank Greenhills
severally, the Bank of the Philippine Islands and/or the Central Bank Branch by accused Rolando San Pedro and as a result of the
of the Philippines, in the amount of P3 million representing the amount aforesaid falsification which made it appear that no such checks were
defrauded, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs of said submitted by the Bank of Philippine Islands to the Central Bank of the
action; Philippines for clearing, the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Laoag City
Branch has not issued any notice of dishonor or stop payment to the
"3. In Criminal Case No. 5951, there being no modifying circumstance Citibank Greenhills Branch, and as a consequence thereof accused
in attendance, sentences each of them to suffer the indeterminate Rolando San Pedro was able to withdraw from the Citibank the full
penalty ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE amount of the two checks amounting to (P1,000,000.00 in Crim. Case
(1) DAY of prision correccional as the minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS No. 5949, P3,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5950, and P5,000,000.00
and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum, to pay a fine in Crim. Case No. 5951) and thereafter all the accused appropriated
of P5,000.00 each, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Bank of the among themselves the proceeds thereof to their own personal use
Philippine Islands in the amount of P5 million representing the amount and benefit and to the damage and prejudice of the Central Bank of
defrauded, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs of said the Philippines or the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Laoag City
action. Branch in the aforementioned amount of (P1,000,000.00 in Crim.
Case No. 5949,P3,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5950,
and P5,000,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 5951)."
"Accused Estacio, Fajardo, Jr., Santos and Desiderio appear to have
been detained at the NBI as of February 16, 1982 by virtue of a
Presidential Commitment Order, although all of them were later Upon arraignment, accused Fajardo, Jr. @ Boy Fajardo, Desiderio,
bonded and released on different dates, except Santos who has Estacio, Valentino and Santos, assisted by their respective counsel,
remained in custody up to the present. Accordingly, they should be pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. 3 Salamanca, Basilio Tan,
granted the benefits of such preventive imprisonment under Article 29 Jaime Tan, Reyes and Bustamante have remained at-large while San
Pedro died. Upon agreement of the prosecution and the defense, a personal banker of Citibank-Greenhills, and requested signature
joint trial of the three cases was ordered conducted. 4 cards and other requirements for the purpose of opening a current
account. Thereafter, Desiderio returned to the bank, submitted the
required documents and duly accomplished forms, and made an initial
Estacio was first discharged as an accused to be utilized as a state
witness.5 Later, he filed a motion for his re-inclusion in the information deposit of P10,000.00. Thus, a checking account in the name of
as an accused allegedly for the sake of the safety of his family. The Magna Management Consultant was opened in Citibank-Greenhills
Sandiganbayan granted his motion and thus he was re-included as an with Rolando San Pedro as its representative. A checkbook was given
accused in Crim. Case Nos. 5949-5951.6 The prosecution also moved to Desiderio.12
for the discharge of Valentino as an accused but the Sandiganbayan
denied that motion. Exercising its discretion, the Sandiganbayan On October 15, 1981, at the Ramada Hotel, Felipe Salamanca
eventually discharged Valentino from the three informations to be a informed Manuel Valentino that two (2) checks were to be deposited
state witness.7 with Citibank the following day. Salamanca instructed Valentino to
watch out for those checks in the clearing house at the Central Bank.
The antecedent facts that gave rise to the instant petitions are as On October 16, 1981, two (2) checks in the amounts of Four Hundred
follows: Ninety-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Nineteen Pesos
(P498,719.00), and Five Hundred One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty
Pesos and Thirty Centavos (P501,260.30) were indeed deposited with
Sometime in 1981, a syndicate masterminded by Felipe Salamanca the Citibank-Greenhills under the current account of Magna
infiltrated the Clearing Center of the Central Bank of the Philippines Management Consultant, represented by Rolando San Pedro. On
(Central Bank, for brevity). In its operation, the syndicate employed October 30, 1981, two (2) more checks were deposited at the same
two schemes: the switching scheme, and the pilferage scheme. bank in the total amount of P3,000,000.00. Another deposit of checks
was made on November 20, 1981 in the total amount
In the switching scheme, a syndicate would open a current account of P5,000,000.00. All these checks were brought to the Central Bank
with such banks as the Bank of America (BA) and the Philippine Clearing Center.
Veterans Bank (PVB) in Iloilo. As a matter of procedure, checks drawn
on the BA were forwarded to the Central Bank for clearing. Upon The checks deposited on October 16, 1981 did not reach the Central
receipt of those checks by the clearing clerk of the Central Bank, who Bank on that day, which was a Friday, but on Monday, October 19,
was a member of the syndicate, he would substitute those checks with 1981. Manuel Valentino, a bookkeeper at the Clearing Operations
ones bearing the stamp of another bank. Thus, instead of forwarding Division of the Central Bank, received from Jesus Estacio, a Central
the checks to the BA, these were misrouted to cause delay in the Bank janitor-messenger, the demand envelope containing the two (2)
clearing procedure. Upon the lapse of the clearing period, the BPI-Laoag checks in the total amount of P1,000,000.00 in the comfort
depositor would withdraw the amount of the checks. However, the room on the fourth floor of the Central Bank administration building.
scheme faltered as the huge amounts covered by the checks caused Therein Valentino altered the amount of P1,076,416.95 by crossing
suspicion on the part of the PVB. It called up the BA to inquire about out the amount of One Million Pesos. Thus, under the column "Total
those checks and hence, the former bank discovered that the checks amount received", only the amount of P76,416.95 was reflected in
were insufficiently funded. order that BPI-Laoag would not look for the P1 million
check.13 Valentino then brought the altered clearing statement back to
In the pilferage scheme, current accounts would be opened with a the Clearing Center and prepared a Central Bank Manifest where he
provincial bank, such as the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), changed the figure in the original copy to tally with those in the altered
Laoag branch, and a city bank such as the Citibank-Greenhills, clearing statement.
Manila. A BPI check deposited with Citibank would then be forwarded
to the Central Bank clearing house where members of the syndicate, On October 30, 1981, the syndicate employed the same scheme. As
who were employed there, would pilfer the check and alter the Central soon as the demand envelope containing the BPI-Laoag checks
Bank manifest and the entries in the clearing bank statements. The arrived, Valentino took it and gave it to Jesus Estacio who then
pilferage was intended to provide opportunity for the syndicate to blot brought the same to the comfort room at the fourth floor. Valentino
out entries referring to the pilfered check. Consequently, BPI-Laoag followed him there and took the two BPI checks amounting
would not know that a check drawn on it had been deposited with toP3,000,000.00, and altered the figures in the BPI Clearing
Citibank. After the lapse of the five-day clearing period, the syndicate Statement. Valentino thereafter brought said envelopes to the clearing
would withdraw the amount deposited from Citibank simply because house, and prepared the Central Bank Manifest, likewise altering the
said bank would have considered the check cleared and funded, as figures in the original to tally with the figures in the altered clearing
no protest or notice of dishonor could be received from BPI-Laoag. In statement.
utilizing this scheme in the commission of the crimes charged in
Criminal Case Nos. 5949 to 5951, the syndicate netted Nine Million
At the last operation on November 20, 1981, the group followed the
Pesos (P9,000,000.00).
same procedure – Valentino asked Estacio to give him the demand
envelope and the former then went to the comfort room. Valentino took
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION the two BPI-Laoag checks in the total amount of P5,000,000.00 which
he later gave to Salamanca. Again, he altered the figures in the
The prosecution offered the testimonies of sixteen (16) clearing statement and those in the Central Bank Manifest so that
witnesses,8 and documentary evidence marked Exhibits "A" to "DD", these would conform with each other.14
and Annexes "B" to "QQ", with sub-markings, to prove the following:
As a matter of procedure, the demand envelopes containing the
9
On October 14, 1981, one Mariano Bustamante opened a savings checks intended for BPI-Laoag, the altered Central Bank Manifests,
account with BPI-Laoag with an initial deposit and the clearing statements were forwarded to the Regional Clearing
of P3,000.00: P2,000.00 of which was in check, and P1,000.00 in Center. The pilfered checks deposited in the account of Magna
cash.10 That same day, he opened a current account with P1,000.00 Management Consultant were not included in those envelopes.
as initial deposit in the same bank. Upon his request, a checkbook Because BPI-Laoag did not receive the checks with a total value
was issued to him.11 of P9,000,000.00, these were not processed. Consequently, as no
objection or protest regarding the checks were registered and no
notice of dishonor of the checks for insufficient funds was made by the
That same month, Marcelo Desiderio, allegedly a representative of BPI-Laoag, and since the reglementary period for making such protest
Magna Management Consultant, approached Maria Nieves Garrido,
or notice of dishonor had elapsed, Citibank-Greenhills considered the Valentino was in turn introduced to Basilio Tan. During their
checks as good and funded. conversation, Valentino told Salamanca about his work as a
bookkeeper at the Central Bank.20
Hence, on different dates covering the period from October 26 to
December 6, 1981, Citibank-Greenhills allowed withdrawals in the Sometime in October 1981, Valentino requested Estacio to
aggregate amount of P9,000,000.00 from the account of Magna accompany him to the EDCOR office. There they met Salamanca,
Management Consultant. Withdrawals were made through checks Marcelo Desiderio, Rolando Santos and Basilio Tan. Salamanca told
endorsed by Rolando San Pedro and encashed by Jaime R. Estacio to stay outside the office because the group was going to
Tan.15 The proceeds of the anomalous transactions were divided discuss something. Half an hour later, the group dispersed. That same
among the members of the syndicate. Salamanca gave month, Estacio saw Romeo Villasanta, another accused, at the
Estacio P10,000.00 after the October 19, 1981 operation, P4,900.00 clearing office of the Central Bank. When Estacio asked why
after the October 30, 1981 operation andP5,000.00 after the Villasanta was there, the latter answered that he was "just expediting
November 20, 1981 operation. Valentino something." Estacio saw Villasanta for the second time that same
received P20,000.00, P10,000.00 and P20,000.00 after the October month talking with Valentino at the clearing office. Valentino asked
16 and 30, and November 20, 1981 operations. Estacio to point out the office of the Department of Economic
Research to Villasanta because Villasanta would be doing some
research. Estacio went with Villasanta to the fourth floor and showed
On January 28, 1982, Segundo Gonzaga, then Administrative
Assistant for Transit Center (Clearing Center of BPI), was informed him the said office. Villasanta then inquired where the comfort room in
that floor was. Estacio thereafter went back to his work and did not
through a long distance telephone call by the manager of BPI-Laoag
that their clearing transactions on October 19, 1981, October 30, 1981 see Villasanta anymore.21 1
and November 20, 1981 registered an outstanding discrepancy
of P9,000,000.00 as reflected in their inter-office reconciliation On November 20, 1981, Valentino asked Estacio to bring an envelope
statement. The manager of BPI-Laoag and the BPI Regional Manager to the fourth floor and to wait for him at its lobby. Estacio acceded and
for Northern Luzon who went to the office at BPI-Ayala showed the later, Valentino arrived. Valentino took the envelope from Estacio and
clearing statements to Gonzaga. Upon comparing the xerox copies of went to the comfort room. Thereafter, Estacio went to the Clearing
the BPI Clearing Statements (Laoag copies) and xerox copies of the Office.22
clearing envelope sent to Citibank Manila, Gonzaga noticed the
alterations. Thus, he went to the Accounting Department of BPI-Ayala Sometime in February 1982, upon learning that somebody from the
and found out that the Central Bank debited their bank in the amount NBI was looking for him, Estacio went to the NBI. There he told Agent
ofP9,000,000.00.16 Ranin that he wanted to call a lawyer but Agent Ranin did not allow
him to do so. Agent Ranin investigated him from 5:30 p.m. until 7:30
Gonzaga went to Citibank-Greenhills and talked to Jake Ocampo, its p.m. on February 17, 1982. This continued the following day and
assistant manager, about the clearing items. After checking their lasted a week. In the course of the investigation, Agent Ranin
outgoing clearing checks for October 19, 1981, October 30, 1981 and promised Estacio that he would not be harmed should he cooperate
November 20, 1981, Ocampo told Gonzaga that they did not recall and admit the charges against him, and that he would be freed once
said clearing checks. He gave Gonzaga reproduced microfilm copies he becomes a state witness. However, Agent Ranin hit him with a
of those checks. Gonzaga submitted the checks to his superiors with newspaper and poked his gun at him. Estacio was allowed to read the
an accompanying report.17 The BPI and the Central Bank jointly statement before he signed it.23
referred the matter for investigation to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) which assigned the case to Head Agent Salvador On cross-examination, Estacio admitted that during his stay at the NBI
Ranin of the Special Investigation Division.18 for about two months, his wife and children would visit him every week
and he could talk to them freely.24 He was transferred to Muntinlupa
On February 12, 1982, the Chief of the Anti-Bank Fraud Unit of the and detained at the Death Row for two years. On March 22, 1982,
Central Bank, Atty. Agapito Fajardo, the bank’s Chief Security Officer, Agent Ranin took his second statement that was a continuation of his
and the BPI Vice-President and Comptroller brought Manuel Valentino first statement. He was unable to read his supplementary statement
to the NBI. The following day, Agent Ranin took Valentino’s statement. because of fear of Agent Ranin, who was scaring him. He stressed
Valentino waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel. He signed that the statements he made before the NBI were not true and that he
the waiver on the first page of his statement. On March 22, 1982, only signed those documents25 because he was afraid of Agent
Agent Ranin took Valentino’s supplementary sworn statement. The Ranin.26
same NBI agent took Jesus Estacio’s statement on February 17, 1982
and supplementary statement on March 22, 1982. Like Valentino,
Rolando Santos came to know Felipe Salamanca when he sold his
Estacio waived his right to counsel. In their respective statements, car to him (Salamanca) on installment withP15,000.00 as down
Valentino and Estacio admitted their participation in the commission
payment with the balance of P20,000.00 to be paid in two or three
of the crime, narrated how they carried out the plan to defraud the months. He accepted partial payment for the car. After a time,
banks, and identified those who participated in the criminal acts. After Salamanca fully paid the balance. In July 1981, Salamanca gave
the investigation, Agent Ranin came out with a Memorandum Report himP3,000.00. Twice or thrice, Salamanca tried to convince him to join
dated April 26, 1982.19 a scheme to defraud a bank. After Salamanca had paid him the full
price of the car, Salamanca asked him again to join his group. All he
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE had to do was to open a checking account. He could have easily
facilitated this, being the Vice-President for Finance of American
On December 2, 1969, the Central Bank of the Philippines employed Steamship Agencies. In those meetings with Salamanca where he
Jesus Estacio as janitor-messenger. In 1978, a certain Rico Javier was persuaded to open a checking account with a bank, Basilio Tan,
introduced Estacio to Felipe Salamanca. When Salamanca learned the son of a general and his classmate at San Beda College,
that Estacio was connected with the Central Bank, he asked Estacio Valentino, and Desiderio were present. When he told Salamanca that
if he knew any bookkeeper thereat as his compadre needed one. he was not interested in the scheme to defraud a bank, as he was
busy with his job, Salamanca got mad. On October 20, 1981, an
Estacio replied that he would look for one. A week later, Salamanca
called up Estacio and asked him if he had found a bookkeeper. unidentified assailant shot him in his house. He sustained three (3)
gunshot wounds and was confined at the Parañaque Medical
Estacio mentioned Manuel Valentino. Salamanca instructed Estacio
to bring Valentino to Jack’s Restaurant in Quezon City after office Center.27
hours. In that restaurant, Estacio introduced Valentino to Salamanca.
Marcelo Desiderio came to know Felipe Salamanca sometime in July for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance
1981 when Salamanca went to his office28because he wanted to open with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.’ However, in exceptional cases,
an account with Citibank-Greenhills. Desiderio went to Citibank-New this Court has taken cognizance of questions of fact in order to resolve
York to inquire about the requirements for opening an account. Two legal issues, as where there was palpable error or grave
days later, he gave Salamanca the bank forms and signature cards to misapprehension of facts by the lower court. Criminal cases elevated
be accomplished. He learned from Salamanca that the forms would by convicted public officials from the Sandiganbayan deserve the
be filled up by Rolando San Pedro. For the initial deposit, Salamanca same thorough treatment by this Court as criminal cases involving
gave him P10,000.00 in cash and check. He also receivedP2,500.00 ordinary citizens simply because the constitutional presumption of
as consultancy fee. He went to Citibank-Greenhills to make the innocence must be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In
deposit and the bank issued him a checkbook. 29 all criminal cases, a person’s life and liberty are at stake."
Desiderio denied that he was present in any meeting where While only petitioner Estacio is a government employee in these
Salamanca and his group discussed a plan to defraud a bank. He cases, as the three others are private individuals, it is in the light of
acceded in opening the bank account at Citibank-Greenhills because this pronouncement that the instant petitions shall be considered and
Salamanca assured him that the account would be opened in resolved. Moreover, in the recent case of Armed Forces of the
connection with a loan application with the Citibank of New York. He Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. vs. Court of
denied that Salamanca’s group tasked him and Rolando Santos with Appeals,48the Court, citing Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 dated
opening accounts in Metro Manila banks, particularly with Citibank- March 9, 1990, held that a petition for review on certiorariquestioning
Greenhills. He denied knowing Santos and Estacio personally the final judgment, order, or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
although he admitted that Estacio, with Manuel Valentino, came to his Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Courts or other courts, may raise
office to deliver a tailored suit for a certain Atty. Martin. He further factual issues. In the exercise of its sound discretion, taking into
denied knowing Jaime Tan but admitted knowing Alfredo Fajardo, who account the attendant circumstances, this Court retains the option of
was his client when he was still connected with BPI. 30 either taking cognizance of, and deciding such issues, or referring the
case to the proper court for determination. In these criminal cases, this
Alfredo Fajardo opted to waive his right to testify and said that he has Court chooses to take cognizance of factual questions raised in the
no documentary evidence to present before the interest of proper administration of justice.
Sandiganbayan.31 Another accused, Emilio Reyes, voluntarily
surrendered to the Sandiganbayan and was detained at the Security In their separate petitions, petitioners assert that there was no proof
and Sheriff Services office.32 He filed a motion for reinvestigation on beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crimes charged
June 16, 1987 but it was resolved against him. 33 He pleaded not guilty principally because:
to the charges against him.34 However, since July 17, 1989, Reyes
failed to appear for trial. On February 16, 1990, the Sandiganbayan
(a) the extrajudicial confessions of petitioner Estacio and Valentino
acquitted him in these cases on account of the prosecution’s failure to are inadmissible in evidence as their right to counsel was violated
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 35 Because the cases against
when said confessions were executed;
Reyes were tried in absentia, the Sandiganbayan ordered that these
be archived without prejudice to revival "for purposes of contempt
citation in the event that he shall have been apprehended and brought (b) the discharge of Valentino from the informations to be a state
within the jurisdiction" of the court.36 witness was improper; and
Rolando San Pedro was arrested on March 22, 1988 at the vicinity (c) conspiracy, which made all petitioners equally guilty, was not
of the Sandiganbayan.37 He entered a plea of not guilty to the charges adequately proven.
against him.38 On June 11, 1989, he died.39 Thus, the Sandiganbayan
dismissed the cases against him. In the Resolution of February 23, Notably, petitioners Santos and Estacio aver that, should they be
1990, which was promulgated on March 12, 1990, the Sandiganbayan convicted as charged, they should be held individually liable only as
resolved that the cases against Felipe Salamanca, Basilio an accomplice.49
Tan, Jaime Tan and Mariano Bustamante be archived.40
Relevant to petitioners’ contention on the admissibility of the
As stated earlier, the Sandiganbayan convicted Estacio, Desiderio, extrajudicial confessions of petitioner Estacio and Valentino is Article
Santos, and Fajardo of the complex crimes of estafa thru falsification IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution providing for the rights of an
of public documents. Estacio, Desiderio and Fajardo filed separate accused during custodial investigation. It reads:
motions for reconsideration,41 while Santos filed with the Supreme
Court a motion for extension of time to file a petition forcertiorari.42 On
September 26, 1985, the Sandiganbayan denied those motions for "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any
reconsideration.43 Hence, the instant petitions for review person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
on certiorari that they individually filed with this Court, but which were have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of
consolidated in the Resolution of December 10, 1985. 44 such rights. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any
confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in
In its consolidated comment on the petitions, the Office of the Solicitor evidence."
General (OSG) questions the propriety of raising factual issues in a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of a Decision of the
Sandiganbayan.45The OSG asserts that in such a petition, this Court’s On the other hand, the first paragraph of Article III, Section 12 of the
jurisdiction is "confined to questions of law" and hence, this Court "is 1987 Constitution states:
not supposed to reweigh evidence but only to determine its
substantiality." On this matter, in Filoteo, Jr. vs. "(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
Sandiganbayan,46 this Court, after citing Jariol, Jr. vs. shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
Sandiganbayan,47 said: have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
"As amended by Republic Act No. 7975, Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606 be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
expressly provides that `(d)ecisions and final orders of the and in the presence of counsel."
Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition
A comparison of these provisions would readily show that the 1973 proceeding. You are entitled to the assistance of counsel of your own
Constitution does not specify the right against uncounselled waiver of choice. If you cannot afford a lawyer and you want one, a lawyer will
the right to counsel, which is found in paragraph 1, Section 12, Article be appointed for you before we ask you any question. Now, after
III of the 1987 Constitution. However, the latter constitutional provision having been so informed, are you still willing to give a free and
cannot be applied to extrajudicial confessions made prior to its date of voluntary statement and swear to tell the truth and nothing but the
effectivity. In Filoteo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, this Court held that: truth in this investigation?
"x x x the specific provision of the 1987 Constitution requiring that a ANSWER: Yes, sir.
waiver by an accused of his right to counsel during custodial
investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel may not be "02. Q: Are you willing to sign a Waiver of your rights?
applied retroactively or in cases where the extrajudicial confession
was made prior to the effectivity of said Constitution. Accordingly,
waivers of the right to counsel during custodial investigation without "A: Yes, sir.
the benefit of counsel during the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution
should, by such argumentation, be admissible. Although a number of "WAIVER
cases held that extrajudicial confessions made while the 1973
Constitution was in force and effect, should have been made with the
assistance of counsel, the definitive ruling was enunciated only on "I have been advised of my right to remain silent; that anything that I
April 26, 1983 when this Court, throughMorales, Jr. vs. Enrile, issued say may be used as evidence against me and that I have the right to
the guidelines to be observed by law enforcers during custodial a lawyer to be present with me while I am being questioned.
investigation. The Court specifically ruled that `(t)he right to counsel
may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the "I understand these rights and I am willing to make a statement and
assistance of counsel.’ Thereafter, in People vs. Luvendino, the Court answer questions. I do not want the assistance of counsel and I
through Mr. Justice Florentino P. Feliciano vigorously taught: understand and know whag (sic) I am doing. No promises or threats
have been made to me and no force or pressure of any kind has been
`x x x. The doctrine that an uncounselled waiver of the right to counsel used against me.
is not to be given legal effect was initially a judge-made one and was
first announced on 26 April 1983 in Morales vs. Enrile and reiterated (Sgd. with thumbmark)
on 20 March 1985 in People vs. Galit. x x x. MANUEL VALENTINO y SOCAN
‘While the Morales-Galit doctrine eventually became part of Section 13 February 1982, NBI, Manila"53
12 (1) of the 1987 Constitution, that doctrine affords no comfort to
appellant Luvendino for the requirements and restrictions outlined
in Morales and Galit have no retroactive effect and do not reach It is settled that once the prosecution has shown that there was
waivers made prior to 26 April 1983 the date of promulgation compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation
ofMorales.’"50 advisories, a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the
declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession is
involuntary and untrue.54 The defense attempted to prove that
Clearly then, the Morales-Galit rulings are inapplicable in these cases Valentino and petitioner Estacio were subjected to threats and
as the extrajudicial confessions in question here, were taken on intimidation at the NBI to obtain their confessions. Other than their
February 13, February 17 and March 22, 1982, long before the date bare assertions, Valentino and petitioner Estacio miserably failed to
of promulgation of theMorales Decision on April 26, 1983. Prior to this present any convincing evidence to prove the NBI’s use of force or
date, the guidelines requiring that waiver of the right to counsel by an intimidation on their persons. Before signing their statements, they
accused can be properly made only with the presence and assistance never protested against any form of intimidation, much more, of
of counsel, had yet to be formulated and pronounced by this Court. 51 maltreatment that they could have relayed to relatives visiting them at
the NBI. In People vs. Pia,55 the Court said:
The rule on prospective application of "judge-made laws" was
stressed in Co vs. Court of Appeals.52 In that case, the Court, "x x x It has been held that where the defendants did not present
through then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, ruled that in evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on their persons; where
accordance with Article 8 of the Civil Code providing that "(j)udicial they failed to complain to the officers who administered the oaths;
decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action
form a part of the legal system of the Philippines," and Article 4 of the against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where there
same Code stating that "(l)aws shall have no retroactive effect, unless appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies and where they
the contrary is provided," the principle of prospectivity of statutes, did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to
original or amendatory, shall apply to judicial decisions, which, buttress their claim, all these should be considered as factors
although in themselves are not laws, are nevertheless evidences of indicating voluntariness of confessions."
what the law means.
That the statements were intelligently executed is borne out by the
As to the admissibility of the uncounselled waivers of Valentino and fact that both confessants have reached the tertiary level of education:
petitioner Estacio of their right to counsel during custodial Valentino holds the degree of Bachelor of Science in
investigation, the intelligent and voluntary execution thereof should be Commerce56 while petitioner Estacio reached the first year of college
determined. The pre-interrogation advisories to the extrajudicial education in banking and finance.57 Possessed with sufficient
confessants uniformly state: education and not proven to be mentally unfit, they could have
protested the forced extraction of culpability from themselves if indeed
"01. QUESTION: Mr. MANUEL VALENTINO, we are informing you that was true.
that you are under investigation in connection with the alleged Estafa
thru Falsification of Commercial/Official Documents committed at the Moreover, the extrajudicial confessions in question are replete with
Central Bank of the Philippines. But before we ask you any question, details on the manner in which the crimes were committed, thereby
you must understand your legal rights. You have the right to remain ruling out the probability that these were involuntarily
silent. You have the right not to give any statement if you do not wish made.58 Voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its
to. Anything you say may be used as evidence against you in any language such that, if upon its face the confession exhibits no sign of
suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it nature of the crimes and the secrecy by which these were perpetrated,
being replete with details – which could possibly be supplied only by the prosecution was left with no recourse but to side with Valentino’s
the accused – reflecting spontaneity and coherence which, motion for his discharge to be a state witness. The absolute necessity
psychologically, cannot be associated with a mind to which violence for the testimony of someone who was a participant in the criminal
and torture have been applied, it may be considered scheme is buttressed by the ruling that where a crime is contrived in
voluntary.59 InU.S. vs. De los Santos,60 the Court said: secret then the discharge of one of the conspirators is essential so he
can testify against the other conspirators.68 In a conspiracy which was
"If a confession be free and voluntary – the deliberate act of the done in secret, there is a necessity to discharge one of the accused
accused with a full comprehension of its significance, there is no to provide direct evidence of the commission of the crime. 69
impediment to its admission as evidence, and it then becomes
evidence of a high order; since it is supported by the presumption – a Worth noting, however, is that Valentino’s testimony and his sworn
very strong one – that no person of normal mind will deliberately and statements differ with regard to petitioner Estacio’s participation in the
knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime, especially commission of the October 19, 1981 criminal act, and the participation
if it be a serious crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience." of petitioner Fajardo in the three crimes. Valentino stated in his sworn
statement that on October 19, 1981, when he noticed that the BPI
In these cases, the NBI investigator would not have known the representative had placed the demand envelope containing the BPI-
Laoag checks for clearing at the Laoag counter behind him, petitioner
members of the syndicate and the sophisticated manner by which the
crimes in question were perpetrated if Valentino and Estacio, who Estacio, who was the syndicate’s messenger, immediately came with
a push cart. Petitioner Estacio placed the demand envelope in the
were directly involved therein, did not reveal these.
pushcart and proceeded to the comfort room in the fourth floor where
Valentino followed him to alter the documents to suit the syndicate’s
With respect to the admissibility of the extrajudicial confessions of purposes. On the other hand, when he testified, Valentino asserted
Valentino and petitioner Estacio against their co-accused, once again, that he did not see petitioner Estacio at the meeting when they
this Court declares that although an extrajudicial confession is hatched the first operation on October 16, 1981. When the alterations
admissible only against the confessant, jurisprudence makes it were made on October 19, 1981, Valentino claimed that petitioner
admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts that tend to Estacio was not with them70 for it was he himself who brought the
establish the guilt of his co-accused.61 In People vs. Alvarez,62 this bundle of checks to the fourth floor comfort room where Villasanta took
Court ruled that where the confession is used as circumstantial the checks and altered the bank statements.
evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator,
that confession is receivable as evidence against a co-accused. The
Court elucidated further in People vs. Encipido63 as follows: With respect to petitioner Fajardo, Valentino averred in his
supplementary sworn statement that petitioner Fajardo was present in
three or four conferences where he participated in the discussion to
"It is also to be noted that APPELLANTS’ extrajudicial confessions defraud a bank.71 However, on the witness stand, Valentino swore
were independently made without collusion, are identical with each that petitioner Fajardo had "no participation in these cases" 72 or in the
other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other. They three operations subjects of these cases.
are, therefore, also admissible as circumstantial evidence against
their co-accused implicated therein to show the probability of the
latter’s actual participation in the commission of the crime. They are These discrepancies in Valentino’s sworn statements and testimony
are material ones as far as petitioners Estacio and Fajardo are
also admissible as corroborative evidence against the others, it being
clear from other facts and circumstances presented that persons other concerned. On this issue, the Court has consistently held that:
than the declarants themselves participated in the commission of the
crime charged and proved. They are what is commonly known as "x x x discrepancies between the statement of the affiant in his affidavit
interlocking confession and constitute an exception to the general rule and those made by him on the witness stand do not necessarily
that extrajudicial confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence discredit him since ex-parte affidavits are generally incomplete.
only against the declarants thereof." Affidavits are generally subordinate in importance to open court
declarations because they are oftentimes not in such a state as to
Petitioner Estacio claimed that, to his surprise, he found Valentino at afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has
the NBI. They talked for a while and Valentino told him to say whatever transpired in his affidavit and those made by him. This is so because
he (Valentino) would say.64 That allegation alone cannot be affidavits are frequently prepared by the administering officer and cast
considered as indicative of collusion between them as their sworn in the latter’s language or the latter’s understanding of what the affiant
statements both contain facts showing their deep involvement in the had said, while the affiant frequently simply signs the affidavit after the
same has been read to him." 73
scheme to defraud a bank. Human experience dictates that no one
would volunteer to demonstrate one’s culpability unless it was the
truth. It may thus be safely presumed that in telling petitioner Estacio In People vs. Fabro, the Court ruled that repudiation and recantation
to say whatever he would say, Valentino was merely cautioning of confessions which have been obtained in accordance with the
petitioner Estacio to tell the truth. Nevertheless, even without the Constitution are looked upon with disfavor as unreliable.74 However,
extrajudicial confessions of petitioner Estacio and Valentino, evidence that ruling may not find application under the circumstances of these
on record is sufficient to sustain a finding of culpability. 65 cases. In Fabro, it was the accused himself who recanted his
confession when, on the witness stand, he denied he committed the
On the validity of the discharge of Valentino from the information to be crime. No other witness testified for the defense. On the other hand,
a state witness, the determination of who should be used as a state in these cases, Valentino, a co-conspirator who appeared as a state
witness to bolster the successful prosecution of criminal offenses is witness before the court, adhered to his confession as regards the
part of prosecutorial discretion.66 However, it is the courts that finally participation of the accused, except that he testified that petitioner
determine whether the requirements of the Rules of Court 67 have Estacio was absent when the first crime was planned and committed,
been satisfied to justify the discharge of an accused to become a state and that petitioner Fajardo was not involved in the three cases. It has
witness. been held that where a witness who testified for the prosecution
subsequently testifies for the defense by retracting his previous
testimony, the test to decide which testimony to believe is a
It should be recalled that petitioner Estacio was originally discharged comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of
to be a state witness. Upon his manifestation that he would rather evidence.75 Although these cases do not involve the conflicting
remain an accused in these cases for the protection of his family, the testimonies of a witness, that rule may be applied in a conflict between
court re-included him in the information. Apparently considering the a sworn statement and the testimony while recognizing the inferiority
of a sworn statement to a testimony. In these cases, the narration of petitioner Fajardo to find him culpable for the crimes charged in these
facts in Valentino’s sworn statements were in substance reproduced cases and hence, he should be acquitted.
in his testimony which, in turn, was supported by other testimonial
evidence and the voluminous documentary evidence.
Similarly situated as petitioner Fajardo, is petitioner Santos. His
admission to having attended several meetings of Salamanca’s group
In the absence of any reason to question the credibility of Valentino did not satisfactorily define his liability as a conspirator considering the
and that of his testimony, that portion of his testimony on the absence of any proof that he committed an overt act in pursuance of
nonparticipation of petitioner Estacio in Crim. Case No. 5949 and the syndicate’s scheme. His pretext of having entered into a "car sale"
petitioner Fajardo in all three cases shall be controlling. We deem the with Salamanca may ring hollow in truth but the weakness of his
variance in Valentino’s testimony as endeavors to rectify his sworn defense cannot be taken against him considering the insufficiency of
statements to conform to the truth. To reiterate, such variance, does prosecution evidence on his participation in the actual commission of
not make him a less credible witness or affect the merit of his the crime. His acquittal is, therefore, likewise in order.
testimony, as the other pieces of prosecution evidence support it and
do not prove that it is untruthful or contrived. With respect to petitioner Estacio, Valentino’s testimony on the first
syndicate operation on October 16, 1981 should be counted in his
The value of Valentino’s testimony in the prosecution of these cases favor. There is insufficient evidence that he participated in the
cannot be underestimated. It fills in the gaps in the prosecution alteration of documents at the Central Bank Clearing Office on
evidence that the other prosecution witnesses failed to cover. Without October 19, 1981 much more in the prior discussion to perpetrate the
it, conspiracy to defraud the BPI-Laoag of P9,000,000.00 through crime. Hence, his acquittal in Criminal Case No. 5949 should follow.
falsification of the clearing statement and manifest would not have However, as regards the syndicate operations on October 30, 1981
been proven beyond reasonable doubt. and November 20, 1981, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of
his role in carrying the demand envelopes to the Central Bank’s fourth
floor comfort room where alterations were made. By the nature of his
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 76 As work, he had access to these demand envelopes containing BPI
creditably shown by the prosecution, the crimes were committed not checks. His participation in the conspiracy was therefore vital to the
solely by the person who altered the clearing statement and manifest. realization of the syndicate’s objectives.
That all-important act, the conception of which could have been
hatched only by one familiar with banking procedures, would not have Parenthetically, the Court notes with dismay the Sandiganbayan’s
been possible if not for the indispensable cooperation of others. Thus, pronouncement that petitioner Estacio’s "wishy-washy" attitude in
Valentino testified: offering himself as a state witness "confirmed his knowledge of the
intimate details of the conspiracy and the mode or manner by which
"Q Will you please describe in detail what was agreed upon during the its operations and schemes would be initiated and
meeting? consummated."79 Such conclusion is in consonance with the
presumption of guilt, not with that of innocence. An accused may have
some reasons for his irresolute action as far as testifying for the
A It was agreed upon that Salamanca and Villasanta will open an prosecution is concerned. Petitioner Estacio had such reason – he
account at Laoag Branch of the Bank of the Philippine Islands and feared for the safety of his family considering that he would be up
Desiderio also and Santos are also in charge in opening accounts in against a syndicate that, because of the success of its evil scheme,
Metro Manila, particularly Citibank, Greenhills. Basilio Tan, he is had the money to harm their perceived "enemies." That petitioner
stationary in the office. Jaime Tan and Rolando San Pedro are the Estacio was deeply enmeshed in the syndicate’s activities to bleed
ones in charge in withdrawals at the Citibank." 77 money from banks is shown by the fact that in Crim. Case No. 6603
involving the syndicate’s operation in the Solidbank, his conviction for
However, the liability of each of the petitioners must be considered the crime of estafa thru falsification of public/commercial documents
within the purview of the following pronouncement in the celebrated was affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 75362.80But such conviction for
case of People vs. Berroya78 where the Court said that: another crime must not be the basis for a conclusion that the accused
is guilty of another crime charged, although basically, the same
criminal acts were committed. We therefore find the Sandiganbayan’s
"x x x to hold an accused liable as co-principal by reason of pronouncement totally unexpected of a court that must determine the
conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in culpability of an accused based on the prosecution evidence and not
pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. That overt act may on the weakness of the defense or the reputation of an accused.
consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime
itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by
being present at the time of the commission of the crime, or by Petitioner Desiderio, on the other hand, has been proven guilty
exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving beyond reasonable doubt for having participated both in the
them to execute or implement the conspiracy. Hence, the mere discussion and mapping out of the malevolent scheme and in its actual
presence of an accused at the discussion of a conspiracy, even execution. Desiderio’s knowledge of banking procedures provided the
approval of it without any active participation in the same, is not rationale for his giving "birth", or having "authored" the scheme along
enough for purposes of conviction. Thus, assuming Vienes was a with Salamanca and Villasanta.81 He had served as branch manager
participant in the planning to abduct a Taiwanese national, in the in the BPI where he was employed for twenty-seven years, or until he
absence of eyewitnesses to the actual abduction, there is a paucity of was charged with estafa for accommodating a client’s loan against an
evidence as to whether or not Vienes carried out his part of the plan." uncollected deposit.82 Nieves Garrido, a personal banker at Citibank-
(emphasis supplied) Greenhills, who entertained him when he made queries about opening
a current account, confirmed his having opened said account for
Magna Management Consultant, thereby lending credence to and
In these cases, even if Valentino’s supplementary sworn statement corroborating Valentino’s testimony on his role in the implementation
stating that petitioner Fajardo participated in the discussion of the of the criminal scheme.
scheme to milk money from a bank should be given evidentiary
weight, still, that evidence is not enough to convict him. There is no
evidence showing that he participated in opening a bank account in Petitioner Desiderio’s claim that he opened that account in
the procedure to alter the clearing manifests and statements, or in the accordance with his legitimate role as consultant in Mardes
withdrawal of substantial amounts resulting from such alteration of Management Consultant is a lame excuse. Anyone, especially a
documents. There is thus insufficient evidence against businessman such as San Pedro or Salamanca, could have opened
a current account without hiring the services of a management
consultant. That lame excuse sounds even lamer considering the Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) under which the defendants were charged
evidence showing that his alleged client was also engaged in in these cases, states that any person who shall defraud another by
management consultancy. Desiderio thus relied on denial as a mode means of "using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess
of defense. A denial, like other defenses, remains subject to the power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
strength of the prosecution evidence which is independently imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits"shall be
assessed. When the evidence for the prosecution convincingly held liable for the crime of swindling (estafa). Under the peculiar
connects the crime and the culprit, the probative value of the denial is circumstances proven in these cases, the crime actually committed by
negligible.83 Desiderio’s denial of complicity in the scheme cannot, the offenders is that defined in Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code
therefore, prevail over the positive testimonies of Nieves Garrido and on other deceits. The first paragraph of this article states that "(t)he
Valentino that he played the important role of opening the current penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the
account that paved the way to the "inside jobs" of petitioner Estacio, damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be
Valentino and, probably, Villasanta. His sole overt act under the imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another
syndicate’s scheme facilitated the commission of all three counts of by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this
estafa thru falsification of public documents. chapter." Although the information charged the accused with violation
of paragraph 2 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code defining the
Notably, in these cases, the Sandiganbayan observed that none of crime of falsification by public officer of employee, the Sandiganbayan
the accused refuted the documentary exhibits offered in evidence by correctly found that the accused violated paragraph 4 of the same
the prosecution.84 The pieces of documentary evidence consist of Article which states as follows:
bank records including deposit slips, ledger cards, specimen cards,
checks for deposit and withdrawal, clearing statements and clearing "The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos
manifests. All of these clearly and positively buttress the prosecution’s shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who,
theory as to how the pilferage scheme was successfully implemented. taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by
The defense obviously could not demolish the evidentiary weight of committing any of the following acts:
the prosecution’s documentary evidence and hence, it focused on the
prosecution evidence on the membership of the accused in the xxx xxx xxx
syndicate, and on the probative value of the interlocking confessions
of Valentino and petitioner Estacio. There is thus no alternative to
giving full credence and merit to the prosecution’s documentary "4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts."
evidence, and to declaring them to be in complete accord with the
prosecution theory on the commission of the offenses and the nature Inasmuch as the crime committed in these cases is the complex crime
and extent of participation of the accused. of estafa thru falsification of public documents and Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code states that when an offense is a necessary
The informations filed in these cases individually charge an offense means for committing another offense, "the penalty for the most
"defined and penalized under Article 315, par. 2 (a) in relation to serious crime shall be imposed" in its maximum period, the penalty for
Article 171, par. 2" of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa the crimes committed in these cases is that imposed for falsification
are as follows: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of of public documents or prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine
confidence, or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third of P5,000.00.
party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation.85 It is indubitable that estafa was committed by abuse of While it appears that the Sandiganbayan correctly held that the basis
confidence in these cases. The conspirators that enlisted and utilized for imposition of penalty should be that imposed by law for falsification
the assistance of Central Bank employees abused the confidence that of public documents, it erred in imposing the maximum penalty of the
the banking system reposed upon such employees. As a result of such indeterminate sentence it meted upon the accused. Finding no
abuse of confidence, the BPI sustained damage in the aggregate of modifying circumstances, the Sandiganbayan imposed for each
Nine Million Pesos (P9,000,000.00). Verily, the perpetrators of the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public document, the
crimes breached even the confidence that people reposed on the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1)
Central Bank and the whole banking system. day of prision correccional to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor.
By falsifying clearing documents, the offenders committed the
complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents. Under Under the procedural guidelines for imposing penalties for complex
Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, any public officer or crimes enunciated in Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan,87 the first step
employee who, taking advantage of his official position, makes in determining the proper penalty is to consider whether or not
untruthful statements in a narration of facts, commits the crime of aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances attended the
falsification of public documents. This kind of falsification requires the commission of the crimes.
concurrence of the following requisites: (a) the offender makes in a
document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a
legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and Only petitioner Estacio claimed that he voluntarily
(c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false. 86 surrendered.1âwphi1 For said mitigating circumstance to be
appreciated, surrender must be made spontaneously or in such a
manner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender
The prosecution has duly proven these requisites. Valentino occupies unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his
a public position as bookkeeper at the Clearing Office of the Central guilt, or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense of
Bank. He intercepted and pilfered BPI-Laoag checks with the finding and capturing him.88 According to NBI Agent Ranin, petitioner
assistance of petitioner Estacio, a janitor-messenger at the Central Estacio went to the NBI bearing a referral note from Atty. Agapito
Bank. In the comfort room, Valentino and/or Villasanta, who has so far Fajardo, Chief of Anti-Fraud Unit of the Central Bank.89 However, it
avoided the clutches of the law, tampered with the clearing statements was proven by the prosecution beyond peradventure of doubt that
and clearing manifests which Estacio had taken from Valentino’s petitioner Estacio’s alleged surrender was anything but spontaneous.
desk. The tampered documents, along with the pilfered demand He went to the NBI on February 17, 1982, 90 five days after Atty.
envelopes, were then sent to the Central Bank Regional Clearing Fajardo had brought Valentino to that office for questioning, and a day
Center in Laoag. These "inside jobs" were perpetrated as part of the after a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) had been issued
decadent scheme that private individuals had hatched to gain against him and Valentino.91 Moreover, the booking sheet and arrest
monetary gratification. report states that petitioner Estacio was "arrested" on February 16,
1982.92 Voluntary surrender having been insufficiently proven, as far
as penalty is concerned, petitioner Estacio in Crim. Cases Nos. 5950- unlawfully and criminally take and carry away with intent to gain one
51 shall suffer the same penalty as petitioner Desiderio who did not (1) Seiko Divers wristwatch valued at P300.00 and cash of P15.00
present proof that could mitigate the penalty that he should suffer for owned by Hernandez Abatay and as a consequence of the stab
the crimes. wounds suffered by Hernandez Abatay at the hands of the accused,
the said Hernandez Abatay died a few days thereafter.
Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code states that when the penalty
prescribed by law is a single divisible penalty, the accused shall be CONTRARY TO LAW.2
imposed the medium period of such penalty when there are neither
aggravating nor mitigating circumstances. The propriety of imposing The information was subsequently amended to include Marco Aguirre,
the medium period of the more serious penalty for a complex crime accused-appellant Mendoza's co-accused.
after considering the modifying circumstances notwithstanding that
Article 48 requires the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period
has been settled.93 It is supported by the doctrine that penal provisions The prosecution presented evidence showing the following:
shall be interpreted in favor of the accused.
On July 7, 1994, at around 1:30 a.m., the victim Hernandez Abatay
The medium period of prision mayor is eight (8) years and one (1) day and his companion Jose Neri Tajanlangit were at the corner of Quezon
to ten (10) years. In the absence of impediments to the application of and Ledesma Streets in Iloilo City waiting for a jeepney to take them
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, for each crime committed, the home. They had just come from work at a supermarket. Tajanlangit
penalty that should be imposed upon petitioner Estacio in Crim. Case left Abatay to urinate nearby. He was about 15 feet away from Abatay
Nos. 5950 and 5951, and upon petitioner Desiderio in Crim. Case Nos. when he saw accused-appellant Zaldy Mendoza and a companion
5949, 5950 and 5951, shall be the indeterminate sentence comprising approach Abatay. The two men robbed Abatay. Accused-appellant's
of the minimum penalty within the range of prision correccional, to the companion held Abatay's hands behind his back while accused-
maximum penalty of prision mayor medium plus a fine of P5,000.00. appellant took Abatay's wrist watch and money. Accused appellant
It will be observed that the maximum penalty erroneously imposed by then stabbed Abatay in the abdomen. Abatay ran away but accused-
the Sandiganbayan is ten (10) years and one (1) day which is already appellant pursued him.3
within the period of prision mayor maximum.
At that time, PO3 Danilo Tan of the PNP was going home on board a
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner Rolando tricycle. He saw a man running on the street, going in his direction.
Santos y Ramirez in G.R. Nos. 71523-25, petitioner Alfredo R. Tan asked the tricycle driver to stop. He alighted and asked the person
Fajardo, Jr. in G.R. No. 72384-86 and petitioner Jesus E. Estacio in why he was running. He turned out to be Abatay. He said that he had
G.R. No. 72420-22 with respect to Criminal Case No. 5949 are hereby been held up by two persons. Tan asked him why he was clutching
ACQUITTED of the crimes charged for lack of proof beyond his stomach. Abatay replied that he had been stabbed by the robbers.
reasonable doubt. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan as far as Tan found that the victim had a wound in the lower right portion of his
petitioner Marcelo S. Desiderio in G. R. No. 72387-89 and petitioner stomach, about one inch above his belt. Abatay told Tan that one of
Jesus E. Estacio, with respect to Criminal Case Nos. 5950 and 5951 the robbers was wearing a white t-shirt while the other was wearing a
are concerned, is herby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that, sleeveless basketball shirt and undershirt uniform. 4
for each crime, they shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of four (4)
years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision PO3 Tan asked the tricycle driver to take Abatay to St. Paul's Hospital,
correccional maximum to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium. while he went after the suspects. He spotted one of the suspects, who
was wearing a sleeveless basketball shirt, along Quezon St. on the
SO ORDERED. way to Rizal St. The suspect, who was later identified as accused-
appellant Zaldy Mendoza, was panting for breath because he had
been running. Tan identified himself and searched the suspect. Tan
SECOND DIVISION was able to recover a table knife from accused-appellant.5
G.R. No. 143702 September 13, 2001 PO3 Tan then took accused-appellant to the St. Paul's Hospital where
Abatay was confined. In the presence of Tan and some nurses and
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, the attending physician in the emergency room, Abatay pointed to
vs. accused-appellant as one of those who had held him up and then
ZALDY MENDOZA Y SEVILLA, accused-appellant. stabbed him. At that time, Abatay was in good condition and even
spoke with Tan. Tan then placed accused-appellant under arrest and
took him to the police station for investigation. Accused-appellant
MENDOZA, J.: allegedly pointed to Marco Aguirre as his companion when they held
up Abatay. Tan tried to look for Aguirre but was unsuccessful. 6
This is an appeal from the decision, 1 dated March 12, 1998, of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Iloilo City, finding accused-appellant Melly De Rojo testified that on July 7, 1994, from around 11:30 p.m.
Zaldy Mendoza guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and to 12:30 a.m., she was washing clothes outside her house at the
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to Roxas Village in Mabini St., Iloilo. She was a neighbor of accused-
indemnify the heirs of the victim, Hernandez Abatay, in the amounts appellant Zaldy Mendoza and Marco Aguirre in the said
of P75,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. village.7 According to this witness, Marco Aguirre asked her to hide
him inside her house because he had just stabbed someone. De Rojo
The information against accused-appellant charged — said Aguirre was wearing a white t-shirt with bloodstains on it and was
holding a knife. Aguirre told her that he could not get inside his own
house because it was closed. She said she refused Aguirre's request
That on or about the 7th day of July, 1994 in the City of Iloilo,
because her husband and children were sleeping inside the house.
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused,
Then Aguirre allegedly took off his clothes and hung them on her
armed with a knife, conspiring and confederating with Marco Aguirre
clothes line. She told Aguirre not to hang his clothes on her clothes
who is still at large, working together and helping one another, with
line as it might place her in trouble. Aguirre left and De Rojo did not
deliberate intent and with violence employed upon the person of
see him again. Neither did she see accused-appellant. De Rojo did
Hernandez Abatay, that is by stabbing him with the said knife, with
not report the incident to the police because she was afraid and,
which the accused was armed at the time, did then and there wilfully,
anyway, she found out later that the crime had already been reported WHEREFORE, the accused Zaldy Mendoza y Sevilla is hereby found
to the police.8 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide
and is hereby punished with imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua to
Death, to pay the heirs of the victim P75,000.00 as actual damages
Accused-appellant went to see De Rojo twice after the event that took
place on the night of July 7, 1994. Accused-appellant's wife asked her and to pay civil indemnity of P50,000.00.
if it was true that Aguirre showed up at her house on the night in
question. De Rojo replied in the affirmative and told her that she would SO ORDERED.15
testify in favor of accused-appellant because it was Aguirre and not
accused-appellant whom she saw that night outside her house. 9 Accused-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration dated November
25, 1994. In its order dated October 26, 1998, the trial court denied
The kitchen knife which had been recovered from accused-appellant the motion after finding no compelling reason to reconsider its
was turned over on July 8, 1994 at 8:00 a.m. to PO3 Manuel Artuz, decision.16 But the trial court amended the dispositive portion by
the exhibit custodian of Police Precinct I. The blade of the knife was specifying the provision of the Revised Penal Code violated and the
discolored but he could not say if it was blood that caused the stain. 10 penalty as follows:
Violeta Abatay, the victim's mother, testified that she saw her son at WHEREFORE, the accused Zaldy Mendoza y Sevilla is hereby found
the St. Paul's Hospital in the early morning of July 7, 1994. Her son guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
died on July 10, 1994, after three days' confinement. 11 Homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Republic Act 7659, is punished with imprisonment of Reclusion
Dr. Tito Doromal, a medico-legal officer of the Iloilo City Police Station, Perpetua, to pay the heirs of the victim Seventy-Five Thousand
performed an autopsy on the body of Hernandez Abatay on July 11, (P75,000.00) Pesos as actual damages and to pay civil indemnity of
1994.12 As reflected in a medico-legal autopsy report (Exh. A) Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos.17
prepared by him, Dr. Doromal found that the cause of death of the
victim was a single stab wound located under the subleeding and On November 25, 1998, accused-appellant filed a motion for
thoraco-abdominal region or near the right lower abdomen. The reconsideration and new adjudication on the ground that the trial
direction and entrance of the wound was horizontal inside the court's order, dated October 26, 1998, was rendered after Judge
abdominal cavity and ended at the outer portion of the right kidney. Florentino P. Pedronio had vacated his position as RTC Judge of
The wound, which was 18 cms. deep and 3.5 x 1.2 cms. wide, was Iloilo.18 But the trial court denied accused-appellant's motion in an
inflicted using a single-bladed sharp instrument, such as a knife. The order on March 16, 2000.19
bladed instrument penetrated the back and hit the posterior portion of
the lungs, causing the same to harden and acquire a liver-like
Hence, this appeal. In his lone assignment of error, accused-appellant
consistency. The victim developed hypostatic pneumonia causing his contends:
death. Hemorrhaging secondary to the stab wound also contributed to
the victim's death.13
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED ZALDY
MENDOZA Y SEVILLA FOR A CAPITAL OFFENSE ON
Dr. Doromal also found that based on the location of the wound in the INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.20
victim's body, it was possible that the victim and his assailant were
facing each other when the former was stabbed. The assailant's thrust
originated from below the victim's abdomen and moved upwards to We find the appeal to be without merit.
the inner portion of the body.
First. The issue in this case turns on the credibility of the prosecution
The defense of the accused-appellant Zaldy Mendoza was alibi. He witnesses. We have repeatedly ruled that in the absence of any fact
claimed that on July 7, 1994, at around 11:30 p.m., he was at the or circumstance of weight which has been overlooked or the
Rochelle Carinderia resting after a day's work, driving a "trisicad." significance of which has been misconstrued, appellate courts will not
Afterwards, he walked along Mabini St. towards the corner of interfere with the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses or
Ledesma St. On the way, he saw his neighbor Marco Aguirre with a set aside its judgment considering that it is in a better position to
certain person he did not know. Accused-appellant, who was about decide these questions as it heard the witnesses during trial. 21 The
five meters away, saw Aguirre pointing a knife at the person. Accused- matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best
appellant said he approached the two and asked Aguirre what the and most completely performed and carried out by a trial judge who,
matter was, but he was told to leave. Then, he said, he saw Aguirre unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimonies in the light
stab the person. Accused-appellant claimed he fled towards the of the defendant's behavior, demeanor, conduct, and attitude during
direction of the Rochelle Carinderia. Accused-appellant said he the trial.22
wanted to report the incident to the police, but before he could do so
a police patrol car arrived. PO3 Danilo Tan alighted from the car and, In this case, accused-appellant questions the testimony of the lone
while pointing a gun at him, asked accused-appellant who his eyewitness, Jose Tajanlangit, claiming that the latter's testimony is not
companions were. Accused-appellant said he had no companions. He worthy of credence because it is incredible and is based largely on
was then made to get inside the patrol car and taken to the Gen. Luna hearsay. To bolster his claim, accused-appellant cites three examples
Police Station for investigation.14 from the latter's testimony. First, Tajanlangit did not testify that he
heard any sound come from the deceased Abatay when the latter was
Accused-appellant said he was handcuffed and taken to St. Paul's stabbed by his holduppers. Accused-appellant says it is highly
Hospital. At the emergency room of the hospital, he said PO3 Tan improbable that the deceased did not make any outcry when he was
asked Abatay if accused-appellant was the one who stabbed him, but stabbed and equally improbable that Tajanlangit did not hear the
Abatay answered that it was accused-appellant's companion who same. Second, Tajanlangit testified that he ran away in the direction
stabbed him. opposite that to which Abatay ran after being stabbed. Yet Tajanlangit
also testified that Abatay met PO3 Tan; that Tan sent Abatay to his
employer; and that Tan pursued and caught up with accused-
On March 12, 1998, the lower court rendered a decision finding appellant. Accused-appellant asserts that Tajanlangit could not have
accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged. The dispositive portion possibly testified as to facts which took place after he ran away and
of its decision states: that he only gathered such facts from the victim himself when the latter
was still alive in the hospital. Third, Tajanlangit testified that he and
the victim were waiting for a jeep instead of a taxi on the night in Abatay which lead to but one fair and reasonable conclusion — that
question because the victim only had P15.00 in his pocket. Accused- accused-appellant is guilty of the crime charged.
appellant claims that this is unbelievable since Tajanlangit had P50.00
in his own pocket. Why, accused-appellant asks, did Tajanlangit not
Accused-appellant admitted that he was on Ledesma Street and saw
disclose this fact to the victim so that they could have taken a taxi? 23 the crime committed, but claimed that he immediately left because
Marco Aguirre told him to leave. According to him, the next thing he
The questions raised by accused-appellant concerning Tajanlangit's knew was that he was accosted by PO3 Tan, who searched his
testimony as to what he saw, heard, and did on that fateful night are person, and later took him to the St. Paul's Hospital, where he was
too incidental to merit any serious consideration. They concern only pointed to by the same man whom he had seen being robbed by
minor details that do not touch upon the basic elements of the crime Aguirre.
itself and therefore cannot detract from the credibility of the
witness.24 No glaring inconsistencies in the testimony of Tajanlangit Accused-appellant's denial that it was not he, but Marco Aguirre, who
were shown by the defense. What is crucial is that Tajanlangit testified committed the deed is, to say the least, self-serving. Accused-
clearly that he saw accused-appellant and a companion being held up appellant's denial does not credibly support his claim of
Abatay on that night; that the two managed to take Abatay's money innocence.31 For in weighing contradictory declarations and
and wrist watch; and that accused-appellant stabbed the victim. There statements, greater weight must be given to the positive testimonies
is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Tajanlangit's observation since
of the prosecution witnesses than to the denial of the defendant. 32
the place where the crime occurred was well-lighted, there being a
street lamp on a nearby corner.25
Nor can accused-appellant's defense of alibi prosper. Accused-
appellant was positively identified as the person who committed the
Witness Tajanlangit testified that he saw the actual stabbing of Abatay
crime. It is basic and well-entrenched that the defense of alibi cannot
and was even able to demonstrate that the direction of the stabbing stand against the positive identification of a credible eyewitness. 33 Nor
motion made by accused-appellant was downward going
did accused-appellant show that it was physically impossible for him
upward.26 This coincides with the finding of the medico-legal expert, to be at the scene of the crime. It has been repeatedly held that to
Dr. Tito Doromal, that the entry of the weapon into the victim's establish alibi, accused-appellant must not only show that he was at
abdomen was "backward upward," that is, that the entrance of the some other place at or about the time of the commission of the crime
weapon was horizontal inside the abdominal cavity and ended at the but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the
outer portion of the right kidney.27 Thus, the evidence confirms that place where the crime was committed.34 But, as earlier stated,
the wound sustained by the victim was inflicted in the manner seen accused-appellant in fact admitted that he was actually on Ledesma
and testified to by Tajanlangit.28 Accused-appellant failed to show that Street at the time the crime was being committed.
Tajanlangit had any motive to testify falsely against him and his
companion concerning so serious a crime as robbery with homicide.
Second. Accused-appellant claims that the decision of the trial court,
dated March 12, 1998, is a nullity since it was promulgated twelve
Further bolstering the credibility of Tajanlangit are the testimonies of months, or more than ninety (90) days, after the case was submitted
the other witnesses presented by the prosecution which sufficiently for decision on March 23, 1997. He cites the ruling of this Court
establish accused-appellant's guilt of the crime charged.
in Lazaret v. Bantuas,35 in support of his contention. 36 He further
contends that the amended decision dated October 26, 1998 is
PO3 Danilo Tan testified that he encountered the victim on Ledesma likewise a nullity since it was issued motu proprio, contrary to Rule
Street who told him that he had been robbed and then stabbed by two 120, §7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows the
persons; that the victim suffered a wound in the abdominal area; that modification of a judgment of conviction only upon motion of the
the victim described the appearance of his attackers; that he sent the accused. Finally, accused-appellant maintains that the amended
victim to his employer in the supermarket; that he caught accused- decision, consisting of a new dispositive portion contained in a two-
appellant, who matched the description of one of the victim's robbers, paragraph order, was never promulgated and is, therefore, a nullity. 37
while the latter was running along Quezon St.; that he recovered a
table knife from accused-appellant; that he took accused-appellant to Accused-appellant's contention is without merit. The failure to decide
the hospital where the victim was; and that the victim pointed to cases within the ninety-day period required by law constitutes a
accused-appellant as the person who had stabbed him. ground for administrative liability against the defaulting judge, 38 which
may take the form of dismissal, forfeiture of benefits and
PO3 Manuel Artuz, exhibit custodian of Police Precinct I in Iloilo City, privileges,39 or a fine.40 But it does not make the judgment a nullity.
testified that a discolored table knife was turned over to him in the The judgment is valid.41
early morning of July 8, 1994. The knife was identified by PO3 Tan in
open court as the same one he recovered from accused-appellant on Accused-appellant also complains that the decision in this case was
July 7, 1994.29 amended without any of the parties asking for it. This is not so. The
original decision in this case was issued on March 12, 1998 and was
Violeta Abatay testified that she saw her son lying wounded in the promulgated on July 15, 1998.42 The decision was written by Acting
emergency room of the St. Paul's Hospital in the early morning of July Presiding Judge Florentino P. Pedronio of the Bacolod City RTC,
7, 1994 and that her son died on July 10, 1994. Branch 43. On July 24, 1998, accused-appellant, through counsel,
filed a motion for reconsideration, praying that the decision be set
aside and accused-appellant acquitted on the ground that the decision
Finally, Dr. Tito Doromal, who performed the autopsy on the body of
victim Abatay, testified that the latter died as a result of a stab wound did not state the law violated nor refer to the specific provision of the
Revised Penal Code.43
inflicted on the lower right portion of the abdomen and that the weapon
used to inflict the wound was a sharp-bladed instrument, such as a
knife.30 Acting on the motion, the trial court denied accused-appellant's motion
for reconsideration, but amended the dispositive portion of its decision
for indeed the same failed to fix the specific penalty within the range
While it is true that none of the other witnesses, aside from
Tajanlangit, actually saw the accused-appellant rob and stab the provided for in the Revised Penal Code for the crime
committed.44 Hence, the Court amended the dispositive portion of its
victim, their testimonies nonetheless provide sufficient corroborative
evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused-appellant. The decision by citing the provision of the Revised Penal Code violated
testimonies of Tan, Artuz, Violeta Abatay, and Dr. Doromal together and imposing on accused-appellant the appropriate penalty
render a complete account of the events surrounding the death of of reclusion perpetua.
As the Solicitor General well observed, it is misleading for accused- The penalty for robbery with homicide under Art. 294, par. 1 of the
appellant to claim that the trial court motu proprio modified its ruling Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is reclusion
as the trial court in fact resolved the motion for reconsideration filed perpetua to death. In the absence of any aggravating circumstance,
by accused-appellant resulting in the modification of the imposed the lesser penalty should be imposed, i.e., reclusion perpetua.47
penalty. The trial court has the residual jurisdiction to correct the error
in imposing the penalty. With respect to the amount of damages, the following expenses were
duly supported by receipts presented in evidence: P1,695.00 as
Accused-appellant further claims that the amended decision is a medical expenses; P51,302.00 as hospital expenses; and P6,500.00
nullity since the same consisted of only one paragraph and does not as funeral expenses, or the total amount of P59,497.00. The trial
contain the requisites of a decision. court's award of P50,000.00 by way of indemnity as a result of the
death of the victim is in accordance with the current case law 48 and
The order, dated October 26, 1998, of the trial court is an integral part therefore is sustained. In addition, the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
of the original decision rendered on March 12, 1998 for the purpose damages must likewise be awarded in favor of the heirs of the victim
of determining compliance with the constitutional requirement of Art. pursuant to recent rulings.49
VIII, §14 that "No decision shall be rendered by any Court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which WHEREFORE, the amended decision of the Regional Trial Court,
it is based." Branch 33, Iloilo City, finding accused-appellant Zaldy Mendoza guilty
of robbery with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
Rule 120, §2 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P59,497.00
as actual damages and P50,00.00 as moral damages in addition to
SEC. 2. Form and contents of judgment. — The judgment must be the amount of P50,000.00 awarded as indemnity by the trial court.
written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the Costs against accused-appellant.
judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a
statement of the facts proved and admitted by the accused and the
SO ORDERED.
law upon which the judgment is based.
If it is of conviction, the judgment shall state (a) the legal qualification SECOND DIVISION
of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused, and
the aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the commission G.R. No. 142932 May 29, 2002
thereof, if there be any; (b) the participation of the accused in the
commission of the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or
accessory after the facts; (c) the penalty imposed upon the accused; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
and (d) the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act to be vs.
recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there be any, JOEL GONZALES, JOSEPH BERNALDEZ, and ROMEO
unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate action has BERNALDEZ, accused,
been reserved or waived. JOEL GONZALES and ROMEO BERNALDEZ, accused-appellants
In case of acquittal, unless there is a clear showing that the act from MENDOZA, J.:
which the civil liability might arise did not exist, the judgment shall
make a finding on the civil liability of the accused in favor of the This is an appeal from the decision,1 dated February 10, 2000, of the
offended party. (Emphasis added) Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 6, Mati, Davao
Oriental, insofar as it finds accused-appellants Joel Gonzales and
A perusal of the March 12, 1998 decision of the trial court shows that Romeo Bernaldez guilty as principals of the complex crime of robbery
it conforms substantially with these requirements. The dispositive with homicide and sentences each of them to suffer the penalty
portion, however, is defective as it did not mention the law pursuant to ofreclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided by law,
which accused-appellant was convicted and the two indivisible and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the victim Nicanor
penalties of reclusion perpetua and death was imposed upon him. Suralta in the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
Hence, there was a need to amend the same, which the trial court did and P2,425.00, plus the costs of the proceedings.
upon motion for reconsideration of accused-appellant based on the
same ground. Accused-appellants Joel Gonzales and Romeo Bernaldez were
charged with Joseph Bernaldez with robbery with homicide under Art.
Third. Accused-appellant argues that the confession he made to PO3 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code in an information which alleged -
Daniel Tan at the St. Paul's Hospital that he and Marco Aguirre had
robbed Abatay is inadmissible in evidence because it was given That on or about July 5, 1992, in the Municipality of San Isidro,
without the assistance of counsel while he (accused-appellant) was in Province of Davao Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
custody. this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of
violence and intimidation, with intent to gain, in conspiracy with one
Indeed, the confession is inadmissible in evidence under Article III, another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
Section 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution, because it was given under steal and carry away "Seiko" diver's watch valued at P1,000.00, one
custodial investigation and was made without the assistance of "Sanyo" cassette valued at P600.00 and cash amounting
counsel.45 However, the defense failed to object to its presentation to P2,725.00, with a total value of FOUR THOUSAND THREE
during the trial with the result that the defense is deemed to have HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE (P4,325.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency,
waived objection to its admissibility. No error was, therefore, incurred belonging to Nicanor Suralta to the damage and prejudice of his heirs,
by the trial court in admitting evidence of the confession. represented by his widow, Carolita U. Suralta in the aforestated sum;
and on the occasion thereof, the said accused, armed with an
unlicensed handgun and a knife, with intent to kill, did then and there
Nor did the trial court err in sentencing accused-appellant to reclusion wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with said
perpetua.46 firearm one NICANOR SURALTA, thereby inflicting upon the latter
wounds which caused his death.1âwphi1.nêt
CONTRARY TO LAW.2 The incident was reported to the San Isidro Police on the same night.
Carolita Suralta and Arsenio Abonales gave descriptions of the
When arraigned on December 1, 1992, the three entered a plea of not holduppers and told the responding police investigators that they
would be able to recognize the suspects if they saw them again. 8
guilty, whereupon they were tried.3
On July 12, 1992, there was another holdup inside the ACF passenger
On June 4, 1992, the accused filed a Joint Petition with Leave of Court
for Reinvestigation, which the court granted. As a result of the bus compound in the neighboring municipality of Magdug, Governor
Generoso, Davao Oriental. The police team sent to investigate the
reinvestigation, a Motion to Dismiss with respect to accused Joseph
Bernaldez was filed. On September 9, 1993, the court issued an order incident was able to pick up suspects, 9 one of whom was accused-
stating - appellant Joel Gonzales. He was wearing a wristwatch (Exh. A) and
had a handgun (Exh. H). Other items, consisting of watches, a
cassette recorder (Exh. D), a chain saw, and spare parts, were
On record is a motion to dismiss dated September 7, 1993 filed by recovered from his house, some of which were claimed by passengers
OIC 1st Asst. Prov'l. Prosecutor Pableo B. Baldoza. Finding the of the ACF bus line.10
grounds stated therein to be well-taken and in order, said motion is
granted.
Police Inspector Arnold Malintad of Governor Generoso, head of the
team investigating the robbery of the ACF bus compound, informed
WHEREFORE, the case against accused Joseph Bernaldez only is Capt. Adane Sakkam, Police Chief of San Isidro, about the
hereby ordered dismissed. The Provincial Warden is hereby directed apprehension of accused-appellant Gonzales and the recovery of the
to release immediately from custody the person of Joseph Bernaldez, items from him. Accordingly, on July 14, 1992, Capt. Sakkam, Carolita
if there is no other case that will warrant his further confinement in jail. Suralta, and Arsenio Abonales proceeded to the Governor Generoso
Police Station. Carolita and Arsenio identified accused-appellants Joel
SO ORDERED.4 Gonzales and Romeo Bernaldez as the holduppers. Joel Gonzales
was identified as the man armed with a gun who wore a bonnet to
cover his face, while Romeo Bernaldez was identified as the knife-
Thereafter, trial proceeded against accused-appellants Joel Gonzales wielder who wore a handkerchief to cover the lower portion of his
and Romeo Bernaldez. face.11
The facts are as follows: Carolita volunteered that accused-appellant Bernaldez is in fact her
nephew. Carolita and Arsenio said that they were able to recognize
At about 9:30 o'clock in the evening of July 5, 1992, the spouses the suspects despite their disguises because they were only one to
Nicanor and Carolita Suralta had visitors at their house in Bagsac, two meters away from each other during the holdup, and the rooms of
Manikling, San Isidro, Davao Oriental. Nicanor was having drinks with the house were well-lighted.12 In addition, Carolita was able to identify
Arsenio Abonales, Bobong Lamanilao, and Nicasio Lamanilao when the Sanyo cassette recorder (Exh. D) as the one taken from their
two armed men, one carrying a gun and the other a knife, suddenly house because of the broken antennae and the name "Nick Suralta"
entered the house through the kitchen door. The one carrying a gun written inside the battery compartment. On the other hand, Arsenio
had a bonnet over his face, with only his eyes exposed, while the other likewise identified the Seiko diver's watch (Exh. A) as his. 13
one carrying a knife had the lower half of his face covered with a
handkerchief. The knife-wielder held Chona, the third child of the Accused-appellants put up the defense of denial and alibi.
Suralta spouses, and announced a holdup. All persons in the house
were ordered to go inside the bedroom, about two meters away from
the sala. There, the man with a gun demanded a gun and money from Accused-appellant Joel Gonzales testified that he was in Tandang
Nicanor. Nicanor answered that he had no gun, but asked his wife to Sora, Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental the whole day of July 5,
give money to the holduppers. Carolita gave P2,100.00, which was 1992 working in his mother-in-law's farm, piling coconut palm leaves
intended to be deposited in the bank, to the knife-wielder, who placed together with his brother-in-law. In the evening, he had supper in his
it in his pocket. Then the knife-wielder ransacked the cabinet and took house and slept there together with his family.14
the remaining amount of P325.00, which was intended for the school
expenses of the Suralta children. In addition, he took the family's On July 13, 1992, Gonzales was suffering from a fever. While he was
Sanyo cassette recorder and some clothes. The holduppers also sleeping, he was awakened by Policeman Danny Cabanilas,
divested Arsenio Abonales, one of the guests, of his Seiko diver's Inspector Arnold Malintad and Eddie Tano, who took him to the
wristwatch and then left.5 Governor Generoso police station in connection with a robbery in the
ACF bus compound. At the police station, he was investigated by
As the holduppers were leaving, two gunshots rang out. Carolita Inspector Malintad and thereafter put in jail. While inside the jail,
thought that the first one was a mere warning shot, but later Nicanor people came to see him. Malintad pointed at him and asked a woman
was heard moaning. Carolita became hysterical after seeing her companion if he was one of the persons who committed the robbery
husband lying in a pool of his own blood. Nicanor was immediately in San Isidro. The woman answered, "I do not know them." For this
brought to the Lupon Emergency Hospital where he was given first reason, both Malintad and the woman left. However, upon their return,
aid. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Tagum Regional Hospital the woman said that she recognized the men and pointed to him and
but he eventually died.6 The death certificate (Exh. B) states the cause accused-appellant Romeo Bernaldez as those who were involved in
of his death as - the robbery.15
Immediate Cause: CARDIO-RESPIRATORY ARREST On July 31, 1992, accused-appellant Gonzales was taken to Mati by
Policemen Ernesto Bahan and Alfredo Castro, but, before reaching
Mati, somewhere in Bañas, they alighted from the jeep and he was
Antecedent Cause: MULTIPLE [GUNSHOT WOUNDS] made to kneel. He was beaten up by Bahan and Castro with the use
PENETRATING ABDOMEN PERFORATING WITH MASSIVE of an armalite and hit on the chest and the back. He was then brought
CONTAMINATION, PERFORATING CECUM, APPENDECIAL to the Mati Cemetery and there forced to confess. Thereafter, he was
TRANSECTION MESENTERIC VISSEL, ILEUM, JEJUNUM & placed inside an open tomb for 12 minutes and then he was taken to
SIGMOID the Mati Municipal Jail. After three days, he was taken to Governor
Generoso. He denied participation in the crime and stated that the
Other significant conditions contributing to death: HYPOVOLEMIA. 7 cassette recorder and other items were not confiscated from him.16
For his part, accused-appellant Romeo Bernaldez claimed that at After trial, judgment was rendered by the trial court finding accused-
around 9:30 o'clock in the evening of July 5, 1992, he was sleeping in appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime
his house in Tibanban, Governor Generoso together with his father, of robbery with homicide. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
mother, and two sisters. On July 13, 1998, he went to the Municipal
Jail of Governor Generoso to answer accusations by the police that WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Joel Gonzales and Romeo
he was concealing a firearm. At the police station, he was investigated Bernaldez guilty beyond reasonable doubt as Principal[s] of the crime
by Inspector Malintad for the firearm he allegedly kept, which he of Robbery with Homicide and hereby sentences each of them to
denied. He was later placed in jail. 17 Inspector Malintad, however, suffer RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessory penalties
testified that Bernaldez was actually arrested in his house in provided by law, to indemnify jointly and severally, the Heirs of the
Tibanban.18 victim, Nicanor Suralta, the sum of P50,000.00, to indemnify also
jointly and severally said heirs the sum of P2,425.00, plus the costs of
Romeo Bernaldez further testified that on July 14, 1992, Carolita the proceedings.
Suralta, accompanied by Policemen Sakkam and Malintad, went to
the jail and made the prisoners stand up, after which they went to The cassette [recorder] (Exhibit "D") is ordered returned to the Suralta
Malintad's office. Then, the two returned to the jail cell after a few family, while the wristwatch (Exhibit "A") to Arsenio Abonales.
minutes and Carolita pointed to him as among those involved in the
robbery.19
SO ORDERED.24
Romeo Bernaldez also said that his residence was approximately 25
kilometers from Manikling, San Isidro, where the robbery with Counsel for accused-appellant Joel Gonzales assigns the following
homicide took place, and could be reached by several means of land errors allegedly committed by the trial court:
transportation.20
I. THAT THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DECIDING
Except for accused-appellants, no other witness was presented by the THAT THE ACCUSED WERE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY
defense. PROSECUTION WITNESSES;
Thereafter, SPO4 Ernesto Bahan was presented to rebut accused- II. THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION
appellant Joel Gonzales's testimony. According to Bahan, at around 5 DURING THE TRIAL ARE INADMISSIBLE IN LAW.25
o'clock in the morning of July 21, 1992, he left for Governor Generoso
on official mission together with SPO3 Castro, SPO1 Lindo, PO3 On the other hand, the Public Attorney's Office, on behalf of both
Jaljis, and PO3 Hassan, upon order of his superior to fetch Joel accused-appellants, assigns the following errors:
Gonzales, per letter-request of Assistant Provincial Director Supt.
Melchisedeck Barggio. Acting on said letter-request, Judge Rodolfo
Castro of Municipal Trial Court of Mati ordered Inspector Malintad, the I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING BOTH
Chief of Police of Governor Generoso, to turn over Joel Gonzales. The ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF
party left Sigaboy, Governor Generoso at past 11 o'clock in the THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE IDENTITIES OF THE
morning and arrived in Mati at around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of ASSAILANTS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
July 21, 1992. To support his statement, SPO4 Bahan read to the
court page 362 of the police blotter for July 21, 1992, 1350H, to wit: II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED BASED ON
SPO3 Bahan, SPO3 Castro, SPO1 Lindo, PO3 Jaljis, PO3 Azan CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.26
arrived [at the] Police Station from Governor Generoso and brought in
the person of Joel Gonzales regarding the request of Chief Inspector We find accused-appellants' contentions to be without merit.
Melchisedeck C Bargio PNP Davao Or Provincial Command, Mati Dvo
Or to Mun. Trial Court of Governor Generoso, Province of Davao Or
duly signed by [Judge] Rodolfo Castro to turn over the custody of After reviewing the records of this case, we find that the prosecution
accused to Mati Police Station for investigation, in relati[on] to CC No. evidence establishes the guilt of accused-appellants beyond
7183 for Robbery with Homicide which is now pending in the Mun. reasonable doubt. A conviction for robbery with homicide requires
Trial Court of Mati, same the Chief of Police of Governor Generoso proof of the following elements: (a) the taking of personal property with
granted to be brought at Mati Police Station provided that maximum violence or intimidation against persons or with force upon things; (b)
security must be implemented and to be returned said to Governor the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking be done
Generoso Police Station within three (3) days same said Joel with animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (d) on the occasion of the
Gonzales also involved in Robbery with Homicide in CC No. 7183 as robbery or by reason thereof, homicide in its generic sense is
pinpointed by two witnesses subject is hereby placed under police committed. The offense becomes the special complex crime of
custody as per verbal order of OIC SPO1 Fortuna to the Jailer guard robbery with homicide under Art. 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if the
"BJMP" SPO3 Cabillada.21 victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. Even the
Public Attorney's Office concedes that the prosecution was successful
in proving the commission of the crime, questioning only the
SPO4 Bahan denied having taken accused-appellant Joel Gonzales identification made by the prosecution witnesses of accused-
to the Mati Cemetery. He said that when they arrived in Mati, he appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.27
immediately turned over Joel Gonzales to the Chief of Police, who
then turned him over to the investigating section.22
First. Accused-appellants contend that the trial court erred in giving
credence to the identification made by the two prosecution witnesses,
He further testified that accused-appellant Joel Gonzales was taken Carolita Suralta and Arsenio Abonales. They argue that the manner
to Mati in connection with Criminal Case No. 7183. Although SPO4 by which accused-appellants were identified was suggestive and
Bahan admitted he had been administratively charged with showed partiality. They argue further that, most often, the bereaved
maltreating detention prisoners, he said the case was later dismissed families of victims are not concerned with the accuracy of identification
and he was exonerated.23 because they are overwhelmed by passion for vindication, regardless
of whether or not the suspect is the real culprit.
This contention is without merit. We find no reason for setting aside Moreover, in the absence of proof that a witness is moved by improper
the lower court's conclusion on the accuracy and correctness of the motive, it is presumed that he was not so moved and, therefore, his
witnesses' identification of the accused-appellants as the persons who testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. 36 That presumption has not
robbed the Suralta spouses and the couples' guest Arsenio Abonales been overcome in this case. Consequently, the identification of
and killed Nicanor Suralta. It is the most natural reaction of victims of accused-appellants as the killers of Nicanor Suralta stands. Nor is
criminal violence to strive to ascertain the appearance of their motive for the killing important when there is no doubt as to the identity
assailants and observe the manner in which the crime was committed. of the perpetrators of the crime.37 But here the motive is plain: the
Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a victim was killed to rob him of his possessions.
lasting impression on the victims' minds which cannot be easily erased
from their memory.28 There is no evidence to show that the Furthermore, alibi is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail
eyewitnesses were so paralyzed with fear that they mistook accused- over the positive identification of accused-appellants. The defense of
appellants for the men who robbed and killed the victims. On the denial and alibi, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is
contrary, fear for one's life may even cause the witness to be more
self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the
observant of his surroundings.29 Experience shows that precisely positive testimonies of credible witnesses.38
because of the unusual acts of bestiality committed before their eyes,
eyewitnesses, especially the victims to a crime, attain a high degree
of reliability in identifying criminals.30 The desire to see that justice is Second. Accused-appellant Gonzales contends that during the
done will not be served should the witness abandon his conscience interrogation and investigation, he and his co-appellant Romeo
and prudence and blame one who is innocent of the crime. 31 Bernaldez were not informed of their rights to remain silent and to
secure the services of counsel, in violation of §§2 and 12, Art. III of
the Constitution. Hence, their admission of the commission of the
Indeed, prosecution witnesses positively and categorically identified crime is inadmissible in evidence against them.
accused-appellants as the armed men who held them up on July 5,
1992 and killed the victim. There was no possibility of mistaken
identification because prosecution witnesses were able to observe This contention lacks merit.
their movements and their body built and height despite the fact that
accused-appellants covered their faces.32 As Carolita Suralta Inspector Arnold Malintad testified that on July 14, 1992, accused-
testified: appellant Joel Gonzales was picked up at around 8:00 a.m. near his
residence in Tandang Sora, Governor Generoso. Accused-appellant
COURT TO THE WITNESS: Gonzales had a handgun tucked in his waistline and was wearing a
wristwatch. According to Inspector Malintad, accused-appellant
Gonzales admitted participation in the crime upon interrogation and
Q You stated that one of the robbers was wearing a bonnet, is that voluntarily surrendered the stolen goods to him.
right?
ATTY. LADERA:
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Why is it that you can recognize his voice and his actions? Q In his residence?
A When they got inside, Your Honor. A In the vicinity of his residence.
.... Q Where?
Q How is it that you can recognize his voice and his movements A At the barangay road.
that he is the accused Joel Gonzales, considering that he was wearing
a bonnet and he is not even your neighbor? Q Was he sitting or standing?
A Because at the time he said, "silence", I recognized his voice, A He was standing.
Your Honor.33
Q He was not bringing anything?
Accused-appellants' counsels attempted to confuse prosecution
witnesses during the trial by using the word "recognize" to
simultaneously mean identification of face and knowledge of the A A handgun and a wristwatch.
name. But the witnesses were able to stand their ground. We agree
with private prosecutor that a mistake is likely when one equates Q When did you recover the cassette [recorder]?
knowing the person by his movements and by his voice with knowing
a person by his name. Although the names of accused-appellants
were supplied by the police, the witnesses nevertheless recognized A I told him to turn over the loot of the ACF.
accused-appellants when they visited them in the Governor Generoso
jail.34 What is important is not the ability of an eyewitness to give the Q You told the accused to turn over the loot[?]
true and correct names of the accused, but rather his ability to identify
the persons actually seen committing the offense. 35
A Yes.
.... ....
Q Where? Q So, this Romeo Bernaldez was not a suspect in the Robbery?
A He was apprehended with the gun and the wristwatch and I A He was picked up later.
brought him to the police station and interrogated him and after the
interrogation, he accepted the commission of the crime and he told Q Where did you pick him up?
me that he will voluntarily surrender the items in his house.
A At Tibanban.
....
.... On the other hand, Capt. Sakkam testified that when he was in the
Municipal Jail at the Police Station of Governor Generoso in order to
Q Did you have any search warrant? identify the suspects, he asked them who killed the victim and
accused-appellant Romeo Bernaldez answered that it was accused-
A I did not go inside the house. appellant Joel Gonzales.
Q You were armed? Q Were you able to talk with all the accused?
A Yes. A When I saw them, I asked one of them as to who killed the victim,
and the other one answered - I was not responsible in the killing - and
he said, "Joel Gonzales killed the victim".
Q You surrounded the house of Joel Gonzales?
Q Who was the one who told you that the one who shot the victim
A No, because it is only a matter of asking his wife to surrender was Joel Gonzales?
the items.39
A It was Romeo Bernaldez, the short one.43
To be sure, accused-appellants were already under custodial
investigation when they made their admissions to the police. At that
point, the investigation had ceased to be a general inquiry into an Such admission by accused-appellant Bernaldez may be taken as
evidence against his co-appellant Joel Gonzales. For the
unsolved crime and had began to focus on the guilt of a suspect and
for this reason the latter were taken into custody or otherwise deprived constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the
of freedom in a substantial way.40 Hence, the admissions made by
accused-appellants are inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Art. III, § authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused
2(1) and (3) of the Constitution. However, the defense failed to raise orally admitted having committed the crime.44
its objections to the admissibility of these statements immediately, as
required by Rule 132, §36, when Inspector Malintad was presented Accused-appellant Joel Gonzales also contends that Inspector
as a witness for the prosecution or when specific questions Malintad had no warrant when the latter conducted a search of his
concerning the confession were asked of him. Consequently, residence. He contends that the alleged items taken during the
accused-appellants are deemed to have waived their right to object to robbery in the ACF bus compound and the cassette recorder and
the admissibility of Inspector Malintad's testimony. 41 Indeed, it was wristwatch are inadmissible in evidence against him.
even the defense counsel who provided the opportunity for Inspector
Malintad to elaborate on the circumstances of accused-appellant This contention deserves no merit. As explained by Inspector
Gonzales' admission in the course of his cross-examination of the said
Malintad, accused-appellant Joel Gonzales voluntarily surrendered
witness. the stolen goods to him. When he went to the house of accused-
appellant Joel Gonzales, the watches, cassette recorder, chainsaw,
Inspector Malintad also claimed that accused-appellant Joel Gonzales and spare parts were given to him. What thus happened was a
told him that one of his companions was Romeo Bernaldez. He said: consented search, which constitutes a waiver of the constitutional
requirement for a search warrant. It has been held that the right to be
secure from an unreasonable search may be waived either expressly
ATTY. LOPEZ: (CROSS EXAMINATION)
or impliedly.45 And when the accused himself waives his right against
unreasonable search and seizure, as in this case, the exclusionary
For accused Romeo Bernaldez. rule (Art. III, §3(2)) in the Constitution does not apply.
Third. Accused-appellant Joel Gonzales denies that the stolen goods perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of
had been taken from him. Inspector Malintad testified that he P110,000.00 for death and burial expenses, and P100,000.00 as
recovered watches, a cassette recorder, a chainsaw, and spare parts moral damages, and to pay the costs (Rollo, p. 22).
from accused-appellant Joel Gonzales when he arrested the latter in
his house. There is no reason to doubt Inspector Malintad's claim that At around 9:00 o’clock in the morning of May 7, 1988, while he was at
the stolen items were indeed recovered from accused-appellant the Davao Medical Center where he was brought after his arrest.
Gonzales. These items were definitively identified by the owners as Enanoria executed an "ante-mortem" statement before P/Cpl. Cerilo
those taken from them. Between the testimonies of the police officers, S. Solana, Jr. in the presence of Mayor Duterte and Lt. Col. Calida.
who enjoy the presumption of regularity in their duties, and the bare Although he claimed that he would still survive inspite of his wound,
denials of accused-appellants, we are more inclined to believe the he admitted having been shot because he was involved in the
police officers. This is true especially considering that the police kidnapping of Mrs. Dakudao. He informed the police that one alias
officers have not been shown to have any motive to testify falsely Amil shot Mrs. Dakudao and that they were not able to get the
against accused-appellants. P50,000.00 ransom they had demanded (Original Record, p. 6).