Landiana V People PDF
Landiana V People PDF
*
G.R. No. 144293. December 4, 2002.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
420
421
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
422
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Case
_______________
1 Annex “A” of the Petition; Rollo, pp. 71-85. Penned by Justice Gregory S. Ong
with the concurrence of Justices Francis E. Garchitorena (then Division chairman
and presiding justice) and Catalino R. Castañeda, Jr. (member).
2 Annex “C” of the Petition; id., pp. 93-101.
423
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
6 Id., pp. 88-89. This was signed by Special Prosecution Officer Fidel D.
Galindez and approved by then Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez.
424
cisco San Juan with the firearm hitting Francisco San Juan at his
head and neck inflicting upon him7
fatal wounds thereby causing
the death of Francisco San Juan.”
The Facts
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
425
“Caridad maintained that she was aware that her husband was
killed by accused Ladiana because this was what the woman
actually told her. Moreover, accused Ladiana had given himself
up to the police authorities.
“Caridad went on to narrate that, on December 30, 1989, she
was at the police station, where she gave her written statement
before police investigator PFC Virgilio Halili (hereinafter, ‘Halili’).
“Additionally, Caridad presented the Death Certificate of her
husband and testified that he was eventually buried at the
Lumban Cemetery. She declared that she had incurred about
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) for the funeral, burial and
other incidental expenses by reason of the death of Francisco.
“On cross-examination, Caridad testified that, on December 29,
1989, she was in her house and that she did not hear any gunshot
between 10:30 and 11:00 o’clock a.m. Caridad also admitted she
did not witness the killing of her husband.
“On questions propounded by the Court, Caridad narrated that
her husband suffered two gunshot wounds—one on the upper
right temple and the other on the left cheek. However, Caridad
stated that she was told that the wounds were the entry and the
exit points. She also told the Court that her husband was wearing
short pants at the time of his death and that she found some
bruises on his knees.
“Finally, Caridad recalled that, on the date of the incident, her
husband was with his close friend, a certain Rodolfo Cabrera, and
some other persons, and that they went to Jacinto Street to repair
the steel humps which were used to block the street during school
days for the protection and safety of the school children.
“2. PO2 LEOPOLDO DE RAMOS CACALDA, JR. (hereinafter,
‘CACALDA’) declared that he is a policeman assigned at the
Lumban Police Station in Lumban, Laguna. He has been
designated as the radio operator of the station since 1989.
“Cacalda recounted that, on December 29, 1989, at around
11:00 o’clock a.m., somebody, whose name he could no longer
recall, reported to him about an existing trouble along Jacinto
Street in Barangay Salac. Cacalda responded by going to the
scene, where he was accompanied by Alberto Mercado, a member
of the CAGFIL. Thereat, Cacalda saw the lifeless body of
Francisco lying face up on the road. Cacalda did not examine the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
426
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
427
“Lastly, Javan testified that he was not able to retrieve any bullet
during the examination. However, judging from the size of the
wound and the point of entry, Javan opined that the firearm used
was probably a caliber 38.
“On questions propounded by the Court, Javan testified that
‘Gunshot wound A’ could have been fired first because the
trajectory is on the same level so much so that the assailant and
the victim could have been both standing. Javan inferred that
‘Gunshot wound C’ could have been inflicted while the victim was
already falling down. Javan then stressed that both wounds are
fatal in nature.
“4. SPO2 PERCIVAL AMBROSIO GABINETE (hereinafter,
‘Gabinete’) declared that he is a police officer and a resident of No.
4055 Villa Josefina Subdivision, Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
“The testimony of Gabinete was subsequently dispensed with,
upon the admission of the defense that he was part of the group of
policemen who proceeded to the place of the subject incident and
that he found the body of Francisco lying along the road.
Additionally, the defense admitted the existence of the receipt
issued by Funeraria de Mesa dated January 3, 1990 in the sum of
Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P6,500.00).
“5. MARIO TALAVERA CORTEZ (hereinafter, ‘Cortez’)
declared that he is a retired Assistant Prosecutor of Laguna.
“Prior to the conduct of the examination-in-chief on Cortez, the
defense counsel made an admission as to the authorship,
authenticity, and voluntariness of the execution of the counter-
affidavit of accused Ladiana, which was subscribed and sworn to
before Cortez. In said counter-affidavit, accused Ladiana allegedly
admitted to making the fatal shots on Francisco. However,
accused Ladiana allegedly did so in self-defense as Francisco was
then purportedly attacking accused Ladiana and had, in fact,
already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of accused Ladiana.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
428
“On August 20, 1996, accused Ladiana filed a Motion for Leave of
Court to File Demurrer to Evidence dated August 16, 1995,
claiming that: (i) a review of the documentary and testimonial
evidence adduced by the prosecution allegedly failed to show that
the accused is guilty of the offense charged; (ii) at best, the
evidence submitted by the prosecution are allegedly hearsay in
character, considering that the supposed eyewitness in the person
of Rodolfo Cabrera was never presented in court; and (iii) the
prosecution was allegedly merely able to prove the fact of death of
the victim, but not the identity of the person who caused said
death.
“On August 23, 1996, this Court issued an Order of even date
holding that the filing of a demurrer to evidence is no longer
appropriate considering that accused Ladiana received a copy of
this Court’s resolution dated May 31, 1995 on the admission of the
prosecution’s documentary exhibits as early as May 25, 1995.
“On September 2, 1996, in view of his perception that the
evidence submitted by the prosecution is allegedly inadequate to
sustain a conviction, accused Ladiana, through counsel, waived
his right to present controverting evidence. Instead, he asked for
time to file a written memorandum. Thus, both parties were given
time within which to do so, after which the case shall be deemed
submitted for resolution.
“Thereafter, this Court received on October 25, 1996 by mail
the Memorandum 10
for the defense. As for the prosecution, it opted
not to file any.” (Citations omitted)
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
_______________
429
Issues
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
_______________
14 Ibid.
15 This case was deemed submitted for resolution on May 9, 2001, upon
receipt of petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Jose A. Almo and Angel R.
Purisima III. Respondent’s Memorandum, filed on April 18, 2001, was
signed by Special Prosecutor Leonardo P. Tamayo, Deputy Special
Prosecutor Robert E. Kallos, Acting ASAB Director Rodrigo V. Coquia,
and Special Prosecution Officer Manuel T. Soriano, Jr. of the Office of the
Special Prosecutor (OSP).
430
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
First Issue:
Admissibility of Counter-Affidavit
“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.
x x x x x x x x x
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
18
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.”
_______________
431
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
custody or otherwise 21
deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way.
In the present case, petitioner admits that the
questioned statements were made during the preliminary
investigation, not during the custodial investigation.
However, he argues that the right to competent and
independent counsel also applies during preliminary
investigations.
We disagree. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or
a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient
ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed, and that the respondent
22
is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial.
Evidently, a person undergoing preliminary
investigation before the public prosecutor cannot be
considered as being under custodial investigation. In fact,
this Court has unequivocally declared that a defendant on
trial or under preliminary
23
investigation is not under
custodial interrogation. It explained as follows:
_______________
19 People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001, 359 SCRA 310.
20 People vs. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216, 230, July 7, 1989, per Narvasa, J. (later,
C.J.).
21 People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565, September 20, 1994; People v. Logronio, 214
SCRA 519, October 13, 1992; People v. Ayson, supra.
22 Rule 112, §1, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
23 People v. Ayson, supra.
432
_______________
24 Id., p. 232.
25 Id., p. 234.
433
26
offense with which one is charged. Thus, in the case at
bar, a statement by the accused admitting the commission
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
_______________
434
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
“PJ GARCHITORENA
Well, he will identify the person who took the oath
before him. Will you deny that it was your client who
took the oath before the Fiscal at the preliminary
investigation?
ATTY. ILAGAN
We will admit that, your Honor.
PJ GARCHITORENA
So in that case we will have no question about the
authorship, authenticity and the voluntariness of the
execution of the counter-affidavit dated July 31, 1990?
Companiero?
ATTY ILAGAN
31
Admitted, your Honor.”
_______________
30 Ibid.
31 TSN, April 18, 1995, pp. 4-5.
32 Ramos v. Dajoyag, Jr., AC 5174, February 28, 2002, 378 SCRA 229;
Villanueva v. People, 330 SCRA 695, April 12, 2000; Sublay v. NLRC, 324
SCRA 188, January 31, 2000; Alarcon v. CA, 323 SCRA 716, January 28,
2000; Velasquez v. CA, 309 SCRA 539, June 30, 1999.
33 People v. Remudo, G.R. No. 127905, August 30, 2001, 364 SCRA 61;
Gold Line Transit, Inc. v. Ramos, G.R. No. 144813, August 15, 2001, 363
SCRA 262; People v. Villanueva, 339 SCRA 482, August 31, 2000.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
435
_______________
34 Abrajano v. CA, 343 SCRA 68, October 13, 2000; People v. Salido,
258 SCRA 291, July 5, 1996.
35 People v. Obzunar, 265 SCRA 547, December 16, 1996; People v.
Doepante, 263 SCRA 691, October 30, 1996.
36 People v. Damitan, G.R. No. 140544, December 7, 2001, 371 SCRA
629; People v. Iglesia, G.R. No. 132354, September 13, 2001, 365 SCRA
156; People v. Nepomuceno, Jr., 298 SCRA 450, November 11, 1998; People
v. Bautista, 254 SCRA 621, March 12, 1996.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
436
_______________
437
44
the basis of his admission of the killing. Upholding this
principle does not in any way violate his right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty. When he admitted
to having killed the victim, the burden of proving his
innocence fell on him. It became his duty to establish by
clear and convincing evidence the lawful justification for
the killing.
Therefore, petitioner can no longer invoke his
constitutional
45
right to be presumed innocent of the crime
charged. As far as he is concerned, homicide has already
been established. The fact of death and its cause were
established by his admissions coupled with the other 46
prosecution evidence including the Certificate 47of Death,
the Certificate of Post-Mortem
48
Examination and the
Medico-Legal Findings. The intent
49
to kill is likewise
presumed from the fact of death.
Second Issue:
Denial of Motion for Leave to File Demurrer
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
52 Bernardo v. CA, supra; People v. Mercado, 159 SCRA 453, March 30,
1988.
438
Final Issue:
Voluntary Surrender
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
55 People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 142905, March 18, 2002, 379 SCRA 395;
People v. Manlansing, G.R. Nos. 131736-37, March 11, 2002, 378 SCRA
685; People v. Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 68;
People v. Ancheta, G.R. Nos. 138306-07, December 21, 2001, 372 SCRA
753.
56 People v. Boquila, G.R. No. 136145, March 8, 2002, 378 SCRA 661;
People v. Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732, January 29, 2002, 375 SCRA 95;
People v. Saul, G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001, 372 SCRA 636;
People v. Viernes, G.R. Nos. 136733-35, December 13, 2001, 372 SCRA
231.
439
——o0o——
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/23
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
57 People v. Valles, 267 SCRA 103, January 28, 1997; People v. Rogales,
6 SCRA 830, November 30, 1962.
440
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b6132dcf68b6bfad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/23