Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People V Ordono, Jun 29, 2000 PDF
People V Ordono, Jun 29, 2000 PDF
*
G.R. No. 132154. June 29, 2000.
_______________
* EN BANC.
674
675
676
677
678
679
PER CURIAM:
681
_______________
683
_______________
686
_______________
7 Gamboa v. Judge Cruz, G.R. No. 56291, 27 June 1988, 162 SCRA 642
as cited in People v. Bandula, G.R. No. 89223, 27 May 1994, 232 SCRA
566.
8 Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, p. 410 (1996); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. ed.
2d 694 (1966).
687
_______________
9 RA 7438, (e).
688
_______________
10 Ibid.
11 People v. Bandula, G.R. No. 89223, 27 May 1994, 232 SCRA 566,
citing People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 91535, 2 September 1992, 213 SCRA
345. In this case we ruled that admissions obtained during custodial
interrogations without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to
writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the
Constitution.
689
PRELIMINARY—
A: Yes, sir because all that I will state will only be the truth.
Q: Do you want that we will continue with this investigation
after having been appraised of all your rights?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And, do you want that we continue with the investigation
even without a lawyer of your own choice to represent you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Are you now prepared to give your voluntary statement
consisting only the truth, without any lies whatsoever?
A: Yes, sir x x x x
PRELIMINARY—
690
_______________
12 People v. Basay, G.R. No. 86941, 3 March 1993, 219 SCRA 404, citing
People v. Galit, G.R. No. 51770, 20 March 1985, 135 SCRA 465.
691
_______________
13 Ibid.
14 Records, p. 132.
692
15
admissible in evidence. By analogy, statements made by
herein accused to a radio announcer should likewise be
held admissible. The interview was not in the nature of an
investigation as the response of the accused was made in
answer to questions asked by the radio reporter, not by the
police or any other investigating officer. When the accused
talked to the radio announcer, they did not talk to him as a
law enforcement officer, as in fact he was not, hence their
uncounselled confession to him did not violate their
constitutional rights.
Section 12, pars. (1) and (3), Art. III, of the Constitution
do not cover the verbal confessions of the two (2) accused to
the radio announcer. What the Constitution bars is the
compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions.
The rights enumerated under Sec. 12, Art. III, are
guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the
state as would lead the accused to admit something false,
not to16prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the
truth.
The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the
relation between
17
a private individual and another
individual. 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,
18
rights that government has the
duty to protect. 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.
_______________
693
_______________
694
FISCAL TECAN:
Q: Now, you said that you talked with the prisoners,
Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina, what did you
actually tell them?
A: I said, “What do you feel on your body?” and I also said,
“What part of your body are (sic) painful?”
Q: What did they answer?
A: They did not answer me, sir.
Q: More or less, how many questions did you ask?
A: Only that, sir.
Q: After you have observed the prisoners, did you notice
any injury?
A: None, sir x x x x
Q: x x x You noticed any injury on their bodies?
A: None, sir,
25
that is why I looked to see what was really
painful.
_______________
25 Ibid.
695
_______________
696
INTERPRETER:
INTERPRETER:
And then we laid her down among the bushes then Asing boxed
her because she was struggling, Your Honor. And Asing did what
he wanted, sir. And then he asked me to take my turn and then I
went outside to look and see if there are (sic) people and then
Asing went to get a vine, sir. And when I arrived at their33 place, he
was already tieing (sic). After that, we left for home, sir.
xxx
_______________
697
A: He was there already, sir. He was the one who held her legs,
sir.
Q: Who was the first one to rape or use her?
A: Me, sir. And after that, Apolonio Medina, sir.
Q: And after you were through, what did you do, was she still
conscious?
A: She was practically unconscious, sir.
Q: What did you do then?
34
A: We tied her neck and hanged her on a tree, sir.
_______________
34 Id., p. 45.
35 No. L-28232, 6 February 1971, 37 SCRA 450.
36 No. L-32791, 27 January 1981, 102 SCRA 264.
37 See Note 15.
698
was imposed four (4) death sentences for four (4) separate
and distinct crimes of rape. The existence of conspiracy
among them, the overwhelming evidence as to the nature
and the number of crimes committed, as well as the
attendance of the aggravating circumstances, fully justified
the imposition of four (4) death
38
penalties.
In 1988, in People v. Diño where the three (3) accused
took turns in ravishing the victim and thereafter killed her,
the Court declared each of them guilty of three (3) crimes of
rape with homicide and sentenced each of them to three (3)
penalties of reclusion perpetua. The penalty in fact should
have been death but with its proscription in the 1987
Constitution the penalty imposed was reduced to reclusion
perpetua. 39
In 1991, in People v. Flores a registered nurse was
successively raped by four (4) men and then killed. The
trial court convicted each of them with the special complex
crime of multiple rape with homicide on four (4) counts and
as a consequence thereof sentenced each of them to four (4)
death penalties. This Court affirmed the decision of the
lower court with the modification that the accused should
instead suffer four (4) penalties of reclusion perpetua by
reason of the constitutional proscription on the imposition
of the death penalty. The four (4) death penalties for each
of the appellants were explained to be ordained by the fact
that conspiracy had been established beyond reasonable
doubt.
40
40
In 1996, in People v. Laray this Court convicted two (2)
of the accused charged therein with multiple rape and
sentenced each of them to suffer two (2) counts of reclusion
perpetua because of the existence of conspiracy.
Accordingly, herein accused Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio
Medina should be held liable for the special complex crime
of rape with homicide on two (2) counts as defined and
penalized
_______________
699
_______________
41 People v. Robles, Jr., G.R. No. 124300, 25 March 1999, 305 SCRA
273; People v. Payot, G.R. No. 119352, 8 June 1999, 308 SCRA 43; People
v. Tahop, G.R. No. 125330, 29 September 1999, 315 SCRA 465.
42 People v. Aquino, G.R. Nos. 123550-51, 19 July 1999, 310 SCRA 437;
People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485, 1 February 1999, 302 SCRA 455,
citing People v. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, 24 September 1998, 296 SCRA 17,
and People v. Bernaldez, G.R. No. 109780, 17 August 1998, 294 SCRA 317.
700
——o0o——
701