Constitutional Law Cases Miranda Rights Etc
Constitutional Law Cases Miranda Rights Etc
Arizona
Digest
Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona
Facts
The Supreme Courts decision in Miranda v.
Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial
interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was
questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting
attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside
world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full
and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the
interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning
elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed
statements that were admitted at trial.
Issues
Whether statements obtained from an individual who is
subjected to custodial police interrogation are admissible
against him in a criminal trial and whether procedures
which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege
under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be
compelled to incriminate himself are necessary.
Supreme Court holding
The Court held that there can be no doubt that the Fifth
Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court
proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in
which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant
way from being compelled to incriminate themselves. As
such, the prosecution may not use statements, whether
exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial
interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the
use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the
privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial
interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way.
The Court further held that without proper safeguards the
process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or
accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures
which work to undermine the individuals will to resist and
to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so
freely. Therefore, a defendant must be warned prior to
any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that
anything he says can be used against him in a court of law,
that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and
that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for
him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme
Court of Arizona in Miranda, reversed the judgment of the
New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the
judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
in Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme
Court of California in Stewart.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.ht
ml
Factual Antecedents
Ho Wai Pang vs. People
HO WAI PANG,
Petitioner,
- versus -
G.R. No.On
176229
September 6, 1991, at around 11:30 in the evening,
United Arab Emirates Airlines Flight No. 068 from Hongkong
arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
(NAIA). Among the passengers were 13 Hongkong nationals
who came to the Philippines as tourists. At the arrival area,
the group leader Wong Kwok Wah (Sonny Wong) presented
Present:
a Baggage Declaration Form to Customs Examiner Gilda L.
Cinco (Cinco), who was then manning Lane 8 of the Express
Lane. Cinco examined the baggages of each of the 13
CORONA,
passengers as their turn came up. From the first traveling
bag, she saw few personal belongings such as used
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,
clothing,
shoes and chocolate boxes which she
pressed. When the second bag was examined, she noticed
BERSAMIN,
chocolate boxes which were almost of the same size as
those in the first bag. Becoming suspicious, she took out
DEL
four of the chocolate boxes and opened one of
them.
VILLARAMA,
JR.,Instead of chocolates, what she saw inside was white
crystalline substance contained in a white transparent
plastic. Cinco thus immediately called the attention of her
immediate superiors Duty Collector Alalo and Customs
Promulgated:
Appraiser Nora Sancho who advised her to call the Narcotics
Command (NARCOM) and the police. Thereupon, she guided
October the
19, tourists
2011 to the Intensive Counting Unit (ICU) while
bringing with her the four chocolate boxes earlier
discovered.
x------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
At the ICU, Cinco called the tourists one after the other
using the passenger manifest and further examined their
bags. The bag of Law Ka Wang was first found to contain
three chocolate boxes. Next was petitioners bag which
contains nothing except for personal effects. Cinco,
however, recalled that two of the chocolate boxes earlier
discovered at the express lane belong to him. Wu Hing
Sums bag followed and same yielded three chocolate boxes
while the baggages of Ho Kin San, Chan Chit Yue and Tin
San Mao each contained two or three similar chocolate
boxes. All in all, 18 chocolate boxes were recovered from
the baggages of the six accused.
SO ORDERED.[19]
CONTRARY TO LAW.[16]
After pleading not guilty to the crime charged, [17] all the
accused testified almost identically, invoking denial as their
defense. They claimed that they have no knowledge about
the transportation of illegal substance (shabu) taken from
their traveling bags which were provided by the travel
agency.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES
AGAINST HIM.
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE FAILED TO
ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY.
IV
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PRESENT
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO OVERTURN THE
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE ACCORDED TO PETITIONER
BY THE CONSTITUTION.[30]
OUR RULING
Section 14. x x x
SO ORDERED.
Penalty
G. R. No. 1
Petitioner,
Present:
CARPIO, J., C
- versus -
BRION,
PEREZ,
SERENO, an
REYES, JJ.
Promulgated
Respondent.
February 29
And, since reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life
imprisonment, and considering the rule that criminal
statutes with a favorable effect to the accused, have, as to
him, a retroactive effect,[51] the penalty imposed by the trial
court upon petitioner is proper. Consequently, the Court
sustains the penalty of imprisonment, which is reclusion
perpetua, as well as the amount of fine imposed by the trial
court upon petitioner, the same being more favorable to
him.
DECISION
SERENO, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision in
CA-G.R. CR No. 32516 dated 18 February 2011[2]and
Resolution dated 8 July 2011.
At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his
citation ticket, petitioner could not be said to have been
under arrest. There was no intention on the part of PO3
Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take him
into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period
during which petitioner was at the police station may be
characterized merely as waiting time. In fact, as found by
the trial court, PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only
reason they went to the police sub-station was that
petitioner had been flagged down almost in front of that
place. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that
they were waiting there. There was no intention to take
petitioner into custody.
In Berkemer v. McCarty,[13] the United States (U.S.) Supreme
Court discussed at length whether the roadside questioning
of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop
should be considered custodial interrogation. The Court held
that, such questioning does not fall under custodial
interrogation, nor can it be considered a formal arrest, by
virtue of the nature of the questioning, the expectations of
the motorist and the officer, and the length of time the
procedure is conducted. It ruled as follows:
It must be acknowledged at the outset that a traffic stop
significantly curtails the freedom of action of the driver and
the passengers, if any, of the detained vehicle. Under the
law of most States, it is a crime either to ignore a
policemans signal to stop ones car or, once having stopped,
to drive away without permission. x x x
However, we decline to accord talismanic power to the
phrase in the Miranda opinion emphasized by respondent.
Fidelity to the doctrine announced in Miranda requires that
it be enforced strictly, but only in those types of situations
in which the concerns that powered the decision are
implicated. Thus, we must decide whether a traffic stop
exerts upon a detained person pressures that sufficiently
impair his free exercise of his privilege against selfincrimination to require that he be warned of his
constitutional rights.
Two features of an ordinary traffic stop mitigate the danger
that a person questioned will be induced to speak where he
would not otherwise do so freely, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.
S., at 467. First, detention of a motorist pursuant to a
traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief. The
vast majority of roadside detentions last only a few minutes.
A motorists expectations, when he sees a policemans light
flashing behind him, are that he will be obliged to spend a
short period of time answering questions and waiting while
the officer checks his license and registration, that he may
then be given a citation, but that in the end he most likely
will be allowed to continue on his way. In this respect,
questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite
different from stationhouse interrogation, which frequently
is prolonged, and in which the detainee often is aware that
questioning will continue until he provides his interrogators
the answers they seek. See id., at 451.
Second, circumstances associated with the typical
traffic stop are not such that the motorist feels
completely at the mercy of the police. To be sure, the
aura of authority surrounding an armed, uniformed officer
and the knowledge that the officer has some discretion in
deciding whether to issue a citation, in combination, exert
some pressure on the detainee to respond to questions. But
other aspects of the situation substantially offset these
forces. Perhaps most importantly, the typical traffic stop is
public, at least to some degree. x x x
In both of these respects, the usual traffic stop is more
analogous to a so-called Terry stop, see Terry v. Ohio,
392 U. S. 1 (1968), than to a formal arrest. x x x The
comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of
this sort explains the absence of any suggestion in our
opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of
Miranda. The similarly noncoercive aspect of ordinary traffic
stops prompts us to hold that persons temporarily detained
pursuant to such stops are not in custody for the purposes
of Miranda.
xxxxxxxxx
We are confident that the state of affairs projected by
respondent will not come to pass. It is settled that the
safeguards prescribed by Miranda become applicable as
soon as a suspects freedom of action is curtailed to a
degree associated with formal arrest. California v. Beheler,
463 U. S. 1121, 1125 (1983) (per curiam). If a motorist who
has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is
subjected to treatment that renders him in custody for
practical purposes, he will be entitled to the full panoply of
10
- versus -
Respondents.
11
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
12
The basic issues advanced before the Court are: (1) whether
the respondent Senate committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in approving
Committee Resolution No. 312; and (2) whether it should be
nullified, having proposed no piece of legislation and having
been hastily approved by the respondent Senate.
SO ORDERED.
13
14
15
x x x x x x"
"Q So, you did not personally notice what had transpired or
happened after you stepped down from the Nissan pick-up,
that is correct?
A I saw Joey alight(ed) from the vehicle carrying the bag and
ran away, sir, and I also saw somebody shoot a gun?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that was the time(,) you heard this gunfire? A Yes, sir.
Q So, you are presuming that he was the one who fired the
gun because he was holding the gun, am I correct?
A Yes, sir."
xxxx
A Yes, sir.
Q If he is in the courtroom, will you be able to recognize
him?
A Yes, sir.
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please stand up and tap his shoulder to identify
him?
Interpreter:
The witness tap the shoulder of a person sitting on the first
bench of the courtroom wearing yellow t-shirt and black
pants who when ask identify himself as Arturo Lara (sic).
Q And when as you said Joey got the bag. Alighted from the
vehicle and ran away with it, what did the accused do? (sic)
A He shot Joey while running around our vehicle, sir.
Q Around how many shots according to your recollection
were fired?
A There were several shots, more or less nine (9) shots, sir.
16
17
18
19
A: She took the match box from her dusters pocket which
contains several pieces of plastic sachet.
That the sale actually took place and that several sachets
were recovered from the accused-appellants were clear
from the following testimony of PO1 Bernardo:
Q: What happened next?
A: We reached the venue and while we were walking, two
(2) female persons were talking and according to the CI, one
of them is @ Zeny and the other one is @ Myrna.
Q: After taking the match box from the pocket of her duster,
what happened next?
A: She took 1 piece and handed it to me.
Q: By the way, how much was the money you gave?
A: 2 pieces of P100 bill.
COURT:
Q: Who handed to you the plastic sachets?
A: @ Zeny.20
xxxx
20
21
22
III
THE LOWER COURTS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
THEACCUSED-APPELLANTS WHEN THEIR GUILT WAS NOT
PROVENBEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.5
In sum, the issue is whether the accused are guilty of
murder.
Edwin and Alfredo maintain their innocence and point to
Jesus as the sole perpetrator of the crime. They insist that
they were at the scene of the crime only because they
wanted to know what the commotion was all about. They
claim that, in fact, Edwin called for a tricycle so Wilfredo
could be brought to a hospital. To discredit the eyewitness
testimony of Rachel, they presented Aniceta who testified
that she and Rachel were out on that day selling doormats
and only returned at 6:00 p.m. Thus, Rachel could not have
witnessed the murder of Wilfredo.
Both lower courts, however, found the testimony of Rachel
credible:
This Court finds the testimony of Rachel clear and
convincing. The testimony flows from a person who was
present in the place where the killing occurred. They are
replete with details sufficient to shift the burden of evidence
to appellants. We have no reason to doubt Rachels
credibility. Her candid account of the incident, standing
alone, clearly established the components of the crime of
murder. Appellants defense of denial, not sufficiently
proven, cannot overcome the conclusions drawn from said
evidence. We find no cogent reason to deviate from the
findings and conclusions of the trial court. Rachels
testimony was delivered in a firm, candid, and
straightforward manner. There is no showing that Rachel
wavered from the basic facts of her testimony, even when
she was subjected to a rigorous examination.
Rachel was only ten (10) years old when she witnessed the
murder of the victim. She testified in open court two (2)
years later. Thus, she cannot be expected to give an errorfree narration of the events that happened two years earlier.
The alleged inconsistencies between her sworn statement
and testimony referred to by appellants do not affect her
credibility. What is important is that in all her narrations she
consistently and clearly identified appellants as the
perpetrators of the crime. Inconsistencies between the
sworn statement and the testimony in court do not militate
against witness credibility since sworn statements are
generally considered inferior to the testimony in open
court.6
We find no error in the lower courts disposal of the issue.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is that the trial court's
evaluation of the testimony of a witness is accorded the
highest respect because of its direct opportunity to observe
the witnesses on the stand and to determine if they are
telling the truth or not.7 This opportunity enables the trial
judge to detect better that thin line between fact and
prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of
the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere
reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court.
Thus, the trial judge's evaluation of the competence and
credibility of a witness will not be disturbed on review,
unless it is clear from the records that his judgment is
erroneous.8
We have scrutinized the testimony of lone eyewitness,
Rachel. Throughout her testimony, in her direct, cross and
23
PROS. LAGROSA:
Q: Do you know the full name of this Freddie?
Your Honor please, may we invoke the right of the child the
provisions (sic) under the child witness wherein we can ask
leading questions and in Tagalog.
COURT:
Anyway, the questions can be interpreted.
PROS. LAGROSA:
Only the leading questions, your Honor.
Q: You said that your father came from sleeping in your
house, did you know what time of the day your father went
to sleep?
A: I do not know because I do not know how to read time.
xxxx
A: Yes, maam.
Q: How?
A: "Pare. Pare."
Q: And when your father was called, what did your father
do?
A: My father followed Freddie at the back of the house of
Kuya Edwin.
Q: At the time your father followed Freddie at the back of
the house of your Kuya Edwin, where were you?
A: I was under the house of Kuya Unyo, maam.
Q: Now, you mentioned that your father followed Freddie at
the back of the house of Kuya Edwin, who is this Kuya
Edwin?
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to a detention prisoner who identified
himself as EDWIN IBAEZ.PROS. LAGROSA:
Q: You said that at that time you were under the house of
Kuya Unyo, what is the full name of this Kuya Unyo, if you
know?
Q: And this house of Kuya Unyo, is that near or far from your
house?
xxxx
A: Just near our house, maam.
Q: After eating rice, will you tell us what happened, if you
still remember?
A: My father was called by his compadre, maam.
Q: Can you point a place here where you are now sitted (sic)
up to this courtroom to show the distance between your
house and the house of Kuya Unyo?
24
PROS. LAGROSA
The witness pointed up to the wall.
ATTY. MALLILLIN:
A: Yes, maam.
PROS. LAGROSA:
25
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
The death penalty having been imposed by the then Circuit
Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal in Criminal Case No. CCC-VII1329-Rizal for Murder, the case is now before us for automatic
review.
There were originally six (6) accused: Tobias Ribadajo, Romeo
Corpuz, Federico Basas, Rosendo Anor, Rodolfo Torres and
Loreto Rivera, all inmates of the New Bilibid Prison at
Muntinlupa, Rizal One of the however, Loreto Rivera, died
during the pendency of the case.
We find the facts of the case, as narrated in the Decision of the
trial Court, home by the evidence thus:
From the evidence on record, it is clear that on November 18,
1971, at about 7:56 o'clock in the evening, prisoners from
brigade 3-C, Muntinlupa, Rizal succeeded in opening the door of
their dormitory by means of a false key (tin can) and attacked
the inmates from dormitory 3-a, while the latter were then getting
their food rations from the delivery truck wherein the victim was
among them. Records further show that while the victim
26
I
The Trial Court erred in admitting as evidence, and in giving
weight to the supposed extrajudicial confession of the accused.
II
The Trial Court erred in finding the presence of the aggravating
circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and
recidivism.
III
The Trial Court erred in convicting the accused and in imposing
the death penalty.
Appellants submit that their extrajudicial confessions were
extracted by force; that they had been exposed for more or less
one day to the heat of the sun and the wetness and coldness of
the rain, and had been subsequently beaten up and placed in a
"bartolina "
On their face, however, the individual confessions do not show
any suspicious circumstance Casting doubt on their integrity. On
the contrary, they are replete with details only appellants could
have supplied. In those statements, they called their co-accused
by their nicknames, not knowing their true names, like "Lilat" for
Basas, "Manok" for Anor and "Bukid" for Torres. The
investigators could not have concocted that on November 18,
1971, at around 1:00 P.M., appellants had planned to kill any
prisoner from Brigade 3-a during the distribution of the "rancho";
that they are members of the Sigue-Sigue Commando Gang and
their leader is accused Ribadajo; that, as planned, on the same
date at around 8:00 P.M., Ribadajo using a false key tin can
opened the door of their dormitory and an the accused rushed
towards the place where the inmates from Brigade 3-a were
waiting for their food; that they stabbed the victim with their
"matalas"; and their motive was to avenge the throwing of
human waste on them by inmates of Brigade 3-a.
What is more, during the presentation of evidence by the
defense, they were all admitting their guilt but for the lesser
offense of Homicide, as manifested by their de officio counsel.
Atty. Galvan
Your Honor, inasmuch as I have also conferred with all the
accused and that having appointed me as counsel de oficio
before when Fiscal Guerrero was here and after a long
conference with the accused, and if the Fiscal will not object if all
the accused will change their former plea of not guilty to that of
guilty, as that was their proposal and they were very insistent,
that if the Court will allow them to withdraw their former plea of
not guilty and substitute with a plea of guilty to a lesser of
homicide, your Honor. 8
27
4) Treasury Warrants
PANGANIBAN, J.:p
A person under investigation for the commission of an offense is
constitutionally guaranteed certain rights. One of the most
cherished of these is the right "to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his choice". The 1987
Constitution, unlike its predecessors, expressly covenants that
such guarantee "cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel". In the present case, petitioner claims that
such proscription against an uncounselled waiver of the right to
counsel is applicable to him retroactively, even though his
custodial investigation took place in 1983 long before the
effectivity of the new Constitution. He also alleges that his arrest
was illegal, that his extrajudicial confession was extracted
through torture, and that the prosecution's evidence was
insufficient to convict him. Finally, though not raised by
petitioner, the question of what crime - brigandage or robbery
was committed is likewise motu proprio addressed by the
Court in this Decision.
Challenged in the instant amended petition is the Decision 1 of
respondent Sandiganbayan 2 in Criminal Case No. 8496
promulgated on June 19, 1987 convicting petitioner of
brigandage, and the Resolution 3 promulgated on July 27, 1987
denying his motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
Petitioner Jose D. Filoteo, Jr. was a police investigator of the
Western Police District in Metro Manila, an old hand at dealing
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Ninth
The respondent court erred and gravely abused its discretion as
well as exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that "accused Filoteo's
denials and alibi cannot be entertained for being quite weak and
implausible". The truth of the matter being that they should have
been sustained since petitioner was not identified by direct
victims-eyewitnesses as among those who participated in or
were present at the hijack and none of the checks and treasury
warrants were found in his possession or retrieved from him.
Tenth
The respondent court erred and gravely abused its discretion as
well as exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the participation
of petitioner in the criminal conspiracy has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt by the evidence of record and that said
evidence "not only confirms the conspiracy between [him and
the other accused] as easily discernible from their conduct
before, during and after the commission of the offense, but also
their participation and/or indispensable cooperation".
Eleventh
The respondent Court erred and gravely abused its discretion as
well as exceeded its jurisdiction in cavalierly rejecting, through
the use of pejorative words, and without stating the legal basis
of such rejection, the various vital factual points raised by
petitioner, in gross violation of the express mandate of the 1987
Constitution.
The Court believes that the above "errors" may be condensed
into four:
(1) Are the written statements, particularly the extra-judicial
confession executed by the accused without the presence of his
lawyer, admissible in evidence against him?
(2) Were said statements obtained through torture, duress,
maltreatment and intimidation and therefore illegal and
inadmissible?
(3) Was petitioner's warrantless arrest valid and proper?
(4) Is the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to find the
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
The Court's Ruling
Preliminary Issue: Rule 4 or Rule 65?
Before ruling on the foregoing issues, it is necessary to dwell on
the procedural aspects of the case. Petitioner, a "segurista",
opted to file an (amended) "alternative petition"
for certiorari under Rule 65 and for review oncertiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. We however hold that the instant
petition must be considered as one for review on certiorari under
Rule 45. In Jariol, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 60 this Court clearly
ruled:
Presidential Decree No. 1486, as amended by P.D. No. 1606,
which created the Sandiganbayan, specified that decisions and
final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be subject to review
on certiorariby this Court in accordance with Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. And Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides, in Section 2, that only questions of law may be raised
in the Petition for Review and these must be distinctly set forth.
Thus, in principle, findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are not
to be reviewed by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari.
There are, of course, certain exceptions to this general principle.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
bank. He acceded in opening the bank account at CitibankGreenhills because Salamanca assured him that the account
would be opened in connection with a loan application with the
Citibank of New York. He denied that Salamancas group tasked
him and Rolando Santos with opening accounts in Metro Manila
banks, particularly with Citibank-Greenhills. He denied knowing
Santos and Estacio personally although he admitted that
Estacio, with Manuel Valentino, came to his office to deliver a
tailored suit for a certain Atty. Martin. He further denied knowing
Jaime Tan but admitted knowing Alfredo Fajardo, who was his
client when he was still connected with BPI.[30]
Alfredo Fajardo opted to waive his right to testify and said that
he has no documentary evidence to present before the
Sandiganbayan.[31] Another accused, Emilio Reyes, voluntarily
surrendered to the Sandiganbayan and was detained at the
Security and Sheriff Services office.[32] He filed a motion for
reinvestigation on June 16, 1987 but it was resolved against
him.[33]He pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.
[34]
However, since July 17, 1989, Reyes failed to appear for
trial. On February 16, 1990, the Sandiganbayan acquitted him in
these cases on account of the prosecutions failure to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[35] Because the cases against
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 within the jurisdiction of the court.[36]
Rolando San Pedro was arrested on March 22, 1988 at the
vicinity of the Sandiganbayan.[37] He entered a plea of not guilty
to the charges against him.[38] On June 11, 1989, he died.
[39]
Thus, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the cases against
him. In the Resolution of February 23, 1990, which was
promulgated on March 12, 1990, the Sandiganbayan resolved
that the cases against Felipe Salamanca, Basilio Tan, Jaime
Tan and Mariano Bustamante be archived.[40]
As stated earlier, the Sandiganbayan convicted Estacio,
Desiderio, Santos, and Fajardo of the complex crimes of estafa
thru falsification of public documents. Estacio, Desiderio and
Fajardo filed separate motions for reconsideration,[41] while
Santos filed with the Supreme Court a motion for extension of
time to file a petition for certiorari.[42] On September 26, 1985, the
Sandiganbayan denied those motions for reconsideration.
[43]
Hence, the instant petitions for review on certiorari that they
individually filed with this Court, but which were consolidated in
the Resolution of December 10, 1985. [44]
In its consolidated comment on the petitions, the Office of the
Solicitor 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.[45] The OSG asserts that in such
a petition, this Courts jurisdiction is confined to questions of law
and hence, this Court is not supposed to reweigh evidence but
only to determine its substantiality. On this matter, in Filoteo, Jr.
vs. Sandiganbayan,[46] this Court, after citing Jariol, Jr. vs.
Sandiganbayan,[47] said:
As amended by Republic Act No. 7975, Section 7 of P.D. No.
1606 expressly provides that `(d)ecisions and final orders of the
Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by
petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in
accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, in
exceptional cases, this Court has taken cognizance of questions
of fact in order to resolve legal issues, as where there was
palpable error or grave misapprehension of facts by the lower
court. Criminal cases elevated by convicted public officials from
the Sandiganbayan deserve the same thorough treatment by
this Court as criminal cases involving ordinary citizens simply
44
silent. You have the right not to give any statement if you do not
wish to. Anything you say may be used as evidence against you
in any proceeding. You are entitled to the assistance of counsel
of your own choice. If you cannot afford a lawyer and you want
one, a lawyer will be appointed for you before we ask you any
question. Now, after having been so informed, are you still
willing to give a free and voluntary statement and swear to tell
the truth and nothing but the truth in this investigation?
ANSWER: Yes, sir.
02. Q: Are you willing to sign a Waiver of your rights?
A: Yes, sir.
WAIVER
I have been advised of my right to remain silent; that anything
that I say may be used as evidence against me and that I have
the right to a lawyer to be present with me while I am being
questioned.
I understand these rights and I am willing to make a statement
and answer questions. I do not want the assistance of counsel
and I 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 used against me.
(Sgd. with thumbmark)
MANUEL VALENTINO y SOCAN
13 February 1982, NBI, Manila[53]
It is settled that once the prosecution has shown that there was
compliance with the constitutional requirement on preinterrogation 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 Valentino and petitioner Estacio were subjected to
threats and intimidation at the NBI to obtain their
confessions. Other than their bare assertions, Valentino and
petitioner Estacio miserably failed to present any convincing
evidence to prove the NBIs use of force or intimidation on their
persons. Before signing their statements, they never protested
against any form of intimidation, much more, of maltreatment
that they could have relayed to relatives visiting them at the
NBI. In People vs. Pia,[55] the Court said:
x x x It has been held that where the defendants did not present
evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on their persons;
where they failed to complain to the officers who administered
the oaths; where they did not institute any criminal or
administrative action against their alleged intimidators for
maltreatment; where there appeared to be no marks of violence
on their bodies and where they did not have themselves
examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim, all
these should be considered as factors indicating voluntariness of
confessions.
That the statements were intelligently executed is borne out by
the fact that both confessants have reached the tertiary level of
education: Valentino holds the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Commerce[56] while petitioner Estacio reached the first year of
college education in banking and finance.[57] Possessed with
sufficient education and not proven to be mentally unfit, they
could have protested the forced extraction of culpability from
themselves if indeed that was true.
45
46
47
48
49
50
foot was GENELYNs and that she was already dead. Upon
Joses request, JUANITO and Ernesto informed Joses brother
about the incident, and they proceeded to the house of Ceniza.
Thereafter, they, along with the members of the Bantay Bayan,
went back to the creek to retrieve the body of GENELYN.21
51
52
53
54
she would not be run over by motor vehicles; he also took the
panty and the jeans to the shed; he noticed that a tricycle
stopped for a while and focused its headlight on them and
proceeded on its way; when he laid down the woman in the
shed, he noticed that she was bleeding and he was stained with
her blood; after seeing the blood, he got scared and left; he
walked towards the Sorsogon town proper and after about fortyfive minutes, two policem[e]n apprehended him and brought him
to the police station for investigation; while being investigated,
he was not apprised of his constitutional rights and made to sign
the police blotter; he was detained as he was a suspect for the
injuries of the victim; after 7 or 8 hours, he was released; and he
executed a Sworn Statement and affirmed its contents.27
55
56
57
contusion hematoma on the upper left arm and left elbow could
as well be similarly caused by a blunt instrument or a punch or a
strong grip. As to the abrasion on the right knee, the same could
have been caused by a blunt instrument or a fist blow. The
multiple confluent abrasion[s] on the right foot could have been
caused by a fall on a rough object. The abrasions on the right
elbow could have been caused by a blunt instrument or by a fall
or by a fist blow. The same is true with the contusion hematoma
found on the victims right elbow.44
Petitioners mere denial cannot outweigh the circumstantial
evidence clearly establishing his culpability in the crime charged.
It is well-settled that the positive declarations of a prosecution
witness prevail over the bare denials of an accused. The
evidence for the prosecution was found by both the RTC and the
CA to be sufficient and credible, while petitioners defense of
denial was weak, self-serving, speculative, and uncorroborated.
Petitioners silence as to the matters that occurred during the
time he was alone with Leticia is deafening. An accused can
only be exonerated if the prosecution fails to meet the quantum
of proof required to overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence. We find that the prosecution has met this quantum of
proof in this case.45
All told, we find no reversible error in the assailed CA decision
which would warrant the modification much less the reversal
thereof.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the Court of Appeals
Decision dated October 17, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. 22126,
affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 52, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, in Criminal Case No.
3243, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 157399 November 17, 2005
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
JOSE TING LAN UY, JR. (Acquitted), ERNESTO GAMUS y
SOTELO, JAIME OCHOA, all of the National Power
Corporation, and RAUL GUTIERREZ alias Raul Nicolas,
Alias George Aonuevo, alias Mara Aonuevo (At large),
Accused. JAIME OCHOA, Appellant.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
For allegedly diverting and collecting funds of the National
Power Corporation (NPC) intended for the purchase of US
Dollars from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), Jose
Ting Lan Uy, Jr., Ernesto Gamus,1 Jaime Ochoa and Raul
Gutierrez were indicted before the Sandiganbayan for the
complex crime of Malversation through Falsification of
Commercial Documents defined and penalized under Articles
217 and 171 (8), in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code, in an amended Information,2 docketed as Criminal Case
No. 19558, which alleges
That sometime in July 1990, or for sometime prior or subsequent
thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, accused Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr., a public
accountable officer, being the Treasurer of National Power
Corporation (NAPOCOR), Ernesto Gamus and Jaime Ochoa,
both public officers being the Manager of the Loan Management
and Foreign Exchange Division (LOMAFED) and Foreign Trader
Analyst, respectively, also of NAPOCOR, and accused Raul
58
59
contends that his sworn statement was taken without the benefit
of counsel, in violation of his constitutional right under Section
12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Paragraph 1, Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
states that
Section 12. (1). Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall 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 the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
The "investigation" under the above-quoted provision refers to a
"custodial" investigation where a suspect has already been
taken into police custody15 and the investigating officers begin to
ask questions to elicit information and confessions or
admissions from the suspect.16 More specifically
Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law
enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
manner. And, the rule begins to operate at once as soon as the
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who
has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then
direct interrogatory question which tend to elicit incriminating
statements.17
Succinctly stated, custodial investigation refers to the critical pretrial stage when the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
person as a suspect.18 Such a situation contemplated has been
more precisely described thus where
After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins
a confrontation arises which at best may be termed unequal.
The detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquarters
and there questioned and cross-examined not only by one but
as many investigators as may be necessary to break down his
morale. He finds himself in a strange and unfamiliar surrounding,
and every person he meets he considers hostile to him. The
investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their work. They
employ all the methods and means that experience and study
has taught them to extract the truth, or what may pass for it, out
of the detainee. Most detainees are unlettered and are not
aware of their constitutional rights. And even if they were, the
intimidating and coercive presence of the officers of the law in
such an atmosphere overwhelms them into silence....19
60
61
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 159734
62
63
the daily cash collection report did not reflect any remittance of
payments from the transactions covered by the said invoices.
64
65
66
A : Yes, sir.
A : Yes, sir.
Q : And this invoicer now will refer the invoice for this particular
item for payment to the cashier of the company, is it not?
Q : And it is the cashier who will receive the payment from this
customer?
A : Yes, sir.
Q : And in fact, the customer or the cashier will receive the exact
amount of payment as reflected in the invoice that was prepared
by the invoicer, is it not?
A : Yes, sir.
Q : From that point up to the payment, Filipina Orellana has
no more hand in that particular transaction, her function is
only to entertain and refer the customer for sales purposes,
that is correct?
A : Yes, sir.44 (Emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied)
Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees of Western
does not suffice to create the relation of confidence and intimacy
that the law requires.45 The element of grave abuse of
confidence requires that there be a relation of independence,
guardianship or vigilance between the petitioners and
Western.46 Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive
payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping, preparation
and issuance of invoices. They merely assisted customers in
making a purchase and in demonstrating the merchandise to
prospective buyers.47 While they had access to the merchandise,
they had no access to the cashiers booth or to the cash
payments subject of the offense.
Lily conceded that petitioners were merely tasked to "assist in
the sales from day to day"48 while Camilo admitted that the
cashier is the custodian of the cash sales invoices and that no
other person can handle or access them.49 The limited and
peculiar function of petitioners as salespersons explains the lack
of that fiduciary relationship and level of confidence reposed on
them by Western, which the law on Qualified Theft requires to be
proven to have been gravely abused. Mere breach of trust is not
enough. Where the relationship did not involve strict confidence,
whose violation did not involve grave abuse thereof, the offense
committed is only simple theft.50 Petitioners should therefore be
convicted of simple theft, instead of Qualified Theft.
On Criminal Case No. Q-96-67827 respecting
petitioners collective guilt in taking away merchandise by
making it appear that certain items were purchased with the use
of stolen cash sales invoices:
It is settled that conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime
and decide to commit it. To effectively serve as a basis for
conviction, conspiracy must be proved as convincingly as the
criminal act. Direct proof is not absolutely required for the
purpose.
A review of the inference drawn from petitioners acts before,
during, and after the commission of the crime to indubitably
67
The total imposable penalty for simple theft should not exceed
20 years, however.
MENDOZA, J.:
This case is here on appeal from the decision of the Court of
Appeals, dated June 18, 1991, which affirmed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City finding petitioner Alejandro
B. de la Torre guilty of qualified theft and sentencing him to an
indeterminate prison term of 6 years, 1 month, and 11 days, as
minimum, to 8 years and 1 day, as maximum, and ordering him
to indemnify the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), the
offended party, in the amount of P41,786.000.
The facts are as follows:
68
69
confessions, or any information from the accused. A police lineup is not considered part of any custodial inquest because it is
conducted before that stage is reached. 6
In the instant case, petitioner de la Torre, together with the other
crewmembers of MERALCO truck number 522, was merely
included in a line-up of eight (8) persons from which he was
picked out by Garcia as the leader of the group which had
removed the electric meters from the CAPASSCO premises.
Until then, the police investigation did not focus on petitioner.
Indeed, no questions were put to him. Rather, the questions
were directed to witnesses of the complainant. There is,
therefore, no basis for petitioner's allegations that his rights as a
suspect in a custodial interrogation were violated.
Second. Petitioner contends that the trial court admitted in
evidence the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses when the
fact is that before they testified, their testimonies were not
formally offered as required by Rule 132, 35 of the Rules of
Court. Indeed, as held in People v. Java: 7
. . . Rule 132, Section 34 of the Revised Rules of Court requires
that for evidence to be considered, it should be formally offered
and the purpose specified. . . .
Under the new procedure as spelled out in Section 35 of the
said rule which became effective on July 1, 1989, the offer of the
testimony of a witness must be made at the time the witness is
called to testify. The previous practice was to offer the
testimonial evidence at the end of the trial after all the witnesses
had testified. With the innovation, the court is put on notice
whether the witness to be presented is a material witness and
should be heard, or a witness who would be testifying on
irrelevant matters or on facts already testified to by other
witnesses and should, therefore, be stopped from testifying
further.
. . . Sec. 36 of the aforementioned rule requires that an objection
in the course of the oral examination of a witness should be
made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably
apparent. Since no objection to the admissibility of evidence was
made in the court below, an objection raised for the first time on
appeal will not be considered. 8
Petitioner raised this point, however, only in the Court of
Appeals. He thus waived his objection by his failure to raise it at
the close of the presentation of the prosecution evidence in the
trial court. As already noted, the trial in this case took place from
December 28, 1989 to February 1, 1990. That was after the
adoption of the new rule which required that the offer be made at
the beginning of the testimony of a witness. Petitioner should
have invoked this rule and objected to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, if not before each of their testimonies,
then at least at the time their testimonies were formally offered at
the close of the presentation of the prosecution evidence. Not
having done so, he must be deemed to have waived his
objection based on this ground. Consequently, the trial court
committed no error in considering the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses in its decision despite the fact that such
testimonies had not been offered before they were given.
Q: Could you please tell us what is this unusual incident that you
observed?
70
A: Yes, sir, a MERALCO truck was parked and the basket was
being raised to the post.
Q: And could you please tell us what happened after the basket
was raised to the post, Mr. Witness?
A: While the basket was being raised to the post with two (2)
men on board, another one was giving instructions from below.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After the adjustment of the basket, what happened, Mr.
Witness?
A: Then, they opened the box that was attached to the wall of
CAPASSCO while the other one was tampering the meters and
handing it to his companion who was with him in the basket.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Mr. Witness, could you recognize the two (2) men aboard the
basket if you have the opportunity of seeing them again?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How about the other man who was giving instructions on the
ground? Can you recognize that person if you have the
opportunity of seeing him again?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Will you look around inside the courtroom if he is here?
A: No, sir.
Q: I will show you photographs of several persons. Can you
identify the person whom you saw giving instructions on April 11,
1989?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
(Witness pointed to a photograph of Alejandro de la Torre which
appears on the bailbond filed by the accused.)
EN BANC
Q: You stated that it was Body No. 522. Why do you say that it is
522, Mr. Witness?
April 5, 2000
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
EDUARDO PAVILLARE y VARONA and SOTERO SANTOS y
CRUZ,
accused,
EDUARDO
PAVILLARE
y
VARONA, accused-appellant.
PER CURIAM:
Before us is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 219 in Criminal Case no. Q9665214 entitled People vs. Eduardo Pavillare y Varona, a
prosecution for kidnapping for ransom.
71
namin ito". Lakhvir told the kidnappers he does not have that
much money and after some haggling the kidnappers settled for
twenty five thousand pesos.3 The kidnappers also gave
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 reached the designated place three men
approached him and one of them, whom he identified in court as
the accused-appellant herein, 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 him to follow them
and they proceeded to a mini-grocery nearby. A few minutes
later one of the kidnappers came with his cousin. Lakhvir
handed the money to the accused-appellant who counted it
before leaving with his companions.4
SPO1 Eduardo Frias testified for the prosecution that he was the
police officer who took the sworn statement of the private
complainant on February 14, 1996 pertaining to the February 12,
1996 incident.5 When the accused-appellant was apprehended
in connection with another case involving the kidnapping of
another Indian national the private complainant herein again
showed up at the police station on March 11, 1996 and identified
the accused-appellant as one of his kidnappers. Another sworn
statement was executed by the private complainant after he
identified the accused-appellant at the police station.6
For the defense, the accused-appellant testified that on the
whole day of February 12, 1996, the alleged date of the incident,
he was at the job site in Novaliches where he had contracted to
build the house of a client and that he could not have been
anywhere near Roces Avenue 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, 1996. 8
On July 15, 1997 the trial court rendered judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding EDUARDO PAVILLARE guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of having committed the crime of kidnapping
for the purpose of ransom, the Court hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of Death; to indemnify the private complainant
in the amount of P20,000.00, as actual damages, with interest at
6% percent per annum from February 12, 1996; to pay him the
amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages; and to pay the costs.
The Branch clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately
transmit the entire records of the case to the Supreme Court for
automatic review.9
This case is before us on automatic review.
The accused-appellant Pavillare prays for an acquittal based on
reasonable doubt. On March 10, 1996 the accused-appellant
was apprehended in connection with the kidnapping of another
Indian national. While under police custody the appellant was
required to stand in a police line-up where he was supposedly
identified by the private complainant as one of his abductors.
Five separate charges arising from five separate incidents of
kidnapping, all of whom were Indian nationals, were filed against
him. He claims that he was identified by the private complainant
as one of his abductors because the Indians needed a
"scapegoat" for the other four cases of kidnapping of Indian
nationals then pending.
The appellant argues that the private complainant could not
identify his captors by himself which is shown by the
inconsistencies in his testimony and by the improper suggestion
made by the investigating police officer pointing to the accusedappellant as one of the malefactors. In court the private
complainant stated that he described his abductors to the police
investigator while the latter typed his sworn statement. He said
that two of the abductors look like policemen, the third one was
"tall, a little bit aged" and the other one was the driver. Their
female companion was pretty. Pavillare points out however, that
72
73
ATTY. CRUZ:
INTERPRETER:
Again, witness is referring to accused earlier identified as
Pavillare.
A: None, sir.
ATTY. CRUZ:
Q: Tell us how were you abducted by the accused Pavillare and
his companions in that particular date in the afternoon of
February 12, 1996?
A: While I was returning to my motorcycle, they blocked my way
and asked for my name, sir.
xxx
xxx
ATTY. CRUZ:
Q: Where did the two of you go?
A: Inside the mini-grocery, sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness referring to accused earlier identified as Eduardo
Pavillare.
xxx
A: Because I was near him and I saw him talking to Lakhvir, sir.
xxx
ATTY. CRUZ:
xxx
Q: Why do you know that it was the accused Pavillare who was
talking to Lakhvir over the telephone?
xxx
ATTY. CRUZ:
Q: If you know, Mr. Singh, where were you taken by the accused
after they abducted you at the corner of Roces Avenue and
Scout Reyes St., Quezon City?
A: It was a deserted street somewhere in St. Joseph College,
Quezon City, sir.
Q: After you reached that deserted place, what happened next, if
any?
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.
xxx
xxx
xxx
ATTY. CRUZ:
INTERPRETER:
Q: Could you tell us what did your abductors tell to Lakhvir while
they are talking over the telephone?
A: They told him that they should pay the amount of money for
my release, sir.
Q: Incidentally, can you tell us who among your abductors who
actually talked to Lakvir over the telephone?
74
ATTY. MALLABO:
Q: You said that there were 5 persons who abducted you?
A: They left immediately and they left me too, and we went to get
my motorcycle, sir. 15
On cross-examination the complainant stood firm on his
identification of the accused-appellant as one of the abductors.
He testified:
ATTY. MALLABO:
ATTY. MALLABO:
Q: Who was that person?
ATTY. CRUZ:
Misleading, he said 3 persons, your Honor.
COURT:
Reform.
ATTY. MALLABO:
ATTY. MALLABO:
Q: You were blocked by 3 persons, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who was the person immediately in front of you when you
were blocked?
A: He was the one, sir.
INTERPRETER:
Any redirect?
ATTY. CRUZ:
Few redirect, your Honor.
ATTY. CRUZ:
WITNESS:
A: They were behind me, sir.
ATTY. MALLABO:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: These 4 people were shown to you, were they not?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. CRUZ:
Q: But when you were asked to identify who among them were
involved in your kidnapping you only pointed one of them?
A: Yes, sir.
INTERPRETER:
A: No, sir.
xxx
xxx
xxx
75
A: Yes, sir. 16
Moreover, the complainant's cousin Lakhvir Singh who met the
kidnappers to pay the ransom money corroborated the
complainant's identification of the accused-appellant Pavillare.
Lakhvir Singh testified as follows:
WITNESS:
ATTY. CRUZ:
ATTY. CRUZ:
Q: How were you able to know that they are the kidnappers?
INTERPRETER:
Q: Tell us, were you able to recognize the faces of these three
persons who approached you and demanded to you whether
you brought the money?
ATTY. CRUZ:
Q: After Pavillare demanded that you turn-over to him the
money, what did you do next, if any?
A: Yes, sir.
A: I gave him the money, sir.
Q: If you see anyone inside the courtroom, please point to him.
Q: When you said "him", to whom are you referring to?
INTERPRETER:
A: To him, sir.
Witness pointing at a man sitting inside the courtroom and when
asked to identify himself, he gave his name as EDUARDO
PAVILLARE.
INTERPRETER:
ATTY. CRUZ:
ATTY. CRUZ:
A: I told them "I have the money with me but I would not hand
the money to you until I see Sukhjinder Singh."
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 money?
A: One of them told us to follow him and they would bring
Sukhjinder Singh, sir.
Q: From that place, where did you go if you can still recall?
A: We proceeded to a small grocery store near Land Bank, sir.
Q: After going inside this grocery store near Land Bank, tell us
what happened next, if any?
A: After a few minutes, one of the kidnappers arrived together
with Sukhjinder Singh, sir.
ATTY. CRUZ:
Q: After you saw Sukhjinder Singh together with one of his
kidnappers, what did you do next, if any?
If you recall, how many money all in all did you give to Eduardo
Pavillare that afternoon of February 12, 1996?
A: P20,000.00, sir. 17
xxx
xxx
xxx
We find that the trial court did not err in giving due weight and
credence to the identification in open court of the accusedappellant by the private complainant and his cousin as one of
the kidnappers. Both witnesses had ample opportunity to
observe the kidnappers and to remember their faces. The
complainant had close contact with the kidnappers when he was
abducted and beaten up, and later when the kidnappers haggled
on the amount of the ransom money. His cousin met Pavillare
face to face and actually dealt with him when he paid the
ransom money. The two-hour period that the complainant was in
close contact with his abductors was sufficient for him to have a
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 malefactors as he remembers him as the one who
blocked his way, beat him up, haggled with the complainant's
cousin and received the ransom money. As an indicium of
candor the private complainant admitted that he does not
recognize the co-accused, Sotero Santos for which reason the
case was dismissed against him. It bears repeating that the
finding of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses is given
76
MENDOZA, J.:
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ALBERT CASIMIRO Y SERILLO, accused-appellant.
77
booking sheet and arrest report, affidavits, and a request for the
laboratory examination of the confiscated marijuana. 9 They also
prepared a "receipt of property seized," dated August 18, 1999,
(Exh. L) which states:
18 August 1999
"A"
WITNESSES:
(signed)
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 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 yung sinasabi ko sa iyong buyer. Bahala na
kayong mag-usap. Aalis na ako." (Bert, here is the buyer I told
you about. Ill leave you two alone to talk.) Rose then left the two
men alone.7
PO2 Supa said he had P1,500.00 with him and asked for the
marijuana. Accused-appellant gave the poseur-buyer a paper
bag, which contained an object wrapped in plastic and
newspaper. After determining from its appearance and smell that
the object inside was marijuana, PO2 Supa gave a signal for the
back-up team to make an arrest by combing his hair. He testified
that he no longer gave the marked money to accused-appellant
because he placed the latter under arrest, reciting to him his
rights, while the back-up team ran from across the street.8
After arresting accused-appellant, the policemen took him to the
14th Narcom Office, where PO2 Supa, SPO2 Madlon, and PO3
Piggangay wrote their initials on the brick of marijuana before
giving it to the evidence custodian. The policemen prepared a
REMARKS
1.
PO3
PNP
(signed)
Juan
A.
(signed)
2.
PO2
PNP
CER
K.
Ma
(signed)
Dorotheo
T.
Supa SPO2
Marquez
PNP (Seizing Officer)
78
Hospital. He then went home and stayed there during the day,
as he usually did, except when he needed to fetch the boy from
school. At around 5:00 or 5:30 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
On August 17, 1999, accused-appellant said he received a call
from Rose, an acquaintance who worked as a guest relations
officer at a club on Magsaysay Avenue. Rose offered to help him
find a better job and asked that they meet at Anthonys Wine and
Grocery. In the past, 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 talked to him about
a job opening in a club in Dagupan City, PO3 Piggangay
grabbed his hands from behind even as he shouted "I-handcuff,
i-handcuff!" (Handcuff him, handcuff him!) Accused-appellant
was then taken to the Regional Narcotics Office by the
policemen, accompanied by Rose.17
At the Narcotics Office, PO3 Piggangay confronted accusedappellant about the marijuana allegedly seized from him.
Accused-appellant said he denied having carried the bag of
marijuana which he had seen 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 not admit
owning the marijuana. After failing to make him admit ownership
of the marijuana, PO3 Piggangay offered to release accusedappellant if he gave them money. When accused-appellant
replied that he had no money, PO3 Piggangay said, "If you have
no money, then we will work on your papers so that you will go
to Muntinlupa." The policemen then took accused-appellant to a
hospital 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
On October 17, 2000, the trial court rendered a decision finding
accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged. The dispositive
portion of its decision states:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Albert Casimiro
guilty beyond doubt of Violation of Section 4 of Article II of
Republic Act 6425 as amended by Sections 13 and 17 of RA
7659 (Sale or delivery of 904.6 grams of marijuana brick) as
charged in the Information and 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.
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
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State to be destroyed
immediately in accordance with law.
The accused Albert Casimiro, being a detention prisoner, is
entitled to be credited in the service of his sentence 4/5 of his
preventive imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.20
Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that the
evidence against him is insufficient to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.21
A:
Sir, we informed him of his constitutional rights by
saying, "You are under arrest for violation of 6425. You have the
right to remain 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." And we brought him to the office, sir.
Q:
A:
Sir, we investigated him and the suspect identified
himself as Albert Casimiro.27
The warning was incomplete. It did not include a statement that,
if accused-appellant could not afford counsel, one would be
assigned to him. The warning was perfunctory, made without
any effort to find out if he understood it. It was merely ceremonial
and inadequate in transmitting meaningful information to the
79
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
BENJAMIN SAYABOC y SEGUBA, PATRICIO ESCORPISO y
VALDEZ, MARLON BUENVIAJE y PINEDA, and MIGUEL
BUENVIAJE y FLORES, appellants.
DECISION
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
Before us is the decision of 9 November 2000 of the Regional
Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27, in
Criminal Case No. 2912 finding appellant Benjamin Sayaboc
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death; and (2) finding
appellant Marlon Buenviaje guilty as principal and appellants
Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso guilty as accomplices in
the crime of homicide.
On 17 April 1995, an information was filed charging Benjamin
Sayaboc, Patricio Escorpiso, Marlon Buenviaje, and Miguel
Buenviaje with murder, the accusatory portion of which reads as
follows:
That on or about December 2, 1994, in the Municipality of
Solano, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping each
other, and who were then armed with a firearm, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with evident
premeditation, by means of treachery and with intent to kill,
attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of
Joseph Galam y Antonio, by then and there suddenly firing at
the said Joseph Galam y Antonio who has not given any
provocation, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which
were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter, to
the damage and prejudice of his heirs.1
At their arraignment, appellants Benjamin Sayaboc, Patricio
Escorpiso, and Miguel Buenviaje pleaded not guilty to the
charge of murder. Marlon Buenviaje, who was arrested only on
10 July 1997, also pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment.
The evidence for the prosecution discloses as follows:
At about 9:00 a.m. of 13 August 1994, while prosecution witness
Abel Ramos was at a vulcanizing shop in Barangay Quezon,
Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, he heard one Tessie Pawid screaming
from across the road: "Enough, enough, enough!" In front of her
were Marlon Buenviaje and Joseph Galam, who were engaged
in a fisticuff. By the time Pawid was able to subdue the two men
80
81
IV
Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission
of an offense shall 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 the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
82
83
The trial court, therefore, correctly applied Section 15, Rule 119
of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure on demurrer to
evidence when it disallowed the abovementioned appellants to
present evidence on their behalf. They cannot now claim that
they were denied their right to be heard by themselves and
counsel.
84
PEOPLE
OF
THE
vs.
AMADO BAGNATE, appellant.
PHILIPPINES, appellee,
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Before the Court is an automatic review of the Joint Judgment
rendered by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 15) of Tabaco,
Albay, finding appellant Amado Bagnate guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Murder in Criminal Case No. T-2874 and of
Rape with Homicide in Criminal Case No. T-2875, sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of Death in each case.
The Information against appellant in Criminal Case No. T-2874
reads as follows:
That on or about the 7th day of August, 1997 at 1:00 oclock in
the morning, more or less, at Barangay Buhian, Municipality of
Tabaco, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent
to kill and while armed with a bolo, with nocturnity, treachery,
superior strength, and with disregard of the respect due to the
victim on account of age and sex, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and hack with said
bolo one AURIA BROA,1 a 70-year old blind woman, thereby
inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds, which caused her death,
to the damage and prejudice of her legal heirs.
ACTS CONTARY TO LAW.2
The Information in Criminal Case No. T-2875 reads:
That on or about the 7th day of August, 1997 at 1:00 oclock in
the morning, more or less, at Barangay Buhian, Municipality of
Tabaco, Province of Albay, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
design and by means of violence, force and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with ROSALIE RAYALA, against her will and
consent, and on the occasion thereof, with intent to kill, taking
advantage of superior strength and while armed with a bolo, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack
and hack aforenamed Rosalie Rayala, thereby inflicting upon the
85
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 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 which caused her to fall on the ground
and I pulled Rosalie Rayala and have carnal knowledge of her
while she is still alive, while Carlito 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
grandparent Aurea Bronia shouted although she was blind and
thinks that my grandparent Aurea Bronia heard what I am doing I
hacked her on her neck and when she fall I pulled her away from
the house towards the grassy portion of the yard wherein Carlito
Begil and Roberto Angeles followed me wherein I was unable to
determine who from the two had carnal knowledge of my
grandparent because I already left them and I proceeded to the
main road to Tabaco, Albay.
state
your
name
and
other
personal
09. Q- How are you related with the victims namely Rosalie
Rayala and Aurea Bronia?
A- Now no more sir, but I will just relate other details if the need
arises.
11. Q- Are you willing to sign this statement of yours?
A- Yes sir.10
After appellants confession was typed and signed, Atty.
Brotamonte 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
The next day, August 8, 1997, appellant was brought before
Judge Arsenio Base, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court of Tabaco,
Albay. Judge Base requested the presence of Atty. Brotamonte
86
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES OF
MURDER AND RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.15
87
88
Hacked wound back of the neck about four (4) inches in length
affecting skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and the cervical
bone.
Hacked wound, neck anteriorly affecting larynx about 2 inches in
length.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Hemorrhage severe secondary to hacked
wound, neck.32
While the autopsy conducted on Rosalie revealed the following:
Stabbed wound neck, posteriorly about 1 inches in length, 2
inches depth reaching the cervical bone.
Hacked wound left shoulder about 1 inches length superficial
slanting direction.
Hacked wound - right neck about 4 inches length affecting
skin subcutaneous muscle & Blood vessels, right earlobe cut.
Hacked wound below the chin about 3 inches length affecting
skin and subcutaneous tissue.
Hacked wound, left neck about 5 inches in length affecting skin
subcutaneous tissue, muscle, Blood vessels and the cervical
bone.
Hacked wound, left middle ear auricle about 1 inch in length, left
occipital region about 1 inch in length.
Multiple linear abrasion both scapular region.
Contusion floor of the vaginal wall.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Hemorrhage severe secondary to multiple
hacked wound, neck.33
The foregoing findings coincide with appellants extrajudicial
confession. As he stated therein, he hacked both victims on the
neck with a bolo and he dragged Aurea towards the grassy
portion of the yard. Appellant also admitted that he raped
89
90
CONCEPCION, JR., J:
1. The prisoner was arrested for killing the victim oil the occasion
of a robbery. He had been detained and interrogated almost
continuously for five days, to no avail. He consistently
maintained his innocence. There was no evidence to link him to
the crime. Obviously, something drastic had to be done. A
confession was absolutely necessary. So the investigating
officers began to maul him and to torture him physically. Still the
prisoner insisted on his innocence. His will had to be broken. A
confession must be obtained. So they continued to maltreat and
beat him. 'They covered his face with a rag and pushed his face
into a toilet bowl full of human waste. The prisoner could not
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 admitted what the investigating officers wanted
him to admit and he signed the confession they prepared. Later,
against his will, he posed 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 Germany. But no it did not. It happened in the
Philippines. In this case before Us.
4. This Court in a long line of decisions over the years, the latest
being the case of People vs. Cabrera, 1 has consistently and
strongly condemned the practice of maltreating prisoners to
extort confessions from them as a grave and unforgivable
violation of human rights. But the practice persists. Fortunately,
such instances constitute the exception rather than the general
rule.
5. Before Us for mandatory review is the death sentence
imposed upon the accused Francisco Galit by the Circuit
Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, in Crim. Case No. CCC-VII-2589
of said court.
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 house located at Barrio Geronimo, Montalban,
Rizal, as a result of seven (7) wounds inflicted upon different
parts of her body by a blunt instrument. 2 More than two weeks
thereafter, police authorities of Montalban picked up the herein
accused, Francisco Galit, an ordinary construction worker (pion)
living in Marikina, Rizal, on suspicion of the murder. On the
following day, however, September 8, 1977, the case was
referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further
investigation in view of the alleged limited facilities of the
Montalban police station. Accordingly, the herein accused was
brought to the NBI where he was investigated by a team headed
91
portion of the wall of the house; that it was Juling Dulay who first
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 dawn of August 23, 1977 when the three were able
to gain entrance into the house of the victim; as the three could
not find anything valuable inside the first room that they entered,
Juling Dulay destroyed 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 valuables; that Juling
Dulay, who was then holding the bolo, began hacking the victim,
who was then sleeping, and accused Galit heard a moaning
sound from the victim; that after the victim was killed, the three
accused began searching the room for valuables; that they
helped each other in opening the iron cabinet inside the room of
the victim, where they found some money; that when the three
accused left the room of the victim, they brought with them some
papers and pictures which they threw outside; that after killing
and robbing the victim, the three accused went out of the
premises of the house, using the same way by which they
gained entrance, which was through the back portion of the wall;
that the three accused walked towards the river bank where they
divided the loot that they got from the room of the victim; that
their respective shares amount to P70.00 for each of them; and
that after receiving their shares of the loot, the three accused left
and went home.
When witness Florentino Valentino was in his room, which was
adjoining that of accused Francisco Galit, he overheard accused
Galit and his wife quarreling about the intention of accused Galit
to leave their residence immediately; that he further stated that
he overheard accused Galit saying that he and his other two
companions robbed and killed Natividad Fernando.
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 guilty as charged and sentencing him to suffer the
death penalty; to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of
P110,000.00, and to pay the costs. Hence, the present recourse.
92
December 8, 2000
ROLANDO
SANTOS
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN
and
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
RAMIREZ, petitioner,
PEOPLE
OF
THE
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 72420-22
December 8, 2000
JESUS
E.
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.
ESTACIO, petitioner,
x-----------------------x
I. TANONG: Ipinagbibigay-alam ko sa inyo ang inyong mga karapatan sa ilalim
ng Saligang-Batas
ng Pilipinas
na8,
kung
G.R. No.
72384-86
December
2000
inyong nanaisin ay maaaring hindi kayo magbigay ng isang salaysay, na hindi rin kayo maaaring pilitin o saktan at
pangakuan upang magbigay ng naturang salaysay, na anuman ang inyong sasabihin sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay
ALFREDO
R. dito sa FAJARDO,
JR., petitioner,
maaaring laban sa inyo sa anumang usapin na maaaring ilahad sa anumang
hukuman o tribunal
Pilipinas, na sa
pagsisiyasat na ito ay maaaring katulungin mo ang isang manananggol atvs.
kung sakaling hindi mo kayang bayaran ang
SANDIGANBAYAN
and
PEOPLE
OF
THE
isang manananggol ay maaaring bigyan ka ng isa ng NBI. Ngayon at alam
mo na ang mga ito nakahanda
ka bang
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
magbigay ng isang kusang-loob na salaysay sa pagtatanong na ito?
x-----------------------x
SAGOT: Opo.
MARCELO
S.
vs.
PEOPLE
OF
THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.
13. The alleged confession and the pictures of the supposed reenactment are inadmissible as evidence because they were
obtained in a manner contrary to law.
14. Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the
circumstances surrounding the taking of any confession,
especially where the prisoner claims having been maltreated
into giving one. Where there is any doubt as to its voluntariness,
the same must be rejected in toto.
15. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Minister of
Justice for whatever action he may deem proper to take against
the investigating officers.
16. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it
is hereby, SET ASIDE, and another one entered ACQUITTING
the accused Francisco Galit of the crime charged. Let him be
December 8, 2000
DESIDERIO, petitioner,
PHILIPPINES
and
DECISION
BUENA, J.:
Challenged in these four separate petitions for review
on certiorari is the Decision dated July 19, 1985 1 of the
Sandiganbayan disposing of Criminal Case Nos. 5949 to 5951
as follows:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused
Alfredo Fajardo, Jr. alias Boy Fajardo, Marcelo Desiderio y
Silvestre, Jesus Estacio y Estrella and Rolando Santos y
Ramirez alias Mickey Mouse, GUILTY as co-principals in the
three (3) separate complex crimes of Estafa Thru Falsification of
Public Documents and hereby sentences them as follows:
"1. In Criminal Case No. 5949, there being no modifying
circumstance in attendance, each of said accused to suffer the
indeterminate penalty ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY ofprision correccional as the
minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P5,000.00 each, to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the Bank of the Philippine
Islands and/or the Central Bank of the Philippines in the amount
of P1 million representing the amount defrauded, and to pay
their proportionate costs of said action;
"2. In Criminal Case No. 5950, there being no modifying
circumstance in attendance, sentences each of said accused to
suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS,
93
94
Estacio who then brought the same to the comfort room at the
fourth floor. Valentino followed him there and took the two BPI
checks amounting toP3,000,000.00, and altered the figures in
the BPI Clearing Statement. Valentino thereafter brought said
envelopes to the clearing house, and prepared the Central Bank
Manifest, likewise altering the figures in the original to tally with
the figures in the altered clearing statement.
At the last operation on November 20, 1981, the group followed
the same procedure Valentino asked Estacio to give him the
demand envelope and the former then went to the comfort room.
Valentino took 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 clearing statement and those in the
Central Bank Manifest so that these would conform with each
other.14
As a matter of procedure, the demand envelopes containing the
checks intended for BPI-Laoag, the altered Central Bank
Manifests, and the clearing statements were forwarded to the
Regional Clearing Center. The pilfered checks deposited in the
account of Magna Management Consultant were not included in
those envelopes. Because BPI-Laoag did not receive the checks
with a total value 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 BPI-Laoag, and since the
reglementary period for making such protest or notice of
dishonor had elapsed, Citibank-Greenhills considered the
checks as good and funded.
Hence, on different dates covering the period from October 26 to
December 6, 1981, Citibank-Greenhills allowed withdrawals in
the aggregate amount of P9,000,000.00 from the account of
Magna Management Consultant. Withdrawals were made
through checks endorsed by Rolando San Pedro and encashed
by Jaime R. Tan.15 The proceeds of the anomalous transactions
were divided among the members of the syndicate. Salamanca
gave Estacio P10,000.00 after the October 19, 1981
operation, P4,900.00 after the October 30, 1981 operation
andP5,000.00 after the November 20, 1981 operation. Valentino
received P20,000.00, P10,000.00 and P20,000.00 after the
October 16 and 30, and November 20, 1981 operations.
On January 28, 1982, Segundo Gonzaga, then Administrative
Assistant for Transit Center (Clearing Center of BPI), was
informed through a long distance telephone call by the manager
of BPI-Laoag that their clearing transactions on October 19,
1981, October 30, 1981 and November 20, 1981 registered an
outstanding discrepancy of P9,000,000.00 as reflected in their
inter-office reconciliation statement. The manager of BPI-Laoag
and the BPI Regional Manager for Northern Luzon who went to
the office at BPI-Ayala showed the clearing statements to
Gonzaga. Upon comparing the xerox copies of the BPI Clearing
Statements (Laoag copies) and xerox copies of the clearing
envelope sent to Citibank Manila, Gonzaga noticed the
alterations. Thus, he went to the Accounting Department of BPIAyala and found out that the Central Bank debited their bank in
the amount ofP9,000,000.00.16
Gonzaga went to Citibank-Greenhills and talked to Jake
Ocampo, its assistant manager, about the clearing items. After
checking their outgoing clearing checks for October 19, 1981,
October 30, 1981 and November 20, 1981, Ocampo told
Gonzaga that they did not recall said clearing checks. He gave
Gonzaga reproduced microfilm copies of those checks.
Gonzaga submitted the checks to his superiors with an
accompanying report.17 The BPI and the Central Bank jointly
referred the matter for investigation to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) which assigned the case to Head Agent
Salvador Ranin of the Special Investigation Division. 18
On February 12, 1982, the Chief of the Anti-Bank Fraud Unit of
the Central Bank, Atty. Agapito Fajardo, the banks Chief
Security Officer, and the BPI Vice-President and Comptroller
brought Manuel Valentino to the NBI. The following day, Agent
95
96
97
"WAIVER
"I have been advised of my right to remain silent; that anything
that I say may be used as evidence against me and that I have
the right to a lawyer to be present with me while I am being
questioned.
"I understand these rights and I am willing to make a statement
and answer questions. I do not want the assistance of counsel
and I 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 used against me.
(Sgd.
with
MANUEL VALENTINO y SOCAN
thumbmark)
In these cases, the NBI investigator would not have known the
members of the syndicate and the sophisticated manner by
which the crimes in question were perpetrated if Valentino and
Estacio, who were directly involved therein, did not reveal these.
With respect to the admissibility of the extrajudicial confessions
of Valentino and petitioner Estacio against their co-accused,
once again, this Court declares that although an extrajudicial
confession is admissible only against the confessant,
jurisprudence makes it admissible as corroborative evidence of
other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his coaccused.61 In People vs. Alvarez,62 this Court ruled that where
the confession is used as circumstantial 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:
98
affiant frequently simply signs the affidavit after the same has
been read to him." 73
In People vs. Fabro, the Court ruled that repudiation and
recantation of confessions which have been obtained in
accordance with the Constitution are looked upon with disfavor
as unreliable.74 However, that ruling may not find application
under the circumstances of these cases. In Fabro, it was the
accused himself who recanted his confession when, on the
witness stand, he denied he committed the crime. No other
witness testified for the defense. On the other hand, in these
cases, Valentino, a co-conspirator who appeared as a state
witness before the court, adhered to his confession as regards
the participation of the accused, except that he testified that
petitioner Estacio was absent when the first crime was planned
and committed, and that petitioner Fajardo was not involved in
the three cases. It has 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 comparison coupled with the
application of the general rules of evidence. 75 Although these
cases do not involve the conflicting testimonies of a witness, that
rule may be applied in a conflict between a sworn statement and
the testimony while recognizing the inferiority of a sworn
statement to a testimony. In these cases, the narration of facts in
Valentinos sworn statements were in substance reproduced in
his testimony which, in turn, was supported by other testimonial
evidence and the voluminous documentary evidence.
In the absence of any reason to question the credibility of
Valentino and that of his testimony, that portion of his testimony
on the nonparticipation of petitioner Estacio in Crim. Case No.
5949 and petitioner Fajardo in all three cases shall be
controlling. We deem the variance in Valentinos testimony as
endeavors to rectify his sworn statements to conform to the
truth. To reiterate, such variance, does not make him a less
credible witness or affect the merit of his testimony, as the other
pieces of prosecution evidence support it and do not prove that it
is untruthful or contrived.
The value of Valentinos testimony in the prosecution of these
cases cannot be underestimated. It fills in the gaps in the
prosecution evidence that the other prosecution witnesses failed
to cover. Without it, conspiracy to defraud the BPI-Laoag
of P9,000,000.00 through falsification of the clearing statement
and manifest would not have been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
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 creditably shown by the prosecution, the crimes
were committed not solely by the person who altered the
clearing statement and manifest. That all-important act, the
conception of which could have been hatched only by one
familiar with banking procedures, would not have been possible
if not for the indispensable cooperation of others. Thus,
Valentino testified:
"Q Will you please describe in detail what was agreed upon
during the meeting?
A It was agreed upon that Salamanca and Villasanta will open
an account at Laoag Branch of the Bank of the Philippine
Islands and Desiderio also and Santos are also in charge in
opening accounts in Metro Manila, particularly Citibank,
Greenhills. Basilio Tan, he is stationary in the office. Jaime Tan
and Rolando San Pedro are the ones in charge in withdrawals at
the Citibank."77
However, the liability of each of the petitioners must be
considered within the purview of the following pronouncement in
the celebrated case of People vs. Berroya78 where the Court
said that:
99
100
xxx
xxx
101
102
103
104
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 142932
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOEL GONZALES, JOSEPH BERNALDEZ, and ROMEO
BERNALDEZ, accused,
JOEL GONZALES and ROMEO BERNALDEZ, accusedappellants
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision,1 dated February 10, 2000, of
the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 6, Mati,
Davao Oriental, insofar as it finds accused-appellants Joel
Gonzales and Romeo Bernaldez guilty as principals of the
complex crime of robbery with homicide and sentences each of
them to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua, with the
accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of the victim Nicanor Suralta in the amounts
105
conditions
contributing
to
death:
The incident was reported to the San Isidro Police on the same
night. Carolita Suralta and Arsenio Abonales gave descriptions
of the holduppers and told the responding police investigators
that they would be able to recognize the suspects if they saw
them again.8
On July 12, 1992, there was another holdup inside the ACF
passenger bus compound in the neighboring municipality of
Magdug, Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental. The police team
sent to investigate the incident was able to pick up
suspects,9 one of whom was accused-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 recovered from his
house, some of which were claimed by passengers of the ACF
bus line.10
Police Inspector Arnold Malintad of Governor Generoso, head of
the team investigating the robbery of the ACF bus compound,
informed Capt. Adane Sakkam, Police Chief of San Isidro, about
the apprehension of accused-appellant Gonzales and the
recovery of the items from him. Accordingly, on July 14, 1992,
Capt. Sakkam, Carolita Suralta, and Arsenio Abonales
proceeded to the Governor Generoso Police Station. Carolita
and Arsenio identified accused-appellants Joel 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-wielder who wore a handkerchief to cover the lower portion
of his face.11
Carolita volunteered that accused-appellant Bernaldez is in fact
her nephew. Carolita and Arsenio said that they were able to
recognize the suspects despite their disguises because they
were only one to two meters away from each other during the
holdup, and the rooms of the house were well-lighted. 12 In
addition, Carolita was able to identify the Sanyo cassette
recorder (Exh. D) as the one taken from their house because of
the broken antennae and the name "Nick Suralta" written inside
the battery compartment. On the other hand, Arsenio likewise
identified the Seiko diver's watch (Exh. A) as his.13
Accused-appellants put up the defense of denial and alibi.
Accused-appellant Joel Gonzales testified that he was in
Tandang Sora, Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental the whole
day of July 5, 1992 working in his mother-in-law's farm, piling
coconut palm leaves together with his brother-in-law. In the
106
Q
You stated that one of the robbers was wearing a bonnet,
is that right?
Q
And at that time when he was wearing a bonnet, you were
not able to identify him?
A
I cannot recognize him, but I can recognize his voice and
his actions.
Q
Why is it that you can recognize his voice and his actions?
107
....
Q
How is it that you can recognize his voice and his
movements that he is the accused Joel Gonzales, considering
that he was wearing a bonnet and he is not even your neighbor?
He was standing.
A
Because at the time he said, "silence", I recognized his
voice, Your Honor.33
Yes.
....
Q
Where?
A
He was apprehended with the gun and the wristwatch and
I brought him to the police station and interrogated him and after
the interrogation, he accepted the commission of the crime and
he told me that he will voluntarily surrender the items in his
house.
....
Q
When you went to the house of Joel Gonzales, when was
that that you said he voluntarily turned over the loot?
A
On that date.
Yes.
....
Q
Yes.
....
Q
In his residence?
Where?
A
No, because it is only a matter of asking his wife to
surrender the items.39
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 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 of freedom in a substantial way. 40 Hence, the
admissions made by accused-appellants are inadmissible in
evidence pursuant to Art. III, 2(1) and (3) of the Constitution.
However, the defense failed to raise its objections to the
108
At Tibanban.
Q
You mean to tell us that Joel Gonzales told you that
Romeo Bernaldez is one of his companions?
A
Yes and he told us that he is in Barangay Tibanban and we
picked him up.42
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 identify the suspects, he asked them who killed the
victim and accused-appellant Romeo Bernaldez answered that it
was accused-appellant Joel Gonzales.
COURT:
....
Q
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
Who was the one who told you that the one who shot the
victim was Joel Gonzales?
A
109
DECISION
PARAS, J.:
This is an appeal interposed by Alfredo Enanoria, from the
October 31, 1989 decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of
Davao City, 11th Judicial Region, Branch II, in Criminal Case No.
16302-88, which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Kidnapping with Murder and sentenced him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the
victim in the sum of P110,000.00 for death and burial expenses,
and P100,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs
(Rollo,
p.
22).
At around 9:00 oclock in the morning of May 7, 1988, while he
was at the Davao Medical Center where he was brought after
his arrest. Enanoria executed an "ante-mortem" statement
before P/Cpl. Cerilo S. Solana, Jr. in the presence of Mayor
Duterte and Lt. Col. Calida. Although he claimed that he would
still survive inspite of his wound, he admitted having been shot
because he was involved in the kidnapping of Mrs. Dakudao. He
informed the police that one alias Amil shot Mrs. Dakudao and
that they were not able to get the P50,000.00 ransom they had
demanded
(Original
Record,
p.
6).
Four days later or on May 11, 1988, Enanoria executed a sworn
statement before P/Cpl. Solana at the Talomo Patrol Station of
the Davao City Metrodiscom. After he had been apprised of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel of his own
choice, he admitted involvement in the kidnapping of Mrs.
Dakudao. He claimed, however, that he did not know that he
was participating in a kidnapping as he was merely picked up in
Tunggol, Pagalungan, Maguindanao by Amil and one alias
Totong. According to Enanoria, Amil and Totong each carried a .
38 caliber revolver and it was Amil who shot Mrs. Dakudao only
once at around 1:30 a.m. of May 7, 1988 (Exh. "1" ; Original
Record,
p.
7).
Hence, Enanoria, one alias Totong, one alias Boy and Rodrigo
Ferolino alias Eboy were charged in an Information filed on May
12, 1988 by 4th Assistant City Fiscal Barbara C. Pioquinto,
which
reads
as
follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The undersigned accuses the above-named accused of the
crime of KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER under Article 267 and
248 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code,
committed
as
follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That on or about May 7, 1988 and sometime prior thereto, in
the city of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, being then
private individuals, conspiring, confederating together and
helping one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for the
purpose of extorting money from one Lea Dakudao and her
family in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or of
killing the said Lea Dakudao if the amount demanded could not
be given, kidnapped, carried away, brought to Maguindanao and
deprived said Lea Dakudao of her liberty without authority of law,
against her will and consent; that on the occasion of said
kidnapping and to enable them to carry out their purpose, the
said accused in pursuance of their conspiracy brought back
aforesaid Lea Dakudao to Davao City and willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation shot her (Lea Dakudao) with the use of firearm
thereby inflicting upon her (Lea Dakudao) a mortal wound which
caused
her
death."
(Original
Record,
p.
1).
On June 27, 1988, Enanoria executed a supplementary sworn
statement before T/Sgt. Florante M. Rotor of the PC-CIS.
Assisted by Atty. Jonathan M. Jocom of the CLAO XI, Enanoria
110
Serenio saw that both rear tires of the car were flat. Thereafter,
the car was brought to the police station for safekeeping and
investigation.
Pfc. Serenio added that he saw the lady whose back was
bleeding, apparently alive but unconscious. One male
passenger jumped to the river at the right side while the two
others, one of whom was Enanoria, proceeded to the left side of
the bridge leading to a grassy area. Nobody fired their guns
while Pfc. Serenios team chased the said passengers. Finally,
Pfc. Serenio admitted that their team was not subjected to
paraffin tests nor their rifles to ballistic examination (Hearing of
August
15,
1989;
TSN,
pp.
34-58).
111
likewise park their car at the Tourist Lodge which was also near
the said station and there he called Teling to inform her what had
happened.
As he was getting out of the lodge, he saw hi wife with one or
two male companions about to board the Ford Laser car again.
Mr. Dakudao presumed that they, too, made a phone call at the
station. The car then sped off again heading for the south. Mr.
Dakudao and his driver would have followed suit once more but
at that moment, a Ford Fiera with military men on board passed
by. Thus, Mr. Dakudao signalled to them to pursue the Ford
Laser
car.
The Ford Fiera did trail the said car for some time with Mr.
Dakudao and his driver close behind. Somewhere along the
way, the Fiera overtook the Laser which quickly made a U-turn
at the Harana area in Matina, Davao City. Mr. Dakudao
cautioned his driver not to appear obvious in following the Laser
so it took them a while before they also made a U-turn. By then,
they already lost track of the Laser. Mr. Dakudao asked to be
brought to the Tourist Lodge to make another phone call to
Teling but Lt. Pintak, who also went there, instructed him to call
up a certain number instead and request the police to look out
for the Laser car with four armed men and a hostage. Thereafter,
Mr. Dakudao and his driver tried to locate the Laser once again.
When they failed to see it, they returned to the Tourist Lodge at
almost
3:30
oclock
in
the
morning.
As soon as Mr. Dakudao arrived there, he was informed that his
wife had been shot and was rushed to the Davao Doctors
Hospital for treatment. He proceeded to the said hospital and
there he learned that his wife had passed away leaving him and
their three children. On further questions, Mr. Dakudao said that
he transported her wifes remains and had her interred in
Bacolod, her place of birth. He spent around P80,000.00 for the
purpose. In court, he pointed to Enanoria whom he said was
apprehended and then detained by the CIS agents as one of
those responsible for the kidnapping of his wife.
When cross-examined, Mr. Dakudao revealed that before 12:30
oclock in the morning, while he was still at Telings house, he
called home. He was told by their helper that there were two
strange callers who asked if it was his (Mr. Dakudaos) house
and when it was so confirmed, the callers abruptly hanged the
phone. Mr. Dakudao supposed that the callers could have been
the kidnappers trying to contact him so he decided to go home.
He and his driver were on their way home when they saw the
Ford Laser and subsequently tailed it. As the rear windshield
was slightly tinted, Mr. Dakudao admitted that all he could see
then was a woman whom he presumed to be his wife sitting at
the front seat and at least two male passengers sitting at the
back seat of the Laser. When it stopped at the Shell station, he
did not approach the said car for fear that the male passengers
could be armed. Mr. Dakudao said that the police authorities
informed him of Enanorias arrest (Hearing of August 21, 1989;
TSN,
pp.
61-78).
Romeo Borja, the family driver of the Dakudaos, simply
corroborated the testimony of Mr. Dakudao in its material points
adding that the Ford Laser which had several bullet holes was
subsequently brought to the DAMOSA for repair (Hearing of
August 21, 1989; TSN, pp. 81-88).chanrobles.com.ph : virtual
law
library
4th Assistant City Fiscal Antonina Escovilla of Davao City,
declared that Enanoria was brought to her office on June 1,
1988. When Enanoria was left alone with her in the room, she
asked him under oath to tell the truth. Utilizing the CebuanoVisayan dialect which Enanoria speaks, Fiscal Escovilla
apprised him of his rights to remain silent and to engage the
services of counsel of his own choice. She also informed him
that anything he would give or say in the investigation could be
used in evidence against him. After such precautions, Fiscal
Escovilla proceeded to translate the sworn statement to
Enanoria who confirmed the truth of its contents. When she
asked if he was intimidated or forced into executing the
statement, Enanoria said he did it voluntarily and with the active
assistance of a CLAO lawyer of his choice. There was not even
112
113
with murder under Arts. 267 and 248 in relation to Art. 48 of the
Revised Penal Code and imposing on him the aforementioned
penalty.
Hence,
the
present
appeal.
The brief for appellant was filed on May 22, 1991 (Rollo, p. 38)
while that of appellee was filed on July 23, 1991 (Ibid., p. 104).
In his brief, appellant assigns the following errors:chanrob1es
virtual 1aw library
I
The trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant as coprincipal in a conspiracy to commit kidnapping with murder in the
absence of evidence and without proving the existence of a
conspiracy.
II
The trial court erred in admitting, the extrajudicial confession of
the accused-appellant in evidence and which coerced
confession was made the sole basis for the conviction of
the Accused-Appellant.(p.
57,
Rollo).
Enanorias counsel asserts that the extrajudicial statement which
was allegedly the only piece of evidence against his client, was
obtained under duress and in violation of the latters right to
counsel and therefore, it should have been disregarded.
Appellants counsel insists that had the court properly
disregarded his extrajudicial confession, the cause of the
prosecution would have been reduced to nothing as the
prosecution had miserably failed to prove that Lea Dakudao had
indeed been kidnapped and that Enanoria participated therein.
As conspiracy was not established, Enanoria could not be held
liable
for
the
crime
charged.
A careful evaluation of the evidence on record reveals, however,
that such contentions are baseless and utterly devoid of merit.
Firstly, the rule is well-settled that a confession is presumed to
be voluntary and that the confessant, who bears the burden of
proving otherwise (People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-32661, July
20, 1982, 115 SCRA 184; People v. Estevan, G.R. No. 69676,
June 4, 1990, 186 SCRA 34), must duly substantiate his claim
that the admissions in his affidavit are untrue and unwillingly
executed. Bare assertions will certainly not suffice to overturn
the presumption. Considering however, that voluntariness is
largely determined by external manifestations, the Court has laid
down several factors indicative thereof. Thus, "where the
defendants did not present evidence of compulsion, or duress
nor violence on their person; where they failed to complain to the
officer who administered their oaths; where they did not institute
any criminal or administrative action against their alleged
intimidators for maltreatment; where there appeared to be no
marks of violence on their bodies; and when they did not have
themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their
claim" (People v. Mada-I Santalani, G.R. No. L-29979,
September 28, 1979, 93 SCRA 3317), the defendants are
deemed to have voluntarily confessed. Still another indicium of
voluntariness is the disclosure of details in the confession which
could have been known only to the declarant (People v. Bautista,
G.R. No. L-31900, August 6, 1979, 92 SCRA 465; Estacio v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 75363, March 6, 1990, 183 SCRA 12).
Significantly, all these are present in the case at bar.
It is worthy to note as well that the extrajudicial statement was
subscribed and sworn to before Asst. City Fiscal Escovilla who
herself extensively testified that she translated the contents of
the statement and inquired into the spontaneity of its execution.
There is no showing whatsoever that she was actuated by any
reason other than her desire to perform the solemn task of
having affiant voluntarily and intelligently swear to the truth of his
statement (People v. Del Pilar, G.R. No. 86360, July 28, 1990,
188
SCRA
37).
Enanorias claim that his right to counsel was violated does not
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
114
115
116
117
118
119
opened the door of the room to let the public and media
representatives witness the confession. The mayor first asked
for a lawyer to assist appellant but since no lawyer was available
he ordered the proceedings photographed and videotaped.[10] In
the presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the
media and appellant's own wife and son, appellant confessed
his guilt. He disclosed how he killed AAA and volunteered to
show them the place where he hid her bags. He asked for
forgiveness from Larin and Dizon whom he falsely implicated
saying he did it because of ill-feelings against them. [11] He also
said that the devil entered his mind because of the pornographic
magazines and tabloid he read almost everyday.[12] After his
confession, appellant hugged his wife and son and asked the
mayor to help him.[13] His confession was captured on videotape
and covered by the media nationwide.[14]
Appellant was detained at the police headquarters. The next two
days, February 26 and 27, more newspaper, radio and television
reporters came. Appellant was again interviewed and he
affirmed his confession to the mayor and reenacted the crime.[15]
On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not
guilty." He testified that in the afternoon of February 19, 1994 he
was at his parent's house in xxx attending the birthday party of
his nephew. He, his wife and son went home after 5:00 P.M. His
wife cooked dinner while he watched their one-year old son.
They all slept at 8:00 P.M. and woke up the next day at 6:00 in
the morning. His wife went to Manila to collect some debts while
he and his son went to his parents' house where he helped his
father cement the floor of the house. His wife joined them in the
afternoon and they stayed there until February 24, 1994 when
he was picked up by the police.[16]
Appellant was brought by the police to a hotel at xxx. In one of
the rooms, the policemen covered his face with a bedsheet and
kicked him repeatedly. They coerced him to confess that he
raped and killed AAA. When he refused, they pushed his head
into a toilet bowl and injected something into his buttocks.
Weakened, appellant confessed to the crime. Thereafter,
appellant was taken to his house where he saw two of his
neighbors, Larin and Dizon. He was ordered by the police to go
to the old toilet at the back of the house and get two bags from
under the flower pot. Fearing for his life, appellant did as he was
told.[17]
In a decision dated August 4, 1994, the trial court convicted
appellant and sentenced him to death pursuant to Republic Act
No. 7659. The trial court also ordered appellant to pay the
victim's heirs P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P71,000.00 as
actual burial expenses and P100,000.00 as moral damages,
thus:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Pablito Andan y
Hernandez alias "Bobby" is found guilty by proof beyond a
scintilla of doubt of the crime charged in the Information (Rape
with Homicide) and penalized in accordance with R.A. No. 7659
(Death Penalty Law) Sec. 11, Par. 8, classifying this offense as
one of the heinous crimes and hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the family of AAA the amount
of P50,000.00 for the death of AAA and P71,000.00 as actual
burial and incidental expenses and P100,000.00 as moral
damages. After automatic review of this case and the decision
becomes final and executory, the sentence be carried out.
SO ORDERED."[18]
This case is before us on automatic review in accordance with
Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 47 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Appellant contends that:
"I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AND USING
AS BASIS OF JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION THE
TESTIMONIES
OF
THE
POLICE
INVESTIGATORS,
REPORTERS AND THE MAYOR ON THE ALLEGED
ADMISSION OF THE ACCUSED DURING THE CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION, THE ACCUSED NOT BEING ASSISTED BY
COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION;
II THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE
WAS RAPE WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND
TO SUPPORT IT;
III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN MAKING A FINDING OF
CONVICTION WHEN THE EVIDENCE IN ITS TOTALITY
SHOWS THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED."[19]
120
121
at the PNP xxx up to the scene of the crime, all the stages were
videotaped by you?
A Yes, sir.[39]
Journalist Berteni Causing of "People's Journal Tonite" likewise
covered the proceedings for three successive days. [40] His
testimony is as follows:
"Atty. Principe: You mentioned that you had your own inquiries?
A We asked first permission from the mayor to interrupt their
own investigation so that we can have a direct interview with the
suspect.
Q Were there people?
A The people present before the crowd that included the
mayor, the deputy chief of police, several of the policemen, the
group of Inday Badiday and several other persons. I asked the
suspect after the mayor presented the suspect to us and after
the suspect admitted that he was the one who killed AAA. I
reiterated the question to the suspect. Are you aware that this
offense which is murder with . . . rape with murder is a capital
offense? And you could be sentenced to death of this? And he
said, Yes. So do you really admit that you were the one who did
it and he repeated it, I mean, say the affirmative answer.
Q And that was in the presence of the crowd that you
mentioned a while ago?
A Yes, yes, sir. And if I remember it right, as I took my camera
to take some pictures of the suspect, the mayor, the policemen
and several others, I heard the group of Inday Badiday asking
the same questions from the suspect and the suspect answered
the same.
Q Also in the presence of so many people that you
mentioned?
A The same group of people who were there, sir.
Q You mentioned that the answer was just the same as the
accused answered you affirmatively, what was the answer,
please be definite?
Court:
Use the vernacular.
A I asked him the question, after asking him the question,"
Ikaw ba talaga and gumawa ng pagpatay at pag-rape sa kay
AAA? Ang sagot nya, "Oo." "Alam mo ba itong kasalanang ito,
kamatayan ang hatol, inaamin mo pa ba na ikaw ang gumawa
sa pagpatay at pag-rape kay AAA?" Sagot pa rin siya ng "Oo."
xxx
Q Did you ask him, why did you kill AAA?
A I asked him, your Honor and the reason he told me was
because a devil gripped his mind and because of that according
to him, your Honor, were the pornographic magazines,
pornographic tabloids which he, according to him, reads almost
everyday before the crime.
Atty. Principe: At the time of your interview, Mr. Reporter, will
you tell the court and the public what was the physical condition
of accused Pablito Andan?
A As I observed him that time there was no sign on his body
that he was really down physically and I think he was in good
condition.
Court:
So he was not happy about the incident?
A He even admitted it, your Honor.
Court:
He was happy?
A He admitted it. He was not happy after doing it.
Court:
Was he crying?
A As I observed, your Honor, the tears were only apparent but
there was no tear that fell on his face.
Court:
Was he feeling remorseful?
A As I observed it, it was only slightly, your Honor.
x x x"[41]
Another journalist, Rey Domingo, of "Bandera" interviewed
appellant on February 26, 1994.[42] He also testified that:
"Atty. Principe: Now, Mr. Witness, did the accused Pablito Andan
give you the permission that you asked from him?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when he allowed you to interview him, who were
present?
A The first person that I saw there was Mayor xxx, policemen
from xxx, the chief investigator, SPO4 xxx, and since xxx, the
chief of police was suspended, it was the deputy who was there,
sir.
Q Were they the only persons who were present when you
interviewed the accused?
A There were many people there, sir. The place was crowded
with people. There were people from the PNP and people from
122
xxx, sir.
Q How about the other representatives from the media?
A Roy Reyes, Orlan Mauricio arrived but he arrived late and
there were people from the radio and from TV Channel 9.
Q How about Channel 7?
A They came late. I was the one who got the scoop first, sir.
Q You stated that the accused allowed you to interview him,
was his wife also present?
A Yes, sir, and even the son was there but I am not very sure
if she was really the wife but they were hugging each other and
she was crying and from the questions that I asked from the
people there they told me that she is the wife, sir.
Q How about the other members of the family of the accused,
were they around?
A I do not know the others, sir, but there were many people
there, sir.
Q Now, according to you, you made a news item about the
interview. May we know what question did you ask and the
answer.
A My first question was, is he Pablito Andan and his answer
was "Yes."
Q What was the next question?
A I asked him how he did the crime and he said that, he saw
the victim aboard a tricycle. He called her up. She entered the
house and he boxed her on the stomach.
Q What was the next question that you asked him?
A He also said that he raped her and he said that the reason
why he killed the victim was because he was afraid that the
incident might be discovered, sir.
Q Now, after the interview, are we correct to say that you made
a news item on that?
A Yes, sir, based on what he told me. That's what I did.
Q Were there other questions propounded by you?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Ano iyon?"
A He said that he threw the cadaver to the other side of the
fence, sir.
Q Did he mention how he threw the cadaver of AAA to the
other side of the fence?
A I cannot remember the others, sir.
Q But can you produce the news item based on that interview?
A I have a xerox copy here, sir.
x x x"[43]
Clearly, appellant's confessions to the news reporters were
given free from any undue influence from the police authorities.
The news reporters acted as news reporters when they
interviewed appellant.[44] They were not acting under the
direction and control of the police. They were there to check
appellant's confession to the mayor. They did not force appellant
to grant them an interview and reenact the commission of the
crime.[45] In fact, they asked his permission before interviewing
him. They interviewed him on separate days not once did
appellant protest his innocence. Instead, he repeatedly
confessed his guilt to them. He even supplied all the details in
the commission of the crime, and consented to its reenactment.
All his confessions to the news reporters were witnessed by his
family and other relatives. There was no coercive atmosphere in
the interview of appellant by the news reporters.
We rule that appellant's verbal confessions to the newsmen are
not covered by Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the
Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the
relation between a private individual and another individual. [46] It
governs the relationship between the individual and the State.
The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and
its agents. They confirm that certain rights of the individual exist
without need of any governmental grant, rights that may not be
taken away by government, rights that government has the duty
to protect.[47] Governmental power is not unlimited and the Bill of
Rights lays down these limitations to protect the individual
against aggression and unwarranted interference by any
department of government and its agencies.[48]
In his second assigned error, appellant questions the sufficiency
of the medical evidence against him. Dr. xxx, a Medical
Specialist with the Provincial Health Office, conducted the first
autopsy and found no spermatozoa and no recent physical
injuries in the hymen.[49] Allegedly, the minimal blood found in her
vagina could have been caused by her menstruation.[50]
We are unpersuaded. A second autopsy was conducted on
123
124
125
ATTY. I. CRUZ:
Q And do you know a certain person by the name of Redentor
Aguinaldo?
JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA:
Q The accusation against you is that you conspired with your coaccused Arnold Pasicolan and Lito Marcelo in stealing the
articles and things stated in the Information. Why do you say
that you are not part of the conspiracy, what do you mean by
that statement?
A Because, sir, I do not know what was the contents of the
envelope.
You can proceed now.
ATTY. I. CRUZ:
Q You mentioned of an envelope which you claim not to have
known the contents of the same. Who gave you the envelope?
A Arnold Pasicolan.
Q Do you know Arnold Pasicolan prior to and/or before February
17, 1989?
....
A No, sir.
ATTY. I. CRUZ:
Q When for the first time did you come to know Arnold
Pasicolan?
A On February 17, sir.
Q When, where specifically did you come to know him?
A At the NBI office, sir.
Q Now...
JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA:
Q February 17, 1989?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Proceed.
....
ATTY. I. CRUZ:
Q Do you know a certain Redentor Aguinaldo?
A Yes, sir.
JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA:
Q Tell us the circumstances under which you received this
envelope?
A I received that envelope given to me by Arnold Pasicolan.
Q If you answer in monosyllable we will not understand. Alright,
you tell your story?
A Redentor Aguinaldo on February 17 told me that he is going to
give me a job. What I will do is get the envelope and bring it to a
certain subdivision in Las Pias and somebody will pick it up and
pay me P100.00 for it.
Proceed.
ATTY. I. CRUZ:
Q Now, do you know the person to whom you are to deliver the
envelope?
A No, sir.
Q Now, if you do now know the person to whom you will deliver
the envelope. JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA:
You may not cross-examine, tell him to tell us facts.
ATTY. I. CRUZ:
Q Where specifically in the subdivision in Paraaque where you
will deliver the envelope?
A BF Homes.
JUSTICE HERMOSISIMA:
Q To what particular person will you supposed to deliver it?
A I was just asked to go to that place and somebody will
approach me.
Q To make your story more believable, BF Homes in Paraaque
is a very big subdivision. You enter that subdivision and there
will be several persons whom you can see there. How will the
person know that you are carrying an envelope for him. Where
were you supposed to deliver it. If you cannot explain that, we
will not believe you?
A In that subdivision, there is a vacant place where there are no
houses. It is where I often go.
Q BF Homes subdivision in Paraaque has several vacant lots,
how will you know what vacant lot to proceed to?
A It was pointed to me by Aguinaldo.
Q So, Aguinaldo went with you in the morning of that same day
and pointed to you the place?
A In the morning of that same day and he pointed to me the
place.
Second. The petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan erred
in admitting in evidence the letters signed by him because he
was asked to sign them during custodial investigation without
the assistance of counsel. The following provisions of the
Constitution are invoked by petitioner:
Article III, 12(1). - Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall 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 the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
....
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.
Petitioners counsel says that the signing of petitioners and his
co-accuseds names was not a mere mechanical act but one
which required the use of intelligence and therefore constitutes
self-incrimination. Petitioners counsel presumably has in mind
the ruling in Beltran v. Samson[20] to the effect that the prohibition
against compelling a man to be a witness against himself
extends to any attempt to compel the accused to furnish a
specimen of his handwriting for the purpose of comparing it with
the handwriting in a document in a prosecution for falsification.
Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hand, or
the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act because it
requires the application of intelligence and attention, [21] so it was
held.
To be sure, the use of specimen handwriting in Beltran is
different from the use of petitioners signature in this case. In that
case, the purpose was to show that the specimen handwriting
matched the handwriting in the document alleged to have been
falsified and thereby show that the accused was the author of
the crime (falsification) while in this case the purpose for
securing the signature of petitioner on the envelopes was merely
to authenticate the envelopes as the ones seized from him and
Ronnie Romero. However, this purpose and petitioners
signatures on the envelope, when coupled with the testimony of
prosecution witnesses that the envelopes seized from petitioner
were those given to him and Romero, undoubtedly help
establish the guilt of petitioner. Since these signatures are
actually evidence of admission obtained from petitioner and his
co-accused under circumstances contemplated in Art. III, 12(1)
and 17 of the Constitution, they should be excluded. For
indeed, petitioner and his co-accused signed following their
arrest. Hence, they were at the time under custodial
investigation, defined as questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant
way.[22] Under the Constitution, among the rights of a person
126
and saw her totally naked. Her daughter told her that she was
raped. She gave an additional P1,000 to the accused who also
got two (2) wristwatches worth P690.00, two (2) Seiko watches
worth P443.00, a chicken worth approximately P20.00, and one
can of coffee beans. The appellants were speaking among
themselves in the Manobo dialect.
Teresa identified appellants Janson and Pinantao as two of the
men who robbed their house and raped her daughter that
night. She testified that she knew appellants since they were
their neighbors at Mateo. She also claimed that while Janson
and Pinantao were masked during the incident, she recognized
them through their body built, physical appearance, and their
voices while speaking in Manobo.[4]
MARITES[5] ALCANTARA testified that she was thirteen (13)
years old at the time of the incident. She corroborated the
testimony of her mother and added that after the group entered
their house and hogtied her father, the appellants entered her
room and turned off the lights inside. Someone poked a gun at
her. Then Ricky Pinantao, who had an amputated right hand;
Joel Janson, and Abdul Jona raped her. In open court she
identified appellants Pinantao and Janson as two of her abusers,
claiming that they were previously known to her. She claimed
that she knew Ricky because he was their neighbor and that he
often went to their house to buy bananas, while she knew Joel
because he often went to their barangay to visit his relatives.She
likewise claimed that while the appellants turned off the lights in
their house, there was a full moon that night which gave her
enough light to see her abusers. She immediately told her
parents that she was raped, and she underwent medical
examination the following day.[6]
DANTE ALCANTARA testified that on the day of the robbery he
was only nine (9) years old. He said he recognized appellants
Janson and Pinantao because they were their neighbors.On
cross-examination, he admitted that the four robbers were
masked, but the witness insisted that he was able to recognize
Pinantao with his cut wrist and mustache, and also Janson
because of his built.[7]
CESARIO ALCANTARA testified that on March 24, 1986, their
house was robbed and his daughter was raped. He admitted
that during the incident, he was not able to identify the
perpetrators since he was hogtied face downwards, and he was
covered with a blanket.[8]
The prosecution also presented DR. CESAR MANUEL. He
testified that the physical examination he conducted on Marites
Alcantara a day after the incident revealed that there were
lacerations between the labia majora, labia minora, and the
prepuce caused by a sharp instrument. There was also the
presence of seminal fluid in the vagina of the victim indicating
that there was actual sexual contact.[9]
ATTY. JORGE ZERRUDO testified that he only assisted
appellant Janson in waiving his right to counsel, and that the
sworn statement was already prepared when he signed
it.Nevertheless, he asked appellant Janson if the contents of the
statement were true, and whether he wished to be assisted by
counsel.[10]
P/SGT. PEDRO IDPAN, JR. testified that he was a member of
the Integrated National Police (INP), Kidapawan, Cotabato,
assigned in the investigation of the crime of robbery with rape
involving appellant Joel Janson. He identified Jansons sworn
statement saying it was signed by him without being forced. He
admitted that during the investigation, there was no lawyer
present and that Atty. Zerrudo signed the affidavit only after the
investigation was conducted. He claimed, however, that prior to
the custodial investigation, he informed Janson of his
constitutional rights and that despite being a Manobo, Janson
fully understood Cebuano,[11] which was the language used
during the custodial investigation.
Finally, P/SGT. ORTELLO ACHAS testified that he was at the
police station when Teresa Alcantara appeared on June 24,
1986, and requested that she be accompanied to the jail to
identify the person who was earlier apprehended and
detained. She identified the person as appellant Joel Janson. On
cross-examination, P/Sgt. Achas admitted that he was not the
one who conducted the investigation on the person of Joel
Janson and that he could not remember whether appellant
Janson who was then sixteen (16) years old and a Manobo was
assisted by a lawyer. Neither could he remember whether a
mental or physical examination was made upon Janson.[12]
127
128
Q: Now, how come that you did not tell the police of the
perpetrators during that time of investigation?
A: Sir, it is very hard to name names during that time when a
statement was taken on me. But when this Joel Janson was first
apprehended, it was confirmed by his statement to the
policeman. (sic)[30]
xxx
Q: So, when Joel Janson was apprehended, that was the time
you confirmed that he was the perpetrator?
A: xxx Yes, sir.
xxx
Q: Therefore, you failed to recognize Joel Janson during said
time of the incident?
A: I knew him through his body built.
xxx
Q: So, you merely assumed that Joel Janson is one of those
persons who robbed you, because of the aforesaid statement,
that his alleged statement in the police?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx
Q: According to you, you have confirmed your suspicion of this
Joel Janson after he was apprehended?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In the same manner you confirmed your suspicion of Ricky
Pinantao after he was apprehended?
A: He himself revealed. Aside from that I already suspected
because of his cut wrist and his mustache.[31] (emphasis ours)
While
courts
generally brush
aside
inconsequential
contradictions between declarations of the affiant in her sworn
statements and those in court, the rule is otherwise where the
discrepancies touch on substantial and irreconcilable facts such
as those omissions in the affidavit concerning important details
which the affiant would not have failed to mention and which
omission could well affect the credibility of the affiant. [32] If
indeed, the victim recognized one of her assailants as Ricky
Pinantao because of his amputated hand, she should have
mentioned such glaring trait the first time she gave her
statement to the investigating officers. But she never mentioned
anything. On the contrary, she admitted that she did not
recognize any of her assailants. She also admitted that it was
only after Joel Janson was apprehended and confessed to the
crime, implicating Ricky Pinantao, that she confirmed
her suspicion.
The testimony of Teresa Alcantara is also riddled with
uncertainties:
Q: How many day had lapsed (sic) before you reported the
incident to the police?
A: Three months after the incident.
xxx
Q: Will you please explain why you reported the incident after
three months?
A: It was only upon hearing through radio DXND the name of
this person Joel Janson who was reported to have robbed the
corn of a certain Atty. Jalipa, that I reported to the police.
Q: That was the only reason why you reported to the police after
three months already?
A: It is like this: After hearing that, I went to the police right then
and there. I saw this Joel Janson who was the person among
those who raped my daughter and entered our house.
Q: If you knew already that Joel Janson was among those
persons who robbed you, why did you not report to the police
immediately?
A: The following morning, I immediately reported, sir.
Q: And you gave sworn statement before the police on the
following morning?
A: Not yet, sir.
Q: Of course, this Joel Janson was unmasked when those six
men came to your house?
A: This Joel Janson and Ricky Pinantao were the one (sic)
wearing mask.
Q: In other words, during the incident you failed to recognize
outright who were those persons masked?
A: I identified them through their body built and voice because
they were speaking Manobo.
Q: But you identified them because of their voice?
A: Voice and bodybuilt.
Q: But of course, you did not actually see the face of Joel
Janson?
129
130