G.R. No. 147782 June 25, 2008

G.R. No.
147782 June 25, 2008

JUANITA A. AQUINO, petitioner,
vs.
TERESITA B. PAISTE, respondent.
FACTS:
At about 9:00 o’clock in the morning of March 14, 1991, petitioner Juanita Aquino,
Elizabeth Garganta, and another woman identified only as "Adeling," went to the house of
respondent Teresita Paiste at 611 Peñalosa St., Tondo, Manila. The children of respondent and
petitioner were grade school classmates. After the usual pleasantries, petitioner started to
convince respondent to buy a gold bar owned by a certain Arnold, an Igorot. After respondent
was shown a sample of the gold bar, she agreed to go with them to a pawnshop in Tondo to have
it tested. She was told that it was genuine. However, she told the three that she had no money.
Regardless, petitioner and Garganta went back to the house of respondent the following
day. The two convinced her to go with them to Angeles City, Pampanga to meet Arnold and see
the gold bar. They reached Angeles City around 2:30 p.m. and met Arnold who showed them the
gold bar. Arnold informed her that it was worth PhP 60,000. After respondent informed them
again she had no money, petitioner continued to press her that buying the gold bar would be
good investment. The three left and went home.
On petitioner’s insistence, on March 18, 1991, the two went to Angeles City and bought
the gold bar for PhP 50,000.1
On March 19, 1991, respondent had the gold bar tested and she was informed that it was
fake.2 Respondent then proceeded to petitioner’s house to inform the latter that the gold bar was
fake. Petitioner replied that they had to see Garganta, and that she had nothing to do with the
transaction.3
On March 27, 1991, respondent brought petitioner to the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI)-NCR in the presence of a certain Atty. Tolentino where petitioner amicably
promised respondent they would locate Garganta, and the document they both signed would be
disregarded should they locate Garganta.
Accused Garganta and the others remained at large; only petitioner was arraigned and
entered a plea of not guilty.
(1) whether the amicable settlement executed in the NBI is admissible as evidence, and (2)
whether conspiracy has indeed been proven to convict petitioner of the crime of estafa.
FIRST TOPIC:
RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
ISSUE:
WHETHER THE ACCUSED RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION ARE
VIOLATED
RULING:
NO, ACCUSED RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION ARE NOT VIOLATED
Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way. It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the
police carries out a process of interrogations that lend itself to eliciting incriminating statements,
that the rule begins to operate. Republic Act No. (RA) 743811 has extended this constitutional
guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been
"invited" for questioning. Specifically, Sec. 2 of RA 7438 provides that "custodial
investigation shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed x x x."
It is evident that when petitioner was brought by respondent before the NBI-NCR on
March 27, 1991 to be investigated, she was already under custodial investigation and the
constitutional guarantee for her rights under the Miranda Rule has set in. Since she did not have a
lawyer then, she was provided with one in the person of Atty. Uy, which fact is undisputed.
Moreover, while we hold in this case that petitioner’s Miranda rights were not violated,
still we will not be remiss to reiterate what we held in People v. Malimit that the infractions of
the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible "only the extrajudicial confession or admission
made during custodial investigation. The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are
relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if
obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation."16 An admission is an act, declaration
or omission of a party as to a relevant fact,17 while confession is a declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein.
SECOND TOPIC:
CONSPIRACY
ISSUE:
WHETHER CONSPIRACY WAS DULY PROVEN
RULING:
YES, CONSPIRACY WAS DULY PROVEN
It is common design which is the essence of conspiracy—conspirators may act separately
or together, in different manners but always leading to the same unlawful result. The character
and effect of conspiracy are not to be adjudged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts
but only by looking at it as a whole—acts done to give effect to conspiracy may be, in fact,
wholly innocent acts.22 Once proved, the act of one becomes the act of all. All the conspirators
are answerable as co-principals regardless of the extent or degree of their participation.
To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to

have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Mere presence when
the transaction was made does not necessarily lead to an inference of concurrence with the
criminal design to commit the crime of estafa. Even knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to
cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy because the rule is that
neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy.
In the instant case, the courts a quo unanimously held that conspiracy was duly proven.
As aptly observed by the CA, the records are replete with instances to show that petitioner
actively participated to defraud respondent.

G.R. No. 147782 June 25, 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

G.R. No. 147782 June 25, 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

147782 June 25, 2008

On March 27, 1991, respondent brought petitioner to the National Bureau of

To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to

You might also like