1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135 1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135

rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he

might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall
have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or
anyone he chooses by the most expedient means—by telephone if
possible—or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility
of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No
VOL. 135, MARCH 20, 1985 465 custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the
presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person
People vs. Galit
on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the
* detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf The right to counsel
No. L-51770. March 20, 1985. may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with
the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or
vs. FRANCISCO GALIT, defendant-appellant. inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Criminal Procedure; Constitutional Law; Fortunately, violent Same; Same; A very long question enumerating to the accused
extraction of confession constitutes the exception rather than the his constitutional rights does not satisfy the requirements of law
general rule in this jurisdiction.—This Court in a long line of regarding the taking of confessions. There should be several short
decisions over the years, the latest being the case of People vs. and clear questions explaining to detainee his constitutional
Cabrera, has consistently and strongly condemned the practice of rights. The detainee must be afforded right to communicate with a
maltreating prisoners to extort confessions from them as a grave lawyer or relative.—Such a long question followed by a
and unforgivable violation of human rights. But the practice monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of the law
persists. Fortunately, such instances constitute the exception that the accused be informed of his rights under the Constitution
rather than the general rule. and our laws. Instead there should be several short and clear
questions and every right explained in simple words in a dialect
or language known to the person under investigation. Accused is
Same; Same; Correct procedure to be followed by peace officers
from Samar and there is no showing that he understands
in making an arrest and conducting a custodial investigation.—At
Tagalog. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused was not
the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting
permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a friend.
officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be
In fact, his sisters and other relatives did not know that be had
shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his
been brought to the NBI for investigation and it was only about
constitutional
two weeks after he had executed the salaysay that his relatives
were allowed to visit him, His statement does not even contain
_______________ any waiver of right to counsel and yet during the investigation he
was not assisted by one, At the supposed re-enactment, again
* EN BANC.
accused was not assisted by counsel of his choice. These constitute
gross violations of his rights.

466
Same; Same; Courts should look carefully into the
circumstances surrounding taking of confession.—Trial courts are
cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances surrounding the
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED taking of any confession, especially where the prisoner claims
having been maltreated into giving one. Where there is any doubt
People vs. Galit as to its voluntariness, the same must be rejected in toto.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12

1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135 1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135

467 handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by

the imposition of punishments in a cruel and humiliating manner.
“If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or
VOL. 135, MARCH 20, 1985 467
to obtain some information from the prisoner. the offender shall
People vs. Galit be

468
APPEAL from the judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court
of Pasig, Rizal.
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
People vs. Galit
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
punished by prision correccional in its minimum period.
1. The prisoner was arrested for killing the victim on temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500
the occasion of a robbery. He had been detained and pesos, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or
interrogated almost continuously for five days, to no damage caused.”
avail. He consistently maintained his innocence.
There was no evidence to link him to the crime. 4. This Court in a long line of decisions over the years,
1

Obviously, something drastic had to be done, A the latest being the case of People vs. Cabrera, has
confession was absolutely necessary, So the consistently and strongly condemned the practice of
investigating officers began to maul him and to maltreating prisoners to extort confessions from
torture him physically. Still the prisoner insisted on them as a grave and unforgivable violation of
his innocence, His will had to be broken. A human rights. But the practice persists.
confession must be obtained. So they continued to Fortunately, such instances constitute the
maltreat and beat him, They covered his face with a exception rather than the general rule.
rag and pushed his face into a toilet bowl full of 5. Before Us for mandatory review is the death
human waste. The prisoner could not take any sentence imposed upon the accused Francisco Galit
more. His body could no longer endure the pain by the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, in
inflicted on him and the indignities he had to suffer. Crim. Case No. CCC-VII2589 of said court.
His will had been broken. He admitted what the 6. The record shows that in the morning of August 23,
investigating officers wanted him to admit and he 1977, Mrs. Natividad Fernando, a widow, was
signed the confession they prepared. Later, against found dead in the bedroom of her house located at
his will, he posed for pictures as directed by his Barrio Geronimo, Montalban, Rizal, as a result of
investigators, purporting it to be a reenactment. seven (7) wounds inflicted upon different parts of
2
2. This incident could have happened in a Russian her body by a blunt instrument. More than two
gulag or in Hitler’s Germany. But no it did not. It weeks thereafter, police authorities of Montalban
happened in the Philippines, In this case before Us. picked up the herein accused, Francisco Galit, an
3. The Revised Penal Code punishes the maltreatment ordinary construction worker (pion) living in
of prisoners as follows: Marikina, Rizal, on suspicion of the murder. On the
following day, however, September 8, 1977, the case
“ART. 235. Maltreatment of prisoners.—The penalty of arresto was referred to the National Bureau of
mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its Investigation (NBI) for further investigation in view
minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical of the alleged limited facilities of the Montalban
injuries or damage caused, shall be imposed upon any public police station. Accordingly, the herein accused was
officer or employee who shall over do himself in the correction or brought to the NBl where he was investigated3 by a
team headed by NBI Agent Carlos Flores. NBI

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12

1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135 1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135

Agent Flores conducted a preliminary interview of the head and extremities, which directly caused her death, and
the suspect who
4
allegedly gave evasive answers to the total amount of the loss is P 10,000.00 including valuables
his questions. But the following day, September 9, and cash.”
1977, Francisco Galit voluntarily executed a
Salaysay admitting participation in the commission Trial was held, and on August 11, 1978, immediately after
of the crime. He implicated Juling Dulay and 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
1 G.R. No. 51858, promulgated January 31, 1985.
the heirs of the victim in the sum of P1 10,000.00, and to
2 Exhs. “C", “D", “E", “E-1", “E-2"; t.s.n. of August 3, 1978, p. 7.
pay the costs. Hence, the present recourse.
3 t.s.n. of August 3, 1978, p. 10,
7. The incriminatory facts of the case, as found by the
4 Id., p. 26.
trial court, are as follows:
469
“From the evidence adduced in this case, it was gathered that in
the early morning of August 23, 1977, a 70-year old woman
VOL. 135, MARCH 20, 1985 469 named Natividad Fernando, widow, in the twilight of her life, was
People vs. Galit robbed

5
_______________
Pabling Dulay as his companions in the crime. As a
result, he was charged with the crime of Robbery 5 Exh. “F".
with Homicide, in an information filed before the
Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, committed 470
as follows:
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
“That on or about the 23rd day of August 1977 in the municipality
of Montalban, province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the People vs. Galit
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together with Juling Doe and and then hacked to death by the accused and two others in her
Pabling Doe, whose true identities and present whereabouts are (victim’s) own residence at Montalban, Rizal.
still unknown and three of them mutually helping and aiding one “Prosecution witness Florentino Valentino testified that he
another, with intent of gain and by means of force, intimidation heard accused Francisco Galit and his wife having an argument
and violence upon the person of one Natividad Fernando while in in connection with the robbery and killing of the victim, Natividad
her dwelling, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and Fernando. It appears that on August 18, 1977, accused Galit and
feloniously take, steal and carry away from the person of said two others, namely, Juling Dulay and a certain ‘Pabling’
Natividad Fernando, cash money of an undetermined amount, accidentally met each other at Mariquina, Rizal, and in their
belonging to said Natividad Fernando, thereby causing damage conversation, the three agreed to rob Natividad Fernando; that it
and prejudice to the latter in an undetermined amount; that by was further agreed among them to enter the premises of the
reason or on the occasion of said robbery, and for purpose of victim’s house at the back yard by climbing over the fence; that
enabling them (accused) to take, steal and carry away the said once inside the premises, they will search every room, especially
cash money in pursuance of their conspiracy and for the purpose the aparador and filing cabinets, with the sole aim of looking for
of insuring the success of their criminal act, with intent to kill, cash money and other valuables,
did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, “Witness Valentino further testified that on August 22, 1977,
assault and stab with a dagger said Natividad Fernando on the at around 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon, accused Francisco Galit
different parts of her body, thereby inflicting multiple injuries on and his two companions, Juling Dulay and Pabling, as per their

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12

1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135 1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135

previous agreement, met at the place where they formerly saw accused Galit to leave their residence immediately; that he
each other in Mariquina, Rizal; that the three conspirators took a further stated that he overheard accused Galit saying that he and
jeepney for Montalban and upon passing the Montalban his other two companions robbed and killed Natividad Fernando.
Municipal Building, they stopped and they waited at the side of “As a result of the killing, the victim, Natividad Fernando,
the road until the hour of midnight; that at about 12:00 o’clock suffered no less than seven stab wounds. There was massive
that night, the three repaired to the premises of the victim, cerebral hemorrhage and the cause of death was due to shock and
Natividad Fernando; that they entered the said premises through hemorrhage, as evidenced by the Medico-Legal Necropsy Report
the back wall of the house; that while entering the premises of (Exhs. ‘C' and ‘C-2'), and the pictures taken of the deceased victim
said house, Juling Dulay saw a bolo, lying near the piggery (Exhs. ‘E', ‘E-1' and ‘E-2')."
compound, which he picked up and used it to destroy the back
portion of the wall of the house; that it was Juling Dulay who first 8. The accused, upon the other hand, denied
entered the house through the hole that they made, followed by participation in the commission of the crime. He
the accused Galit and next to him was ‘Pabling’, that it was claimed that he was in his house in Marikina,
already early dawn of August 23, 1977 when the three were able Rizal, when the crime was committed in
to gain entrance into the house of the victim; as the three could Montalban, Rizal. He also assailed the admissibility
not find anything valuable inside the first room that they entered, of the extra-judicial confession extracted from him
Juling Dulay destroyed the screen of the door of the victim, through torture, force and intimidation as described
Natividad Fernando; that upon entering the room of the victim, earlier, and without the benefit of counsel.
the three accused decided to kill first the victim, Natividad 9. After a review of the records, We find that the
Fernando, before searching the room for valuables; that Juling evidence presented by the prosecution does not
Dulay, who was then holding the bolo, began hacking the victim, support a conviction. In fact, the findings of the
who was then sleeping, and accused Galit heard a moaning sound trial court relative to the acts attributed to the
from the victim; that after the victim was killed, the three accused accused are not supported by competent evidence.
began searching the room for valuables; that they helped each The principal prosecution witness, Florentino Valen
other in opening the iron cabinet inside the room of the victim, tino merely testified that he and the accused were
where they found some money; that when the three accused left living together in one house in Marikina, Rizal, on
the room of the victim, they brought with them some papers and August 23, 1977, because the mother of his wife is
pictures which they threw outside; that after killing and robbing the wife of the accused; that when he returned
the victim, the three accused went out of the premises of home at about 4:00 o’clock in the morning from the
police station of Marikina, Rizal, the accused and
471
his wife were quarreling (nagtatalo); that he heard
that the accused was leaving the house because he
VOL. 135, MARCH 20, 1985 471 and his companions had robbed “Aling Nene”, the
People vs. Galit owner of a poultry farm and piggery in Montalban,
Rizal; that the wife of the accused was imploring
him not to leave, but the latter was insistent; that
the house, using the same way by which they gained entrance,
he
which was through the back portion of the wall; that the three
accused walked towards the river bank where they divided the
472
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 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
went home.
People vs. Galit
“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 saw the accused carrying a bag containing about
two handsful (dakot) of coins which he had taken
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135 1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135

from Aling Nene; that upon learning of what the 473

accused had done, he went to the Montalban police
the next day and reported to the police chief about
VOL. 135, MARCH 20, 1985 473
what he had heard; and that a week later,
Montalban policemen went to their house and People vs. Galit
6
arrested the accused.
7
10. This Court, in the case of Morales vs. Ponce Enrile,       maaaring hindi kayo magbigay ng isang
laid down the correct procedure for peace officers to   salaysay, na hindi rin kayo maaaring
follow when making an arrest and in conducting a pilitin o
custodial investigation, and which We reiterate:
  saktan at pangakuan upang magbigay ng
“7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the   naturang salaysay, na anuman ang inyong
arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he   sasabihin sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay
must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed maaaring
of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and
  laban sa inyo sa anumang usapin na
that any statement he might make could be used against him,
maaaring
The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his
lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient   ilahad sa anumang hukuman o tribunal
means—by telephone if possible—or by letter or messenger, It dito
shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that   sa Pilipinas, na sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay
this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be
  maaaring katulungin mo ang isang
conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the
person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the   manananggol at kung sakaling hindi mo
court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on   kayang bayaran ang isang manananggol ay
his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver
  maaaring bigyan ka ng isa ng NBI. Ngayon
shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any
at
statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be   alam mo na ang mga ito nakahanda ka
inadmissible in evidence.” bang
  magbigay ng isang kusang-loob na salaysay
11. There were no eyewitnesses, no property recovered
from the accused, no state witnesses, and not even   sa pagtatanong na ito?
fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime. “SAGOT:  
The only evidence against the accused is his alleged Opo.”
confession. It behooves Us therefore to give it a
close scrutiny. The statement begins as follows: 12. Such a long quesrion followed by a monosyllabic
answer does not satisfy the requirements of the law
“I. TANONG: Ipinagbibigay-alam ko sa inyo ang inyong that the accused be informed of his rights under the
  mga karapatan sa ilalim ng Saligang-Batas Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be
several short and clear questions and every right
  ng Pilipinas na kung inyong nanaisin ay
explained in simple words in a dialect or language
known to the person under investigation. Accused is
_______________ from Samar and there is no showing that he
understands Tagalog. Moreover, at the time of his
6 t.s.n. of August 9, 1978, pp. 3–11. arrest, accused was not permitted to communicate
7 G.R. Nos. 61016 and 61107, April 26, 1983, 121 SCRA 538. with his lawyer, a relative, or a friend. In fact, his
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135 1/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 135

sisters and other relatives did not know that he had Notes.—Judges, fiscals and other officers administering
been brought to the NBI for investigation and it the oath to confessants in crime must get a doctor to
was only about two weeks after he had executed the examine first the affiant, and if a doctor is not available,
salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit must themselves make a physical examination of the
him. His statement does not even contain any suspect before swearing the latter in. (People vs. Barros,
waiver of right to counsel and yet during the 122 SCRA 34.)
investigation he was not assisted by one. At the Confession obtained by police without legal assistance
supposed reenactment, again accused was not on part of affiant and understanding of his right is
assisted by counsel of his choice. These constitute inadmissible. (People vs. Manalang, 123 SCRA 583.)
gross violations of his rights. Where employment of force is being claimed regarding
13. The alleged confession and the pictures of the execution of extrajudicial confession, defense must prove
supposed re-enactment are inadmissible as concrete evidence of compulsion or duress. (People vs.
evidence because they were obtained in a manner Balane, 123 SCRA 614.)
contrary to law.
——o0o——
14. Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the
circumstances surrounding the taking of any 475
confession, especially where the prisoner claims
having been maltreated into giv

474

474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Galit © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

ing 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 released from
custody immediately unless held on other charges.
With costs de oficio.
17. SO ORDERED.

     Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Abad Santos,

Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De
la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.
     Aquino, J., no part.

Judgment set aside.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f6620f1dbe8380f13003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12