People vs. Manriquez and People vs. Fabro

Abadiez, Raymund C.
People vs. Manriquez G.R. No. 122510-11
FACTS:
Once upon a time, the two accused in this case Herecleo and Gregorio killed someone. After the killing they
voluntarily surrendered themselves to the authorities because of conscience. In the custodial investigation, no
meaningful information as to his rights under custodial interrogation was conveyed to GREGORIO. He was not asked
if he wanted to avail of his rights and was not told that if he has no lawyer of his own choice he could avail of one to
be appointed for him. Furthermore, the waiver states that he does not want the assistance of counsel and it is not
shown that he agreed to be assisted by Atty. Tanjili. The testimony of Atty. Tanjili also eloquently reveals his cavalier
attitude and the insufficiency of the assistance given. His explanation to GREGORIO on his constitutional rights
during custodial interrogation and of the effects of the waiver thereof is unsatisfactory.
ISSUE: Whether or not the waiver of their rights is valid.
RULING: No, it was not since it is obvious that the so-called extrajudicial confession, which is a sworn statement
marked as Exhibit "F-2" and made to appear as "page 2," was not yet prepared when Atty. Tanjili was approached to
"assist" GREGORIO. As clearly shown therein, another typewriter was used for Exhibit "F-2," and then merely
attached as "page 2" of the waiver.
Since the waiver of GREGORIO was intrinsically flawed and therefore, null and void, the alleged extrajudicial
confession, "Exh. F-2." is inadmissible in evidence.
Nonetheless, the nullity of the waiver and the expurgation of the extrajudicial confession do not absolve GREGORIO
from any criminal responsibility. The evidence on record satisfies us with moral certainty that he and his co-accused
conspired together to kill DUAY and GABUYAN and that GREGORIO was not a mere witness to the acts of the
others; he himself materially contributed to the pursuant of the conspiracy.
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision. of 27 April 1995 of Branch 16, Regional Trial Court of Davao City, in
Criminal Case No. 19,615-90 and Criminal Case No. 19,616-90, finding accused-appellant GREGORIO CANOY
guilty in each case beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of murder defined and penalized under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that the penalty imposed in each case is
reduced from reclusion perpetua to an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and (1) day of prision
mayor minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal minimum, as
maximum
Abadiez, Raymund C.
People vs. Fabro G.R. No. 95089 August 11, 1997
FACTS: Sometime in the 2nd week of April 1987, a strike was held by workers on the premises of the Casa Blanca,
located at Barrio Baretto, Olongapo City, which the victim, Dionisio Joaquin was one of the organizers. Joaquin
sought the assistance of his friends among whome was Anthony Beck, a stevedore and resident of Olongapo City.
At about 6:00 P.M. on April 11, 1987, Joaquin and Beck were at Whisky Bar fronting the Casa Blanca, at Barrio
Barretto, Olongapo City. They were conversing while resting at the veranda of said Whisky Bar, fronting the Casa
Blanca where a picket was being conducted by their co-strikers. Both had fallen asleep, as they lacked sleep the
previous nights, on a chair near each other with their feet resting on the veranda railings.
Anthony Beck fell asleep at about 4:00 o'clock in the early morning of April 12, 1987. Shortly thereafter, at about 5:00
to 5:30 in the morning, he was awakened by gun report. Opening his eyes, he saw Joaquin dead, with a single bullet
wound on the forehead. Blood was oozing from Joaquin's head. Seeing a man running away from where he and
Joaquin were seated, Anthony Beck then gave chase. The fleeing man turned left on an alley and then right on
another. Beck lost him at the second turn. He saw an old man who inquired why he was chasing the fleeing man.
Beck told the old man of the shooting incident. Then and there the old man told Beck that the man he (Beck) was
running after was “Badong,” later identified as the accused Nicomedes.
Police officers from the Olongapo Metrodiscom, led by Sgt. Felipe Bolina, proceeded to Fabro's residence at about
noon that same day. They failed to apprehend Fabro as he was allegedly then asleep. The accused (Fabro) was
surrendered by his sister to the CIS the following day.
At 6:00 o'clock that night, April 13, 1987, Fabro was interrogated by CIS personnel and grilled for about two (2)
hours. At that juncture, CIS investigator Santiago requested Fabro to sign a document, which turned out to be his
extra-judicial confession/admission. Accused Fabro (claims that he) was not allowed to read the document, neither
were its contents read to him. A certain Atty. Isagani Jungco was however present when he signed the document.
While it appears from the transcript that co-accused Francisco Dimalanta executed an extra-judicial statement
(confession), Dimalanta himself was never presented in court as defense witness, as both accused Dimalanta and
Alcala jumped bail during trial
ISSUES: Whether or not the confession is admissible.
RULINGS: Jurisprudence defines confession as a a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion or

inducement by a person, stating or acknowledging that he has committed or participated in the commission of a
crime. However, before such confession shall be admitted as evidence, it must satisfy the several requirements
provided in Sec. 12 and 17, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution. A confession meeting all the foregoing requisites
constitutes evidence of a high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind will
knowingly, freely and deliberately confess that he is the perpetrator of a crime unless prompted by truth and
conscience. When all these requirements are met and the confession is admitted in evidence, the burden of proof
that it was obtained by undue pressure, threat or intimidation rests upon the accused.
In the case at bar, Fabro miserably failed to present any convincing evidence to prove that there was indeed force
and intimidation on his person in order to secure his confession. The records show that appellant’s confession was
sworn and subscribed to before Fiscal Jesus Dorante, to whom he could have and should have voiced his objection,
if any. Quite the contrary, Fiscal Dorante certified that he personally examined appellant and was convinced that the
latter gave his statement freely and voluntarily and that he understood the contents of his confession. Appellant’s
failure to voice out his complaints is tantamount to a manifestation that indeed he waived his right to counsel in the
presence of Atty. Jungco in accordance with the Constitution. Moreover, the court finds Fabro’s lack of complaint or
even any mention thereof to his sister and relatives who visited him at Camp Maquinaya where he was detained for
one year further belies his claim which reinforces the trial court’s ruling. Aboveall, the court was convinced that the
confession was voluntary because Fabro was able to tell that the confession contains exculpatory claims and facts
which that only he could have known

People vs. Manriquez and People vs. Fabro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Manriquez and People vs. Fabro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abadiez, Raymund C.

People vs. Manriquez G.R. No. 122510-11

ISSUE: Whether or not the waiver of their rights is valid.

ISSUES: Whether or not the confession is admissible.

RULINGS: Jurisprudence defines confession as a a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion or

You might also like