Professional Documents
Culture Documents
11 Ladiana - v. - People
11 Ladiana - v. - People
SYNOPSIS
SYLLABUS
DECISION
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
PANGANIBAN , J : p
The Constitution bars the admission in evidence of any statement extracted by the
police from the accused without the assistance of competent and independent counsel
during a custodial investigation. However, a counter-a davit voluntarily presented by the
accused during the preliminary investigation, even if made without the assistance of
counsel, may be used as evidence against the affiant.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
April 10, 2000 Decision 1 and August 4, 2000 Resolution 2 of the Sandiganbayan (First
Division) in Criminal Case No. 16988. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision
reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered nding accused JOSUE R.
LADIANA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and, in the
absence of any modifying circumstance, sentencing the said accused to: (a)
suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum[;] (b) suffer all the appropriate accessory penalties
consequent thereto; (c) indemnify the heirs of the victim, Francisco San Juan, in
the total amount of Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P56,500.00); and (d)
pay the costs." 3
During his arraignment on May 8, 1992, petitioner, assisted by his counsel de parte, 8
pled not guilty. 9 After due trial, the Sandiganbayan found him guilty of homicide, not
murder.
The Facts
In their Memoranda, both the prosecution and the defense substantially relied upon
the Sandiganbayan's narration of the facts as follows:
"The prosecution presented ve (5) witnesses, namely: Caridad M. San
Juan, PO2 Leopoldo Cacalda, Dr. Rogelio M. Javan, SPO2 Percival A. Gabinete,
and Maria T. Cortez. Their respective testimonies, in essence are as follows, to
wit:
"1. CARIDAD MARGALLO SAN JUAN (hereinafter, 'Caridad') declared that
she is the wife of Francisco San Juan (hereinafter 'Francisco'), the victim in the
case at bar. Caridad testi ed that Francisco was the Barangay Captain of
Barangay Salac, Lumban, Laguna, until he was shot and killed by accused
Ladiana, who happens to be also a distant relative of the decedent.ICAcTa
"Caridad recounted that, on December 29, 1989, she was in her house when
an unidentified woman came and told her that her husband was killed by accused
Ladiana. She immediately called up her sister-in-law before rushing to Jacinto
Street where the gruesome incident allegedly transpired. Thereat, many people
were milling around, and Caridad saw the lifeless body of Francisco lying in the
middle of the road and being examined by [SPO2] Percival A. Gabinete.
"Caridad recalled that it was around 11:00 o'clock a.m. when she reached
the place of the subject incident. At that point in time, she was not even allowed
by the police to touch, much less get near to, the cadaver of Francisco. Caridad,
expectedly, was crying and one of her aunts advised her to go home.
"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 Certi cate of her husband and
testi ed 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 testi ed 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
"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 body of Francisco. He left the place of the
incident when [SPO2] Percival A. Gabinete and other policemen subsequently
arrived.
"Cacalda had gathered from the people milling around the body of
Francisco that it was accused Ladiana who shot and killed Francisco. Cacalda
immediately left to look for accused Ladiana. However, he eventually saw
accused Ladiana already inside the jail of the police station and thereafter
learned that said accused had surrendered to the police authority.
"Cacalda recalled that he was later on investigated by Halili because he
was the responding policeman who went to the scene of the incident.
Consequently, Cacalda executed a written statement in relation to the subject
incident.
"On cross-examination, Cacalda testi ed that he was a radio operator and
not an investigator of the police station. He also testi ed that he did not witness
the incident subject matter of the case at bar.
"Cacalda went on to testify that the people milling around the place of the
incident told him that accused Ladiana had already left. Because of this
development, Cacalda proceeded to accused Ladiana's house but was told that
he had already gone to the police station. Cacalda accordingly went to the police
station where he saw accused Ladiana already locked inside the jail. He also saw
a stab wound on accused Ladiana's right biceps but he did not anymore ask him
how he sustained the said injury.
"3. DR. ROGELIO JAVAN y MAGRACIA (hereinafter, 'Javan') declared that
he is a physician and the Municipal Health Officer of Lumban, Laguna.
"Javan recounted that he was the one who performed the necropsy on the
cadaver of Francisco and that he had prepared the corresponding reports and/or
documents relating thereto. Javan made a sketch representing the anterior and
posterior views of the body of Francisco, and labeled and placed red markings on
the gunshot wounds found on the said cadaver. The marking 'Gunshot wound A'
is the point of entry, which is one (1) centimeter in diameter and situated two (2)
inches behind the left ear. The marking 'Gunshot wound B' is the point of exit of
'Gunshot wound A', which is two (2) centimeters in diameter and found above the
right cheekbone and one (1) inch below the right eye. Javan also testi ed that
there is another gunshot wound and the point of entry and exit are labeled as
'Gunshot wound C' and 'Gunshot wound D', respectively. 'Gunshot wound D' is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
one and one-half (1 1/2) centimeters in diameter and located at the left cheek,
three and one-half (3 1/2) centimeters below the left eye, while 'Gunshot wound C'
is one (1) centimeter in diameter and found at the right lateral aspect of the neck,
at the level of the Adam's apple.
In short, petitioner raises the following questions in this appeal: (1) whether the
Counter-A davit he executed during the preliminary investigation of this case is
admissible proof showing his complicity in the crime, (2) whether the Sandiganbayan erred
in denying his Motion for Leave to File a Demurrer to Evidence, and (3) whether he is
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
This Court's Ruling
The Petition is not meritorious.
First Issue:
Admissibility of Counter-Affidavit
Undeniably, the resolution of this case hinges mainly on the admissibility of the
Counter-Affidavit 1 7 submitted by petitioner during the preliminary investigation. He argues
that no counsel was present when the A davit was executed. In support of his argument,
he cites the Constitution thus:
"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.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him." 1 8
It is well-settled that the foregoing legal formalities required by the fundamental law
of the land apply only to extra-judicial confessions or admissions obtained during
custodial investigations. 1 9 Indeed, the rights enumerated in the constitutional provision
"exist only in custodial interrogations, or in-custody interrogation of accused persons." 2 0
Custodial interrogation is the questioning initiated by law enforcement o cers after
a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way. 2 1
In the present case, petitioner admits that the questioned statements were made
during the preliminary investigation, not during the custodial investigation. However, he
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
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 su cient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.
22
There is no question that even in the absence of counsel, the admissions made by
petitioner in his Counter-A davit are not violative of his constitutional rights. It is clear
from the undisputed facts that it was not exacted by the police while he was under
custody or interrogation. Hence, the constitutional rights of a person under custodial
investigation as embodied in Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, are not at
issue in this case.
However, the accused — whether in court or undergoing preliminary investigation
before the public prosecutor - unquestionably possess rights that must be safeguarded.
These include: 1) the right to refuse to be made witnesses; 2) the right not to have any
prejudice whatsoever imputed to them by such refusal; 3) the right to testify on their own
behalf, subject to cross-examination by the prosecution; and 4) while testifying, the right to
refuse to answer a speci c question that tends to incriminate them for some crone other
than that for which they are being prosecuted. 2 5
We do not, however, agree with the Sandiganbayan's characterization of petitioner's
Counter-A davit as an extrajudicial confession. It is only an admission. Sections 26 and
33 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence distinguish one from the other as follows:
"SEC. 26. Admissions of a party . — The act, declaration or omission of a
party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
"SEC. 33. Confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his
guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may
be given in evidence against him."
Through the above statement, petitioner admits shooting the victim — which
eventually led to the latter's death — but denies having done it with any criminal intent. In
fact, he claims he did it in self-defense. Nevertheless, whether categorized as a confession
or as an admission, it is admissible in evidence against him.
Further, we do not doubt the voluntariness of the Counter-A davit. Petitioner
himself submitted it to the public prosecutor to justify his actions in relation to the
charges hurled against him. It escapes this Court how he can cavalierly deny a document
that he has voluntarily submitted and originally relied upon in his defense.
In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or by showing
they were made by mistake. The party may also establish that the response that formed
the admission was made in a jocular, not a serious, manner; or that the admission was
made in ignorance of the true state of facts. 2 9 Yet, petitioner never offered any
rationalization why such admissions had been made, thus, leaving them unrebutted. In
addition, admissions made under oath, as in the case at bar, are evidence of great weight
against the declarant. They throw on him the burden of showing a mistake. 3 0
Petitioner contends that nowhere in the transcripts of this case can it be found that
he has admitted to the authorship, the authenticity or the voluntariness of the Counter-
Affidavit. We quote verbatim the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan:
"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
The admissions of petitioner made through his counsel cannot be any clearer. To be
sure, the unbroken stream of judicial dicta is that, in the conduct of their case, clients are
bound by the actions of their counsels, save when the latter's negligence is so gross,
reckless and inexcusable that the former are deprived of their day in court. 3 2 Also, clients,
being bound by the actions of their counsels, cannot complain that the result of the
litigation might have been different had their lawyers proceeded differently. 3 3 A counsel
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
may err as to the competency of witnesses, the su ciency and the relevance of evidence,
the proper defense, the burden of proof, the introduction or the withholding of witnesses
or pieces of evidence, or the manner of arguing the case. This Court, however, has ruled
several times that those are not even proper grounds for a new trial, unless the counsel's
incompetence is so gross that the clients are prevented from fairly presenting their case.
34
Having admitted that he had fatally shot the victim, petitioner had the duty of
showing that the killing was justi ed, and that the latter incurred no criminal liability
therefor. 3 5 Petitioner should have relied on the strength of his own evidence and not on
the weakness of that for the prosecution. Even if his evidence be weak, it cannot be
disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing. 3 6
Petitioner argues that it was the prosecution that indirectly raised the issue of self-
defense. Hence, he could not be bound by it. This argument deserves scant consideration.
As discussed earlier, the declarations contained in his Counter-A davit are admissions
that may be used as evidence against him. 3 7 The Sandiganbayan did not unfairly presume
that he had indeed raised the theory of self-defense, because this argument had already
been laid out in his Counter-A davit. No presumption was necessary, because the
admission was clear and unequivocal. HEAcDC
Neither do we believe petitioner's claim that the anti-graft court "miserably failed to
give equal effect or treatment to all allegations found therein (Counter-A davit) choosing
deliberately and without reasonable basis the parts which are incriminating character, and
ignoring without sufficient legal basis the exculpatory assertions of the accused." 3 8
The unsubstantiated and uncorroborated statements of petitioner in his Counter-
A davit are utterly insu cient to discharge his burden of proving that the act of killing
was justi ed. It is hornbook doctrine that self-defense must be proved with certainty by
su cient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal
aggression on the part of the person invoking it. 3 9 It cannot be entertained if it is
uncorroborated by any separate and competent evidence, and it is also doubtful. 4 0 The
question whether her the accused acted in self-defense is essentially a question of act
properly evaluated by the lower court; in this case, the Sandiganbayan. 4 1
By itself, the Counter-A davit miserably fails to establish the requisites of self-
defense enumerated in the law. 4 2 Had petitioner been more vigilant in protecting his
rights, he could have presented clear and cogent evidence to prove those elements. But, as
found by the court a quo, he not only failed to discharge the burden of proving the
existence of the justifying circumstance of self-defense; he did not even bother to present
any evidence at all. 4 3 So, we do not see how the Sandiganbayan could have been selective
in its treatment of his Counter-Affidavit.
Verily, if the accused fails to discharge the burden of proving the existence of self-
defense or of any other circumstance that eliminates criminal liability, his conviction shall
of necessity follow, on the basis of his admission of the killing. 4 4 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 justi cation for
the killing.
Therefore, petitioner can no longer invoke his constitutional right to be presumed
innocent of the crime charged. 4 5 As far as he is concerned, homicide has already been
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
established. The fact of death and its cause were established by his admissions coupled
with the other prosecution evidence including the Certi cate of Death, 4 6 the Certi cate of
Post-Mortem Examination 4 7 and the Medico-Legal Findings. 4 8 The intent to kill is likewise
presumed from the fact of death. 4 9
Second Issue:
Denial of Motion for Leave to File Demurrer
Petitioner then argues that the Sandiganbayan erred in not giving due course to his
Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence. He brands this denial as legally and
constitutionally wrong. 5 0
We disagree. Prior leave to le a demurrer to evidence is discretionary upon the trial
court. 5 1 And, unless there is grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its
denial, the trial court's resolution may not be disturbed. 5 2
Final Issue:
Voluntary Surrender
After vigorously arguing against his own Counter-A davit, petitioner, in a surprising
change of tenor, implores this Court to consider his voluntary surrender to the police
authorities as a mitigating circumstance. He argues that two of the prosecution witnesses
testi ed that he had surrendered to the police authorities after the shooting incident. 5 3 To
buttress his argument, he contends that the "main reason for his voluntary surrender is that
he sincerely believe[d] that he was legally justi ed in defending himself as a policeman
when he fought the victim after he was attacked by the latter." 5 4 It goes without saying
that this statement only rea rms the admissions contained in his Counter-A davit, which
he so vehemently tried to discredit.
For voluntary surrender to mitigate criminal liability, the following elements must
concur: 1) the offender has not been actually arrested, 2) the offender surrenders himself
to a person in authority or to the latter's agent, and 3) the surrender is voluntary. 5 5 To be
su cient, the surrender must be spontaneous and made in a manner clearly indicating the
intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally, either because they acknowledge their
guilt or wish to save the authorities the trouble and the expense that will necessarily be
incurred in searching for and capturing them. 5 6
The only pieces of evidence in support of the plea of voluntary surrender made by
petitioner are statements made by two (2) prosecution witnesses that they were allegedly
told by other people that he had already gone to the police station. There is no showing
that he was not actually arrested; or that when he went to the police station, he
surrendered himself to a person in authority. Neither is there any nding that he has
evinced a desire to own to any complicity in the killing.
We have ruled in the past that the accused who had gone to the police headquarters
merely to report the shooting incident did not evince any desire to admit responsibility for
the killing. Thus, he could not be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered. 5 7 In the absence
of su cient and convincing proof showing the existence of indispensable circumstances,
we cannot appreciate voluntary surrender to mitigate petitioner's penalty.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., is abroad on official business.
Footnotes
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).
6. Id., pp. 88-89. This was signed by Special Prosecution O cer Fidel D. Galindez and approved
by then Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez.
7. Amended Information, p. 1; id, p. 88.
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, led 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 O cer Manuel T. Soriano Jr. of the O ce of the
Special Prosecutor (OSP).
16. Petitioner's Memorandum, pp. 5-6; rollo, pp. 169-170; original in upper case.
20. People v. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216, 230, July 7, 1989, per Narvasa, J. (later, CJ).
21. People v. Marra , 236 SCRA 565, September 20, 1994; People v. Logronio , 214 SCRA 519,
October 13, 1992; People v. Ayson, supra.
27. Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines Evidence, Vol. VII, Part I, 1997 ed., p.
303.
33. People v. Remudo, GR No. 127905, August 30, 2001; GoldLine Transit, Inc. v. Ramos, GR No.
144813, August 15, 2001; People v. Villanueva, 339 SCRA 482, August 31, 2000.
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. Deopante , 263 SCRA 691,
October 30, 1996.
36. People v. Damitan , GR No. 140544, December 7, 2001; People v. Iglesia , GR No. 132354,
September 13, 2001; People v. Nepomuceno Jr ., 298 SCRA 450, November 11, 1998;
People v. Bautista, 254 SCRA 621, March 12, 1996.
37. §26, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
38. Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 9; rollo, p. 173.
39. People v. Suyum , GR No. 137518, March 6, 2002; People v. Sanchez , 308 SCRA 264, June
16, 1999; People v. Balamban, 264 SCRA 619, November 21, 1996.
40. People v. Suyum, supra; People v. Sarabia, 317 SCRA 684, October 29, 1999.
41. People v. Suyum , supra; People v. Dano , 339 SCRA 515, September 1, 2000; People v.
Sarabia, supra.
42. Art. 11, Revised Penal Code.
44. People v. Suyum , supra; People v. Templa , GR No. 121897, August 16, 2001; People v.
Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267, July 28, 1998; People v. Vallador , 257 SCRA 515, June 20,
1996.
52. Bernardo v. CA, supra; People v. Mercado, 159 SCRA 453, March 30, 1988.
55. People v. Gutierrez, GR No. 142905, March 18, 2002; People v. Manlansing , GR Nos.
131736-37, March 11, 2002; People v. Sitchon , GR No. 134362, February 27, 2002;
People v. Ancheta, GR Nos. 138306-07, December 21, 2001.
56. People v. Boquila , GR No. 136145, March 8, 2002; People v. Cortezan , GR No. 140732,
January 29, 2002; People v. Saul, GR No. 124809, December 19, 2001; People v. Viernes ,
GR Nos. 136733-35, December 13, 2001.
57. People v. Valles , 267 SCRA 103, January 28, 1997; People v. Rogales , 6 SCRA 830,
November 30, 1962.