PEOPLE VS.

LAGARTO

HENRY LAGARTO and ERNESTO CORDERO were found guilty beyond resonable doubt of raping and slaying
seven-year old ANGEL ALQUIZA. The RTC of Manila Branch 47 sentenced them to RECLUSION PERPERTUA
and DAMAGES.
(A Special Civil Action for Certitiorari was files by the OSG questioning the proprierty of the sentence,
hence SC ordered the RTC to correct the penalty prescribed by law in light of its findings of facts and
conclusions : DEATH PENALTY subject for automatic review)
RTC corrected, from RECLUSION PERPETUA to DEATH PENALTY

NATURE: AUTOMATIC REVIEW

FACTS:

 Abundio Lagunday, a pedicab driver, was accused of raping and killing 7-year olf Angel Alquiza.
Lagunday initially identified Lagarto and 2 other men as his cohorts.
 Hermenia Barlam, provided a major breakthrough in the case as she was allegedly present on
that fateful night. She positively identified Lagarto and Lagunday as 2 of the three perpetrators who
raped and killed Angel.
 When Lagunday was inside the dentention center, he identified Cordero as the mastermind.
 Ofelia Lagman, who, having washed laundry for the Corderos several times, allegedly
remembered seeing on top of their washing machine a round yellow tablecloth matching the one in
which Angel’s body was wrapped when her body was recovered.
 Prior to arraignment, however, the court was informed by the prosecution that Lagunday had
been shot and killed while trying to grab the gun of one of his police escorts on 12 August 1994.
 Hermenia Barlam testified that she saw CORDERO slash Angel’s face and genitals before raping
her, while LAGARTO stood by the door. Lagunday and LAGARTO both hit Angel’s head with a piece of
wood. When Angel was dead, they tied her feet, wrapped her in a round yellow tablecloth possibly
owned by CORDERO, placed her in a sack, then set adrift in the floodwater of Del Pan.
 The defense sought to disqualify Barlam on the basis of incompetence (Barlam is deaf like Julie
hahaha!) but the NCMH declared Barlam fit.
 The sworn statement of Barlam was taken by PO3 Ko with assistance of SPO2 Miranda. The
defense tried to derail Barlam by confronting her with her sworn statement where she described the
man who hit Angel with a piece of wood as a certain "Lando walang ipen," but during the cross
examination, she consistently specified the participation of the accussed Lagarto and Cordero.

ISSUE: Wether the oral testimony of the witness should prevail over the sworn statement.

HELD: YES.
The court held that Barlam’s sworn statement might not entirely jibe with her oral testimony, but the
Court have ruled that in case of conflict between the contents of a sworn statement and testimony in
open court, the latter generally prevails since ex parte affidavits are often incomplete and inaccurate
because by their nature, they are ordinarily prepared by a person other than the affiant.

Even on re–direct examination, Barlam was certain that it was CORDERO who slashed Angel’s vagina and
raped her. (Hiwa dito hiwa dito, anunta, anunta, hiwa kiki, tanda na hiwa pa kiki.")The one who
hit Angel with a thick piece of wood was LAGARTO, and Barlam identified him in dramatic fashion by
slapping and boxing him. When confronted with her sworn statement where she said that the man who
hit Angelwith a piece of wood was "Lando walang ipen," it was made clear by the prosecution that such
sworn statement was made in connection with an investigation conducted by PO3 Ko when Barlam had
not yet been fitted with a hearing aid. In fact, she did not and could not read such statement so it had to
be "read" to her by SPO2 Miranda without her hearing aid. Barlam never deviated in relating to the court
the complicity of Lagunday, CORDERO, and LAGARTO in the rape-slay of Angel. In the assailed decision,
the trial court even observed that from afar, LAGARTO looked as if his front teeth were missing.

SC affirmed the modified order of the RTC sentencing LARGARTO and CORDERO to DEATH PENALTY.
SANTOS VS SANDIGAN BAYAN

NATURE: Four separate petitions for review on certiorari in the Decision dated July 19, 1985 of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 5949 to 5951 which rendered a judgment finding accused Alfredo
Fajardo, Jr., Marcelo Desiderio y Silvestre, Jesus Estacio y Estrella and Rolando Santos y Ramirez, GUILTY as
co-principals in the three (3) separate complex crimes of Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Document.

FACTS:

 On April 15, 1982, the Tanodbayan filed with the Sandiganbayan three (3) informations for estafa
thru falsification of public documents against Felipe Salamanca, Mariano Bustamante, Basilio Tan,
Alfredo Fajardo, Jr., Jesus Estacio, Rolando San Pedro, Manuel Valentino, Rolando Santos, Marcelo
Desiderio, Jaime Tan and Emilio Reyes. The informations filed were similarly worded except for the
dates of commission of the crime charged, the number of the checks involved, and the amounts
allegedly misappropriated.
 Manuel Valentino, employed as Bookkeeper detailed at the Clearing Office, Central Bank of the
Philippines and accused Jesus Estacio y Estrella, employed as Janitor-Messenger of the Central Bank
of the Philippines, and as such are public employees, with abuse of confidence and taking advantage
of their official position, in order to implement a plan or scheme to defraud the Bank of the
Philippine Islands, Laoag City Branch, which plan or scheme was previously formulated and agreed
upon by all the herein accused immediately prior to (October 19, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5949,
November 20, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5950, and October 30, 1981 in Crim. Case No. 5951), accused
Manuel Valentino pursuant to said plan or scheme, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously and taking advantage of his official position and with intent to gain and to defraud, falsify
the Clearing Statement prepared by the Central Clearing office of the Bank of the Philippine Islands
and submitted to the Clearing Section of the Central Bank of the Philippines as well as the Manifest
prepared by the Central Bank Clearing Office in connection thereto by crossing out the entry in the
duplicate copies of the aforesaid Clearing Statement and Manifest. The total amoun is 9,000,000
php.
 Upon arraignment, accused Fajardo, Jr., Desiderio, Estacio, Valentino and Santos, assisted by their
respective counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Salamanca, Basilio Tan, Jaime Tan,
Reyes and Bustamante have remained at-large while San Pedro died. Upon agreement of the
prosecution and the defense, a joint trial of the three cases was ordered conducted.
 Estacio was utilized as a state witness but filed for the reinclusion of his name in the information,
thus, Valentino became the state witness.
 On February 12, 1982, the Chief of the Anti-Bank Fraud Unit of the Central Bank, Atty. Agapito
Fajardo, the bank’s Chief Security Officer, and the BPI Vice-President and Comptroller brought
Manuel Valentino to the NBI. The following day, Agent Ranin took Valentino’s statement. Valentino
waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel. He signed the waiver on the first page of his
statement. On March 22, 1982, Agent Ranin took Valentino’s supplementary sworn statement. The
same NBI agent took Jesus Estacio’s statement on February 17, 1982 and supplementary statement
on March 22, 1982. Like Valentino, Estacio waived his right to counsel. In their respective
statements, Valentino and Estacio admitted their participation in the commission of the crime,
narrated how they carried out the plan to defraud the banks, and identified those who participated
in the criminal acts.
 However, Valentino’s oral testimony differ with his sworn statement with regard to the participation
of Estacio in one act annd Fajardo in three crimes
 Valentino stated in his sworn statement that on October 19, 1981, when he noticed that the BPI
representative had placed the demand envelope containing the BPI-Laoag checks for clearing at the
Laoag counter behind him, petitioner Estacio, who was the syndicate’s messenger, immediately came
with a push cart. Petitioner Estacio placed the demand envelope in the pushcart and proceeded to
the comfort room in the fourth floor where Valentino followed him to alter the documents to suit
the syndicate’s purposes.
 On the other hand, when he testified, Valentino asserted that he did not see petitioner Estacio at the
meeting when they hatched the first operation on October 16, 1981. When the alterations were
made on October 19, 1981, Valentino claimed that petitioner Estacio was not with them for it was he
himself who brought the bundle of checks to the fourth floor comfort room where Villasanta took
the checks and altered the bank statements.
 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 defraud a bank. However, on the witness stand, Valentino swore that petitioner Fajardo had “no
participation in these cases” or in the three operations subjects of these cases.
 Sandigan Bayan held Fajardo, Jr., Desiderio, Estacio, and Santos, guilty as principals in 3 complex
crimes of Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Documents

ISSUE: When there is a discrepancy between the oral testimony and the sworn statement of the
witness, which shall prevail.
HELD: ORAL TESTIMONY

These discrepancies in Valentino’s sworn statements and testimony are material ones as far as petitioners
Estacio and Fajardo are concerned. On this issue, the Court has consistently held that:

“x x x discrepancies between the statement of the affiant in his affidavit and those made by him on the
witness stand do not necessarily discredit him since ex-parte affidavits are generally incomplete.
Affidavits are generally subordinate in importance to open court declarations because they are oftentimes
not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has transpired
in his affidavit and those made by him. This is so because affidavits are frequently prepared by the
administering officer and cast in the latter’s language or the latter’s understanding of what the affiant had
said, while the affiant frequently simply signs the affidavit after the same has been read to him.”

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner Rolando Santos y Ramirez in G.R. Nos. 71523-25,
petitioner Alfredo R. Fajardo, Jr. in G.R. No. 72384-86 and petitioner Jesus E. Estacio in G.R. No. 72420-22
with respect to Criminal Case No. 5949 are hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged for lack of proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan as far as petitioner Marcelo S. Desiderio in
G. R. No. 72387-89 and petitioner Jesus E. Estacio, with respect to Criminal Case Nos. 5950 and 5951 are
concerned, is herby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that, for each crime, they shall suffer the
indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional
maximum to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium.