In People v. de la Cruz, 224 SCRA 506, where appellant, after having been Veri the amount of P30,000.

P30,000.00 as damages without subsidiary imprisonment

apprehended, but without the assistance of counsel, volunteered information in case of insolvency and to pay the costs."
that he had killed his wife and even led the authorities to the place where he
allegedly buried the deceased (which yielded eight bones after the police had These cases originated from the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of
dug the site), it was held that the extrajudicial confession of the appellant is Mandaon-Balud, Masbate with the filing thereat on 29 June 1988 of a
inadmissible for failure to comply with the constitutional requirements complaint for murder by the Deputy Station Commander of the Integrated
National Police (INP) at Mandaon, Masbate, which was docketed as Criminal
Case No. 4314-M, 2 and of a complaint for rape by the offended party, Blessie
G.R. Nos. 91865-66 & G.R. Nos. 92439-40 July 6, 1993
Marie Veri, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 4315-M.3 Accused was
subsequently arrested on the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by the Judge
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
of the said court after a preliminary examination was conducted.4 Accused
vs.
failed to file his counter-affidavit as required by the court. Finding that
CARLOS DE LA CRUZ, accused-appellant.
a prima facie  case existed against him on the basis of the prosecution's
evidence, the said court forwarded the records of both cases to the Office of
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate.5 The latter in turn filed with the RTC of
Masbate two separate informations for murder and rape against the accused.
Jose V. Juan, Bartolome P. Reus and Antonietta Pablo Medina for accused-
The first, filed on 1 September 1988, was docketed as Criminal Case No. 5519
appellant.
and raffled off to Branch 48 of the said court. Its accusatory portion reads:

That on or about April 30, 1987, in the morning thereof, at sitio

Tonog, barangay Nailahan (sic), Municipality of Mandaon,
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Province of Masbate, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to
Accused appeals from the joint decision 1 of Branch 48 of the Regional Trial
kill, evident premeditation and treachery did then and there,
Court (RTC) of Masbate, Fifth Judicial Region, in Criminal Case No. 5519
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and stab
and Criminal Case No. 5521 promulgated on 27 December 1989. The said
with a deadly weapon one Virgie Trangia, hitting the latter on
decision found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
the different parts of the body, thereby inflicting wounds which
homicide in the first case and sentenced him "to suffer the penalty of Eight (8)
directly caused her instantaneous death.
Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as Minimum to Fourteen (14) Years,
Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and to
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
pay the heirs of the late Virgie Trangia the amount of P30,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs"; in the
second case, the accused was convicted of rape and was sentenced "to suffer
the penalty reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and to pay Blessie Marie
On the other hand, the second information, filed on 5 September 1988, was The evidence for the prosecution showed that appellant and
docketed as Criminal Case No. 5521 and raffled off to Branch 44 of the said Virgie Trangia were live-in partners residing at Sitio Tonog,
court. Its accusatory portion reads: Barangay Nailaban, Mandaon, Masbate. Living with them was
Blessie Marie Veri, a nine (9) year old schoolgirl, who was
That on or about April 29, 1987, in the afternoon thereof, at Virgie Trangia's daughter by another man.
sitio Tonog, barangay Nailahan (sic), Municipality of
Mandaon, Province of Masbate, Philippines, within the On April 29, 1987, at around 1:00 in the afternoon, Virgie
Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Trangia went to the poblacion of Mandaon, Masbate. Appellant
by means of violence and intimidation did then and there and Blessie Marie were left alone in their house. At around
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of 3:00 in the afternoon of that day, i.e., April 29, 1987, appellant
one Blessie Marie T. Veri, against the latter's consent. approached Blessie Marie's while inside their house. He held
Blessie Marie's hands and dragged her to a room. Inside the
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7 room, appellant tied Blessie Marie's mouth with a handkerchief
to prevent her from shouting. Thereafter, appellant tied Blessie
Arraigned on 25 October 1988 in Criminal Case No. 5519, the accused Marie's hands behind her back with a rope while she was on the
entered a plea of not guilty. 8 floor facing it. Blessie Marie was then made to lie with her
back on the floor. Appellant sat on Blessie Marie's abdomen
Subsequently, or on 14 December 1988, Branch 44 of the court a quo granted and tied Blessie Marie's feet together.
the prosecution's motion to consolidate Criminal Case No. 5521 with Criminal
Case No. 5519 in Branch 48 of the said court.9 Thereupon, the accused entered On second thought, appellant untied Blessie Marie's feet,
a plea of not guilty 10 on 4 January 1989 in Criminal Case No. 5521. spread them apart, and tied them again with a rope to two (2)
separate posts. After Blessie Marie's hands and feet were tied
At the joint trial of both cases, the prosecution presented as its witnesses by appellant, the latter tore Blessie Marie's panty. Appellant
Blessie Marie Veri, the offended party; Dr. Napoleon Villasis, the physician then took off his shorts and brief and placed himself on top of
who examined her and issued a medical certificate; P/Lt. Jesustines Villamor, Blessie Marie. He inserted his sexual organ to that of Blessie
Station Commander of the Mandaon Police Station; P/Cpl. Renato Sabaldica; Marie, and he succeeded in his sexual assault. Thereafter,
and Jose Radan, a photographer. For his part, the accused testified in his appellant dressed himself and left the house. Before leaving, he
behalf and presented as his sole witness Ledesma Parabas, a neighbor and untied Blessie Marie's hands.
caretaker of his (accused's) employer's farm.
After appellant had left the house, Virgie Trangia (Blessie
The evidence for the prosecution, upon which the trial court based its Marie's mother) arrived from the poblacion of Mandaon,
judgment, is summarized in the Appellee's Brief as follows: Masbate. At that time, Blessie Marie was still lying on the
floor. Virgie Trangia inquired from her daughter as to what had
happened while she was away. Blessie Marie informed her that dela Cruz's residence. At that time, appellant was carrying with
she was raped by appellant. At around 4:00 in the afternoon, him Virgie Trangia's clothings. Blessie Marie then inquired
Blessie Marie and Virgie Trangia went to the Mandaon Police from appellant where her mother was. Appellant answered that
Station to report the incident. At the police station, they were Virgie Trangia was in Estancia, Iloilo. Not believing appellant
investigated by P/Cpl. Renato Sabaldica who prepared a police (sic), Blessie Marie then left.
report thereafter (Exh. B in Criminal Case 5521, Rec., G.R. No.
91865-66, p. 476). Sometime in June 1988, Connie Trangia (Virgie Trangia's
mother) went to the Mandaon Police Station to report that her
After investigating Blessie Marie, P/Cpl. Sabaldica took a daughter was missing. On the basis thereof, Sergio dela Cruz,
tricycle to apprehend appellant. The latter was apprehended on appellant's father, was invited by the police authorities. At the
that same day (the place and time of apprehension undisclosed) police station, Sergio de la Cruz told the police authorities that
and brought to the Mandaon Police Station where he was his son, herein appellant, confessed to him that he killed Virgie
detained. Trangia and buried her body at the base of a coconut tree along
the seashore in Nailaban, Mandaon, Masbate.
At the police station, appellant asked forgiveness from Virgie
Trangia. Having been forgiven by the latter, appellant was Based on the information given by Sergio de la Cruz, appellant
released from prison in the morning of the following day, i.e., was apprehended on June 13, 1988 by the Mandaon police
April 30, 1987. From the police station, appellant and Virgie authorities at Barangay Cagmasuso, Mandaon, Masbate and
Trangia went home together. brought to the police station.

In the meantime, at around 9:00 in the morning of April 30, At the police station, appellant volunteered the information that
1987, Blessie Marie went to Landina de la Cruz's house which he buried his wife along the seashore at Nailaban, Mandaon,
is a walking distance away from appellant's house. After Masbate. Thereafter, he led the police authorities to the said
several minutes, Blessie Marie and Landina de la Cruz place and dug the ground in the presence of residents thereat.
proceeded to appellant's house (where Virgie Trangia and They (appellant and police authorities) were able to recover
Blessie Marie also live). Upon reaching said house, Blessie eight (8) bones of Virgie Trangia. Photographs were taken by
Marie noticed a lot of blood on the floor and wall of her room. Jose Radan of the place excavated by appellant and the bones
She asked Landina de la Cruz where her mother (Virgie recovered therefrom.
Trangia) was, but Landina de la Cruz could not answer her
question. On June 30, 1988, Blessie Marie submitted herself to a medical
examination at the Mandaon Medicare Community Hospital to
After one (1) week, Blessie Marie saw appellant in his parent's prove that she was indeed raped by appellant one (1) year ago.
house which is located fifty (50) meters away from Landina Dr. Napoleon Villasis, who conducted the aforesaid medical
 examination, issued a certification (Exh. A. in Crim. Case No. made to dig. Nor does he know where the bones came from as they were just
5521, G.R. No. 91865-66, p. 46) to the effect that he found an brought by Virgie's mother, Connie Trangia, to the site of the digging and
old hymenal tear at "8:00 o'clock position" in Blessie Marie's placed there before the pictures were taken. 12
sexual organ.
The accused's alibi was corroborated by Ledesma Parabas, caretaker of
On the basis of the available evidence, appellant was thus Marcial Mesa's land, who testified that on 29 April 1987, the accused reported
prosecuted for RAPE and MURDER, the herein cases. 11 for work at Marcial Mesa's land at 7:00 a.m., returned to work at 1:00 p.m.,
stopped at 4:00 p.m. and then headed home. She declared that her house is
Finding the foregoing to be a faithful summary of the prosecution's evidence, only about seventeen arm's length away from the accused's house and that she
we hereby adopt the same as our own. did not hear any shouting from his house in the morning or afternoon of the
said date. 13
On the other hand, the accused, who admitted to be Virgie Trangia's live-in
partner from 1985 to 1987, raised the defense of alibi. He declared that on 29 On 27 December 1989, the trial court promulgated its decision, the
April 1987, he reported for work at Marcial Mesa's ricefield. He stopped adjudicatory portion of which reads as follows:
working at 4:00 p.m. and forthwith proceeded home. Not finding Virgie
Trangia and her daughter Blessie Marie Veri to be home, he looked for them WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, Carlos dela Cruz,
and asked his neighbors about their whereabouts. When Virgie and Blessie guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and hereby
Marie finally arrived, he got angry at them and even slapped Blessie Marie. sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion
Virgie thus called a policeman to arrest him. He was arrested and brought to perpetua or life imprisonment and to pay Blessie Marie Veri
the Mandaon municipal jail. Upon being investigated, he denied having raped the amount of P30,000.00 as damages without subsidiary
Blessie Marie. Thereupon, he was released from jail at around 4:00 p.m. the imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
following day. He reached home at about 6:00 p.m. and discovered that Virgie
and Blessie Marie were no longer in their house. Searching for them in their WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 5519, the Court finds the
neighborhood, he was informed that both had packed their things and left. He accused, Carlos dela Cruz, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
continued looking for them for one year and assumed, after that period, that the crime of homicide and hereby sentences said accused to
they had just gone home to their parents. On 29 June 1988, he came to know suffer the penalty of Eight (8) Years and One (1) day
that cases for murder and rape had been filed against him. He was thus of Prision Mayor as Minimum to Fourteen (14) Years, Eight
apprehended by the police, maltreated while being detained and made to (8) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal  as
confess that he had killed Virgie Trangia. He insisted, however, that he did not maximum and to pay the heirs of the late Virgie Trangia the
kill the latter. He was then brought to Nailaban to look for the place where he amount of P30,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case
had supposedly buried Virgie Trangia's remains. He was made to dig for the of insolvency and to pay the costs.
said remains but they could find nothing. He claims that he did not see the
bones which were presented by the prosecution in the police where he was SO ORDERED. 14
Accused filed on 11 January 1990 separate notices of appeal signifying his CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME
intention to appeal his conviction for homicide in Criminal Case No. 5519 to OF RAPE DESPITE MANIFEST UNCERTAINTIES AND
the Court of Appeals 15 and his conviction for rape in Criminal Case No. 5521 INCONSISTENCIES.
to this Court. 16 Thus, on 12 January 1990, the trial court transmitted the
records of Criminal Case No. 5521 (Rape) to this Court which docketed the II
same as G.R. Nos. 91865-66. Since only one case was appealed to this Court,
a single docket number should have been assigned to it. . . . IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE FAILURE OF THE
On 19 January 1990, the trial court forwarded the records of Criminal Case PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE CRIME BY CLEAR
No. 5519 (Murder) to the Court of Appeals. However, on 13 February 1990, AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
the Chief of the Judicial Records Division of the appellate court forwarded the
said records to this Court on the ground that the same were "erroneously III
forwarded" to the Court of Appeals "considering that the penalty imposed
upon the accused-appellant is RECLUSION PERPETUA." 17 This is, of course, . . . IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
incorrect as the penalty imposed by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 5519 THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE BASED PURELY ON
not reclusion perpetua. Said official must have been unaware of the appeal to CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH WERE (sic)
this Court in Criminal Case No. 5521 and merely took into account Section INFERRED ON (sic) FACTS NEVER PROVEN.
3(c). Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court. 18 The case was docketed as
G.R. Nos. 92439-40. Again, only one docket number should have been G.R. Nos. 91865-66 (Rape):
assigned to the case.
In support of his first and second assigned errors, the accused contends that
Acting on the motion of the accused's counsel, this Court, in its Resolution of the complainant's testimony that he raped her is not reliable and credible as
16 January 1991, 19 ordered the consolidation of G.R. Nos. 91865-66 and G.R. the same contains "manifest uncertainties and inconsistencies which render
Nos. 92439-40. the charge of rape doubtful and suspicious." He then cites some discrepancies
between the complainant's testimony during the trial and the sworn statement
In his Consolidated Brief, 20 the accused urges this Court to reverse his she had prepared during the preliminary examination, as well as contradictions
conviction for rape and homicide and acquit him thereof because the trial in her declarations during direct and cross-examinations. He further claims
court erred: that her story is not supported or corroborated by other evidence and that the
withdrawal by her mother of the complaint for rape, which led to his release
I from jail on 30 April 1987, the complainant's failure to undergo a medical
examination immediately after the rape and the filing of the case only after
. . . IN RELYING SOLELY IN (sic) THE TESTIMONY OF more than a year, reflect the dubiousness of the complaint for rape. The
THE COMPLAINT BLESSIE MARIE VERI IN following are the more important alleged inconsistencies pointed out by the
accused; (a) in her sworn statement during the preliminary examination, statement or accorded the opportunity to explain it. Section 13 of the aforesaid
Blessie Marie stated that the accused, who was armed with a knife, "hogtied" Rule 132 provides that:
her, dragged her to a room and raped her there; however, in her testimony
given in court, she claimed that the accused first dragged her to a room, tied Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has
her hands and feet and raped her without disclosing that he (accused) was made at other times statements inconsistent with his present
armed with a knife; and (b) while the complainant testified in court that (1) testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the
she was raped by the accused at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 29 April circumstances of the times and places and the persons present,
1987; (2) she reported the incident to the Mandaon Police Station an hour and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if
later, i.e., 4:00 p.m. of that same day; (3) the rope used by the accused for so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they
tying her was found in her room; (4) the accused removed his shorts and brief must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him
after he had tied her hands and feet; and (5) the accused tied, her while she concerning them.
was lying, face down, on the floor, the police report prepared by P/Cpl.
Sabaldica stated that the rape was committed at 12:00 noon of 29 April 1987 Furthermore, it was not necessary to show that the accused had a knife for the
and was reported to the police authorities at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of purpose of proving the existence of force or intimidation. All that had to be
the same day. Moreover, it is averred that during cross-examination, Blessie established by the prosecution in the instant case was the fact that the accused
Marie declared that the accused, who was then naked, was already holding a had carnal knowledge of the offended party who was only nine (9) years old at
rope as he dragged her to a room, and that she was lying with her back on the that time. Force or intimidation is not necessary to commit the crime of rape in
floor when her hands were tied by him. this case for, as provided by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape may
also be-committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman who is under
We are not impressed. As to the alleged inconsistencies between her twelve years of age, "even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in
testimony given in court and her sworn statement, we agree with the Solicitor the next two preceding paragraphs (one of which is the fact that force or
General's contention that the said sworn statement was not presented or intimidation was used) shall be present."
formally offered in evidence by the defense. Hence, the same cannot be given
any evidentiary value. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court The variance between the entries in the police report and the testimony of
provides that "[T]he court shall consider no evidence which has not been Blessie Marie as to the approximate time of the commission of the rape and its
formally offered." It must likewise be stressed that under Section 8, Rule 112 being reported to the police authorities is quite inconsequential. Besides, the
of the same Revised Rules of Court, "[T]he record of the preliminary said entry was prepared by the police investigator without Blessie Marie's
investigation whether conducted by a judge or a fiscal, shall not form part of participation. In fact, no evidence was offered to show that she had actually
the record of the case in the Regional Trial Court" unless ordered produced by seen the report. In view thereof, she cannot be accused of taking an
the trial court on its own initiative or on motion of any party "whenever the inconsistent stand. In People vs. Santito, Jr., 21 we ruled that the "entry in the
same shall be necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein, or police blotter is not necessarily entitled to full credit for it could be incomplete
shall be introduced as evidence by the party requesting for its production." and inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of
Besides, the offended party was never confronted with the alleged inconsistent suggestion or inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to
recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of Appellant, however, contends that the complainant's testimony of the rape is
the first suggestion of his memory and for his accurate recollection of all that not supported or corroborated by other evidence. It must, therefore, be
pertain to the subject." emphasized that except where expressly required by law, the testimony of a
single witness need not be corroborated; witnesses are to be weighed, not
The other alleged inconsistencies between the complainant's testimony during numbered. 24 In prosecutions for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on
direct examination and cross-examination are on minor, if not trivial, matters the basis of the complainant's testimony provided, of course, that the same is
which only serve to strengthen her credibility. Thus, in People vs. Santito, credible and convincing. 25 In the instant case, we find Blessie Marie's
Jr., 22 we declared that: testimony to be both truthful and credible.

. . . the imputed inconsistency in the testimonies of the Furthermore, the charge of rape is duly supported by other evidence on record.
prosecution witnesses on minor details reinforces rather than Contrary to the accused's submission, the medical certificate issued by Dr.
weakens their credibility for the reaction of persons when Villasis shows that the complainant suffered an "old hymenal tear at 8:00
confronted with a shocking incident varies . . .. Testimonial o'clock position." Such a finding strongly supports the complainant's claim
discrepancies could be caused by the natural fickleness of that she had been raped by the accused more than a year earlier. While Dr.
memory which tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, Villasis did not rule out the possibility of sexual intercourse as the cause of the
credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. hymenal tear, he affirmed that he "would rather say that there was a possible
It would have been more suspicious if complainant had been sexual penetration" but "could not qualify if it was forcible or not or it was
able to pinpoint with clarity or describe with precision the rather inflicted through force or intimidation." 26
exact sequence of events. The most candid witness oftentimes
makes mistakes but such honest lapses do not necessarily Nor can we appreciate in the accused's favor his release from Jail on 30 April
impair his intrinsic credibility. 1987 and Blessie Marie's failure to submit to a medical examination
immediately after the rape. The accused was released from jail not because of
The above pronouncement is especially true in this case where the offended his innocence but because he had begged Blessie Marie's mother for
party was only nine (9) years old at the time she was sexually assaulted and forgiveness. Also, the rule is settled that a medical examination is not
subjected to inhuman treatment. Blessie Marie immediately revealed the rape indispensable in the prosecution for rape. 27
to her mother upon the latter's arrival; both then wasted no time in reporting
the incident to the police authorities who recorded the complaint and arrested Of course, the pardon extended by Virgie Trangia to the accused would not be
the accused on the same day. The spontaneity of such acts, as well as sufficient to exonerate him. As early as 1902, this Court, in United States vs.
the complainant's subsequent submission to a medical examination — albeit Luna, 28 had ruled that the grant of pardon by the parents or guardian of a
belated — and the ordeal of a public trial, manifested her honest desire to seek minor complainant "alone, in the name or on behalf of the minor, is not
justice. It is difficult to believe that Blessie Marie, at so tender an age, would sufficient, because, as the offense essentially and directly affects the injured
publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless that party, she alone is entitled to remit the offense and to authorize the extinction
was the truth. 23 of the penal action." Elsewise stated, where the offended party in cases of
rape, seduction, abduction or acts of lasciviousness is a minor, the pardon the accused went to Estancia, Iloilo for when Blessie Marie asked him a week
must be given by both the parents and the offended party. 29 later where her mother was, he replied that she "is in Estancia, Iloilo"; (f) he
had in his possession Virgie's clothes, a fact which reinforced the theory that
The trial court correctly rejected the defense of alibi on the basis of the he was the last person with her; (g) he admitted to his father, Sergio de la
accused's positive identification by Blessie Marie as the rapist. We have held Cruz, that he killed Virgie and buried her near the seashore; (h) he was
that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the thereafter apprehended in the island of Cagmasoso, Masbate, "preparatory to
accused. 30 Moreover, for such a defense to succeed, it is not enough that the take (sic) flight again"; (i) after his arrest, he admitted, when confronted by
accused prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he P/Lt. Jesustines Villamor, that "he really killed his wife and the remain (sic) of
must also show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the her body was (sic) buried at the base of the coconut trees along the seashore of
scene of the crime at the time of its commission. 31 The accused failed to show sitio Nailaban, Mandaon, Masbate"; and (j) he was able to dig up, in the place
such impossibility in this case. where he had buried Virgie's remains, "eight (8) pieces of human bones which
are the bones of his wife." 34 The trial court ruled that although the declaration
Thus, this Court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused raped of Sergio de la Cruz — that his son (the accused) admitted having killed
Blessie Marie Veri. Virgie — is hearsay since he was not presented as a witness, he nevertheless
"provided the clue to the killing of the victim by the accused." 35 Anent the
Since there were no extenuating circumstances which attended the accused's supposed admission before P/Lt. Villamor, the court  a quo opined
commission of the crime, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty that although it resulted from a "custodial investigation without (the)
of reclusion perpetua. 32 It erred, however, in equating the said penalty with assistance of counsel," and is therefore "inadmissible for violating the
"life imprisonment." We have time and again said that reclusion perpetua is provision of the Constitution," it nevertheless "reinforces the circumstantial
not synonymous or interchangeable with life imprisonment because they do evidence." 36
not have the same duration and the latter does not carry with it the accessory
penalties provided in the Revised Penal Code. 33 The accused vainly attempts to rip apart the foregoing circumstances by
contending that they were inferred from unproven facts or mere conjectures.
G.R. Nos. 92439-40 (Murder): Hence, he claims that there is no evidence to show that he and Virgie returned
home together on 30 April 1987; on the contrary, it is asserted that Blessie
In convicting the accused of the lesser offense of homicide, the trial court took Marie herself testified during both direct and re-direct examinations that he
into account the following circumstances: (a) the accused and the victim went went home only after five days from 29 April 1987, the date of his
home together in the morning of 30 April 1987 after the former was released arrest. 37 And even then, per his own testimony, he was released from
from Jail; (b) at 9:00 o'clock in the morning of the same day, Blessie Marie detention only at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 30 April 1987 and arrived
and Landina de la Cruz "saw plenty of blood in her (Blessie Marie's) room, on home two hours later. 38
the floor, on the wall and on the ground of their house"; (c) Virgie was never
seen again thereafter; (d) the accused had taken flight because he was no Accused also avers that Blessie Marie's testimony concerning the blood found
longer in his house at the time Blessie Marie and Landina arrived therein; (e) in her house was not corroborated by her companion Landina de la Cruz; thus,
the latter's non-presentation constitutes suppression of evidence which could There is no evidence on record to prove the fact of Virgie Trangia's death
have been adverse if produced. He further claims that there is no factual basis except for (a) the testimony of P/Cpl. Renato Sabaldica to the effect that
for the trial court's conclusion that he proceeded to Estancia, Iloilo and that he Sergio de la Cruz had admitted that the accused (Sergio's son) confessed to the
fled from his house for at the time he was supposed to be out of the said said killing; 41 Sergio then executed on 24 June 1988 an affidavit affirming the
house, he was very much still in detention. It could not likewise be logically "confession" of his son; 42 this was followed by the latter's 1 July 1988 sworn
presumed, as the trial court did, that his possession of Virgie's clothes, even if declaration before the Judge of the MCTC of Mandaon-Balud, Masbate; 43 and
it be true, proves that he was the last person with her. (b) the declaration of P/Lt. Jesustines Villamor that after the accused's arrest
for the crime of murder, the former interviewed the latter who then admitted
Finally, the accused maintains that while the trial court was correct in ruling that "he really killed his wife" and buried her remains "in the base of the
that his declarations were inadmissible for having been taken without the coconut trees along the seashore of sitio Nailaban, Mandaon, Masbate." 44
assistance of counsel, it nevertheless erred in admitting in evidence the "re-
enactment pictures" (Exhibits "C," "'C-1" to "C-12," inclusive) and the bones The declaration of Sergio de la Cruz, as correctly ruled by the trial court, is
that were recovered. hearsay since he was not presented by the prosecution as a witness. 45 In any
event, even if such declaration may be admitted, the prosecution still failed to
Save for the last, the accused's grievances do not touch on the more significant establish the approximate date of Virgie's "death." All that may be gleaned
aspects of this murder case. And even if we assume that they do, the accused from the affidavit prepared by Sergio de la Cruz is that his son (accused)
would still not be entirely correct for P/Cpl. Sabaldica testified that he revealed to him a week after 25 July 1987 that he had killed his wife Virgie
released the latter in the morning of 30 April 1989 after an "amicable Trangia. On the other hand, it is to be observed that the trial court opined that
settlement" was reached with Virgie; both then allegedly proceeded home. 39 Virgie must have been killed in the morning of 30 April 1987 because of
Blessie Marie's discovery of blood in the room, on the floor and on the walls
Anent the non-presentation of Landina de la Cruz, it appears that she was, at of their house. We find such a conclusion unacceptable as no evidence was
most, a corroborative witness. Hence, her testimony can be dispensed with offered to prove that the said blood was human blood. Moreover, the police
and no unfavorable presumption may be deduced from the prosecution's authorities did not conduct an ocular inspection to determine if indeed there
failure to present her. 40 were tell-tale signs of blood.

After an extensive review of the records and the trial court's decision, we find Furthermore, the evidence discloses that Virgie's mother, Connie Trangia, did
the prosecution's case for murder fatally flawed because of the absence of not in fact report to the police authorities that Virgie had been killed. She
proof to show that (a) Virgie Trangia had in fact died, (b) the bones which merely complained that Virgie was missing. On direct examination, P/Lt.
were unearthed were that of a human being, (c) assuming they were, that they Villamor declared:
belong to a female human being and (d) assuming further the latter to be so,
that they were the bones of Virgie Trangia. Q How did you happen to investigate Sergio de
la Cruz?
 WITNESS testifying he would be provided with one. There is no evidence at all to indicate that he
decided to waive such right. And even if he did waive it, no written waiver,
A I investigated Sergio de la Cruz when Connie executed in the presence of counsel, was identified or offered in evidence.
Trangia the mother of Virgie Trangia reported in Thus, the accused's alleged admission that he killed Virgie Trangia is
our office that her daughter Virgie Trangia the inadmissible in evidence pursuant to paragraph 3, Section 12, Article III of the
wife of the accused Carlos de la Cruz is (sic) 1987 Constitution which provides as follows:
missing. 46
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
The accused's so-called admission, given after his arrest and during his Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against
custodial investigation, was obtained in total disregard of his rights as him.
guaranteed by paragraph (1), Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Said paragraph reads: Equally inadmissible, for being integral parts of the uncounselled admission
— or fruits of that poisonous tree — are the photographs of subsequent acts
Any person under investigation for the commission of an which the accused was made to do in order to obtain proof to support such
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to admission or confession, such as (a) his digging in the place where Virgie
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel Trangia was allegedly buried, (b) his retrieving of the bones discovered
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the therein and (c) his posing before a photographer while executing such acts.
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights However, we do not agree with the accused that the photographs are "re-
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of enactment" photographs. There was no "re-enactment" for he was not made to
counsel. perform again the killing or burying of Virgie.

The precursor of this provision is Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 In Aballe vs. People, 49 we declared as inadmissible the fatal knife used by the
Constitution which provided in part that: ". . . [A]ny person under accused in stabbing the murder victim despite the fact that the accused himself
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain voluntarily recovered the said knife after being detained and investigated by
silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right." We have ruled that it the police authorities to whom he, without the aid of counsel, admitted the
is not enough that the subject be merely informed of such rights, asked if he guilt. Thus:
wants to avail of the services of counsel and told that he could ask for counsel
if he so desires or that one could be provided him at his request. 47 If he Indeed, equally inadmissible is the kitchen knife (fatal weapon)
decides to waive his right to counsel, such waiver, in order to be valid, must recovered from Aballe after his capture and after the police had
still be made with the assistance of counsel. 48 started to question him. Together with the extrajudicial
confession, the fatal weapon is but a fruit of a constitutionally
In the instant case, the accused was not informed of his right to remain silent infirmed interrogation and must consequently be disallowed. . .
and to counsel, and that if he cannot afford to have the counsel of his choice, . (emphasis supplied).
We find the trial court's ratiocination — that although the accused's admission (2) AFFIRMING the decision of the said court in Criminal
is inadmissible, it still "reinforces the circumstantial evidence" — to be self- Case No. 5521 convicting the accused of the crime of rape,
contradictory, if not strange. We simply fail to see how inadmissible evidence subject to the modification with respect to the use of the term
can reinforce circumstantial evidence. life imprisonment, which is deleted, with costs against the
accused.
Worse, it was never even established by the prosecution that the bones
excavated by the accused belong to a female human being or, more People v. Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, May 11, 1999, where the Supreme
importantly, to Virgie Trangia. On cross-examination, P/Lt. Villamor simply Court said that the oral confessions made to newsmen are not covered by Sec.
expressed an opinion that the bones belong to a human being. Thus: 12, Art. III. The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relationship
between a private individual and another individual. Rather, it governs the
Q And what are those eight (8) pieces of bones? relationship between the individual and the State. The prohibitions therein are
addressed primarily to the State and its agents. As to the requirement that the
A We believe to (sic) be the bones of the dead.
extrajudicial confession must be corroborated by other evidence, the Court
said that there was the corpus delicti which corroborated the extrajudicial
Q And you mean that you cannot determine
whether it (sic) is really the remains of the confession.
human beings (sic)? [G.R. No. 130612. May 11, 1999.]

A I believed that it is (sic) the bones of a human PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNARDINO
being and that bones was (sic) recovered after DOMANTAY, @ "JUNIOR OTOT", Accused-Appellant.
digging the (sic) place where the victim was
buried. 50 DECISION

We thus conclude that the guilt of the accused for the alleged death of Virgie
Trangia has not been proven with moral certainty. MENDOZA, J.:

WHEREFORE judgment is hereby rendered:

This case is here on appeal from the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of
(1) REVERSING the decision of Branch 48 of the Regional Dagupan City (Branch 57), finding accused-appellant guilty of rape with
Trial Court of Masbate in Criminal Case No- 5519 and homicide and sentencing him to death, and to indemnify the heirs of the
ACQUITTING the accused of the crime of homicide, with victim in the amount of P480,000.00, and to pay the costs.chanrobles.com :
costs de oficio; and virtual law library
The facts hark back to the afternoon of October 17, 1996, at around 4 o’clock, 25, 1996, Dr. Ronald Bandonill, medico-legal expert of the NBI, performed an
when the body of six-year old Jennifer Domantay was found sprawled amidst autopsy on the embalmed body of Jennifer. The result of his examination of
a bamboo grove in Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan. The child’s body bore the victim’s genitalia indicated that the child’s hymen had been completely
several stab wounds. Jennifer had been missing since lunch time. lacerated on the right side. Based on this finding, SPO4 Carpizo amended the
criminal complaint against accused-appellant to rape with homicide.
The medical examination conducted the following day by Dr. Ma. Fe Leticia Subsequently, the following information was filed: 4
Macaranas, the rural health physician of Malasiqui, showed that Jennifer died
of multiple organ failure and hypovolemic shock secondary to 38 stab wounds That on or about the 17th day of October, 1996, in the afternoon, in barangay
at the back. Dr. Macaranas found no lacerations or signs of inflammation of Guilig, Municipality of Malasiqui, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and
the outer and inner labia and the vaginal walls of the victim’s genitalia, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
although the vaginal canal easily admitted the little finger with minimal with lewd design and armed with a bayonet, did then and there, wilfully,
resistance. Noting possible commission of acts of lasciviousness, Dr. unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Jennifer Domantay, a
Macaranas recommended an autopsy by a medico-legal expert of the NBI. 2 minor of 6 years old against her will and consent, and on the same occasion,
the said accused with intent to kill, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
The investigation by the Malasiqui police pointed to accused-appellant feloniously stab with the use of a bayonet, the said Jennifer Domantay,
Bernardino Domantay, a cousin of the victim’s grandfather, as the lone inflicting upon her multiple stab wounds, which resulted to her death, to the
suspect in the gruesome crime. At around 6:30 in the evening of that day, damage and prejudice of her heirs.
police officers Montemayor, de la Cruz, and de Guzman of the Malasiqui
Philippine National Police (PNP) picked up accused-appellant at the At the trial, the prosecution presented seven witnesses, namely, Edward, Jiezl,
Malasiqui public market and took him to the police station where accused- Lorenzo, all surnamed Domantay, Joselito Mejia, Antonio Espinoza, Celso
appellant, upon questioning by SPO1 Antonio Espinoza, confessed to killing Manuel, and Dr. Ronald Bandonill, to establish its charge that accused-
Jennifer Domantay. He likewise disclosed that at around 3:30 that afternoon, appellant had raped and killed Jennifer Domantay.
he had given the fatal weapon used, a bayonet, to Elsa and Jorge Casingal, his
aunt and uncle respectively, in Poblacion Sur, Bayambang, Pangasinan. The Edward Domantay testified that in the morning of October 17, 1996, Accused-
next day, October 18, 1996, SPO1 Espinoza and another policeman took appellant and his two brothers-in-law, Jaime Caballero and Daudencio
accused-appellant to Bayambang and recovered the bayonet from a tricycle Macasaeb, had a round of drinks in front of the latter’s house in Guilig,
belonging to the Casingal spouses. The police officers executed a receipt to Malasiqui, Pangasinan. Edward Domantay said that he was in front of
evidence the confiscation of the weapon. 3 Macasaeb’s house, tending to some pigeons in his yard. 5 After the group had
consumed several bottles of San Miguel gin, Accused-appellant gave money to
On the basis of the post-mortem findings of Dr. Macaranas, SPO4 Juan Edward Domantay and asked him to buy two bottles of gin and a bottle of
Carpizo, the Philippine National Police chief investigator at Malasiqui, filed, Sprite. 6 Edward said he joined the group and sat between Daudencio
on October 21, 1996, a criminal complaint for murder against accused- Macasaeb and Accused-Appellant. 7 Edward said that accused-appellant, who,
appellant before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Malasiqui. On October apparently had one too many then, rolled up his shirt and said: "No diad
Antipolo tan L(i)pa et walay massacre, diad Guilig wala, walay massacren kod proper, he alighted near the Mormon’s church, outside Malasiqui. 12
dia, walay onakis-akis" ("In Antipolo and Lipa, there were massacres; here in
Guilig, there will also be a massacre. I will massacre somebody here, and they In addition, the prosecution presented SPO1 Antonio Espinoza and Celso
will cry and cry"). Edward Domantay saw that tucked in the left side of Manuel who testified that, on separate occasions, Accused-appellant had
accused-appellant’s waistline was a bayonet without a cover handle. 8 It was confessed to the brutal killing of Jennifer Domantay.
not the first time that Edward had seen accused-appellant with the knife as the
latter usually carried it with him. 9 SPO1 Espinoza testified that he investigated accused-appellant after the latter
had been brought to the Malasiqui police station in the evening of October 17,
Jiezl Domantay, 10, likewise testified. She said that, at about 2 o’clock in the 1996. Before he commenced his questioning, he apprised accused-appellant of
afternoon on October 17, 1996, she and four other children were playing in his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and
front of their house in Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan. Jiezl saw accused- independent counsel, in English, which was later translated into Pangasinense.
appellant and Jennifer Domantay walking towards the bamboo grove of 13 According to SPO1 Espinoza, Accused-appellant agreed to answer the
Amparo Domantay where Jennifer’s body was later found. Accused-appellant questions of the investigator even in the absence of counsel and admitted
was about two meters ahead of Jennifer. The bamboo grove was about 8 to 10 killing the victim. Accused-appellant also disclosed the location of the
meters from the house of Jiezl Domantay. 10 bayonet he used in killing the victim. 14 On cross-examination, Espinoza
admitted that at no time during the course of his questioning was accused-
Lorenzo Domantay, a relative of the victim, corroborated Jiezl’s testimony appellant assisted by counsel. Neither was accused-appellant’s confession
that accused-appellant had gone to Amparo Domantay’s bamboo grove in the reduced in writing. 15 Espinoza’s testimony was admitted by the trial court
afternoon of October 17, 1996. Lorenzo said that that afternoon, on his way to over the objection of the defense.
his farm, he saw accused-appellant about 30 meters away, standing at the spot
in the bamboo grove where Jennifer’s body was later found. Accused- Celso Manuel, for his part, testified that he is a radio reporter of station
appellant appeared restless and worried as he kept looking around. However, DWPR, an AM station based in Dagupan City. He covers the third district of
as Lorenzo was in a hurry, he did not try to find out why accused-appellant Pangasinan, including Malasiqui. Sometime in October 1996, an uncle of the
appeared to be nervous. 11 victim came to Dagupan City and informed the station about Jennifer
Domantay’s case. 16 On October 23, 1996, Manuel went to Malasiqui to
Prosecution witness Joselito Mejia, a tricycle driver, said that, in the afternoon interview accused-appellant who was then detained in the municipal jail. He
of October 17, 1996, he was about to take his lunch at home in Alacan, a described what transpired during the interview thus: 17
neighboring barangay about half a kilometer from Guilig, when accused-
appellant implored Mejia to take him to Malasiqui at once. Mejia told PROS. QUINIT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
accused-appellant that he was going to take his lunch first, but the latter
pleaded with him, saying they will not be gone for long. Mejia, therefore, Q Did you introduce yourself as a media practitioner?
agreed. Mejia noticed that accused-appellant was nervous and afraid.
Accused-appellant later changed his mind. Instead of going to the town A Yes, sir.
 "kung gusto nilang makamtan ang hustisya ay tatanggapin ko." That is what
Q How did you introduce yourself to the accused? he said, and I also asked Junior Otot, what was his purpose, and he said, it was
about the boundary dispute, and he used that little girl in his revenge.
A I showed to Bernardino Domantay alias "Junior Otot" my I.D. card and I
presented myself as a media practitioner with my tape recorder [in] my hand, On cross-examination, Manuel explained that the interview was conducted in
sir. the jail, about two to three meters away from the police station. An uncle of
the victim was with him and the nearest policemen present were about two to
Q What was his reaction to your request for an interview? three meters from him, including those who were in the radio room. 18 There
was no lawyer present. Before interviewing accused-appellant, Manuel said he
A He was willing to state what had happened, sir. talked to the chief of police and asked permission to interview Accused-
Appellant. 19 On questioning by the court, Manuel said that it was the first
Q What are those matters which you brought out in that interview with the time he had been called to testify regarding an interview he had conducted. 20
accused Bernardino Domantay alias "Junior Otot" ? As in the case of the testimony of SPO1 Espinoza, the defense objected to the
admission of Manuel’s testimony, but the lower court allowed it.
A I asked him what was his purpose for human interest’s sake as a reporter,
why did he commit that alleged crime. And I asked also if he committed the Dr. Bandonill, the NBI medico-legal who conducted an autopsy of the victim
crime and he answered "yes." That’s it. on October 25, 1996, testified that Jennifer Domantay died as a result of the
numerous stab wounds she sustained on her back, 21 the average depth of
x         x       x which was six inches. 22 He opined that the wounds were probably caused by
a "pointed sharp-edged instrument." 23 He also noted contusions on the
forehead, neck, and breast bone of the victim. 24 As for the results of the
PROS. QUINIT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library genital examination of the victim, Dr. Bandonill said he found that the
laceration on the right side of the hymen was caused within 24 hours of her
Q You mentioned about accused admitting to you on the commi[ssion] of the death. He added that the genital area showed signs of
crime, how did you ask him that? inflammation.25cralaw:red

A I asked him very politely. Pacifico Bulatao, the photographer who took the pictures of the scene of the
crime and of the victim after the latter’s body was brought to her parents’
Q More or less what have you asked him on that particular matter? house, identified and authenticated the five pictures (Exhibits A, B, C, D, and
E) offered by the prosecution.
A I asked "Junior Otot," Bernardino Domantay, "Kung pinagsisisihan mo ba
ang iyong ginawa?" "Opo" sabi niya, "Ibig mo bang sabihin Jun, ikaw ang The defense then presented accused-appellant as its lone witness. Accused-
pumatay kay Jennifer?", "Ako nga po." The [l]ast part of my interview, "Kung appellant denied the allegations against him. He testified he is an uncle of
nakikinig ang mga magulang ni Jennifer, ano ang gusto mong iparating?",
Jennifer Domantay (he and her grandfather are cousins) and that he worked as
a janitor at the Malasiqui Municipal Hall. He said that at around 1 o’clock in WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the
the afternoon of October 17, 1996, he was bathing his pigs outside the house accused, Bernardino Domantay @ "Junior Otot" guilty beyond reasonable
of his brother-in-law Daudencio Macasaeb in Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan. doubt with the crime of Rape with Homicide defined and penalized under
He confirmed that Daudencio was then having drinks in front of his Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation and as amended by Republic
(Macasaeb’s) house. Accused-appellant claimed, however, that he did not join Act No. 7659 and accordingly, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the
in the drinking and that it was Edward Domantay, whom the prosecution had penalty of death by lethal injection, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in
presented as witness, and a certain Jaime Caballero who joined the party. He the total amount of Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P480,000.00), 31
also claimed that it was he whom Macasaeb had requested to buy some more and to pay the costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
liquor, for which reason he gave money to Edward Domantay so that the latter
could get two bottles of gin, a bottle of Sprite, and a pack of cigarettes. 26 He SO ORDERED.
denied Edward Domantay’s claim that he (accused-appellant) had raised his
shirt to show a bayonet tucked in his waistline and that he had said he would In this appeal, Accused-appellant alleges that: 32
massacre someone in Guilig. 27
I.
Accused-appellant also confirmed that, at about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, he
went to Alacan passing on the trail beside the bamboo grove of Amparo
Domantay. But he said he did not know that Jennifer Domantay was following THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE
him. He further confirmed that in Alacan, he took a tricycle to Malasiqui. The EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION[S] MADE BY THE ACCUSED-
tricycle was driven by Joselito Mejia. He said he alighted near the Mormon APPELLANT.
church, just outside of the town proper of Malasiqui to meet his brother. As
his brother did not come, Accused-appellant proceeded to town and reported II.
for work. That night, while he was in the Malasiqui public market, he was
picked up by three policemen and brought to the Malasiqui police station
where he was interrogated by SPO1 Espinoza regarding the killing of Jennifer THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED
Domantay. He denied having owned to the killing of Jennifer Domantay to DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT
SPO1 Espinoza. He denied he had a grudge against the victim’s parents BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
because of a boundary dispute. 28 With respect to his extrajudicial confession
to Celso Manuel, he admitted that he had been interviewed by the latter, but First. Accused-appellant contends that his alleged confessions to SPO1
he denied that he ever admitted anything to the former. 29 Antonio Espinoza and Celso Manuel are inadmissible in evidence because
they had been obtained in violation of Art. III, §12(1) of the Constitution and
As already stated, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty as charged. that, with these vital pieces of evidence excluded, the remaining proof of his
The dispositive portion of its decision reads: 30 alleged guilt, consisting of circumstantial evidence, is inadequate to establish
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 33
Art. III, §12 of the Constitution in part provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw [I] interrogated Bernardino Domantay, prior to the interrogation conducted to
library him, I informed him of his constitutional right as follows; that he has the right
to remain silent; that he has the right to a competent lawyer of his own choice
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall and if he can not afford [a counsel] then he will be provided with one, and
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have further informed [him] that all he will say will be reduced into writing and
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the will be used the same in the proceedings of the case, but he told me that he
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. will cooperate even in the absence of his counsel; that he admitted to me that
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of he killed Jennifer Domantay, and he revealed also the weapon used [and]
counsel. where he gave [it] to.

x         x       x But though he waived the assistance of counsel, the waiver was neither put in
writing nor made in the presence of counsel. For this reason, the waiver is
invalid and his confession is inadmissible. SPO1 Espinoza’s testimony on the
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section or alleged confession of accused-appellant should have been excluded by the
section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence. trial court. So is the bayonet inadmissible in evidence, being, as it were, the
"fruit of the poisonous tree." As explained in People v. Alicando: 39
This provision applies to the stage of custodial investigation, that is, "when the
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to . . . According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to
focus on a particular person as a suspect." 34 R.A. No. 7438 has extended the have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the
constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized
formally arrested but has merely been "invited" for questioning. 35 evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of
the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized
Decisions 36 of this Court hold that for an extrajudicial confession to be evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that
admissible, it must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other
voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and evidence because the originally illegal obtained evidence taints all evidence
independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing. subsequently obtained.

In the case at bar, when accused-appellant was brought to the Malasiqui police We agree with the Solicitor General, however, that accused-appellant’s
station in the evening of October 17, 1996, 37 he was already a suspect, in fact confession to the radio reporter, Celso Manuel, is admissible. In People v.
the only one, in the brutal slaying of Jennifer Domantay. He was, therefore, Andan, 40 the accused in a rape with homicide case confessed to the crime
already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed in Art. III, during interviews with the media. In holding the confession admissible,
§12(1) of the Constitution applied to him. SPO1 Espinoza narrated what despite the fact that the accused gave his answers without the assistance of
transpired during accused-appellant’s interrogation: 38
counsel, this Court said: 41 Indeed, there is no showing that the radio reporter was acting for the police or
that the interview was conducted under circumstances where it is apparent that
[A]ppellant’s [oral] confessions to the newsmen are not covered by Section accused-appellant confessed to the killing out of fear. As already stated, the
12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not interview was conducted on October 23, 1996, 6 days after accused-appellant
concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another had already confessed to the killing to the police.
individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State.
The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and its agents. Accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti, namely, the fact of death of Jennifer Domantay. In addition, the
Accused-appellant claims, however, that the atmosphere in the jail when he circumstantial evidence furnished by the other prosecution witnesses dovetails
was interviewed was "tense and intimidating" and was similar to that which in material points with his confession. He was seen walking toward the
prevails in a custodial investigation. 42 We are not persuaded. Accused- bamboo grove, followed by the victim. Later, he was seen standing near the
appellant was interviewed while he was inside his cell. The interviewer stayed bamboo grove where the child’s body was found. Rule 133 of the Revised
outside the cell and the only person beside him was an uncle of the victim. Rules on Evidence provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Accused-appellant could have refused to be interviewed, but instead, he
agreed. He answered questions freely and spontaneously. According to Celso §3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. — An
Manuel, he said he was willing to accept the consequences of his act. extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
Celso Manuel admitted that there were indeed some police officers around
because about two to three meters from the jail were the police station and the §4. Evidence necessary in treason cases. — No person charged with treason
radio room. 43 We do not think the presence of the police officers exerted any shall be convicted unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt
undue pressure or influence on accused-appellant and coerced him into giving act, or on confession in open court.
his confession.
Accused-appellant argues that it was improbable for a brutal killing to have
Accused-appellant contends that "it is . . . not altogether improbable for the been committed without the children who were playing about eight to ten
police investigators to ask the police reporter (Manuel) to try to elicit some meters from Amparo Domantay’s grove, where the crime took place, having
incriminating information from the accused." 44 This is pure conjecture. heard any commotion. 45 The contention has no merit. Accused-appellant
Although he testified that he had interviewed inmates before, there is no could have covered the young child’s mouth to prevent her from making any
evidence to show that Celso was a police beat reporter. Even assuming that he sound. In fact, Dr. Bandonill noted a five by two inch (5" x 2") contusion on
was, it has not been shown that, in conducting the interview in question, his the left side of the victim’s forehead, which he said could have been caused by
purpose was to elicit incriminating information from Accused-Appellant. To a hard blunt instrument or by impact as her head hit the ground. 46 The blow
the contrary, the media are known to take an opposite stance against the could have rendered her unconscious, thus precluding her from shouting or
government by exposing official wrongdoings.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary crying.
Accused-appellant also contends that the testimony of Jiezl Domantay
contradicts that of Lorenzo Domantay because while Jiezl said she had seen The killing was committed with the generic aggravating circumstance of
accused-appellant walking towards the bamboo grove, followed by the victim, abuse of superior strength. The record shows that the victim, Jennifer
at around 2 o’clock in the afternoon on October 17, 1996, Lorenzo said he saw Domantay, was six years old at the time of the killing. She was a child of
accused-appellant standing near the bamboo grove at about the same time. small build, 46" in height. 47 It is clear then that she could not have put up
much of a defense against accused-appellant’s assault, the latter being a fully
These witnesses, however, did not testify concerning what they saw at exactly grown man of 29 years. Indeed, the physical evidence supports a finding of
the same time. What they told the court was what they had seen "at around" 2 abuse of superior strength: accused-appellant had a weapon, while the victim
o’clock in the afternoon. There could have been a difference in time, however was not shown to have had any; there were 38 stab wounds; and all the knife
little it was, between the time Jiezl saw accused-appellant and the victim wounds are located at the back of Jennifer’s body.
walking and the time Lorenzo saw accused-appellant near the place where the
victim’s body was later found. Far from contradicting each other, these But we think the lower court erred in finding that the killing was committed
witnesses confirmed what each had said each one saw. What is striking about with cruelty. 48 The trial court appears to have been led to this conclusion by
their testimonies is that while Jiezl said she saw accused-appellant going the number of wounds inflicted on the victim. But the number of wounds is
toward the bamboo grove followed by the victim "at around" 2 o’clock in the not a test for determining whether there was cruelty as an aggravating
afternoon on October 17, 1996, Lorenzo said he had seen accused-appellant circumstance. 49 "The test . . . is whether the accused deliberately and
near the bamboo grove "at around" that time. He described accused-appellant sadistically augmented the victim’s suffering thus . . . there must be proof that
as nervous and worried. There is no reason to doubt the claim of these the victim was made to agonize before the [the accused] rendered the blow
witnesses. Lorenzo is a relative of Accused-Appellant. There is no reason he which snuffed out (her) life." 50 In this case, there is no such proof of cruelty.
would testify falsely against the latter. Jiezl, on the other hand, is also Dr. Bandonill testified that any of the major wounds on the victim’s back
surnamed Domantay and could also be related to accused-appellant and has could have caused her death as they penetrated her heart, lungs and liver,
not been shown to have any reason to testify falsely against Accused- kidney and intestines. 51
Appellant. At the time of the incident, she was only 10 years old.
Second. There is, however, no sufficient evidence to hold accused-appellant
For the foregoing reasons, the Court is convinced of accused-appellant’s guilt guilty of raping Jennifer Domantay. Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
with respect to the killing of the child. It is clear that the prosecution has amended, in part provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
proven beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of homicide.
Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by
having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 [parricide] circumstances.
shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in the next preceding article [murder], shall be deemed guilty of 1. By using force or intimidation;
homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and other causes. 59 Dr. Bandonill himself admitted this. He testified that the right
side of the victim’s hymen had been completely lacerated while the
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. surrounding genital area showed signs of inflammation. 60 He opined that the
laceration had been inflicted within 24 hours of the victim’s death and that the
As the victim here was six years old, only carnal knowledge had to be proved inflammation was due to a trauma in that area. 61 When asked by the private
to establish rape. Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man having prosecutor whether the lacerations of the hymen could have been caused by
sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with a woman. 52 For this the insertion of a male organ he said this was possible. But he also said when
purpose, it is enough if there was even the slightest contact of the male sex questioned by the defense that the lacerations could have been caused by
organ with the labia of the victim’s genitalia. 53 However, there must be something blunt other than the male organ. Thus, he testified: 62
proof, by direct or indirect evidence, of such contact.
PROS. F. QUINIT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Dr. Ronald Bandonill’s report on the genital examination he had performed on
the deceased reads: 54 Q Now, what might have caused the complete laceration of the right side of
the hymen, doctor?
GENITAL EXAMINATION; showed a complete laceration of the right side
of the hymen. The surrounding genital area shows signs of inflammation. A Well, sir, if you look at my report there is a remark and it says there;
findings at the genital area indicated the probability of penetration of that area
x         x       x by a hard rigid instrument.

Q Could it have been caused by a human organ?

REMARKS: 1) Findings at the genital area indicate the probability of
penetration of that area by a hard, rigid instrument.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red A If the human male organ is erect, fully erect and hard then it is possible, sir.

Hymenal laceration is not necessary to prove rape; 55 neither does its x         x         x
presence prove its commission. As held in People v. Ulili, 56 a medical
certificate or the testimony of the physician is presented not to prove that the
victim was raped but to show that the latter had lost her virginity. ATTY. VALDEZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Consequently, standing alone, a physician’s finding that the hymen of the
alleged victim was lacerated does not prove rape. It is only when this is Q In your remarks; finding at the genital area indicates the probability of
corroborated by other evidence proving carnal knowledge that rape may be penetration of that area by a hard rigid instrument, this may have also been
deemed to have been established. 57 caused by a dagger used in the killing of Jennifer Domantay is that correct?

This conclusion is based on the medically accepted fact that a hymenal tear A Well, sir when I say hard rigid instrument it should not be sharp pointed and
may be caused by objects other than the male sex organ 58 or may arise from sharp rigid, it should be a hard bl[u]nt instrument.
 Q How about if the penetration was done by a finger, was it the same as the
Q Do you consider a bolo a bl[u]nt instrument, or a dagger? human organ?

A The dagger is a sharp rigid but it is not a bl[u]nt instrument, sir. A Well, it depends on the size of the finger that penetrat[es] the organ, if the
finger is small it could the superficial laceration, and if the finger is large then
Q This Genital Examination showed a complete laceration of the right side of it is possible your honor.
the hymen, this may have been possibly caused by a dagger, is it not?
Q How about two fingers?
A No, sir. I won’t say that this would have been caused by a dagger, because a
dagger would have made at its incision . . . not a laceration, sir. A Possible, sir.

Q But this laceration may also have been caused by other factors other than To be sure, this Court has sustained a number of convictions for rape with
the human male organ, is that correct? homicide based on purely circumstantial evidence. In those instances,
however, the prosecution was able to present other tell-tale signs of rape such
A A hard bl[u]nt instrument, sir could show. as the location and description of the victim’s clothings, especially her
undergarments, the position of the body when found and the like. 63 In People
Q My question is other than the human male organ? v. Macalino, 64 for instance, the Court affirmed a conviction for the rape of a
two year-old child on the basis of circumstantial evidence: 65
A Possible, sir.
The Court notes that the testimony or medical opinion of Dr. Gajardo that the
x         x       x fresh laceration had been produced by sexual intercourse is corroborated by
the testimony given by complainant Elizabeth that when she rushed upstairs
upon hearing her daughter suddenly cry out, she found appellant Macalino
COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library beside the child buttoning his own pants and that she found some sticky fluid
on the child’s buttocks and some blood on her private part. (Emphasis in the
Q You mentioned that the hymen was lacerated on the right side? original)

A Yes, your Honor. In contrast, in the case at bar, there is no circumstantial evidence from which
to infer that accused-appellant sexually abused the victim. The only
Q And if there is a complete erection by a human organ is this possible that circumstance from which such inference might be made is that accused-
the laceration can only be on the right side of the hymen? appellant was seen with the victim walking toward the place where the girl’s
body was found. Maybe he raped the girl. Maybe he did not. Maybe he simply
A Yes, your Honor, its possible. inserted a blunt object into her organ, thus causing the lacerations in the
hymen. Otherwise, there is no circumstance from which it might reasonably Even assuming that Jennifer had been raped, there is no sufficient proof that it
be inferred that he abused her, e.g., that he was zipping up his pants, that there was accused-appellant who had raped her. He did not confess to having raped
was spermatozoa in the girl’s vaginal canal. the victim.

Indeed, the very autopsy report of Dr. Bandonill militates against the finding From the foregoing, we cannot find that accused-appellant also committed
of rape. In describing the stab wounds on the body of the victim, he testified: rape. In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and
66 the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. 73

[A]fter examining the body I took note that there were several stab Third. The trial court ordered accused-appellant to pay the heirs of Jennifer
wounds . . . these were all found at the back area sir . . . extending from the Domantay the amount of P30,000.00 as actual damages. However, the list of
back shoulder down to the lower back area from the left to the right. expenses produced by the victim’s father, Jaime Domantay, only totaled
P28,430.00. Of this amount, only P12,000.00 was supported by a receipt. Art.
Considering the relative physical positions of the accused and the victim in 2199 of the Civil Code provides that a party may recover actual or
crimes of rape, the usual location of the external bodily injuries of the victim compensatory damages only for such loss as he has duly proved. Therefore,
is on the face, 67 neck, 68 and anterior portion 69 of her body. Although it is the award of actual damages should be reduced to P12,000.00.
not unnatural to find contusions on the posterior side, these are usually caused
by the downward pressure on the victim’s body during the sexual assault. 70 It In addition, the heirs of Jennifer Domantay are entitled to recover exemplary
is unquestionably different when, as in this case, all the stab wounds (except damages in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
for a minor cut in the lower left leg) had their entry points at the back running superior strength. Art. 2230 of the Civil Code provides for the payment of
from the upper left shoulder to the lower right buttocks. exemplary damages when the crime is committed with one or more
aggravating circumstance. An amount of P25,000.00 is deemed appropriate.
It is noteworthy that the deceased was fully clothed in blue shorts and white 74
shirt when her body was brought to her parent’s house immediately after it
was found. 71 Furthermore, there is a huge bloodstain in the back portion of In accordance with our rulings in People v. Robles 75 and People v. Mengote,
her shorts. 72 This must be because she was wearing this piece of clothing 76 the indemnity should be fixed at P50,000.00 and the moral damages at
when the stab wounds were inflicted or immediately thereafter, thus allowing P50,000.00. 77
the blood to seep into her shorts to such an extent. As accused-appellant
would naturally have to pull down the girl’s lower garments in order to WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is SET ASIDE and another one
consummate the rape, then, he must have, regardless of when the stab wounds is rendered FINDING accused-appellant guilty of homicide with the
were inflicted, pulled up the victim’s shorts and undergarments after the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and sentencing him to
alleged rape, otherwise, the victim’s shorts would not have been stained so a prison term of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of
extensively. Again, this is contrary to ordinary human experience. reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ORDERING him to pay the heirs of
Jennifer Domantay the amounts of P50,000.00, as indemnity, P50,000.00, as
moral damages, P25,000.00, as exemplary damages, and P12,000.00, as actual of bruises, burns and injuries manifesting that she was defiled and later
damages, and the costs.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library drowned to death.

SO ORDERED. In an Information dated September 7, 1998, docketed as Criminal Case No. U-

9777, Abulencia was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46,
Urdaneta City for rape with homicide. The Information reads:
In People v. Abulencia, G.R. No. 138403, August 22, 2001, the confession
made by the accused in a taped radio interview over Radio Bombo was held "That on or about August 4, 1998, between 5:00 o'clock P.M. to 8:00
admissible in evidence, as “it was not shown that said reporter was acting for o'clock in the evening, at barangay San Juan, San Manuel, Pangasinan,
the police or that the interview was conducted under circumstances where it is and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
apparent that the suspect confessed to the killing out of fear”. accused did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloneously (sic)
have carnal knowledge of one REBELYN GARCIA y AGAPAY, a
G.R. No. 138403            August 22, 2001 minor 10 years of age. That by reason thereof, to conceal his criminal
act, with intent to kill, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, feloniously drown said Rebelyn Garcia y Agapay in the San Juan
vs. River of said municipality. The body of the victim was later retrieved
ROLLY ABULENCIA Y COYOS, defendant-appellant. at the Colobong Creek at Sitio Casilagan, Brgy. San Juan, San Manuel,
Pangasinan, to the damage and prejudice of her heirs.
PER CURIAM:
"Contrary to Art. 266-A, No. 1(d), Republic Act No. 8353, in relation
In the multitude of cases which passed this Court, we did not flinch in sending to Art. 249, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
men rapacious of the flesh to the gallows. Lamentably, there still remains such 7659."1
callous men who commit unimaginable acts and even concoct tales, no matter
how absurd, just to exculpate themselves. When arraigned, with the assistance of counsel, Abulencia pleaded not guilty.
At the trial, the prosecution presented six (6) witnesses, namely: Dr. Asuncion
The case at bench is an illustration. Tuvera, PO3 Avelino Sandi, PO3 Randy Bergado, Dennis Mojares, Reynaldo
Garcia, Jr. and Reynaldo Garcia, Sr. The defense presented, as lone witness,
On August 4, 1998, a cold-blooded ravager, Rolly Abulencia y Coyos, preyed Abulencia himself.
on ten-year old Rebelyn Garcia.
The facts are not disputed:
In the early morning of the following day, Rebelyn's lifeless, naked body was
found floating at the Colobong creek in San Manuel, Pangasinan, with marks
Rebelyn Garcia, the victim, was a 10-year old2 lass from Poblacion, Asingan, the Aburido bridge" and who "might have been dead because the flow of the
Pangasinan and a fourth grader at the Narciso Ramos Elementary School. She river is so fast."12
is the daughter of Reynaldo and Alicia Garcia.3
PO3 Bergado immediately turned over Abulencia to the San Manuel police
On August 4, 1998, at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning, Rebelyn's brother, station. Forthwith, PO3 Avelino Sandi entered the incident in the police
Reynaldo Garcia, Jr., and a jeepney driver were at the Asingan jeepney blotter. Abulencia was later detained.13
terminal waiting for passengers.4
At about 6:00 o'clock the following morning (August 5, 1998), Rebelyn's
After two (2) hours, accused Rolly Abulencia arrived and invited Reynaldo to lifeless, naked body was found floating at the Colobong creek near the
a drinking spree.5 Reynaldo joined Abulencia and one Reynaldo Pascua in Aburido bridge at Sitio Casilagan, San Juan, San Manuel, Pangasinan.14
drinking Red Horse beer at the Asingan jeepney terminal. At about 12 o'clock
noon, each one had consumed about four (4) bottles of beer.6 Dr. Asuncion Tuvera, Municipal Health Officer, conducted an autopsy on the
victim's cadaver. The doctor's autopsy report states:
Thereafter, Reynaldo and Abulencia rode a tricycle and proceeded to the
former's residence at Poblacion, Asingan where they again drank beer and "A. External Findings:
later slept on a bamboo bed (papag). Rebelyn was then inside the house. At
that time, her parents were not around.7 Head — lacerated wound about 1 cm. in length at the corner of
the left eye (superficial)
Reynaldo and Abulencia woke up at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of
that day. Abulencia then asked permission to buy dilis from a nearby store. - Multiple hematoma, contussion forehead;
But Reynaldo, noticing that Abulencia was drunk, advised the latter not to
leave.8 Abulencia ignored Reynaldo and went out. Rebelyn tagged along.9 - Lacerated wound about 1 ¼ inches in length at the
frontal area;
Abulencia and Rebelyn never returned, although the store where they were
supposed to buy dilis is merely 40 meters away from the house.10 Thereupon, - 2 lacerated wound about one inch + 0.5 inch.
Reynaldo and his family started looking for the two as far as Rosales, respectively, at the rt. temporal area.
Pangasinan but failed to find them.11
- lacerated wound about 0.5 cm. In length at the rt.
About 8:00 o'clock in the evening, Abulencia surrendered to Mayor Felipe lower lip
Sevilleja of San Manuel, Pangasinan. PO3 Randy Bergado, a PNP officer
assigned in San Manuel who was then in the mayor's house, was informed by Chest — hematoma at the upper portion of the sternum
Abulencia that "he had a small girl companion that he accidentally bumped at
Extremeties — Multiple burn on both upper arms.
 Genitalia - Multiple vaginal wall and hymenal laceration going to San Manuel, but she insisted on following him because she wanted to
go to his house. They then took the provincial road, but upon reaching the
NOTE: Aburido bridge, he distanced himself from the girl. However, she ran towards
him. While she was running, he tried to tell her to go home, but in doing so he
Vaginal smear taken for the presence of spermatozoa. Result is accidentally tripped (napatid) her off, causing her to fall from the bridge. He
negative. got nervous and proceeded to the house of his Auntie Deciang Delfin and
asked her to accompany him to the authorities so he could surrender. They
"B. Internal Findings: approached Mayor Sevilleja of San Miguel, Pangasinan.

Lungs - presence of H20 in the lung tissues. After the trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered its decision dated March
16, 1999, convicting accused Rolly Abulencia of the crime as charged. The
"CAUSE OF DEATH: dispositive portion of the decision states:

Cardio-respiratory arrest 2 drowning; shock 2 rape."15 "WHEREFORE, the Court finds ROLLY ABULENCIA Y COYOS,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of aggravated RAPE
Dr. Tuvera further found that the multiple lacerations on the vaginal wall and WITH HOMICIDE (punishable under Article 266-A, No. 1(d) and
hymen of Rebelyn's genitalia indicate that a hard object, probably an erect Article 266-B, paragraph 4 of Republic Act No. 8353, in relation to
penis, was inserted therein;16 and that the presence of a large amount of water Article 249, Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 7659) and the
in Rebelyn's lungs indicates that she was submerged and drowned.17 Court sentences Rolly Abulencia to suffer the penalty of DEATH, to
be implemented in the manner provided for by law. Ordering the
Dennis Mojares, a radio commentator of DZWN Bombo Radio, testified that accused to indemnify the heirs of Rebelyn Garcia, the sum of
on August 6, 1998, when he interviewed Abulencia at the Municipal Jail of P75,000.00 damages, and another sum of P20, 000.00 for exemplary
San Manuel, Pangasinan, the latter admitted having raped Rebelyn and that damages plus P6,425.00 as actual damages."
she fell off the bridge.18 The interview was tape-recorded, which tape Mojares
identified and presented in court.19 xxx           xxx           xxx"21

In his defense, accused Rolly Abulencia denied the charge. In gist,20 the Appellant Rolly Abulencia bewails his conviction, asserting that the court a
following is his story: After he left the Garcia residence at around 5:00 o'clock quo:
in the afternoon of August 4, 1998 to buy dilis in the market, he noticed
Rebelyn Garcia following him. But he just ignored her. However, upon "I
reaching the market, he decided not to buy dilis anymore. Instead, he went
home to Binalonan, Pangasinan. He then proceeded towards San Manuel "x x x GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING (HIM) OF THE
while Rebelyn continued to follow him closely. Annoyed, he told her he was CRIME CHARGED BASED PRINCIPALLY ON THE MEDICO-
 LEGAL FINDINGS (EXHIBIT "A") AND DESPITE THE PAUCITY "SECTION 5. Circumstantial Evidence, when sufficient. —
OF DIRECT EVIDENCE POINTING TO (HIM) AS THE CULPRIT Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
IN THE . . . INCIDENT.
"(a) There is more than one circumstance;
"II
"(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
"x x x ERRED IN RELYING ON THE VULNERABILITY OF
DEFENSE EVIDENCE RATHER THAN THE STRENGTH OF "(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE IN FINDING A VERDICT OF GUILT conviction beyond a reasonable doubt."24
AGAINST (HIM)."22
Likewise, this Court has held that an accused can be convicted based on
Appellant mainly contends that there is no direct evidence linking him to the circumstantial evidence if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken
commission of the crime and that the findings of the medico-legal officer are chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused,
not sufficient to warrant his conviction by the trial court. to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.25

This Court does not agree. Admittedly, in the case at bar, the trial court relied solely on circumstantial
evidence in finding that the appellant is guilty as charged — and it did so
Normally, the crime of rape — whether simple, qualified or complexed with correctly.
other crimes — is committed in seclusion, thereby rendering its prosecution
difficult owing to the absence of witnesses to its commission. It is established from the testimony of prosecution witness Reynaldo Garcia,
Jr. that he met the appellant in the morning of that fateful day of August 4,
The prosecution of such crime becomes even more intricate and complex if 1998 and later, both engaged in a drinking spree; that they slept on
homicide is committed since the victim herself would no longer be able to the papag of Garcia's house in the afternoon of that day; that the victim
testify against the perpetrator. In most cases, only circumstantial evidence Rebelyn, was also in the same house at that time; that after waking up, the
available to prove its commission.23 appellant left the house at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon to buy dilis in
the nearby store located 40 meters away, the victim tagging along; that the
The absence of direct evidence, however, does not preclude the conviction of appellant and Rebelyn never returned; that in the evening of the same day, the
a person accused of the complex crime of rape with homicide. Circumstantial appellant surrendered to Mayor Sevilleja, reporting that he was with the
evidence can be as potent as direct evidence to sustain a conviction provided victim when the latter allegedly fell from the bridge after he "accidentally
that there is a concurrence of all the requisites prescribed in Section 5, Rule tripped (napatid) her" off; that the appellant admitted having raped the victim
133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, thus: in a tape interview by Dennis Mojares, another prosecution witness; that the
victim was found dead the following morning floating at the Colobong creek
near the Aburido bridge; and that the autopsy conducted on her cadaver shows "A         Yes, sir.
that she was sexually abused and, thereafter, brutally killed.
"Q         Upon reaching the public market, what happened?
The appellant himself admitted that he was alone with Rebelyn in the evening
of August 4, 1998. His only defense is that Rebelyn died because she "A         I decided to go home, sir.
accidentally fell from the bridge. We find her tale so fantastic to be accorded
any iota of credibility. This is his incredible story: "COURT: But you were able to buy dilis?

"COURT: How about Rebelyn when you left the house? "A         No more, sir, but I decided to go home.

"A         I saw Rebelyn when I was on my way to the market, sir, she "Q         Whereat?
was at my back.
"A         Binalonan, Pangasinan, sir.
"Q         On your way, Rebelyn was following you in the market?
"ATTY. FLORENDO: Where was Rebelyn when you decided to go
"A         Yes, sir. home?

"ATTY. FLORENDO: When did you notice Rebelyn to be following "A         She was at my back following me sir.
you?
"COURT: You said you decided to go home to Binalonan, Pangasinan
"A         When she was at my back, sir. did you take a jeep?

"Q         And when you noticed that she was following you, what did "A         No, sir, I just walked.
you do?
"Q         From the public market of Asingan to Binalonan you just
"A         I did not mind, sir. walked?

"COURT You just ignored her? "A         I walked but I was not able to reach Binalonan, sir.

"A         Yes, sir. "Q         You decided to go home not to buy dilis anymore?

"ATTY. FLORENDO: And you were able to reach the public market? "A         Yes, sir.
"Q         And you thought of going home? "A         Yes, sir.

"A         Yes, sir. "Q         You mean to tell us that Rebelyn was already walking with
you side by side?
"Q         Were you able to go home?
"A         Yes, sir.
"A         No, sir.
"COURT: Did you tell Rebelyn that you are proceeding to San
"Q         From the public market where did you go? Manuel, Pangasinan?

"A         San Juan, San Manuel, Pangasinan, sir. "A         Yes, sir.

"Q         From the public market where did you go? "Q         Despite of that she is still following you?

"A         I proceeded to San Manuel, Pangasinan. "A         Yes, sir.

"Q         What did you take in going to San Manuel, Pangasinan? "ATTY. FLORENDO: By the way, while you were at the public
market at Asingan, Pangasinan, did Rebelyn ever talk to you?
"A         I just walked, sir.
"A         Yes, sir.
"Q         You mean to say that you walked this distance from the public
market of Asingan to San Manuel, Pangasinan? "Q         What else did she tell you?

"A         Yes, sir. "A         She told me that she will go to our house, sir.

"Q         From the public market proceeding to San Manuel, where was "Q         She told you that she pay a visit to your house?
Rebelyn?
"A         Yes, sir.
"A         She was at my back, sir.
"Q         While walking with Rebelyn what place were you able to
"ATTY. FLORENDO: While you were walking towards San Manuel, reach?
Pangasinan, did you ever talk to Rebelyn?
"A         Aburido, sir.
"COURT: What route did you take going to San Manuel, Pangasinan? "A         I went home, sir.

"A         The provincial road, sir. xxx           xxx           xxx"26

"ATTY. FLORENDO: While you were at the Aburido bridge what We cannot accept as a valid defense such kind of tale which is highly
were you doing with Rebelyn? preposterous and obviously contrary to the common experience of mankind.
Time and again, we declared the legal truism that "evidence to be believed
"A         I was running away from her, sir. must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be
credible in itself. Human perception can be warped by the impact of events
"Q         You were running away from Rebelyn why? and testimony colored by the inconscious workings of the mind. No better test
has yet been found to measure the value of a witness' testimony than its
"A         Because I want her to be left, sir. conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind."27

"Q         And what did Rebelyn do when you tried to run away from Appellant's defense is a mere denial which is intrinsically weak. To merit
her? credence, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.28 This,
the appellant failed to do.
"A         She ran following me, sir.
Even granting that Rebelyn fell from the bridge, the autopsy report of Dr.
"Q         By the way, what is that Abundo bridge? Tuvera does not support such incident.

"A         A cemented bridge, sir. As found by Dr. Tuvera, Rebelyn's body bore injuries not attributable to a fall.
There were multiple cigarette burns on both her upper arms.29 Her genitalia
"Q         So, when she ran towards you, what happened, Mr. Witness? showed multiple lacerations on the vaginal wall and hymen extending to the
upper part of the urethra.30
"A         I accidentally tripped (napatid) her, sir.
Anent the injuries found in Rebelyn's genitalia, Dr. Tuvera observed:
"Q         When you said that you accidentally tripped Rebelyn what
happened to her? "COURT What does multiple vaginal wall laceration indicate?

"A         She fell to the bridge. "A         It indicates that in the vaginal area, a foreign object was
inserted, there is contact, sir.
"Q         When Rebelyn fell to the bridge what else happened?
"Q         What is your conclusion?
 "A         Probably a male genitalia or any hard object, sir. After considering all the evidence presented, this Court is constrained to
affirm the appealed decision of the trial court imposing the death penalty upon
"Q         What does multiple laceration on the vaginal wall to the the appellant. We, however, modify the same insofar as the civil aspect of the
urethra indicate? case is concerned. Although this matter has not been raised by the parties,
especially the Solicitor General, it is a settled rule that in a criminal case, an
"A         It indicates that there is a contact in the genitalia, it may be appeal to the Supreme Court throws the whole case open for review, and it
caused by erect penis or genitalia of a male or maybe caused by a hard becomes the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the
object, sir."31 appealed judgment, whether they are made the subject of assignments of error
or not.33
And this fact is more revealing. Rebelyn's body was found naked. If she
merely fell from the bridge, as appellant wants us to believe, it is highly With regard to the civil indemnity, the trial court awarded only P75,000.00.
improbable that the current of the river would totally undress her. Current jurisprudence has fixed at P100,000.00 the civil indemnity in cases of
rape with homicide, which is fully justified and properly commensurate with
The appellant also contends that the absence of spermatozoa in Rebelyn's the seriousness of that special complex crime.34
genitalia and the failure of Dr. Tuvera to show that the lacerations were fresh
do not prove that the victim was raped. The trial court did not award moral damages to the victim's family. Based on
prevailing jurisprudence, however, moral damages may be awarded to the
This argument does not persuade us. The absence of spermatozoa does not heirs of the victim without need for pleading or proof of its basis for their
negate a finding of rape considering that its presence is not an essential mental, physical and psychological sufferings are too obvious to still require
element of the crime. their recital at the trial. Hence, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00
must be awarded.35
The totality of all the circumstances obtaining, taken together with the
condition of Rebelyn's body when found, eloquently indicate that the In People vs. Lagarto,36 we held that attendant circumstances may be
appellant sexually assaulted her before drowning her to death. considered to determine civil liability. Thus, in view of the evident cruelty
inflicted upon Rebelyn, as shown by the multiple burns and contusions on her
It bears stressing that appellant admitted having raped Rebelyn when he was body, we grant the award of exemplary damages in the amount of
interviewed by Dennis Mojares, a radio commentator of Bombo Radio. P25,000.00.37
Mojares' testimony lends support to our conclusion. We have held that "a
confession to a radio reporter is admissible where it was not shown that said Four members of the Court maintain their position that Republic Act No.
reporter was acting for the police or that the interview was conducted under 7659, insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional.
circumstances where it is apparent that the suspect confessed to the killing out Nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority members that the law is
of fear."32 constitutional and that the death penalty should be imposed.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision convicting ROLLY ABULENCIA y CALLEJO, SR.,
COYOS of the crime of rape with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the AZCUNA,
penalty of DEATH, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION insofar as the civil TINGA,
aspect is concerned. Appellant is thus ordered to PAY the heirs of Rebelyn CHICO-NAZARIO,
Garcia P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; GARCIA, and
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P6,425.00 as actual damages. VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
In accordance with Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by September 26, 2006
Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, upon finality of this decision, let the x----------------------------------------x
certified true copy of the record of this case be forthwith forwarded to the
Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power. DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
In People v. Maingan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2008, the Court held
that when the accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall in the cralaw
morning of January 2, 2001, he was already a suspect in the fire that destroyed The Case
several houses and killed the whole family of Roberto Separa, Sr., and thus, For review is the  Decision[1] of the Court of Appealsin CA-G.R.
the confession of appellant given to the Barangay Chairman, as well as the CR HC No. 01139 promulgated on 2 September 2005, affirming
lighter found by the latter in her bag, is inadmissible in evidence. But the with modification the  Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court
testimony of Mercedita Mendoza, a neighbour of Roberto Separa, Sr., on the (RTC) of Manila, Branch 41, in Criminal Case No. 01-188424
same confession, is admissible in evidence and is not covered by the promulgated on 13 October 2003, finding appellant Edna
exclusionary rule.
Malngan y Mayo (Edna) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
PEOPLE OF G. R. No. 170470 crime of 'Arson with Multiple Homicide or Arson resulting to the
THE PHILIPPINES, Present: death of six (6) people, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty
Appellee, PANGANIBAN, C.J., of death.
- versus - PUNO,
EDNA MALNGAN y MAYO, QUISUMBING, The Facts
Appellant. YNARES-SANTIAGO, As summarized[3] by the Court of Appeals, the antecedent facts are as
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, follows:
CARPIO, From the personal account of Remigio Bernardo, the Barangay
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, Chairman in the area, as well as the personal account of the
CORONA, pedicab driver named Rolando Gruta, it was at around 4:45
CARPIO MORALES, a.m. on January 2, 2001 when Remigio Bernardo and his
tanods saw the accused-appellant EDNA, one hired as a Roberto Separa, Sr. Upon inspection, a disposable lighter was
housemaid by Roberto Separa, Sr., with her head turning in found inside accused-appellant EDNA's bag. Thereafter,
different directions, hurriedly leaving the house of her accused-appellant EDNA confessed to Barangay Chairman
employer at No. 172 Moderna Street, Balut, Tondo, Manila. Bernardo in the presence of multitudes of angry residents
She was seen to have boarded a pedicab which was driven by a outside the Barangay Hall that she set her employer's house on
person later identified as Rolando Gruta. She was heard by the fire because she had not been paid her salary for about a year
pedicab driver to have instructed that she be brought to Nipa and that she wanted to go home to her province but her
Street, but upon her arrival there, she changed her mind and employer told her to just ride a broomstick in going home.
asked that she be brought instead to Balasan Street where she Accused-appellant EDNA was then turned over to arson
finally alighted, after paying for her fare. investigators headed by S[F]O4 Danilo Talusan, who brought
Thirty minutes later, at around 5:15 a.m. Barangay Chairman her to the San Lazaro Fire Station in Sta. Cruz, Manila where
Bernardo's group later discovered that a fire gutted the house of she was further investigated and then detained.
the employer of the housemaid. Barangay Chairman Bernardo When Mercedita Mendoza went to the San Lazaro Fire Station
and his tanods responded to the fire upon hearing shouts from to give her sworn statement, she had the opportunity to ask
the residents and thereafter, firemen from the Fire District 1- accused-appellant EDNA at the latter's detention cell why she
NCR arrived at the fire scene to contain the fire. did the burning of her employer's house and accused-appellant
When Barangay Chairman Bernardo returned to the Barangay EDNA replied that she set the house on fire because when she
Hall, he received a report from pedicab driver Rolando Gruta, asked permission to go home to her province, the wife of her
who was also a tanod, that shortly before the occurrence of the employer Roberto Separa, Sr., named Virginia Separa (sic)
fire, he saw a woman (the housemaid) coming out of the house shouted at her: 'Sige umuwi ka, pagdating mo maputi ka na.
at No. 172 Moderna Street, Balut, Tondo, Manila and he Sumakay ka sa walis, pagdating mo maputi ka
received a call from his wife telling him of a woman (the same na (TSN, January 22, 2002, p.6) (Go ahead, when you arrive
housemaid) who was acting strangely and suspiciously on your color would be fair already. Ride a broomstick, when you
Balasan Street. Barangay Chairman Bernardo, Rolando Gruta arrive your color would be fair already.') And when Mercedita
and the other tanods proceeded to Balasan Street and found the Mendoza asked accused-appellant EDNA how she burned the
woman who was later identified as the accused-appellant. After house, accused-appellant EDNA told her: 'Naglukot ako ng
Rolando Gruta positively identified the woman as the same maraming diyaryo, sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at
person who left No. 172 Moderna Street, Balut, Tondo, Manila, hinagis ko sa ibabaw ng lamesa sa loob ng bahay (TSN,
Barangay Chairman Bernardo and his tanods apprehended her January 22, 2002, p. 7.) (I crumpled newspapers, lighted them
and brought her to the Barangay Hall for investigation. At the with a disposable lighter and threw them on top of the table
Barangay Hall, Mercedita Mendoza, neighbor of Roberto inside the house.')
Separa, Sr. and whose house was also burned, identified the When interviewed by Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of ABS-
woman as accused-appellant EDNA who was the housemaid of CBN Network, accused-appellant EDNA while under detention
 (sic) was heard by SFO4 (sic) Danilo Talusan as having 6.            Roberto Separa, Jr., 11 years of age
admitted the crime and even narrated the manner how she sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their
accomplished it. SFO4 (sic) Danilo Talusan was able to hear death immediately thereafter.[5]
the same confession, this time at his home, while watching the When arraigned, accused-appellant with assistance of counsel de
television program 'True Crime hosted by Gus Abelgas also of oficio, pleaded[6] 'Not Guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial ensued.
ABS-CBN Network.
The fire resulted in [the] destruction of the house of Roberto [7]
Separa, Sr. and other adjoining houses and the death of Roberto The prosecution presented five (5) witnesses, namely,
Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa together with their four (4) SPO4[8] Danilo Talusan, Rolando Gruta, Remigio Bernardo, Mercedita
children, namely: Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, Jr. Mendoza and Rodolfo Movilla to establish its charge that accused-appellant
On 9 January 2001, an Information[4] was filed before the RTC of Manila, Edna committed the crime of arson with multiple homicide.
Branch 41, charging accused-appellant with the crime of Arson with Multiple SPO4 Danilo Talusan, arson investigator, testified that he was one of those
Homicide.The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 01-188424. The who responded to the fire that occurred on 2 January 2001 and which started
accusatory portion of said Information provides: at No. 172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila.He stated that the fire killed
That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, Roberto Separa, Sr. and all the other members of his family, namely his wife,
Philippines, the said accused, with intent to cause damage, did
Virginia, and his children, Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, Jr.; the fire
then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
deliberately set fire upon the two-storey residential house of also destroyed their abode as well as six neighboring houses. He likewise
ROBERTO SEPARA and family mostly made of wooden testified that he twice heard accused-appellant ' once while the latter was
materials located at No. 172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, this being interviewed by Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of ABS-CBN, and the other
city, by lighting crumpled newspaper with the use of time when it was shown on channel 2 on television during the airing of the
disposable lighter inside said house knowing the same to be an
television program entitled 'True Crime hosted by Gus Abelgas ' confess to
inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place and as
a consequence thereof a conflagration ensued and the said having committed the crime charged, to wit:
building, together with some seven (7) adjoining residential Pros. Rebagay:
houses, were razed by fire; that by reason and on the occasion Based on your investigation, was there any occasion
of the said fire, the following, namely, when the accused Edna Malngan admitted to the
1.            Roberto Separa, Sr., 45 years of age burning of the house of the Separa Family?
2.            Virginia Separa y Mendoza, 40 years x x x x
of age Witness:
3.            Michael Separa, 24 years of age cralawYes, sir.
4.            Daphne Separa, 18 years of age Pros. Rebagay:
5.            Priscilla Separa, 14 years of age cralawWhen was that?
A:On January 2 she was interviewed by the media, sir. The one Nagsalita pa po sa kanya na, 'Sumakay ka na lang sa
who took the coverage was Carmelita Valdez of walis. Pagbalik mo dito maputi ka na. (sic) 'Yon po ang
Channel 2, ABS-CBN. They have a footage that Edna sinabi ng  kanyang amo.
admitted before them, sir. Atty. Masweng:
Q:And where were you when Edna Malngan made that That was a statement of an alleged dead person, your Honor.
statement or admission to Carmelita Valdez of ABS- Court:
CBN? Sabi ni Valdes, ha?
A:I was at our office, sir. Pros. Rebagay:
Q: Was there any other occasion wherein the accused made Sabi ni Edna Malngan kay Carmelita Valdez, Your Honor.
another confession relative to the admission of the Court:
crime? Double hearsay na 'yon.
A:Yes, sir. Pros. Rebagay:
Q:When was that? No, Your Honor, the witness was present, Your Honor, when
A: Last Friday, sir. It was shown in True Crime of Gus that confession was made by the accused to Carmelita
Abelgas. She was interviewed at the City Jail and she Valdez.[9]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
admitted that she was the one who authored the crime, Rolando Gruta, the pedicab driver and one of the barangay tanods in the area,
sir. testified:
Pros. Rebagay: Pros. Rebagay:
And where were you when that admission to Gus Abelgas was cralawMr. Witness, what is your profession?
made? A:cralawSidecar driver, sir.
A:I was in the house and I just saw it on tv, sir. Q:cralawOn January 2, 2001 at around 4:45 in the morning, do
Q:What was that admission that you heard personally, when you recall where were (sic) you?
you were present, when the accused made the A:cralawI was at the corner of Moderna Street , sir.
confession to Carmelita Valdez? Pros. Rebagay:
A:Naglukot  po siya ng papel, sinidihan niya ng lighter at And while you were at the corner of Moderna St., what
inilagay niya sa ibabaw ng mesa yung mga diyaryo at happened if any, Mr. Witness?
sinunog niya. A:cralawI saw Edna coming out from the door of the house of
x x x x Roberto Separa, sir.
Q:Aside from that statement, was there any other statement Q:cralawDo you know the number of the house of the Separa
made by the accused Edna Malngan? Family?
A:Yes, sir. 'Kaya po niya nagawa 'yon galit po siya sa kanyang A:cralaw172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila, sir.
amo na si  Virginia, hindi siya pinasuweldo at gusto na x x x x
po niyang umuwi na (sic) ayaw siyang payagan.
Q:cralawAnd you said you saw Edna coming out from the Q:cralawAnd what did you observe from Edna when you saw
house of the Separa Family. How far is that house from her coming out from the house of the Separa family?
the place where you were waiting at the corner of A:cralawNagmamadali  po siyang lumakad at palinga-linga.
Moderna and Paulino Streets? x x x x
A:cralawAbout three meters from Moderna and Paulino Streets Q:cralawAfter she boarded your pedicab, what happened, if
where my pedicab was placed. My distance was about any?
three meters, sir. A:cralawNagpahatid po siya sa akin.
x x x x Q:cralawWhere?
Q:cralawAnd how did you know that the house where Edna A:cralawTo Nipa Street, sir.
came out is that of the house of the Separa Family? Q:cralawDid you bring her to Nipa Street as she
A:cralawMismong nakita po ng dalawang mata ko na doon requested?
siya galing sa bahay ng Separa Family. A:cralawYes, sir.
Q:cralawHow long have you known the Separa Family, if you x x x x
know them? Q:cralawYou said that you brought her to Nipa Street. What
A:cralawAbout two years, sir. happened when you go (sic) there at Nipa Street, if any?
Q:cralawHow about this Edna, the one you just pointed (to) A:cralawNagpahinto po siya doon ng saglit, mga tatlong
awhile ago? Do you know her prior to January 2, minuto po.
2001? Q:cralawWhat did she do when she asked (you) to stop there
A:cralawYes, sir. I knew(sic) her for two years. for three minutes?
Court: A:cralawAfter three minutes she requested me to bring her
cralawWhy? directly to Balasan Street, sir.
Witness: x x x x
cralawMadalas ko po siyang maging pasahero ng aking Q:cralawWhat happened after that?
pedicab. A:cralawWhen we arrived there, she alighted and pay (sic)
Pros. Rebagay: P5.00, sir.
cralawHow about the Separa family? Why do you know them? QcralawAnd then what transpired after she alighted from your
A:cralawThey were the employers of Edna, sir. pedicab?
Q:cralawYou said you saw Edna coming out from the house of Witness:
the Separa Family. What happened when you saw Edna cralawI went home and I looked for another passenger, sir.
coming out from the house of the Separa Family? Pros. Rebagay:
A:cralawWala pa pong ano 'yan naisakay ko na siya sa cralawAfter that, what happened when you were on you way to
sidecar. your house to look for passengers?
 AcralawNakita ko na nga po na pagdating ko sa Moderna, nirespondehan namin iyong sunog eh me dala kaming
naglalagablab na apoy. fire.
Q:cralawFrom what place was that fire coming out? Court:
A:cralawFrom the house of Roberto Separa Family, sir. You just answer the question. Where were you when
x x x x this incident happened?
Pros. Rebagay: Witness:cralaw
cralawAfter you noticed that there was a fire from the house of cralawI was at the Barangay Hall, Your Honor.
Roberto Separa Family, what did you do if any? Pros. Rebagay:
A:cralawSiyempre po, isang Barangay Tanod po ako, And you said that there was a fire that occurred, what
nagresponde na po kami sa sunog. Binuksan na po ng did you do?
Chairman naming 'yung tangke, binomba na po naming Witness:
'yung apoy ng tubig. Iyon nga nagresponde kami doon sa sunog eh nakita ko
Q:cralawAfter that incident, Mr. Witness, have you seen Edna iyong sunog mukha talagang arson dahil napakalaki
Again (sic). kaagad, meron pong mga tipong ' Iyong namatay po
A:cralawNo, sir. contractor po iyon eh kaya siguro napakaraming kalat
Pros. Rebagay: ng mga pintura, mga container, kaya hindi
cralawAnd after that incident, did you come to know if Edna po  namin naapula kaagad iyong apoy, nasunog ultimo
was apprehended or not? iyong fire tank  namin sa lakas, sir.
cralawx x x x Pros. Rebagay:
A:cralawI was called by our Barangay Chairman in order to cralawNow, will you please tell us where this fire occurred?
identify Edna, sir. A:cralawAt the house of the six victims, sir.
x x x x[10]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Q:cralawWhose house is that?
Remigio Bernardo, Barangay Chairman of the area where the fire occurred, A:cralawThe house of the victims, sir.
stated: x x x x
Pros. Rebagay: Pros. Rebagay:
On January 2, 2001, do you recall if there is a fire that You said that you responded to the place, what
occurred somewhere in your area of jurisdiction, transpired after you responded to the place?
particularly Moderna Street? A:cralawIyon  nga po ang nagsabi may lumabas na isang
A:cralawYes, sir. babae po noon sa bahay na nagmamadali habang may
Q:cralawNow, where were you when this incident happened? sunog, me isang barangay tanod po akong nagsabi may
A:cralawKasi  ugali ko na po tuwing umagang-umaga po ako humahangos na isang babae na may dalang bag
na pupunta sa barangay Hall mga papunta po roon palabas ng sasakyan, sir.
siguro 6:00 or  5:00 o clock, me sumigaw ng sunog Q:cralawAnd so what happened?
A:cralawSiyempre hindi naman ako nagtanong kung sino It's not under the exemption under the Rules of Court,
ngayon may dumating galing na sa bahay naming, may Your Honor. He is testifying according to what he has
tumawag, tumawag po si Konsehala Alfonso na may heard.
isang babae na hindi mapakali doon sa Calle Pedro Court:
Alfonso, ke konsehal na baka ito sabi niya iyong ganito That's part of the narration. Whether it is true or not,
ganoon nirespondehan ko po, sir. that's another matter. Let it remain.
Q:cralawWhere did you respond? Pros. Rebagay:
A:cralawAt Balasan, sir, but it's not the area of my jurisdiction. Now, who were present when the accused are telling
x x x x you this?
Q:cralawWhat happened when you reached that place? A:cralawIyon nga  iyong mga tanod ko, mamamayan doon
A:cralawSiya po ang nahuli ko doon, sir. nakapaligid, siyempre may sunog nagkakagulo, gusto
Court: nga siyang kunin ng mga mamamayan para saktan
cralawWitness pointing to accused Edna Malngan. hindi ko maibigay papatayin siya gawa ng may
Pros. Rebagay: namatay eh anim na tao and namatay, kaya iyong mga
cralawAnd what happened? tao kinokontrol siya madidisgrasya siya dahil pin-
A:cralawI brought her to the barangay hall, sir. pointed po siya, Your Honor, iyong dami na iyon libo
Q:cralawAnd what happened at the barangay hall? iyong nakapaligid doon sa barangay hall napakahirap
A:cralawInembestigahan ko, kinuha naming iyong bag niya, awatin. Gustong-gusto siyang kunin ng mga taong-
me lighter siya eh. Inamin niya po sa amin na kaya bayan, nagalit dahil ang daming bahay hong nasunog.
niya sinunog hindi siya pinasasahod ng more or less [11]
isang taon na eh. Ngayon sabi ko bakit eh gusto ko ng For her part, Mercedita Mendoza, one of the neighbors of the Separa Family
umuwi ng probinsya ang sabi sa akin ng amo ko and whose house was one of those destroyed by the fire, recounted:
sumakay na lang daw po ako ng walis tingting para Pros. Rebagay:
makauwi, sir. Madam Witness, on January 2, 2001, do you recall
Atty. Herman: where were you residing then?
We would like to object, Your Honor on the ground that A:cralawYes, sir.
that is hearsay. Q:cralawWhere were you residing at?
Pros. Rebagay: A: cralawAt No. 170 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, Manila, sir.
That is not a hearsay statement, Your Honor, straight Q:cralawWhy did you transfer your residence? Awhile ago you
from the mouth of the accused. testified that you are now residing at 147 Moderna St.,
Atty. Herman: Balut, Tondo,  Manila?
A:cralawBecause our house was burned, sir.
Q:cralawMore or less, how much did the loss incurred on the Edna Malngan, sir.
burning of your house (sic)? Pros. Rebagay:
A:cralawMore or less, P100,000.00, sir cralawWhy do you know that it was Edna Malngan who
Q:cralawDo you know the accused in this case Edna Malngan? burned the house of the Cifara (sic) family?
A:cralawYes, sir. A:cralawWhen the fire incident happened, sir, on January 3, we
Q:cralawWhy do you know her? went to San Lazaro Fire Station and I saw Edna
A:cralawShe is the house helper of the family who were (sic) Malngan detained there, sir.
burned, sir. Q:cralawAnd so what is your basis in pointing to Edna
Q:cralawWhat family? Malngan as the culprit or the one who burned the house
A:cralawCifara (sic) family, sir. of the Cifara (sic) family?
Q:cralawWho in particular do you know among Cifara (sic) A:cralawI talked to her when we went there at that day, sir.
family? Q:cralawWhat transpired then?
A:cralawThe woman, sir. A:cralawI talked to her and I told her, 'Edna, bakit mo naman
Q:cralawWhat is the name? ginawa 'yung ganun?
A:cralawVirginia Mendoza Cifara (sic), sir. Q:cralawAnd what was the answer of Edna?
Q:cralawAre you related to Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic)? A:cralawShe answered, 'Kasi pag nagpapaalam ako sa
A:cralawMy husband, sir. kanyang umuwi ng probinsya, nagpapaalam po siyang
Q:cralawWhat is the relationship of your husband to the late umuwi ng probinsya ang sinasabi daw po sa kanya ni
Virginia Mendoza Cifara (sic)? Baby Cifara (sic)  na, (sic)Sige  umuwi ka, pagdating
A:cralawThey were first cousins, sir. mo maputi ka na. Sumakay ka sa walis pagdating mo
Q:cralawHow far is your house from the house of the Cifara maputi ka na.
(sic) family? Pros. Rebagay:
A:cralawMagkadikit lang po. Pader lang ang pagitan. cralawWhat is the basis there that she was the one who burned
Q:cralawYou said that Edna Malngan was working with the the house of the Cifara (sic) family?
Cifara (sic) family. What is the work of Edna Malngan? A:cralawI also asked her, 'Paano mo ginawa 'yung sunog? She
A:cralawNangangamuhan po. House helper, sir. told me, 'Naglukot ako ng maraming diyaryo,
Q:cralawHow long do you know Edna Malngan as house sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at hinagis niya sa
helper of the Cifara (sic) family? ibabaw ng lamesa sa loob ng bahay. (sic)
A:cralawI cannot estimate but she stayed there for three to four [12]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
years, sir. Lastly, the prosecution presented Rodolfo Movilla, owner of the house
Q:cralawDo you know who caused the burning of the house of situated beside that of the Separa family. He testified that his house was also
the Cifara (sic) family?
Witness: gutted by the fire that killed the Separa family and that he tried to help said
victims but to no avail.
The prosecution presented other documentary evidence[13] and thereafter Homicide (death of victims) and that charge is embodied and
rested its case. stated in the body of the information. What is controlling is the
allegation in the body of the Information and not the title or
When it came time for the defense to present exculpatory evidence, instead of caption thereof. x x x.
doing so, accused-appellant filed a Motion to Admit Demurrer to xxxx
Evidence[14] and the corresponding Demurrer to Evidence[15] with the The second and third arguments will be discussed jointly as
former expressly stating that said Demurrer to Evidence was being filed they are interrelated with each other. x x x.
'x x x without express leave of court x x x.[16] xxxx
[W]hile there is no direct evidence that points to the accused in
In her Demurrer to Evidence, accused-appellant asserts that the prosecution's the act of burning the house or actually starting the subject fire,
evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the the following circumstances that show that the accused
following reasons:[17] (a) that she is charged with crime not defined and intentionally caused or was responsible for the subject fire have
penalized by law; (b) that circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove been duly established:
her guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (c) that the testimonies given by the 1.cralawthat immediately before the burning of the house, the
accused hurriedly and with head turning in different directions
witnesses of the prosecution were hearsay, thus, inadmissible in evidence
(palinga-linga) went out of the said house and rode a pedicab
against her. apparently not knowing where to go x x x;
The prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition to accused- 2.cralawthat immediately after the fire, upon a report that there
appellant's Demurrer to Evidence. was a woman in Balasan St. who appears confused and
On 13 October 2003, acting on the Demurrer to Evidence, the RTC apprehensive (balisa), the Barangay Chairman and his tanods
went there, found the accused and apprehended her and
promulgated its Judgment[18] wherein it proceeded to resolve the subject case
brought her to the barangay hall as shown by the testimony of
based on the evidence of the prosecution. The RTC considered accused- Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo; and
appellant to have waived her right to present evidence, having filed 3.cralawthat when she was apprehended and investigated by
the Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court. the barangay officials and when her bag was opened, the same
In finding accused-appellant Edna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the contained a disposable lighter as likewise shown by the
testimony of the Barangay Chairman.
crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide, the RTC ruled that:
[T]he timing of her hurried departure and nervous demeanor
The first argument of the accused that she is charged with an
immediately before the fire when she left the house and rode a
act not defined and penalized by law is without merit. x x x the
pedicab and her same demeanor, physical and mental condition
caption which charges the accused with the crime of Arson
when found and apprehended at the same place where she
with Multiple Homicide is merely descriptive of the charge of
alighted from the pedicab and the discovery of the lighter in her
Arson that resulted to Multiple Homicide. The fact is that the
accused is charged with Arson which resulted to Multiple
 bag thereafter when investigated indisputably show her guilt as v. Efren Mateo y Garcia,[19] however, we referred the case and its records to
charged. the CA for appropriate action and disposition.
cralawIf there is any doubt of her guilt that remains with the On 2 September 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the
circumstantial evidence against her, the same is removed or decision of the RTC, the fallo of which reads:
obliterated with the confessions/admissions of the commission WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed October 13,
of the offense and the manner thereof that she made to the 2003 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
prosecution witnesses Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo, 41, finding accused-appellant Edna Malngan y Mayo guilty
Mercedita Mendoza and to the media, respectively. beyond reasonable doubt of Arson with multiple homicide and
xxxx sentencing her to suffer the DEATH PENALTY is hereby
[H]er confessions/admissions are positive acknowledgment of AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that she is further
guilt of the crime and appear to have been voluntarily and ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and another
intelligently given. These confessions/admissions, especially P50,000.00 as exemplary damages for each of the victims who
the one given to her neighbor Mercedita Mendoza and the perished in the fire, to be paid to their heirs. She is ordered to
media, albeit uncounselled and made while she was already pay Rodolfo Movilla, one whose house was also burned, the
under the custody of authorities, it is believed, are not violative sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damage.
of her right under the Constitution. Pursuant to Section 13 (a), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of
The decretal part of the RTC's Judgment reads: Criminal Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated
WHEREFORE, the Demurrer to Evidence is hereby denied and September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15,
judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused EDNA 2004, the Court of Appeals, after rendering judgment, hereby
MALNGAN Y MAYO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the refrains from making an entry of judgment and forthwith
crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide or Arson resulting to certifies the case and elevates the entire record of this case to
the death of six (6) people and sentencing her to suffer the the Supreme Court for review.[20]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
mandatory penalty of death, and ordering her to pay the heirs It is the contention of accused-appellant that the evidence
of the victims Roberto Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa and
presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to establish her
children Michael, Daphne, Priscilla and Roberto, Jr., the
amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos for each victim guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the perpetrator of the crime
and the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) charged. In support of said exculpatory proposition, she assigns
Pesos as temperate damages for their burned house or a total of the following errors [21]:
Four Hundred Thousand (P400,000.00) Pesos and to Rodolfo I.
Movilla the amount of One Hundred [Thousand] (P100,000.00) THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT
Pesos. THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY
Due to the death penalty imposed by the RTC, the case was directly elevated THE PROSECUTION IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE
to this Court for automatic review. Conformably with our decision in People ACCUSED; and
 II. results  therefrom. The raison d'tre is that arson is itself the end
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING AND and death is simply the consequence. [24]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
GIVING CREDENCE TO THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND
UNCOUNSELLED ADMISSIONS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN cralawWhether the crime of arson will absorb the resultant death
BY THE ACCUSED TO THE WITNESSES BARANGAY or will have to be a separate crime altogether, the joint
CHAIRMAN REMIGIO BERNARDO, MERCEDITA discussion[25] of the late Mr. Chief Justice Ramon
MENDOZA AND THE MEDIA. C. Aquino and Mme. Justice Carolina C.  Grio-Aquino, on the
THERE IS NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH (MULTIPLE) subject of the crimes of arson and murder/homicide, is highly
HOMICIDE. instructive:
The Information  in this case erroneously charged accused- Groizard says that when fire is used with the intent to kill a
appellant with a  complex crime , i.e., Arson with Multiple particular person who may be in a house and that objective is
Homicide. Presently, there are two (2) laws that govern the crime attained by burning the house, the crime is murder only. When
the Penal Code declares that killing committed by means of fire
of arson where death results  therefrom ' Article 320 of the is murder, it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) means to that end. There can be no murder without a design to
No. 7659,[22] and Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. take life.[26] In other words, if the main object of the offender
1613[23], quoted hereunder, to wit: is to kill by means of fire, the offense is murder. But if the
Revised Penal Code: main objective is the burning of the building, the resulting
ART. 320. Destructive Arson. ' x x x x homicide may be absorbed by the crime of arson.
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts [27]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
penalized under this Article, death results, the mandatory x x x x
penalty of death shall be imposed. [Emphasis supplied.] If the house was set on fire after the victims therein were killed,
Presidential Decree No. 1613: fire would not be a qualifying circumstance. The accused
SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. ' If by reason of or would be liable for the separate offenses of murder or
on the occasion of the arson death results, the penalty homicide, as the case may be, and arson.
of reclusion  perpetua to death shall be imposed. [Emphasis [28]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
supplied.] cralawAccordingly, in cases where both burning and death occur,
Art. 320 of the RPC, as amended, with respect to destructive arson, in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated '
and the provisions of  PD No. 1613 respecting other cases of whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is   de
arson provide  only one penalty for the commission of arson, rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if
whether considered destructive or otherwise, where death the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice, but
death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is
simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their
the other hand, the main objective is to kill a particular person death immediately thereafter.[29] [Emphasis supplied.]
who may be in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as accused-appellant is being charged with the crime of arson.
the means to accomplish such goal the crime committed It it is clear from the foregoing that her intent was merely to
is murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is, likewise, to kill a destroy her employer's house through the use of fire.
particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, We now go to the issues raised. Under the first assignment of
but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then error, in asserting the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence
there are two separate and distinct crimes committed to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant
' homicide/murder and arson . argues that the prosecution was only able to adduce
Where then does this case fall under? circumstantial evidence ' hardly enough to prove her guilt
From a reading of the body of the Information: beyond reasonable doubt. She ratiocinates that the following
That on or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila, circumstances:
Philippines, the said accused, with intent to cause damage, did 1.            That immediately before the burning of the house ,
then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously the accused hurriedly and with head turning in different
and deliberately set fire upon the two-storey residential directions (palinga-linga) went out of the said house
house of ROBERTO SEPARA and family mostly made of and rode a pedicab apparently not knowing where to go
wooden materials located at No. for she first requested to be brought to Nipa St. but
172 Moderna St., Balut, Tondo, this city, by lighting crumpled upon reaching there requested again to be brought to
newspaper with the use of disposable lighter inside said house Balasan St. as shown by the testimony of prosecution
knowing the same to be an inhabited house and situated in a witness Rolando Gruta;
thickly populated place and as a consequence thereof a 2.            That immediately after the fire, upon a report that
conflagration ensued and the said building, together with some there was a woman in Balasan St. who appears
seven (7) adjoining residential houses, were razed by fire; that confused and apprehensive (balisa), the Barangay
by reason and on the occasion of the said fire, the following, Chairman and his tanods went there, found the accused
namely, and apprehended her and brought her to the barangay
1.    Roberto Separa, Sr., 45 years of age hall as shown by the testimony of Barangay Chairman
2.    Virginia Separa y Mendoza, 40 years of age Remigio Bernardo; and
3.    Michael Separa, 24 years of age 3.cralawThat when she was apprehended and investigated by
4.    Daphne Separa, 18 years of age the barangay officials and when her bag was opened,
5.    Priscilla Separa, 14 years of age the same contained a disposable lighter as likewise
6.    Roberto Separa, Jr., 11 years of age
 shown by the testimony of the Barangay Chairman. Q:cralawAfter she boarded your pedicab, what happened, if
[30]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary any?
fall short of proving that she had any involvement in setting her A:cralawNagpahatid po siya sa akin.
employer's house on fire, much less show guilt beyond Q:cralawWhere?
A:cralawTo Nipa Street, sir.
reasonable doubt, given that 'it is a fact that housemaids are the Q:cralawDid you bring her to Nipa Street as she
first persons in the house to wake up early to perform routine requested?
chores for their employers, [31] one of which is preparing and A:cralawYes, sir.
cooking the morning meal for the members of the household; and x x x x
necessity requires her to go out early to look for open stores or Q:cralawYou said that you brought her to Nipa Street. What
happened when you go (sic) there at Nipa Street, if any?
even nearby marketplaces to buy things that will complete the A:cralawNagpahinto po siya doon ng saglit, mga tatlong
early meal for the day. [32] She then concludes that it was normal minuto po.
for her to have been seen going out of her employer's house in a Q:cralawWhat did she do when she asked (you) to stop there
hurry at that time of the day and 'to look at all directions to for three minutes?
insure that the house is secure and that there are no other persons A:cralawAfter three minutes she requested me to bring her
directly to Balasan Street, sir.
in the vicinity. [33]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x x x x
cralawWe are far from persuaded.
We quote with approval the pronouncement of the RTC in
True, by the nature of their jobs, housemaids are required to start
discrediting accused-appellant's aforementioned rationale:
the day early; however, contrary to said assertion, the actuations [O]bviously it is never normal, common or ordinary to leave
and the demeanor of accused-appellant on that fateful early the house in such a disturbed, nervous and agitated manner,
morning as observed firsthand by Rolando Gruta, one of the demeanor and condition. The timing of her hurried departure
witnesses of the prosecution, belie her claim of normalcy, to wit: and nervous demeanor immediately before the fire when she
Q:cralawYou said you saw Edna coming out from the house of left the house and rode a pedicab and her same demeanor,
the Separa Family. What happened when you saw Edna physical and mental condition when found and apprehended at
coming out from the house of the Separa Family? the same place where she alighted from the pedicab and the
A:cralawWala pa pong ano 'yan naisakay ko na siya sa discovery of the lighter in her bag thereafter when investigated
sidecar. indisputably show her guilt as charged.[34]
Q:cralawAnd what did you observe from Edna when you saw All the witnesses are in accord that accused-appellant's agitated appearance
her coming out from the house of the Separa family? was out of the ordinary. Remarkably, she has never denied this observation.
A:cralawNagmamadali  po  siyang lumakad at palinga-linga.
x x x x
We give great weight to the findings of the RTC and so accord credence to the the presumption is that their testimonies are true and thus entitled to full faith
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as it had the opportunity to observe and credence.[36]
them directly. The credibility given by trial courts to prosecution witnesses is While the prosecution witnesses did not see accused-appellant
an important aspect of evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of actually starting the fire that burned several houses and killed
its unique opportunity to observe them, particularly their demeanor, conduct, the Separa family, her guilt may still be established through
and attitude, during the direct and cross-examination by circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there is more than one
counsels. Here, Remigio Bernardo, Rolando Gruta and Mercedita Mendoza circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived
are disinterested witnesses and there is not an iota of evidence in the records are proven; and, (3) the combination of all the circumstances is
to indicate that they are suborned witnesses. The records of the RTC even such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
show that Remigio Bernardo, the Barangay Chairman, kept accused-appellant [37]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
from being mauled by the angry crowd outside of the barangay hall: Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or
Pros. Rebagay: series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established
Now, who were present when the accused are (sic) by inference. [38] It is founded on experience and observed facts
telling you this?
A:cralawIyon nga  iyong mga tanod ko, mamamayan doon and coincidences establishing a connection between the known
nakapaligid, siyempre may sunog nagkakagulo, gusto and proven facts and the facts sought to be proved. [39] In order
nga siyang kunin ng mga mamamayan para saktan to bring about a conviction, the circumstantial evidence
hindi ko maibigay papatayin siya gawa ng may presented must constitute an unbroken chain, which leads to one
namatay eh anim na tao and namatay, kaya iyong mga fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
tao kinokontrol siya madidisgrasya siya dahil pin-
exclusion of others, as the guilty person.
pointed po siya, Your Honor, iyong dami na iyon libo
iyong nakapaligid doon sa barangay hall napakahirap [40]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
awatin. Gusting-gusto siyang kunin ng mga taong- In this case, the interlocking testimonies of the prosecution
bayan, nagalit dahil ang daming bahay hong nasunog. witnesses, taken together, exemplify a case where conviction can
[35]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary be upheld on the basis of circumstantial evidence.  First,
Accused-appellant has not shown any compelling reason why the witnesses prosecution witness Rolando Gruta, the driver of the  pedicab that
presented would openly, publicly and deliberately lie or concoct a story, to accused-appellant rode on, testified that he knew for a fact that
send an innocent person to jail all the while knowing that the real malefactor she worked as a housemaid of the victims, and that he positively
remains at large. Such proposition defies logic. And where the defense failed identified her as the person hurriedly leaving the house of the
to show any evil or improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, victims on 2 January 2001 at 4:45 a.m., and acting in a nervous
manner. That while riding on the  pedicab, accused-appellant was excluded in evidence against her for being violative of Article
unsure of her intended destination. Upon reaching the place III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution.
where he originally picked up accused-appellant only a few Particularly, she takes exception to the testimony of prosecution
minutes after dropping her off, Rolando  Gruta saw witnesses Remigio Bernardo and Mercedita Mendoza for being
the Separas house being gutted by a blazing hearsay and in the nature of an uncounselled admission.
fire.Second,  Remigio  Bernardo testified that he and his  tanods, With the above vital pieces of evidence excluded, accused-
including Rolando  Gruta, were the ones who picked up accused- appellant is of the position that the remaining proof of her
appellant Edna at Balasan Street (where Rolando  Gruta dropped her alleged guilt, consisting in the main of circumstantial evidence,
off) after receiving a call that there was a woman acting is inadequate to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
strangely at said street and who appeared to have nowhere to We partly disagree.
go. Third, SPO4 Danilo Talusan overheard accused-appellant Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution in part provides:
admit to Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of Channel 2 (ABS-CBN) (1)cralawAny person under investigation for the commission of
that said accused-appellant started the fire, plus the fact that he an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
was able see the telecast of Gus  Abelgas  show where accused- preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
appellant, while being interviewed, confessed to the crime as services of counsel, he must be provided with one.These rights
well. The foregoing testimonies juxtaposed with the testimony cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
of Mercedita  Mendoza validating the fact that accused-appellant counsel.
confessed to having started the fire which killed xxxx
(3)cralawAny confession or admission obtained in violation of
the Separa family as well as burned seven houses including that this Section or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
of the victims, convincingly form an unbroken chain, which evidence.
leads to the unassailable conclusion pinpointing accused- We have held that the abovequoted provision applies to the stage
appellant as the person behind the crime of simple arson. of custodial investigation ' when the investigation is no longer a
In her second assigned error, accused-appellant questions the general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a
admissibility of her uncounselled extrajudicial confession given particular person as a suspect. [41] Said constitutional guarantee
to prosecution witnesses, namely Remigio Bernardo, Mercedita has also been extended to situations in which an individual has
Mendoza, and to the media. Accused-appellant Edna contends not been formally arrested but has merely been 'invited for
that being uncounselled extrajudicial confession, her admissions questioning. [42]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
to having committed the crime charged should have been
To be admissible in evidence against an accused, the should well be recalled that the constitutional safeguards during
extrajudicial confessions made must satisfy the following custodial investigations do not apply to those not elicited
requirements: through questioning by the police or their agents but given in an
(1)         it must be voluntary; ordinary manner whereby the accused verbally admits to having
(2)         it must be made with the assistance of competent committed the offense as what happened in the case at bar when
and independent counsel;
(3)         it must be express; and accused-appellant admitted to Mercedita Mendoza, one of the
(4) cralawit must be in writing.[43] neighbors of Roberto Separa, Sr., to having started the fire in
Arguably, the barangay tanods, including the Barangay Chairman, in this the Separas house. The testimony of Mercedita Mendoza
particular instance, may be deemed as law enforcement officer for purposes of recounting said admission is, unfortunately for accused-
applying Article III, Section 12(1) and (3), of the Constitution. When accused- appellant, admissible in evidence against her and is not covered
appellant was brought to the barangay hall in the morning of 2 January 2001, by the aforesaid constitutional guarantee. Article III of the
she was already a suspect, actually the only one, in the fire that Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, solely governs the
destroyed several houses as well as killed the whole family of relationship between the individual on one hand and the State
Roberto Separa, Sr.She was, therefore, already under custodial (and its agents) on the other; it does not concern itself with the
investigation and the rights guaranteed by Article III, Section relation between a private individual and another private
12(1), of the Constitution should have already been observed or individual ' as both accused-appellant and prosecution
applied to her. Accused-appellant's confession witness Mercedita  Mendoza undoubtedly are. [44] Here, there is
to Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo was made in response no evidence on record to show that said witness was acting under
to the 'interrogation made by the latter ' admittedly conducted police authority, so appropriately, accused-
without first informing accused-appellant of her rights under the appellant's uncounselled  extrajudicial confession to said witness
Constitution or done in the presence of counsel.  For this reason, was properly admitted by the RTC.
the confession of accused-appellant, given to Barangay Chairman Accused-appellant likewise assails the admission of the testimony of
Remigio Bernardo, as well as the lighter found by the latter in SPO4 Danilo Talusan.Contending that '[w]hen SPO4 Danilo Talusan testified
her bag are inadmissible in evidence against her as such were in court, his story is more of events, which are not within his personal
obtained in violation of her constitutional rights. knowledge but based from accounts of witnesses who derived information
Be that as it may, the inadmissibility of accused-appellant's allegedly from the accused or some other persons x x x. In other words, she
confession to Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo and the objects to the testimony for being merely hearsay. With this imputation of
lighter as evidence do not automatically lead to her acquittal.It inadmissibility, we agree with what the Court of Appeals had to say:
 Although this testimony of SFO4 Danilo Talusan is hearsay prosecution need only prove, that the burning was intentional
because he was not present when Gus Abelgas interviewed and that what was intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
accused-appellant EDNA, it may nevertheless be admitted in
evidence as an independently relevant statement to establish dwelling.  Again, in the case of  People v.  Soriano, [46]  we
not the truth but the tenor of the statement or the fact that the explained that:
statement was made [People v. Mallari, G.R. No. 103547, July Although intent may be an ingredient of the crime of Arson, it
20, 1999, 310 SCRA 621 citing People v. Cusi, Jr., G.R. No. L- may be inferred from the acts of the accused. There is a
20986, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 944.]. In People vs. presumption that one intends the natural consequences of his
Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 132635 & 143872-75,  February 21, act; and when it is shown that one has deliberately set fire to a
2001, 352 SCRA 455, the Supreme Court ruled that: building, the prosecution is not bound to produce further
Under the doctrine of independently relevant evidence of his wrongful intent.[47]
statements, regardless of their truth or falsity,
the fact that such statements have been made is The ultimate query now is which kind of arson is accused-appellant guilty of?
relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and As previously discussed, there are two (2) categories of the crime of arson:
the statements are admissible as evidence. 1) destructive arson, under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
Evidence as to the making of such statement is
not secondary but primary, for the statement by Republic Act No. 7659; and 2) simple arson, under Presidential Decree No.
itself may constitute a fact in issue or be 1613.Said classification is based on the kind, character and location of the
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of property burned, regardless of the value of the damage caused,[48] to wit:
such a fact.[45]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Article 320 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA
As regards the confession given by accused-appellant to the 7659, contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both
media, we need not discuss it further for the reporters were never public and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels,
presented to testify in court. aircraft, factories and other military, government or
As a final attempt at exculpation, accused-appellant asserts that commercial establishments by any person or group of persons.
[[49]]The classification of this type of crime is known
since the identities of the burned bodies were never conclusively
asDestructive Arson, which is punishable
established, she cannot be responsible for their deaths. by reclusion perpetua to death. The reason for the law is self-
Such assertion is bereft of merit. evident: to effectively discourage and deter the commission of
In the crime of arson, the identities of the victims are immaterial this dastardly crime, to prevent the destruction of properties
in that intent to kill them particularly is not one of the elements and protect the lives of innocent people. Exposure to a brewing
conflagration leaves only destruction and despair in its wake;
of the crime. As we have clarified earlier, the killing of a person
hence, the State mandates greater retribution to authors of
is absorbed in the charge of arson, simple or destructive.  The this heinous crime. The exceptionally severe punishment
 imposed for this crime takes into consideration the extreme Penal Code (as amended) constituting Destructive Arson are
danger to human lives exposed by the malicious burning of characterized as heinous crimes for being grievous, odious and
these structures; the danger to property resulting from the hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or
conflagration; the fact that it is normally difficult to adopt manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are
precautions against its commission, and the difficulty in repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms
pinpointing the perpetrators; and, the greater impact on the of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society.
social, economic, security and political fabric of the nation. [51] On the other hand, acts committed under PD 1613
[Emphasis supplied.] constituting Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of
perversity and viciousness that the law punishes with a lesser
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts
penalty. In other words, Simple Arson contemplates crimes
penalized under Art. 320, death should result, the mandatory
with less significant social, economic, political and national
penalty of death shall be imposed.
security implications than Destructive Arson. However, acts
On the other hand, PD 1613 which repealed Arts. 321 to 326-B falling under Simple Arson may nevertheless be converted into
of The Revised Penal Code remains the governing law Destructive Arson depending on the qualifying circumstances
for Simple Arson. This decree contemplates the malicious present. [Emphasis supplied.][52]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
burning of public and private structures, regardless of size, not Prescinding from the above clarification vis--vis the description of the crime
included in Art. 320, as amended by RA 7659, and classified as as stated in the accusatory portion of the Information, it is quite evident that
other cases of arson. These include houses, dwellings,
accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Simple  Arson ' for having
government buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways, bus
stations, airports, wharves and other industrial establishments. 'deliberately set fire upon the  two-storey residential house of ROBERTO
[[50]] Although the purpose of the law on Simple Arson is to SEPARA and family x x x knowing the same to be an inhabited house and
prevent the high incidence of fires and other crimes involving situated in a thickly populated place and as a consequence thereof a
destruction, protect the national economy and preserve the conflagration ensued and the said building, together with some seven (7)
social, economic and political stability of the nation, PD 1613
adjoining residential houses, were razed by fire. [Emphasis supplied.]
tempers the penalty to be meted to offenders. This separate
classification of Simple Arson recognizes the need to lessen the The facts of the case at bar is somewhat similar to the facts of the case
severity of punishment commensurate to the act or acts of People v. Soriano.[53]The accused in the latter case caused the burning of
committed, depending on the particular facts and circumstances a particular house.Unfortunately, the blaze spread and gutted down five (5)
of each case. [Emphasis supplied.] neighboring houses.The RTC therein found the accused guilty of destructive
To emphasize: arson under paragraph 1[54] of Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as
The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple amended by Republic Act No. 7659.This Court, through Mr.
Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness of the criminal Justice Bellosillo, however, declared that:
offender. The acts committed under Art. 320 of the Revised
 x x x [T]he applicable provision of law should be Sec. 3, par. 2, There is, thus, a need to modify the penalty imposed by the RTC as Sec. 5 of
of PD 1613, which imposes a penalty of reclusion temporal to PD No. 1613 categorically provides that the penalty to be imposed for simple
reclusion perpetuafor other cases of arson as the properties
burned by accused-appellant are specifically described as arson is:
houses, contemplating inhabited houses or dwellings under the SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. -If by reason of or
aforesaid law. The descriptions as alleged in the second on the occasion of arson death results, the penalty
Amended Information particularly refer to the structures as of reclusion  perpetua  to death shall be imposed. [Emphasis
houses rather than as buildings or edifices. The applicable law supplied.]
should therefore be Sec. 3, Par. 2, of PD 1613, and not Art. Accordingly, there being no aggravating circumstance alleged in the
320, par. 1 of the Penal Code. In case of ambiguity in Information, the imposable penalty on accused-appellant
construction of penal laws, it is well-settled that such laws shall is reclusion perpetua.
be construed strictly against the government, and liberally in Apropos the civil liabilities of accused-appellant, current
favor of the accused.
jurisprudence[58] dictate that the civil indemnity due from accused-appellant
The elements of arson under Sec. 3, par. 2, of PD 1613 are: (a)
there is intentional burning; and (b) what is intentionally is P50,000.00 for the death of each of the victims.[59] However, the monetary
burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Incidentally, these awards for moral and exemplary damages given by the Court of Appeals, both
elements concur in the case at bar. in the amount of P50,000.00, due the heirs of the victims, have to
[55]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary be deleted for lack of material basis. Similarly, the Court of Appeals award of
As stated in the body of the Information, accused-appellant was charged with exemplary damages to Rodolfo Movilla in the amount of P50,000.00 for the
having intentionally burned the two-storey residential house of destruction of his house, also has to be deleted,  but in this instance for being
Robert Separa.Said conflagration likewise spread and destroyed seven (7) improper. Moral damages cannot be award by this Court in the absence of
adjoining houses. Consequently, if proved, as it was proved, at the trial, she proof of mental or physical suffering on the part of the heirs of the victims.
may be convicted, and sentenced accordingly, of the crime of simple [60] Concerning the award of exemplary damages, the reason for the deletion
arson.Such is the case 'notwithstanding the error in the designation of the being that no aggravating circumstance had been alleged and proved by the
offense in the information, the information remains effective insofar as it prosecution in the case at bar.[61]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
states the facts constituting the crime alleged therein.[56]What is controlling is To summarize, accused-appellant's alternative plea that she be acquitted of the
not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the crime must be rejected. With the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason
particular law or part thereof allegedly violate, x x x, but the description of the to disturb the findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals.  It is indubitable
crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. that accused-appellant is the author of the crime of simple arson. All the
[57]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary circumstantial evidence presented before the RTC, viewed in its entirety, is as
convincing as direct evidence and, as such, negates accused-appellant's
innocence, and when considered concurrently with her admission given NERIO SUELA y HEMBRA, EDGAR SUELA y HEMBRA and
to Mercedita Mendoza, the former's guilt beyond reasonable doubt is twice as EDGARDO BATOCAN, appellants.
evident.Hence, her conviction is effectively justified. More so, as it is PANGANIBAN, J.:
propitious to note that in stark contrast to the factual circumstances presented
by the prosecution, accused-appellant neither mustered a denial nor an alibi In this Decision, the Court visits and applies existing jurisprudence on the
except for the proposition that her guilt had not been established beyond right to competent and independent counsel of persons under custodial
reasonable doubt. investigation. It also reiterates the long-standing judicial policy that
procedural laws which are favorable to the accused shall be given retroactive
 IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 2
effect. Inasmuch as the aggravating circumstance of disguise was not alleged
September 2005, in CA G.R. CR HC No. 01139, is hereby in the Information, it cannot now be appreciated to increase the penalty to
AFFIRMED insofar as the conviction of accused-appellant death, notwithstanding the fact that the new rule requiring such allegation was
EDNA MALNGAN Y MAYO is concerned. The sentence to be promulgated only after the crime was committed and after the trial court had
imposed and the amount of damages to be awarded, however, are already rendered its Decision.
MODIFIED. In accordance with Sec. 5 of Presidential Decree
The Case
No. 1613, accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to  RECLUSION
PERPETUA. Accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the heirs For automatic review by this Court is the Decision1 dated January 26, 1998 of
of each of the victims  P 50,000.00 as civil indemnity. the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, (Branch 95), finding appellants
SO ORDERED. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and simple robbery.
The decretal portion of the Decision reads as follows:

In People v. Suela, G.R. No. 133570-71, January 15, 2002, the letter "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in the following:
containing incriminatory statements was written when the accused was no
longer under custodial investigation and, in open court, the accused admitted "1. In Crim. Cases Nos. Q-96-64616 and Q-96-65071, the Court finds
that he wrote it. The exclusionary rule will not apply to spontaneous the accused Nerio Suela y Hembra and Edgar Suela y Hembra and
statements not elicited through questioning by the authorities. Edgardo Batocan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Robbery with Homicide defined in and penalized by paragraph I,
G.R. Nos. 133570-71            January 15, 2002 Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, and,
there being one aggravating circumstance of disguise (par. 14, Art. 14,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, Revised Penal Code) and no mitigating circumstance to offset the
vs. same, each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
DEATH and are ordered to indemnify the heirs of the late Geronimo
Gabilo y Hostallero the amount of ₱50,000.00, as death indemnity; "The motorcycle (Exh. 'FF') under the name of the accused Edgardo
₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages; ₱125,250.00, as actual and Batocan shall be kept by the Court until the final disposition of the
compensatory damages; and ₱2,8[8]0,000.00, as loss of earnings based cases.
on the formula (2/3 x (80-44) or 24 years life expectancy by
₱120,000.00 reasonable average net annual earnings. "All the three (3) accused are ordered to pay the costs.

"The three accused are further ordered to return to John Doe (not his "IT IS SO ORDERED."2
real name) the three (3) cameras worth ₱25,000.00; assorted jewelry
worth ₱120,000.00 and cash money in the amount of ₱500,000.00. If The Information3 against Nerio Suela and Edgar Suela in Criminal Case No.
the three (3) cameras and the assorted jewelry can no longer be Q-96-64616 reads as follows:
returned, the three (3) accused are hereby ordered to instead pay the
value thereof in the total amount of ₱145,000.00; "That on or about the 26th day of July 1995, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with
"2. In Crim. Case No. Q-96-64618, the Court finds the accused Edgar another person whose true name, identity and whereabouts have not as
Suela y Hembra GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, by means of
Simple Robbery defined in and penalized by paragraph 5, Article 294, force upon things, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the feloniously rob one GERONIMO GABILO Y HOSTALLERO in the
indeterminate penalty of from six (6) months and one (1) day following manner, to wit: on the date and place aforementioned said
of prision correccional minimum, as the minimum penalty to four (4) accused managed to enter the house of complainant located at No. 95
years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional B-5 A. Melchor St., Xavierville Subd., Loyola Heights, this City, by
maximum, as the maximum penalty; and, barging into the door of said house and once inside took, robbed and
carried away the following, to wit:
"3. In Crim. Cases Nos. Q-96-64617 and Q-96-65072, the Court finds
the accused Nerio Suela y Hembra, Edgar Suela y Hembra and one (1) 14" Sony Trinitron colored TV ₱ 12,000.00
Edgardo Batocan NOT GUILTY of the Crime of Carnapping as
defined in and penalized by Rep. Act. 6539, as amended by Rep. Act three (3) cameras 25,000.00
7659, and hereby ACQUITS them for failure of the prosecution to
assorted jewelries 120,000.00
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
cash money 500,000.00
"The Sony TV set (Exh. 'E') and the Citizen gold wrist watch (Exh. 'T-
1') are hereby ordered returned to John Doe (not his real name) upon
all in the total amount of ₱657,000.00, Philippine Currency, and on the
the final disposition of the cases.
occasion of said Robbery, the said accused pursuant to their
conspiracy, with intent to kill, attacked, assaulted and employed
 personal violence upon the person of said GERONIMO GABILO Y kill, attacked, assaulted and employed personal violence upon the
HOSTALLERO, by stabbing him, thereby inflicting upon him serious person of said GERONIMO GABILO Y HOSTALLERO, by stabbing
and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his him, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which
untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the
Geronimo Gabilo y Hostallero, in the total amount aforementioned." damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Geronimo Gabilo y
Hostallero."
The Information4 against Edgardo Batocan in Criminal Case No. Q-96-65071
reads as follows: The Information5 against Edgar Suela in Criminal Case No. Q-96-64618 reads
as follows:
"That on or about the 26th day of July, 1995, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating "That on or about the 18th day of January 1996, in Quezon City,
with NERIO SUELA Y HEMBRA and EDGAR SUELA Y HEMBRA Philippines, the said accused, with intent to gain, and by means of
who are being charged with the same offense at Regional Trial Court intimidation against person, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
Branch 79 and docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-64616, and mutually feloniously rob/extort one John Doe (not his real name) in the manner
helping one another, by means of force upon things, did then and there as follows: on the date and place aforementioned, the said accused
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob one John Doe (not his real called up by phone the Executive Secretary of said complainant and
name) in the following manner, to wit: on the date and place demanded the amount of ₱200,000.00, Philippine Currency, in
afor[e]mentioned said accused entered the house of complainant exchange for the information regarding the robbery case and slaying of
located at 95 Melchor St. Xavierville Subd., Loyola Heights, this City, Geronimo Gabilo on July 26, 1995, as in fact said accused, took,
by barging into the door of said house and inside took, robbed and robbed and carried away the aforesaid amount of ₱200,000.00,
carried away the following, to wit: Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended
party."
one (1) 14" Sony Trinitron colored TV ₱ 12,000.00
When arraigned on September 24, 1996, appellants, with the assistance of
three (3) cameras 25,000.00 counsel, pleaded "not guilty."6 In due course, they were tried and found guilty
by the court a quo.
assorted jewelries 120,000.00
cash money 500,000.00 The Facts

all in the total amount of ₱657,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the Version of the Prosecution
damage and prejudice of John Doe (not his real name) in the
aforementioned amount of ₱657,000.00, and on the occasion of said The Office of the Solicitor General summarized the evidence for the
Robbery, the said accused pursuant to their conspiracy, with intent to prosecution in this wise:7
"On July 26, 1995, between 11:00 P.M. and 12:00 midnight, private the order to bring out the money even though Gabilo advised him,
complainant John Doe (not his real name) was at the master's bedroom saying 'John Doe (not his real name) ilabas mo na.' However, Gabilo
located at the second floor of his townhouse residence at #95 B-5 A. stood up, and even with his hands tied at the back, went towards the
Melchor Street, Xavierville Subdivision, Loyola Heights, Quezon City. second compartment of the television rack and reached for an envelope
He was watching television thereat, together with his adopted son, containing his money. He handed the envelope to the shortest of the
Norman Rosas, and his former co-teacher and good friend, Geronimo three fellows, who, upon seeing the money inside the envelope, closed
'Gerry' Gabilo, who at that time was engaged in the real estate it. John Doe (not his real name) knew that the envelope contained
business. Suddenly, three persons sporting ski masks, bonnets and ₱200,000.00 as Gabilo had informed him of the amount earlier that
gloves, brandishing handguns and a knife, barged into the room. The evening. Forced to reveal that his money was in the walk-in closet, the
tallest of the three, with a height of about five feet and five inches, second tallest of the three malefactors poked a gun on John Doe (not
reached for the light switch and turned it off. The three intruders then his real name)' neck, forced him to get up, kicked and pushed him
shouted 'dapa, dapa.' So John Doe (not his real name), Gerry Gabilo, towards the closet. When the fellow could not open the closet, he
and Norman Rosas dropped to the floor with their faces facing the bed. asked John Doe (not his real name) for the key. When he was
Two of the malefactors turned off the television set, and tied their informed that the key was inside his wallet which was on top of the
hands at their backs, with the use of hankies and telephone cord. The drawer beside his bed, the fellow opened the wallet and took all the
room remained illuminated by the light coming from a walk-in closet money he found in it: two (2) $100.00 bills and ten (10) ₱1,000.00
and from the lamp post outside fronting the room, and from the lights bills. With the key, he thereafter opened the closet. He then asked
of the neighboring townhouses. where the money was. When John Doe (not his real name) told him
that it was inside his suitcase, the fellow tried opening it but failed. So
"The shortest of the three malefactors, about five feet tall, poked the he ordered John Doe (not his real name) to open it but the latter also
barrel of his gun on the chin of John Doe (not his real name), then failed as he had difficulty doing so since his hands were still tied at his
inside John Doe (not his real name)' mouth. At the same time, using back. The fellow, however, subsequently opened the suit case himself
his free hand, the same malefactor poked a knife on the right side of and got all the money in it amounting to ₱300,000.00. He also took the
John Doe (not his real name)' neck. The other man, who was the valuables he found inside the suit case, viz., a gold-plated Citizen
second to the tallest, with a height of about five feet three inches, while wristwatch engraved at the back with 'John Doe (not his real name)'
holding a penlight in one hand, and a gun on the other, threateningly and some rings and bracelet valued at ₱20,000.00, more or less. The
told John Doe (not his real name), 'Nakikita mo ba iyan? malefactors also took with them three (3) automatic cameras valued at
Nararamdaman mo ba iyan?', to which John Doe (not his real name) ₱25,000.00 each, and bottles of cologne costing about ₱10,000.00.
replied 'Opo, opo.' The two then ordered John Doe (not his real name) While leaving John Doe (not his real name) lying on the floor near the
to 'ilabas ang iyong mga pera.' All that time, while the two were with closet, the second tallest of the three, together with the shortest fellow,
John Doe (not his real name), the other man, the tallest of them, stood went to Gabilo and dragged and pushed him. They demanded that
in front of the mirror by the side of the door, facing and brandishing a Gabilo give them his car key, which he did. They then dragged Gabilo
gun towards Norman Rosas. John Doe (not his real name) did not heed out of the room and proceeded downstairs. The second tallest fellow
went back to John Doe (not his real name) and said 'Mabait ka, mabait Joven Mañalac and Rodito Gabilo, were summoned and interviewed
ka' but warned him not to follow them downstairs because 'puputok by the police. The same, however, did not result to any breakthrough
ang granada sa daanan mo.' He then placed a gag inside John Doe (not for the case. When they were subjected to a lie detector test by the
his real name)' mouth, tying it with a piece of cloth. Upon sensing that NBI, the results were negative.
the three were already downstairs, John Doe (not his real name) tried
to follow them but his adopted son, Norman Rosas, pleaded 'Daddy, "Gabilo's Nissan Sentra vehicle was recovered by the operatives of the
daddy, huwag kang sumunod, baka patayin ka nila.' After about two Western Police District as it was found abandoned at P. Florentino
(2) minutes, a long moaning sound was heard coming from downstairs, Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila. At the back seat floor of the car, a black
which sound resembled Gabilo's voice. After a while, he heard the bonnet was found.
engine of Gabilo's car, a Nissan Sentra car with plate no. TEB-258,
running and he later found out that they had also carted away his Sony "After almost five (5) months of no leads towards solving the case, on
Trinitron colored television set. Sensing that the malefactors had left, January 15, 1996, Araceli Tubaga, John Doe (not his real name)'
he went downstairs and saw Gabilo slump[ed] on the floor in his executive secretary at his DECS office at Misamis Street, Bago
blood. When he saw that Gabilo was motionless, he went back to the Bantay, Quezon City, received a call from a male person who
second floor and told his son to rouse their housemaid, Pinky Mañalac, requested to speak with John Doe (not his real name). When Tubaga
who was asleep on the third floor of their townhouse. They then sought requested to get his message as the director could not go to the phone,
help from their neighbors. The first to assist them was a medical doctor he told her to relay to John Doe (not his real name) that he has
who, upon examining Gabilo, informed them that the latter was information as to the identity and whereabouts of those responsible for
already dead. At the Quezon City Medical Center where Gabilo was the death of his friend, Gabilo. He told her that he is willing to give the
subsequently brought, he was pronounced dead-on-arrival.1âwphi1.nêt information in writing in exchange for ₱200,000.00. He then said that
he will call again for John Doe (not his real name)' response to his
"Early morning, the following day, July 27, 1995, upon receiving the offer. In reaction, John Doe (not his real name), accompanied by
report from the Quezon City Medical Center regarding the stabbing Tubaga, went to the Quirino District Police Station to inform Capt.
incident which resulted to the death of Gerry Gabilo, Captain Casanova about the call. Capt. Casanova came up with the plan to
Alejandro Casanova, SPO3 Jesus Patriarca, and SPO2 Reynato entrap the caller. At noon the following day (January 16, 1996), the
Resurrecion, all of the Quirino District Police Station, Station 9, unidentified caller called again. When told that John Doe (not his real
Anonas Road, Quezon City, proceeded to the crime scene. SPO3 Jesus name) was accepting his offer, he instructed Tubaga to meet him the
Patriarca was assigned as lead investigator of the case. The autopsy following day (January 17, 1996) at noon at the Ninoy Aquino Park,
conducted on Gabilo showed that he died of hemorrhage due to Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. He told her to bring with her the
multiple (five) stab wounds. To shed light on the incident, several amount of ₱200,000.00 which should be placed in a plastic bag, and to
persons, including private complainant John Doe (not his real name), bring flowers with her so he could easily identify her. John Doe (not
his adopted son, Norman Rosas, his brother, Romulo Rosas, their his real name) informed Capt. Casanova about the conversation.
housemaid, Pinky Mañalac, William Hostillero, Ruben Pacuntad,
"On January 17, 1996, about 10:00 A.M. Tubaga went to the Max's "With that information, appellant Nerio Suela was immediately
Restaurant at the Quezon City Circle and met Capt. Casanova and the arrested at John Doe (not his real name)' office. When Nerio
other policemen, in preparation for the entrapment. Carrying with her confirmed the contents of his brother Edgar's letter, Capt. Casanova
the boodle money in a Unilane Food Mart plastic bag, she proceeded directed SPO1 Carlos Nicolas and PO2 Orlin Comia to accompany
to the Ninoy Aquino Park and waited but the caller did not appear. Nerio to his residence at Kaibigan Street Street, Kalayaan B, Barangay
About 5:00 P.M. that afternoon, the caller called her at the office and Batasan Hills, Quezon City. Thereat, they recovered the Sony
informed her that he will meet her the following day (January 18, Trinitron TV, and a knife with a wooden scabbard.
1996) at the same time and place. Thus, the following day, she waited
for him at the designated spot. Shortly after, a male person approached "While under detention, the Suelas expressed their desire to give an
her and asked if she was the one with whom he talked with over the extra-judicial confession. Hence, on January 19, 1996, between 4:00 to
phone. When she answered in the affirmative, he handed her an 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, SPO3 Patriarca, together with Capt.
envelope while she handed him the plastic bag containing the boodle Casanova and another police officer, brought the Suelas to the office
money. While he was untying the plastic bag to check its contents, the of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), located at the second
police officers who were posted in the vicinity pounced on him and floor, Hall of Justice, Quezon City. When they arrived there, Atty.
effected his arrest. He was brought to Police Station 9. This person Confesor Sansano and Atty. Florimond Rous were manning the IBP
was later identified as appellant Edgar Suela.1âwphi1.nêt office. When the police informed them of their purpose, Atty. Sansano
separately interviewed each of the Suelas first, informed them of their
"While on board the vehicle on their way to the police station, in the constitutional rights, insured that they understood the import of their
presence of appellant Edgar Suela, Capt. Casanova, and the other confession, physically examined them for any sign of maltreatment or
policemen, SPO3 Patriarca opened the envelope which Tubaga had force, and after satisfying himself that the suspects' intention was
earlier received from appellant Edgar Suela. It contained a handwritten voluntary on their part and that it was his legal assistance that they
note which reads: were willing to secure, he allowed the police to take down their
individual extra-judicial confessions. Atty. Sansano was present all
1. Nerio Suela – ang utak nang pag-paslang throughout the time that the Suelas were individually propounded with
questions. Thereafter, both were brought before the Assistant City
2. TV color and ibedensia nasa bahay niya. Ang tunay na Prosecutor where they affirmed their confessions under oath in the
pangalan National ngayon ay pinalitan nang Panasonic. presence of Atty. Sansano who assisted them. The following morning,
January 20, 1996, the Suelas were again brought before Assistant City
3. Ang knife na ginamit nasa bahay niya 8 [sic]. Prosecutor Ibuyan for inquest investigation where they again affirmed
under oath the contents of their extra-judicial confessions.
When he asked Edgar Suela who wrote it, he answered 'Ako po, sir.'
When he further asked as to who is Nerio Suela, Edgar answered that "In their extra-judicial confessions, the Suelas mentioned appellant
he is his brother and is the driver of John Doe (not his real name). Edgardo Batocan, their townmate, as a participant in the crime. Thus,
 his name was included in the criminal informations, and a warrant of gave him. No citizen gold wristwatch was seized from him upon his
arrest was issued against him. arrest.

"Sometime in the second week of March 1996, a team composed of "After his arrest he was brought to Quezon City and investigated. He
SPO3 Patriarca, Capt. Nestor Abalos, and SPO2 Jesus Casica, together had no knowledge nor any participation in the crime that occurred on
with the father of the Suela brothers, went to Jaro, Leyte, to serve the July 26, 1995, at the residence of John Doe (not his real name). He
warrant of arrest on appellant Batocan. In coordination with Sr./Insp. was forced and threatened by the police officers to admit and confess
Benjamin Labadia, the Chief of Police in Jaro, Leyte, the arrest of to the crimes. He was also forced to sign a typewritten extrajudicial
appellant Batocan was effected. He was immediately brought to confession, the contents of which he did not know as he was not
Manila and was detained at the Quezon City Police Station 9. The allowed to read it nor was it read to him. No lawyer was present at that
operatives were able to recover the gold-plated Citizen watch of John time and he only met Atty. Rous for the first time in court. He recalled
Doe (not his real name) from Batocan's girlfriend at Barangay San however, that during his brief visit at the IBP-Quezon City Chapter
Agustin, Jaro, Leyte. The brand-new Honda motorcycle registered in office, in the afternoon of March 13, 1996, he saw, but did not talk to
appellant Batocan's name was shipped from Leyte to Quezon City as Atty. Rous, the one who limps, whom he recognized when the latter
Batocan had admitted that he had bought it sometime in July 1995 testified in Court. He was brought before the Assistant City Prosecutor
with his share from the loot of the robbery. While in police custody, for inquest but the fiscal did not explain to him the contents of his
appellant Batocan also indicated his desire to give an extra-judicial written statement. He was not adept at reading because he only
confession. Thus, on March 31, 1996, about 3:30 P.M., he was brought reached first year high school. No copy of his supposed statement was
by SPO2 Reynato Resurreccion to the same IBP office and gave his given him. He did not complain to the fiscal nor to any government
confession in the presence and with the assistant of Atty. Flormind agency about the alleged coercion and threats of the police. He only
[sic] Rous, which statement he subscribed before an Assistant City told his lawyer, Atty. Tabang and his brother Jimmy Batocan about it.
Prosecutor and later re-affirmed before an inquest Fiscal." (Citations He is not angry at the Suelas for falsely implicating him. In jail, he
omitted) confronted the brothers and was told that they were merely forced by
the police officers so that they could be freed. The Suelas had many
Version of the Defense friends but they pointed to him because they thought that the police
will no longer bother to pursue him because he lived in a very far place
On the other hand, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) summarized appellants' in Leyte. He knew the Suela brothers because they were his
version of the incident as follows:8 barriomates in San Agustin, Jaro, Leyte. Although he came to Manila
in 1992 to work until 1994, he did not visit the Suelas or any of his
"On July 26, 1995, Edgardo Batocan was in his hometown in Jaro, friends from his barrio. He could not recall his exact Manila address.
Leyte where he worked as a farmer. Sometime in March 1996, and
while on board his motorcycle, he was arrested by the police. He "Nerio Suela worked as a driver of John Doe (not his real name) at
bought the motorcycle from an uncle with the money that his sister DECS 1993 up to 1995. Geronimo Gabilo was formerly his co-
employee thereat as the latter was the one responsible for his "He sustained hematomas (pasa) from the man-handling by his police
employment with John Doe (not his real name). In the months of June captors but he did not show them to the Assistant City Prosecutor or
and July 1995, he was mostly at home because he was recuperating the lawyer at the IBP, Quezon City office nor did he file any complaint
from an operation (for appendectomy). He was on leave and reported against the police. He recanted his confession in his counter-affidavit.
back to work only on July 30, 1995. It was then that he learned about
the untimely demise of Gerry Gabilo. The police and the NBI did not "He knew Edgardo Batocan well because they grew up together in the
investigate him, not until after his arrest on January 18, 1996 by the same town in Leyte. On July 26, 1995, he was at home at Batasan
Quezon City police. Hills, Quezon City, the whole time. He was playing chess with his
neighbor Mang Tancio during the time of the incident.
"He had no knowledge nor participation in the killing of Gerry Gabilo
nor in the robbery that occurred at the residence of John Doe (not his "While inside the prison cell, he was convinced by his officemates at
real name) on the night of July 26, 1995. After his arrest, he was the DECS-NCR and by Capt. Casanova to write John Doe (not his real
brought to Danarra Hotel where he was manhandled and boxed and his name) a letter on January 31, 1996. The contents of this letter was
head submerged in the toilet bowl. He was forced to sign a piece of merely dictated to him by the police.
paper. He also met his brother Edgar at the same hotel. He was not
allowed to read the paper which he was forced to sign. He found out "Edgar Suela admits to having called up the office of John Doe (not
later on that this was the statement or his supposed extra-judicial his real name) and in proposing a trade off of ₱200,000.00 in
confession. From the hotel, he was brought to his house where the exchange for the information he would give about the identities and
police took away his television set (TV) and a knife with scabbard. whereabouts of the robbers. He learned from his brother Nerio that
John Doe (not his real name) gave him the tv set after Gabilo's death. John Doe (not his real name) placed a reward money for whoever can
At that time, he did not notice why the 'Sony' brand name was provide such an information. At the agreed time and date of the 'trade
scrapped and replaced by the name 'National'. The next day, he was off', the police apprehended him and changed the original note he gave
brought to the City Hall where he was given a lawyer whom he does with another written note the contents of which, the police forced and
not know and whose name he could not even recall. The lawyer dictated to him. During his investigation, the police employed threats,
showed him a paper and asked him if the signature thereon was his. intimidation and physical force to make him admit to the crime, and to
The lawyer did not ask him anything more. The former did not explain sign a statement or confession. Together with his brother, he was
to him that said paper was his alleged admission to the crimes for brought to the office of the IBP in Quezon City, a lawyer talked to him
which he was arrested and detained. He met Atty. Sansano for the first and he identified this person in court as Atty. Sansano. At the IBP
time in the court room during the hearing of these cases and not on office, he was asked to sign his supposed extrajudicial confession.
January 19, 1996. He could not recall if Atty. Sansano was the same Later on, he executed a Counter-Affidavit wherein he assailed the
one who was presented to him when he was brought to the City Hall voluntariness of his forced confession and recanted the contents
after his arrest. After this, he was brought before the Assistant City thereof.
Prosecutor.
 "He has no knowledge about the killing of Gerry Gabilo nor about the The letter of Nerio Suela addressed to John Doe (not his real name) asking for
robbers who invaded John Doe (not his real name)' house. forgiveness, as well as the discovery of the stolen TV set and knife in the
former's house, further convinced the trial court of appellants' guilt. Finding
"On July 26, 1995, he was on his tour of duty as security guard of the presence of one aggravating circumstance (disguise) with no mitigating
Hoctagon Security Agency at his assigned post at Northridge circumstance to offset it, the trial court sentenced them to death.
Elementary School, along Mother Ignacia Street, Timog Avenue,
Quezon City. Edgardo Batocan was his acquaintance since childhood Hence, this automatic review before us.9
and the last time he saw the latter was in 1990 at Jaro, Leyte. He did
not see Batocan in his hometown when he got married in November Assignment of Errors
1995. He did not implicate Batocan. He learned about the death of
Gerry Gabilo when he came back to Manila after his wedding. In his Brief, Appellant Edgardo Batocan ascribes to the trial court the
following alleged errors:10
"Joselito Jacinto testified that Nerio Suela wanted him to repair the
latter's television set. The defect of said tv, pertain only to the "I. The trial court gravely erred in considering Edgardo Batocan's extra
channeling. He asked Suela for money to buy the spare parts. On judicial confession as admissible evidence against him.
August 19, 1995, he met Nerio Suela and his boss, John Doe (not his
real name) at the SM parking lot. John Doe (not his real name) gave "II. The trial court erred in admitting and appreciating the wristwatch
Nerio some money which the latter in turn gave him for the TV spare as evidence against Edgardo Batocan.
parts and repair.
"III.The trial court erred in convicting Appellant Batocan of robbery
"Dionesio Ador had seen Edgardo Batocan in Jaro, Leyte on July 26, with homicide."
1995. The motorbike of Batocan is an old red Honda. He saw Batocan
used a new motorbike in December 1995 in their barrio. He does not Appellants Nerio and Edgar Suela, on the other hand, fault the trial court with
know the Suela brothers. Batocan had been in their barrio all his life the following supposed errors:11
and had not left their place." (Citations omitted)
"I. The court a quo erred in considering the extr[a]-judicial confessions
Ruling of the Trial Court of Edgar Suela and Nerio Suel[a] are admissible against them;

The court a quo ruled that appellants had been assisted by competent and "II. The court a quo erred in considering the letter of Nerio Suela to
independent counsel during the execution of their extrajudicial confessions. It John Doe (not his real name) as evidence against him;
gave credence to the testimonies of Atty. Sansano and the police officers and
thus admitted in evidence the said confessions. "III. The court a quo erred in convicting Edgar Suela for simple
robbery under Art. 294, no. 5, of the Revised Penal Code.
 "IV. The court a quo erred in convicting Edgar Suela and Nerio Suela "(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the
[of] robbery with homicide." preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

Basically, the assigned errors boil down to four: (1) whether the extrajudicial x x x           x x x           x x x."
confessions of appellants are admissible in evidence; (2) whether the
wristwatch and the letter (of Nerio Suela) are admissible in evidence; (3) In People v. Labtan,12 we explained that "[t]he right to counsel is a
whether appellants can be convicted of robbery with homicide; and (4) fundamental right and contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer beside
whether Edgar Suela is guilty of robbery for demanding ₱200,000 as payment the accused." Furthermore, an effective and vigilant counsel "necessarily and
for information on the robbery-slay case. logically [requires] that the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his
client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the
The Court's Ruling investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession.
Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the confession is made voluntarily
The appeal is partly meritorious. and that the person under investigation fully understands the nature and the
consequence of his extrajudicial confession in relation to his constitutional
First Issue: rights. A contrary rule would undoubtedly be antagonistic to the constitutional
rights to remain silent, to counsel and to be presumed innocent."13
Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions
True, counsel does not necessarily have to dissuade the person under
Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: investigation from confessing. But his bounden duty is to properly and fully
advise his clients on the nature and consequences of an extrajudicial
"(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense confession.
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. In People v. Deniega,14 the Court explained:
If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing "The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is
and in the presence of counsel. rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as
opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person
"(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so cursory as to be
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret useless, voluntariness is impaired. If the lawyer's role is reduced to
detention places, solitary, incomunicado, or other similar forms of being that of a mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared document
detention are prohibited. albeit indicating therein compliance with the accused's constitutional
rights, the constitutional standard guaranteed by Article III, Section
12(1) is not met. The process above-described fulfills the prophylactic
 purpose of the constitutional provision by avoiding the 'pernicious We now go to the extrajudicial confessions of Edgar and Nerio Suela. Atty.
practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from Sansano supposedly stood as counsel for the Suela brothers during their
the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of custodial investigation. He testified on how he discharged his duties as
the offense' and ensuring that the accused's waiver of his right to self follows:
incrimination during the investigation is an informed one in all
aspects." "Q:       Did you also inform them of the nature of the charge against
them and the circumstances s[u]rrounding the taking of their
The modifier competent and independent in the 1987 Constitution is not an statement?
empty rhetoric. It stresses the need to accord the accused, under the uniquely
stressful conditions of a custodial investigation, an informed judgment on the A:       I did not have the opportunity to inform them about the nature
choices explained to him by a diligent and capable lawyer.15 of their charge because at that time, when they introduced to me, I
have not yet informed them what they are going to do and what being
With respect Edgardo Batocan, we hold that his extrajudicial confession was took their statement.
obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. This appellant did not finish
first year high school.16 Yet Atty. Rous, who is touted by the prosecution as Q:       In other words, Mr. Witness, you did not inform the[m] that the
a competent and independent counsel, interviewed Batocan -- before the latter [imposable] penalty in this crime is death?
gave his confession -- for only around "five minutes."17 After this initial
interview, Atty. Rous just listened nonchalantly to the questions propounded A:       Well, during my personal interview as I said, at that time, I
by the police and to the answers given by Batocan. Counsel was not even sure don't even know that they are charged for Murder and Homicide.
that he had explained to appellant the consequences of his extrajudicial
confession. Furthermore, Atty. Rous' attention was divided while attending the Q:       But anyway, Mr. Witness, when this case was brought to you by
custodial investigation as he was also looking over another paper work on his the police officer, you really informed that the crime charged was
desk.18 robbery-homicide, Carnapping and extortion?

In view of these proven circumstances, we are not convinced that counsel had A:       Nobody informed me about the nature of the charge as they
fully explained to Batocan his constitutional rights and what they entailed or stated. They were just brought before me there. I was asked to provide
the nature and the consequences of an extrajudicial confession -- explanations the free legal assistance other than the investigation conducted by the
that would have enabled him to make an informed judgment on whether to police officer.
confess; and if so, on what matters. There is no showing that Atty. Rous
properly explained the choices or options open to appellant, a duty expected of Q:       Did you not ask the police why these people were brought to
any counsel under the circumstances. In sum, he did not turn out to be the you?
competent and independent counsel envisioned by the Constitution.
A:       They told me that they are going to be asked questions, to be A:       Yes sir, it was robbery with homicide.
investigated in connection with that incident in John Doe (not his real
name) home. Q:       You said a while ago that your duty as assisting counsel was
only to advise the suspects one of which is to advise them that they can
Q:       And did you not ask the police what was that incident? if they do not want to answer those questions that they would think
damaging then they can do that?
A:       The police told me already that the two boys were going to give
statement in connection with that incident in John Doe (not his real A:       Yes sir, and the best evidence is the evidence that they gave in
name) house where one was killed in the house of John Doe (not his their statements.
real name).19
Q:       Now, since you advised them about damaging testimonies, did
x x x           x x x           x x x you not advise them that to make a confession would be damaging to
themselves as assisting counsel?
Q:       But, nevertheless, Mr. Witness, it was the policeman who
choose you to be the lawyer to assist? A:       The confession became clearly damaging only after the answers
were given following the question but as I said, at that stage I did not
A:       No, sir, the police only thru their duties, to suggest or provide stop the declarant from giving his answer because if I objected then
where counsel can be sought, now, it happened that under our that would be an obstruction in the investigation itself."21
agreement, with the police, if the two boys were going to give their
statement and if the declarant got no lawyer that they will bring them Evidently, Atty. Sansano did not understand the exact nature of appellants'
to the IBP because we even provide the assistance that are needed in rights to counsel and to remain silent during their custodial investigations. He
order to be able to conduct an investigation."20 (Italics supplied) viewed a refusal to answer as an obstruction in the investigation. This shows
that he was incapable or unwilling to advise appellants that remaining silent
x x x           x x x           x x x was a right they could freely exercise without fear of any untoward
consequence. As counsel, he could have stopped his clients from answering
"Q:       Anyway, you already knew that the incident of robbery and the propounded questions and advised them of their right to remain silent, if
killing of a person was involved, is that right? they preferred to do so. That the process of investigation could have been
"obstructed" should not have concerned him because his duty was to his
A:       Yes sir, after the investigation. clients and not to the prosecution or to the police investigators.1âwphi1.nêt

Q:       So when you already knew the possible charge based on the Moreover, when he interviewed appellants, he did not even bother to find out
testimony of the two declarants? the gist of their proposed statements in order to be able to inform them
properly of the nature and consequences of their extrajudicial confessions.
Clearly and sadly, appellants were not accorded competent and independent Furthermore, the prosecution's claim that the wristwatch was recovered from
counsel whom they could rely on to look after their interests. his girlfriend is hearsay and hence, has limited probative value.25 The
prosecution did not present anyone who had actually witnessed the alleged
"In People v. dela Cruz, we stated that 'a confession made in an recovery of the wristwatch from the girl. S/Insp. Benjamin Labadia recounted
atmosphere characterized by deficiencies in informing the accused of the incident in this plainly insufficient manner:
all rights to which he is entitled would be rendered valueless and
inadmissible, perforated, as it is, by non-compliance with the "Q:       Alright Mr. Witness, you said that a wrist watch was also a
procedural and substantive safeguards to which an accused is entitled part of the loot and that Batocan told your team that it was in the
under the Bill of Rights and as now further implemented and ramified custody of his sweetheart. When so informed that this wrist watch was
by statutory law.'"22 in the custody of his sweetheart, what did the police operatives do?

Where the prosecution failed to discharge the State's burden of proving with A:       The police operatives together with Edgardo Batocan went to
clear and convincing evidence that the accused had enjoyed effective and the place and when they came back, I did not go with them, the wrist
vigilant counsel before he extrajudicially admitted his guilt, the extrajudicial watch was already in the possession of the Quezon City Police
confession cannot be given any probative value.23 operative, Sir.

The extrajudicial confessions of all three appellants are thus inadmissible in Q:       Did you actually see, Mr. Witness when the team proceeded to
evidence. the place where the sweetheart of accused Edgardo Batocan was
staying, give this wrist watch to the Quezon City Police operatives?
Second Issue:
A:       I said, Sir. I did not accompany them."26
Admissibility of Wristwatch and Letter
As for the wristwatch itself, we agree with appellant that its seizure, if it was
Wristwatch really taken from Batocan's girlfriend, was irregular. As succinctly explained
in Batocan's Brief:
Edgardo Batocan allegedly confessed in Leyte that the stolen Citizen
wristwatch had been given to his girlfriend. When he rendered this confession, "x x x. Clearly, the watch was taken without a search warrant and not
he did not execute any written waiver of his right to remain silent or of his as an incident of a valid arrest. The seizure was irregular. There is also
right to counsel. "Any admission wrung from the accused in violation of his no evidence on record that it was taken under any of the exempting
constitutional rights is inadmissible in evidence against him."24 Therefore, his circumstances where a warrantless seizure is permissible. It was not
alleged statement as to the location of the wristwatch is inadmissible. shown if the girlfriend voluntarily and validly consented to the taking
x x x. Lacking such evidence, no presumption of regularity can be
assumed.
 'Where the search was conducted with irregularity, i.e. without "Sir alam ng diyos na hindi ako ang kriminal may kinalaman lang ako
a warrant, the Court cannot appreciate consent based merely on inamin ko na lang. Para naman magkaroon ng lonas yong problima mo
the presumption of regularity of the performance of duty.' hindi narin ako makatiis hindi pa makatolog. Lalo na nakikita kita na
(People vs. Encinada, 280 SCRA 72). ng hihirap ang inyong katawan lalo na ang in kalooban sana sir bigyan
mo pa ako ng isang pagkakataon patawarin mo ako isa rin ako na anak
"The wristwatch is clearly a fruit of a 'fruit of a poisonous tree.' As ng diyos na naligaw ng langdas ngayon pinagsisihan ko lahat ang
such, it should not have been admitted and appreciated against the nagawa kong kasalanan sir ayaw ko pang mamatay maliliit ang aking
accused."27 mga anak mahal ako ng aking asawa.

Letter "Sir. Edgardo Batokan ang pumatay kay Sir JERRY sangayon
nandoon siya sa Jaro Leyte Bo. San Agostin. Sir hinde ko maggawang
Nerio Suela also contends that his January 31, 1996 letter to John Doe (not his pomatay ng tao somama lang ako dahil baka kayo ang patayin nang
real name) is inadmissible in evidence. The letter reads as follows: doon lang ako sa may pito. Yung kapatid ko namana siya ang may
baril siya and nanotok si Edgardo Batokan siya ang komoha ng pira
"Jan-31-96 tapos omalis na kami ako ang ng drive ng kotse. Tapos inewan namin
sa Ricto tapos ng hiwalay hiwa na kame yon tike. Dian ng kapatid ko.
"Dearest Sir John Doe (not his real name) "Sir patawarin mo na ako hinde naman akong masamang tao na
pasama lang ako.
"Sir matagal kona sana ito ipagtapat sa iyo dahil tuwing kitay nakikita
na lumoloha ka parang hindi ako maka hinga ng sisikip and aking "Sana po & sir babaan mo naman ang aking sintinesia ayaw ko pang
dibdib. Tuwing tayo'y nasa simbahan homihinge ako ng tawad sa mamatay.
panginoon ang nagawa kong ito nararamdaman ko na parabang hinde
niya tinatanggap.
Nerio Suela
"Sir napakalaki ng nagawa kong kasalanan sa iyo at sana bigyan mo pa (signed)
ako ng isang pagkakataon pagsisihan ko lahat ang pagkakasala sa iyo Quezon City Jail
babagohin ko na ang buhay ko maglilingkod ako sa diyos. Sir. Sagotin mo naman
itong sulat ko
"Sir nandito ako sa likod ng bakal na rihas halos lahat ng oras ng (signed)"28
dadasal ako bigyan mo pa ako ng isang pagkakataon patawaring mo
ako.
This letter was properly identified. Nerio was no longer under custodial
investigation when he wrote it. In open court, he admitted having written it.
Thus, contrary to his contention, the fact that he was not assisted by counsel '2. TV color and evidencia nasa bahay niya ang tunay na
when he wrote it will not make the letter inadmissible in evidence. pangalan national ngayon ay pinalitan ng Panasonic
Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the '3. Ang knife na ginamit nasa bahay niya 8 inc.'
authorities.29 Hence, the letter is admissible in evidence.
5) The testimony of John Doe (not his real name) who narrated how
Third Issue: three hooded men brandishing guns and a knife barged into his room
on the night of January 18, 1996, and hogtied him, Gabilo and
Liability for Robbery with Homicide Norman.31 They were then threatened and intimidated into giving the
location of their money and valuables, which the criminals eventually
Without the wristwatch and the uncounseled extrajudicial confessions, are the took.32 The malefactors then dragged Gabilo downstairs.33 Shortly,
remaining pieces of evidence still sufficient to prove appellants' guilt beyond thereafter, he followed them and found Gabilo in a pool of his own
reasonable doubt? Fortunately for the prosecution, our answer is "Yes." blood.34 He observed that the height and built of the three malefactors
were the same as those of appellants;35
Excluding the wristwatch and the written extrajudicial confessions, the
material evidence on record are as follows: 6) The oral admissions made by Nerio Suela and Edgardo Batocan to
John Doe (not his real name) and his officemates. John Doe (not his
1) The testimony of the medicolegal officer in conjunction with the real name) testified as follows:
medico legal Report30 which proved the existence of five stab wounds
on the cadaver of Geronimo Gabilo; "Q       After Nerio Suela was told that somebody will be talking with
him thru the phone, what happened next, if any?
2) The stolen colored Sony television set and the knife used in
stabbing Geronimo Gabilo, which were recovered from the house of A       Nerio Suela pale faced, admitted the commission of the crime
Nerio Suela; and he was very apologetic to me and he said: "Sir, patawarin mo po
ako sa aking nagawa, nagkamali lang po ako, tulungan naman po
3) The handwritten letter of Nerio Suela asking for forgiveness and ninyo ako", those were the statements of Mr. Nerio Suela as he was
admitting his participation in the crime; being interrogated by Mr. Patriarca.

4) The handwritten tip on the identity of the malefactors voluntarily Q       What else did he tell you?
handed by Edgar Suela to Araceli Tubaga, which -- in open court -- he
admitted having written. It states: A       Those were the only statements that I actually heard from Nerio
Suela.36
'1. Nerio Suela – ang utak ng pagpaslang
 x x x           x x x           x x x Gerry Gabilo was pleading with him for them not to harm him and felt
quite remorseful when he was already about to stab my friend but it
Q       Again, do you know a person by the name of Edgardo Batocan? was Nerio Suela who pushed him to kill Gerry and then one of my
staff even asked him "how many times did you stab, Mr. Gabilo?"
A       I learned about him only from the letter of Nerio Suela and also
when I met him on March 13, 1996, sir. x x x           x x x           x x x

Q:       Where did you meet this Edgardo Batocan for the first time, Mr. Q:       What did Edgar Batocan answer to one of your staff?
Witness?
A:       He answered that he hit him five times, sir.
A:       I met him in the second floor of station 9 along Anonas Street.
COURT:
Q:       Under what circumstances were you able to meet him?
Q:       You were present when your staff member asked Edgardo about
A:       Upon his arrest on March 13, 1996 at around 3:00 in the the question?
afternoon, I was called by the Station Commander of Station 9 to meet
Mr. Edgardo Batocan and present also during that time were the A:       Yes, I was there.
relatives of Gerry Gabilo, sir.
Q:       You were also present when Edgardo Batocan gave the answer?
Q:       What transpired when you met Edgardo Batocan in the office of
the Station Commander of Station 9? A:       Yes, Your Honor.

A:       We talked about the crime and he mentioned to us that it was x x x           x x x           x x x

Nerio Suela who planned the whole thing at their place and the plan
was hatched three days before the commission of the crime on July 26, Q:       Was there any investigation being conducted by the police at
1995. that time you were talking with Edgardo Batocan?

Q:       What else did he tell you, Mr. Witness, at that time? A:       There was none, Your Honor.

x x x           x x x           x x x Q:       Or you were alone with Edgardo Batocan together with your
staff member?
A:       He insisted that it was actually Mr. Nerio Suela who
masterminded because on the way down from the second floor, Mr.
 A:       We were left alone at the second floor with some of my staff Edgardo Batocan's oral admission to John Doe (not his real name) that he
member together with the family of Gerry Gabilo, so we were asking stabbed Gabilo five times dovetails on material points with the letter of Nerio.
him the circumstances on how he did it and so forth and so on. In turn, Nerio's letter to John Doe (not his real name) asking for forgiveness
and admitting his participation in the crime, taken together with the recovery
Q:       Did he ask for forgiveness? from his house of the stolen TV and knife used in killing Gabilo; plus the oral
admission of Batocan and the written tip of Edgar Suela pointing to him as the
A:       No, he did not Your Honor.37 mastermind prove beyond reasonable doubt his identity as one of the
malefactors.
Edgardo Batocan's confession to John Doe (not his real name) who is not a
police officer is admissible in evidence.38 The Rules state that "the declaration The evidence showing the identity of Edgar Suela are circumstantial in
of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any character. It is basic that an accused may be convicted on the basis of
offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against circumstantial evidence alone, provided that: (a) there is more than one
him."39 Batocan's verbal declarations are not covered by Sections 12 (1) and circumstance, (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven,
(3) of Article III of the Constitution,40 because they were not extracted while and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
he was under custodial investigation. conviction beyond reasonable doubt.42 In the present case, all these
requirements are satisfied.
In People v. Tawat,41 the Court declared:
These circumstances may be summarized, thus: (1) Edgar's intimate personal
"The rule is that "any person, otherwise competent as a witness, who knowledge of the details of the crime which he wrote down as tips; (2) as a
heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of security guard, he possessed a gun on the night of the incident; (3) he was the
what he heard is he heard and understood all of it. An oral confession brother of one of the malefactors and a friend of the other; (4) the interlocking
need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case it must be given in its admissions to John Doe (not his real name) of Batocan and his brother Nerio
substance." point to Edgar as their cohort; (5) John Doe (not his real name) also identified
him as one of the malefactors. These are duly proven circumstances which
"Proof of the contents of an oral extrajudicial confession may be made sufficiently establish beyond reasonable doubt his identity as one of the
by the testimony of a person who testifies that he was present, heard, malefactors.
understood, and remembers the substance of the conversation or
statement made by the accused." Conspiracy

These pieces of evidence sufficiently prove beyond reasonable doubt the The three malefactors arrived together at the house of John Doe (not his real
commission of the crime of robbery with homicide. name). They were all wearing ski masks and were all sporting weapons. While
one was threatening John Doe (not his real name), the other was intimidating
Identities of Appellants As Malefactors Gabilo and the third was pointing his weapon on Norman. After getting the
money and valuables of Gabilo and John Doe (not his real name), all three "The use of the word 'must' indicates that the requirement is
went downstairs together, two of them dragging Gabilo with them. Upon the mandatory, therefore failure to comply with Sec. 9, Rule 110, means
instruction of Nerio, Batocan stabbed Gabilo five times. They finally left that generic aggravating circumstances, although proven at the trial,
together in the same car, with Nerio driving. These acts of the three appellants cannot be appreciated against the accused if such circumstances are
before, during and after the crime clearly indicate a joint purpose, concerted not stated in the information. It is a cardinal rule that rules of criminal
action and concurrence of sentiments. Where the acts of the accused procedure are given retroactive application insofar as they benefit the
collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design accused."
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is
evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals.43 In the present case, the aggravating circumstance of disguise which was
appreciated by the court a quo  was not alleged in the Informations against
Hence, although Nerio and Edgar Suela did not themselves stab Gerry Gabilo, appellants. Following the above-cited new rule and current jurisprudence, we
they are still liable for his death as principals because the existence of cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstance of disguise against appellants.
conspiracy makes the act of one the act of all.44 Moreover, whenever the The special complex crime of robbery with homicide carries the penalty
complex crime of robbery with homicide is proven to have been committed, of reclusion perpetua to death. There being no appreciable aggravating
all those who took part in the robbery are liable as principals even though they circumstance, the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua.
did not actually take part in the killing.45
Furthermore, in People v. Catubig,47 we held that while a non-alleged but
Proper Penalty proven aggravating circumstance cannot be used to increase the penalty,
nonetheless it can be the source of civil awards. Hence, we retain the trial
The current Rules on Criminal Procedure require that even generic court's civil grants in this regard.
aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information. Thus, Section 9
of new Rule 110 states: Fourth Issue:

"Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained Robbery

of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not On the trial court's sentence of robbery in Criminal Case No. Q-96-64618, we
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to agree with the recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General that
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is Edgar Suela should be acquitted. The OSG explained:
being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances
and for the court to pronounce judgment. "Simple robbery is committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons as distinguished from the use of force upon
In People v. Mauricio,46 the Court elucidated: things, but the extent of the violence or intimidation does not fall under
 pars. 1 to 4 of Article 294 (Revised Penal Code) [p. 175, Criminal Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Law, Book II, Vol. IV, Ambrosio Padilla, 1990]. Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-
Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
"Unfortunately, in the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove that
appellant Edgar Suela employed force or intimidation on private In People v. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216, the Supreme Court said: In fine, a
complainant John Doe (not his real name) by instilling fear in his mind person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charged with
so as to compel the latter to cough out the amount of ₱200,000.00. its commission has the following rights in the matter of his testifying or
Instead, what was established was that he had agreed to give the producing evidence: a) Before the case is filed in Court [or with the public
₱200,000.00 in exchange for information regarding the identity and prosecutor, for preliminary investigation], but after having been taken into
whereabouts of those who robbed him and killed his friend (TSN, custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant way, and on
November 4, 1996, p. 7; TSN, November 5, 1996, pp. 4-9). There was
being interrogated by the police: the continuing right to remain silent and to
no showing that appellant Edgar Suela had exerted intimidation on him
counsel, and to be informed thereof, not to be subjected to force, violence,
so as to leave him no choice but to give the money. Instead, what is
clear was that the giving of the money was done not out of fear but threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will; and to
because it was a choice private complainant opted because he wanted have evidence obtained in violation of these rights rejected and inadmissible.
to get the information being offered to him for the consideration of b) After the case is filed in Court: to refuse to be a witness; not to have any
₱200,000.00 (TSN, November 4, 1996, pp. 5-17; ibid., Decision, p. prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal; to testify in his own
15). In fact, the money was delivered not due to fear but for the behalf, subject to cross-examination; and while testifying, to refuse to answer
purpose of possibly having a lead in solving the case and to possibly a specific question which tends to incriminate him for some crime other than
bring the culprit to justice (ibid.). As such, the elements of simple that for which he is being prosecuted.
robbery have not been established in the instant case, hence, appellant
Edgar Suela should be acquitted of that charge."48 G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED and the THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

appealed Decision MODIFIED. We AFFIRM  the judgment insofar as it vs.
refers to Criminal Case Nos. Q-96-64616 and Q-96-65071 but REDUCE  the HON. JUDGE RUBEN AYSON, Presiding over Branch 6, Regional Trial
penalty to reclusion perpetua. The award of civil indemnities is Court, First Judicial Region, Baguio City, and FELIPE
also AFFIRMED. In Criminal Case No. Q-96-64618 for simple robbery, RAMOS, respondents.
Edgar Suela y Hembra is ACQUITTED.
Nelson Lidua for private respondent.
No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
NARVASA, J.: (Printed) F. Ram

What has given rise to the controversy at bar is the equation by the respondent At the investigation of February 9, 1986, conducted by the PAL Branch
Judge of the right of an individual not to "be compelled to be a witness Manager in Baguio City, Edgardo R. Cruz, in the presence of Station Agent
against himself" accorded by Section 20, Article III of the Constitution, with Antonio Ocampo, Ticket Freight Clerk Rodolfo Quitasol, and PALEA Shop
the right of any person "under investigation for the commission of an offense . Steward Cristeta Domingo, Felipe Ramos was informed "of the finding of the
. . to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right," granted Audit Team." Thereafter, his answers in response to questions by Cruz, were
by the same provision. The relevant facts are not disputed. taken down in writing. Ramos' answers were to the effect inter alia that he had
not indeed made disclosure of the tickets mentioned in the Audit Team's
Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine findings, that the proceeds had been "misused" by him, that although he had
Airlines (PAL), assigned at its Baguio City station. It having allegedly come planned on paying back the money, he had been prevented from doing so,
to light that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, 1 the "perhaps (by) shame," that he was still willing to settle his obligation, and
PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted into the proferred a "compromise x x to pay on staggered basis, (and) the amount
matter of February 9, 1986. That investigation was scheduled in accordance would be known in the next investigation;" that he desired the next
with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining investigation to be at the same place, "Baguio CTO," and that he should be
Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association represented therein by "Shop stewardees ITR Nieves Blanco;" and that he was
(PALEA) to which Ramos pertained.2 willing to sign his statement (as he in fact afterwards did). 4 How the
investigation turned out is not dealt with the parties at all; but it would seem
On the day before the investigation, February 8,1986, Ramos gave to his that no compromise agreement was reached much less consummated.
superiors a handwritten notes 3 reading as follows:
About two (2) months later, an information was filed against Felipe Ramos
2-8-86 charging him with the crime of estafa allegedly committed in Baguio City
during the period from March 12, 1986 to January 29, 1987. In that place and
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: during that time, according to the indictment, 5 he (Ramos) —

THE UNDERSIGNED WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT HE .. with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence, did then and
IS WILLING TO SETTLE IRREGULARITIES ALLEGEDLY there willfully ... defraud the Philippine Airlines, Inc., Baguio
CHARGED VS. HIM IN THE AMT. OF P 76,000 (APPROX.) Branch, ... in the following manner, to wit: said accused ...
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS MAY BE IMPOSED BY having been entrusted with and received in trust fare tickets of
PAL ON OR BEFORE 1700/9 FEB 86. passengers for one-way trip and round-trip in the total amount
of P76,700.65, with the express obligation to remit all the
(s) Felipe Ramos proceeds of the sale, account for it and/or to return those
unsold, ... once in possession thereof and instead of complying
 with his obligation, with intent to defraud, did then and there ... admission made by accused Felipe J. Ramos, given on February 8, 1986 x x
misappropriate, misapply and convert the value of the tickets in for the same reason stated in the exclusion of Exhibit 'A' since it does not
the sum of P76,700.65 and in spite of repeated demands, ... appear that the accused was assisted by counsel when he made said
failed and refused to make good his obligation, to the damage admission."
and prejudice of the offended party .. .
The private prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration. 9 It was denied, by
On arraignment on this charge, Felipe Ramos entered a plea of "Not Guilty," Order dated September 14, 1988. 10 In justification of said Order, respondent
and trial thereafter ensued. The prosecution of the case was undertaken by Judge invoked this Court's rulings in Morales, Jr. v. Juan Ponce Enrile, et
lawyers of PAL under the direction and supervision of the Fiscal. al., 121 SCRA 538, People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 467, People. v. Sison, 142
SCRA 219, and People v. Decierdo, 149 SCRA 496, among others, to the
At the close of the people's case, the private prosecutors made a written offer effect that "in custodial investigations the right to counsel may be waived but
of evidence dated June 21, 1988,6 which included "the (above mentioned) the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel," and
statement of accused Felipe J. Ramos taken on February 9, 1986 at PAL the explicit precept in the present Constitution that the rights in custodial
Baguio City Ticket Office," which had been marked as Exhibit A, as well as investigation "cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
his "handwritten admission x x given on February 8, 1986," also above counsel." He pointed out that the investigation of Felipe Ramos at the PAL
referred to, which had been marked as Exhibit K. Baguio Station was one "for the offense of allegedly misappropriating the
proceeds of the tickets issued to him' and therefore clearly fell "within the
The defendant's attorneys filed "Objections/Comments to Plaintiff s coverage of the constitutional provisions;" and the fact that Ramos was not
Evidence."7 Particularly as regards the peoples' Exhibit A, the objection was detained at the time, or the investigation was administrative in character could
that "said document, which appears to be a confession, was taken without the not operate to except the case "from the ambit of the constitutional provision
accused being represented by a lawyer." Exhibit K was objected to "for the cited."
same reasons interposed under Exhibits 'A' and 'J.'
These Orders, of August 9, 1988 and September 14, 1988 are now assailed in
By Order dated August 9, 1988,   the respondent judge admitted all the
8
the petition for certiorari and prohibition at bar, filed in this Court by the
exhibits "as part of the testimony of the witnesses who testified in connection private prosecutors in the name of the People of the Philippines. By
therewith and for whatever they are worth," except Exhibits A and K, which it Resolution dated October 26, 1988, the Court required Judge Ayson and
rejected. His Honor declared Exhibit A "inadmissible in evidence, it appearing Felipe Ramos to comment on the petition, and directed issuance of a
that it is the statement of accused Felipe Ramos taken on February 9, 1986 at "TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER . . . ENJOINING the respondents
PAL Baguio City Ticket Office, in an investigation conducted by the Branch from proceeding further with the trial and/or hearing of Criminal Case No.
Manager x x since it does not appear that the accused was reminded of this 3488-R (People ... vs. Felipe Ramos), including the issuance of any order,
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel, and that when he decision or judgment in the aforesaid case or on any matter in relation to the
waived the same and gave his statement, it was with the assistance actually of same case, now pending before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Br. 6,
a counsel." He also declared inadmissible "Exhibit K, the handwritten First Judicial Region." The Court also subsequently required the Solicitor
General to comment on the petition. The comments of Judge Ayson, Felipe to that accorded by the Fifth Amendment of the American
Ramos, and the Solicitor General have all been filed. The Solicitor General Constitution, 12 and
has made common cause with the petitioner and prays "that the petition be
given due course and thereafter judgment be rendered setting aside respondent 2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e., the
Judge's Orders . . . and ordering him to admit Exhibits 'A' and 'K' of the rights of every suspect "under investigation for the commission
prosecution." The Solicitor General has thereby removed whatever of an offense."
impropriety might have attended the institution of the instant action in the
name of the People of the Philippines by lawyers de parte of the offended Parenthetically, the 1987 Constitution indicates much more clearly the
party in the criminal action in question. individuality and disparateness of these rights. It has placed the rights in
separate sections. The right against self- incrimination, "No person shall be
The Court deems that there has been full ventilation of the issue — of whether compelled to be a witness against himself," is now embodied in Section 17,
or not it was grave abuse of discretion for respondent Judge to have excluded Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The lights of a person in custodial
the People's Exhibits A and K. It will now proceed to resolve it. interrogation, which have been made more explicit, are now contained in
Section 12 of the same Article III.13
At the core of the controversy is Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution, 11 to which respondent Judge has given a construction that is Right Against Self-Incrimination
disputed by the People. The section reads as follows:
The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in Section 20, Article IV
SEC. 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against of the 1973 Constitution, is accorded to every person who gives evidence,
himself Any person under investigation for the commission of whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal,
an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, or administrative proceeding. 14 The right is NOT to "be compelled to be a
and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, witness against himself"
intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will
shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning. 15 It prescribes
of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition
of inquiry." 16 It simply secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the
It should at once be apparent that there are two (2) rights, or sets of rights, right to refue to answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the
dealt with in the section, namely: answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However,
the right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in
1) the right against self-incrimination — i.e., the right of a character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time.
person not to be compelled to be a witness against himself — It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to
set out in the first sentence, which is a verbatim reproduction of appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether.
Section 18, Article III of the 1935 Constitution, and is similar The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the
stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is Section 20 states that whenever any person is "under investigation for the
addressed to him, the answer to which may incriminate him for some offense, commission of an offense"--
that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.
1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to
That first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution does not be informed of such right, 21
impose on the judge, or other officer presiding over a trial, hearing or
investigation, any affirmative obligation to advise a witness of his right 2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
against self-incrimination. It is a right that a witness knows or should know, in which vitiates the free will shall be used against him; 22 and
accordance with the well known axiom that every one is presumed to know
the law, that ignorance of the law excuses no one. Furthermore, in the very 3) any confession obtained in violation of x x (these rights shall
nature of things, neither the judge nor the witness can be expected to know in be inadmissible in evidence. 23
advance the character or effect of a question to be put to the latter. 17
In Miranda, Chief Justice Warren summarized the procedural safeguards laid
The right against self-incrimination is not self- executing or automatically down for a person in police custody, "in-custody interrogation" being regarded
operational. It must be claimed. If not claimed by or in behalf of the witness, as the commencement of an adversary proceeding against the suspect. 24
the protection does not come into play. It follows that the right may be
waived, expressly, or impliedly, as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain
time. 18 silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he
has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an
Rights in Custodial Interrogation attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so
desires. Opportunity to exercise those rights must be afforded to him
Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution also treats of a second right, or throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, such
better said, group of rights. These rights apply to persons "under investigation opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently
for the commission of an offense," i.e., "suspects" under investigation by waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. But unless and
police authorities; and this is what makes these rights different from that until such warnings and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the
embodied in the first sentence, that against self-incrimination which, as trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.
aforestated, indiscriminately applies to any person testifying in any
proceeding, civil, criminal, or administrative. The objective is to prohibit "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a
police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statement
This provision granting explicit rights to persons under investigation for an without full warnings of constitutional rights." 25
offense was not in the 1935 Constitution. It is avowedly derived from the
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 19 a decision The rights above specified, to repeat, exist only in "custodial interrogations,"
described as an "earthquake in the world of law enforcement." 20 or "in-custody interrogation of accused persons." 26 And, as this Court has
already stated, by custodial interrogation is meant "questioning initiated by Rights of Defendant in Criminal Case
law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." 27 The As Regards Giving of Testimony
situation contemplated has also been more precisely described by this
Court." 28 It is pertinent at this point to inquire whether the rights just discussed, i.e., (1)
that against self-incrimination and (2) those during custodial interrogation
.. . After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation apply to persons under preliminary investigation or already charged in court
begins a confrontation arises which at best may be tanned for a crime.
unequal. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police
headquarters and there questioned and "cross-examined" not It seems quite evident that a defendant on trial or under preliminary
only by one but as many investigators as may be necessary to investigation is not under custodial interrogation. His interrogation by the
break down his morale. He finds himself in strange and police, if any there had been would already have been ended at the time of the
unfamiliar surroundings, and every person he meets he filing of the criminal case in court (or the public prosecutors' office). Hence,
considers hostile to him. The investigators are well-trained and with respect to a defendant in a criminal case already pending in court (or the
seasoned in their work. They employ all the methods and public prosecutor's office), there is no occasion to speak of his right while
means that experience and study have taught them to extract under "custodial interrogation" laid down by the second and subsequent
the truth, or what may pass for it, out of the detainee. Most sentences of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, for the obvious
detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their reason that he is no longer under "custodial interrogation."
constitutional rights. And even if they were, the intimidating
and coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an But unquestionably, the accused in court (or undergoing preliminary
atmosphere overwhelms them into silence. Section 20 of the investigation before the public prosecutor), in common with all other persons,
Bill of Rights seeks to remedy this imbalance. possesses the right against self- incrimination set out in the first sentence of
Section 20 Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, i.e., the right to refuse to
Not every statement made to the police by a person involved in some crime is answer a specific incriminatory question at the time that it is put to him. 30
within the scope of the constitutional protection. If not made "under custodial
interrogation," or "under investigation for the commission of an offense," the Additionally, the accused in a criminal case in court has other rights in the
statement is not protected. Thus, in one case, 29 where a person went to a matter of giving testimony or refusing to do so. An accused "occupies a
police precinct and before any sort of investigation could be initiated, declared different tier of protection from an ordinary witness." Under the Rules of
that he was giving himself up for the killing of an old woman because she was Court, in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled among others-
threatening to kill him by barang, or witchcraft, this Court ruled that such a
statement was admissible, compliance with the constitutional procedure on 1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself, 31 and 2) to testify as
custodial interrogation not being exigible under the circumstances. witness in his own behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness he may be
cross-examined as any other witness; however, his neglect or refusal to be a the ground that he might be implicated in that crime of murder; but he may
witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him. 32 decline to answer any particular question which might implicate him for a
different and distinct offense, say, estafa.
The right of the defendant in a criminal case "to be exempt from being a
witness against himself' signifies that he cannot be compelled to testify or In fine, a person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently
produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused, or one of the charged with its commission in court, has the following rights in the matter of
accused. He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process his testifying or producing evidence, to wit:
or order of the Court. He cannot be required to be a witness either for the
prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself. 33 In other words — 1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the
unlike an ordinary witness (or a party in a civil action) who may be compelled public prosecutor, for preliminary investigation), but after
to testify by subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer a particular having been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
incriminatory question at the time it is put to him-the defendant in a criminal liberty in some significant way, and on being interrogated by
action can refuse to testify altogether. He can refuse to take the witness stand, the police: the continuing right to remain silent and to counsel,
be sworn, answer any question. 34 And, as the law categorically states, "his and to be informed thereof, not to be subjected to force,
neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates
against him." 35 the free will; and to have evidence obtained in violation of
these rights rejected; and
If he should wish to testify in his own behalf, however, he may do so. This is
his right. But if he does testify, then he "may be cross- examined as any other 2) AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT — 37
witness." He may be cross-examined as to any matters stated in his direct
examination, or connected therewith . 36 He may not on cross-examination a) to refuse to be a witness;
refuse to answer any question on the ground that the answer that he will give,
or the evidence he will produce, would have a tendency to incriminate him for b) not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to
the crime with which he is charged. him by such refusal;

It must however be made clear that if the defendant in a criminal action be c) to testify in his own behalf, subject to cross-
asked a question which might incriminate him, not for the crime with which examination by the prosecution;
he is charged, but for some other crime, distinct from that of which he is
accused, he may decline to answer that specific question, on the strength of d) WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a
the right against self-incrimination granted by the first sentence of Section 20, specific question which tends to incriminate him
Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (now Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution). for some crime other than that for which he is
Thus, assuming that in a prosecution for murder, the accused should testify in then prosecuted.
his behalf, he may not on cross-examination refuse to answer any question on
It should by now be abundantly apparent that respondent Judge has the police agencies who have no propriety or pecuniary interest to protect,
misapprehended the nature and import of the disparate rights set forth in they may in their over-eagerness or zealousness bear heavily on their hapless
Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. He has taken them as suspects, whether employees or not, to give statements under an atmosphere
applying to the same juridical situation, equating one with the other. In so of moral coercion, undue ascendancy and undue influence." It suffices to draw
doing, he has grossly erred. To be sure, His Honor sought to substantiate his attention to the specific and peremptory requirement of the law that
thesis by arguments he took to be cogent and logical. The thesis was however disciplinary sanctions may not be imposed on any employee by his employer
so far divorced from the actual and correct state of the constitutional and legal until and unless the employee has been accorded due process, by which is
principles involved as to make application of said thesis to the case before him meant that the latter must be informed of the offenses ascribed to him and
tantamount to totally unfounded, whimsical or capricious exercise of power. afforded adequate time and opportunity to explain his side. The requirement
His Orders were thus rendered with grave abuse of discretion. They should be entails the making of statements, oral or written, by the employee under such
as they are hereby, annulled and set aside. administrative investigation in his defense, with opportunity to solicit the
assistance of counsel, or his colleagues and friends. The employee may, of
It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that Felipe Ramos was not in course, refuse to submit any statement at the investigation, that is his
any sense under custodial interrogation, as the term should be properly privilege. But if he should opt to do so, in his defense to the accusation against
understood, prior to and during the administrative inquiry into the discovered him, it would be absurd to reject his statements, whether at the administrative
irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. The investigation, or at a subsequent criminal action brought against him, because
constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation under Section he had not been accorded, prior to his making and presenting them, his
20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not therefore come into play, were "Miranda rights" (to silence and to counsel and to be informed thereof, etc.)
of no relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that Ramos had voluntarily which, to repeat, are relevant only in custodial investigations. Indeed, it is
answered questions posed to him on the first day of the administrative self-evident that the employee's statements, whether called "position paper,"
investigation, February 9, 1986 and agreed that the proceedings should be "answer," etc., are submitted by him precisely so that they may be admitted
recorded, the record having thereafter been marked during the trial of the and duly considered by the investigating officer or committee, in negation or
criminal action subsequently filed against him as Exhibit A, just as it is mitigation of his liability.
obvious that the note (later marked as Exhibit K) that he sent to his superiors
on February 8,1986, the day before the investigation, offering to compromise Of course the possibility cannot be discounted that in certain instances the
his liability in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even spontaneous act judge's expressed apprehensions may be realized, that violence or
on his part. They may not be excluded on the ground that the so-called intimidation, undue pressure or influence be brought to bear on an employee
"Miranda rights" had not been accorded to Ramos. under investigation — or for that matter, on a person being interrogated by
another whom he has supposedly offended. In such an event, any admission or
His Honor adverts to what he perceives to be the "greater danger x x (of) the confession wrung from the person under interrogation would be inadmissible
violation of the right of any person against self-incrimination when the in evidence, on proof of the vice or defect vitiating consent, not because of a
investigation is conducted by the complaining parties, complaining violation of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, but simply on the
companies, or complaining employers because being interested parties, unlike general, incontestable proposition that involuntary or coerced statements may
not in justice be received against the makers thereof, and really should not be e) That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed
accorded any evidentiary value at all. that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the
presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made.
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted annulling and setting aside the
Orders of the respondent Judge in Criminal Case No. 3488-R, dated August 9, f) The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to
1988 and September 14, 1988, and he is hereby ordered to admit in evidence communicate or confer by the most expedient means, e.g., by telephone, radio,
Exhibits "A" and "K" of the prosecution in said Criminal Case No. 3488-R, letter or messenger, with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any
and thereafter proceed with the trial and adjudgment thereof. The temporary member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister
restraining order of October 26, 1988 having become functus officio, is now chosen by him or by anyone of his immediate family or by his counsel, or be
declared of no further force and effect. visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-
government organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure
Guidelines for Arresting/lnvestigating Officers. that this is accomplished.
In People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999, the Supreme Court g) He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights
laid down the guidelines and duties of arresting, detaining, inviting or provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently, and ensure that
investigating officers or his companions, as follows: he understood the same.
a) The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must h) In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be
be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for informed that is must be done in writing and in the presence of counsel,
the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. Every other otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insists on his
warning, information or communication must be in a language known to and waiver and chooses to speak.
understood by said person.
i) The person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner
b) . He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with
statement he makes may be used as evidence against him. a warning that once he makes such indication the police may not interrogate
c) He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must cease if it
have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his has already begun.
own choice. ' j) The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to
d) He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from
of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have
engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the Court upon answered some questions or volunteered some statements.
petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf.
k) He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may 4165 Dian Street, Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela , Metro Manila. But he stayed
be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or and slept in an apartment also owned by Isip, located 10 meters away from the
exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence unfinished house (TSN, September 6, 1995, pp. 5-10).

[G.R. No. 122485. February 1, 1999] "The victim, Ma. Victoria Chan, 12 years old, was Isip's neighbor in Dian
Street. She used to pass by Isip's house on her way to school and play inside
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LARRY the compound yard, catching maya birds together with other children. While
MAHINAY Y AMPARADO, Accused-Appellant. they were playing, appellant was always around washing his clothes. Inside
the compound yard was a septic tank (TSN, August 22, 1995, pp. 29-31;
DECISION September 6, 1995, pp. 17; 20-22).

PER CURIAM: "On June 25, 1995, at 8 o'clock a.m., appellant joined Gregorio Rivera in a
drinking spree. Around 10 o'clock in the morning, appellant, who was already
A violation of the dignity, purity and privacy of a child who is still innocent drunk, left Gregorio Rivera and asked permission from Isip to go out with his
and unexposed to the ways of worldly pleasures is a harrowing experience that friends (TSN, September 6, 1995, pp. 9-11).
destroys not only her future but of the youth population as well, who in the
teachings of our national hero, are considered the hope of the fatherland. Once "Meantime, Isip's sister-in-law, Norgina Rivera, who also owned a store
again, the Court is confronted by another tragic desecration of human dignity, fronting the compound, saw Ma. Victoria on that same day three to four times
committed no less upon a child, who at the salad age of a few days past 12 catching birds inside Isip's unfinished house around 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
years, has yet to knock on the portals of womanhood, and met her untimely The unfinished house was about 8 meters away from Rivera's store (TSN,
death as a result of the "intrinsically evil act" of non-consensual sex called September 18, 1995, pp.9-11).
rape. Burdened with the supreme penalty of death, rape is an ignominious
crime for which necessity is neither an excuse nor does there exist any other "On the other hand, Sgt. Roberto Suni, also a resident of Dian Street, went to
rational justification other than lust. But those who lust ought not to lust. his in-law's house between 6 to 7 o'clock p.m. to call his office regarding
changes on the trip of President Fidel V. Ramos. The house of his in-laws was
The Court quotes with approval from the People's Brief, the facts narrating the near the house of Isip. On his way to his in-law's house, Sgt. Suni met
horrible experience and the tragic demise of a young and innocent child in the appellant along Dian Street. That same evening, between 8 to 9 o'clock p.m.,
bloody hands of appellant, as such facts are ably supported by evidence on he saw Ma. Victoria standing in front of the gate of the unfinished house
record:1 * (TSN, September 27, 1995, pp. 3-7; 14-17).

"Appellant Larry Mahinay started working as houseboy with Maria Isip on "Later, at 9 o'clock in the evening, appellant showed up at Norgina Rivera's
November 20, 1993. His task was to take care of Isip's house which was under store to buy lugaw. Norgina Rivera informed appellant that there was none left
construction adjacent to her old residence situated inside a compound at No. of it. She notice that appellant appeared to be uneasy and in deep thought. His
hair was disarrayed; he was drunk and was walking in a dazed manner. She 2.0 x 1.0 cm. and left, 7.0 x 6.0 cm., left iliac area, 9.0 x 5.5 cm.
asked why he looked so worried but he did not answer. Then he left and intraclavicular area, left, posterior aspect, 4.0 x 2.0 cm. scapular area, right 4.0
walked back to the compound (TSN, September 18, 1995, pp. 4-8; 12-14). x 4.0 cm. subscapular area, left, 1.5 x 1.5 cm. lumbar area, left 7.0 x 8.0 cm.
arm, left, posterior aspect, middle third, 11.00 x 4.0 cm. elbows, right, 4.0 x
"Meanwhile, Elvira Chan noticed that her daughter, Ma. Victoria, was 3.0 cm. and left 6.0 x 5.0 cm. forearms, left, posterior aspect, lower rd, 5.2 x
missing. She last saw her daughter wearing a pair of white shorts, brown belt, 4.0 cm. hand, left, dorsal aspect, 0.8 x 0.9 cm. thighs; right antero-lateral
a yellow hair ribbon, printed blue blouse, dirty white panty, white lady sando aspect, upper 33rd, 12.0 x 10.0 cm. right anterior aspect, lower 3rd 5.0 x 2.0 cm.
and blue rubber slippers (TSN, August 23, 1995, pp. 22, 33). and left antero-lower 3rd , 5.5 x 2.5 cm. knee, right, lateral aspect, 1.5 x 1.0
cm. lateral mallcolum, left, 3.0 x 3.5 cm. foot, left, dorsal aspect 2.2 x 1.0 cm.
"Isip testified that appellant failed to show up for supper that night. On the
following day, June 26, 1995, at 2 o'clock in the morning, appellant boarded a Hematoma, forehead, and scalp, left, 3.5 x 3.0 cm.
passenger jeepney driven by Fernando Trinidad at the talipapa. Appellant
alighted at the top of the bridge of the North Expressway and had thereafter Hemorrhage, interstitial, underneath nailmarks, neck, subepicardial,
disappeared (TSN, September 20, 1995, pp. 4-9; September 27, 1995; pp. 14- subpleural petechial hemorrhages.
17).
Hemorrhage, subdural, left fronto-parietal area.
"That same morning, around 7:30, a certain Boy found the dead body of Ma.
Victoria inside the septic tank. Boy immediately reported what he saw to the Tracheo-bronchial tree, congested.
victim's parents, Eduardo and Elvira Chan (TSN, September 6, 1995, p. 13).
Other visceral organs, congested.
"With the help of the Valenzuela Police, the lifeless body of Ma. Victoria was
retrieved from the septic tank. She was wearing a printed blouse without Stomach, contain 1/4 rice and other food particles.
underwear. Her face bore bruises. Results of the autopsy revealed the
following findings: CAUSE OF DEATH - Asphyxia by Manual Strangulation; Traumatic Head
Injury, Contributory.
Cyanosis, lips and nailbeds,
REMARKS: Hymen: tall, thick with complete lacerations at 4:00 and 8:00
Contusions, supra pubic area, 6.0 x 3.0 cm., thigh right, o'clock position corresponding to the face of a watch edges congested with
blood clots. (TSN, August 18, 1995; p. 4; Record, p. 126)
Anterior aspect, middle third, 4.5 x 3.0 cm.
"Back in the compound, SPO1 Arsenio Nacis and SPO1 Arnold Alabastro
Contused-abrasions on the forehead, 5.0 x 5.0 cm, angle of the left eye, lateral were informed by Isip that her houseboy, appellant Larry Mahinay, was
aspect, 2.5 x 1.5 cm. left jaw, 13.5 x 7.0 cm. neck, antero-lateral aspect, right, missing. According to her, it was unlikely for appellant to just disappear from
the apartment since whenever he would go out, he would normally return on with the victim's mother and aunt, he confided to them that he was not alone
the same day or early morning of the following day (TSN, September 6, 1995, in raping and killing the victim. He pointed to Zaldy and Boyet as his co-
pp. 6-11-27). conspirators (TSN, August 14, 1995, pp. 13-21)."

"SPO1 Nacis and SPO1 Alabastro were also informed that a townmate of Thus, on July 10, 1995, appellant was charged with rape with homicide in an
appellant was working in a pancit factory at Barangay Reparo, Caloocan City. Information which reads:2cräläwvirtualibräry
They proceeded to said place. The owner of the factory confirmed to them that
appellant used to work at the factory but she did not know his present "That on or about the 26th day of June 1995 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and
whereabouts. Appellant's townmate, on the other hand, informed them that within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, by
appellant could possibly be found on 8th Street, Grace Park, Caloocan City means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of MARIA
(TSN, August 14, 1995, pp. 8-9). VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO, age 12 years old, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have sexual intercourse with
"The policemen returned to the scene of the crime. At the second floor of the said MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO against her will and
house under construction, they retrieved from one of the rooms a pair of dirty without her consent; that on the occasion of said sexual assault, the above-
white short pants, a brown belt and a yellow hair ribbon which was identified named accused, choke and strangle said MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y
by Elvira Chan to belong to her daughter, Ma. Victoria. They also found CABALLERO as a result of which, said victim died.
inside another room a pair of blue slippers which Isip identified as that of
Appellant. Also found in the yard, three armslength away from the septic tank "Contrary to law."3
were an underwear, a leather wallet, a pair of dirty long pants and a pliers
positively identified by Isip as appellant's belongings. These items were to which he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision
brought to the police station (TSN, August 14, 1995, pp. 10-13; August 18, convicting appellant of the crime charged, sentenced him to suffer the penalty
1995, pp. 3-8; August 23, 1995, pp. 21-25). of death and to pay a total of P73,000.00 to the victim's heirs. The dispositive
portion of the trial court's decision states:
"A police report was subsequently prepared including a referral slip addressed
to the office of the Valenzuela Prosecutor. The next day, SPO1 Virgilio "WHEREFORE, finding accused Larry Mahinay y Amparado guilty beyond
Villano retrieved the victim's underwear from the septic tank (TSN, August reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby sentenced to death by
23, 1995, pp. 3-8; 14-17). electricution (sic). He is likewise condemned to indemnify the heirs of the
victim, Ma. Victoria Chan the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the further
"After a series of follow-up operations, appellant was finally arrested in sum of P23,000.00 for the funeral, burial and wake of the victim.
Barangay Obario Matala, Ibaan, Batangas. He was brought to Valenzuela
Police Station. On July 7, 1995, with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes, "Let the complete records of the case be immediately forwarded to the
appellant executed an extra-judicial confession wherein he narrated in detail Honorable Supreme Court for the automatic review in accordance to Article
how he raped and killed the victim. Also, when appellant came face to face
47 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No. the store and proceeded to Isips apartment. But because it was already closed,
7659. he decided to sleep at the second floor of Isips unfinished house. Around 10
oclock p.m., Zaldy and Boyet arrived carrying a cadaver. The two placed the
"SO ORDERED."4 body inside the room where appellant was sleeping. As appellant stood up,
Zaldy pointed to him a knife. Zaldy and Boyet directed him to rape the dead
Upon automatic review by the court en banc pursuant to Article 47 of the body of the child or they would kill him. He, However, refused to follow.
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended,5 appellant insists that the Then, he was asked by Zaldy and Boyet to assist them in bringing the dead
circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution against him is body downstairs. He obliged and helped dump the body into the septic tank.
insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In his testimony Thereupon, Zaldy and Boyet warned him that should they ever see him again,
summarized by the trial court, appellant offered his version of what transpired they would kill him. At 4 oclock the following morning, he left the compound
as follows: and proceeded first to Navotas and later to Batangas (TSN, October 16, 1995,
pp. 4-13).
(T)hat on June 25, 1995, around 9:30 a.m. on Dian Street, Gen. T. de Leon,
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, he joined Gregorio Rivera and a certain Totoy in a Subsequently, appellant was apprehended by the police officers in Ibaan,
drinking spree. Gregorio Rivera is the brother of Maria Isip, appellants Batangas. The police officers allegedly brought him to a big house somewhere
employer. After consuming three cases of red horse beer, he was summoned in Manila. There, appellant heard the police officers plan to salvage him if he
by Isip to clean the jeepney. He finished cleaning the jeepney at 12 oclock would not admit that he was the one who raped and killed the victim. Scared,
noon. Then he had lunch and took a bath. Later, he asked permission from Isip he executed an extra-judicial confession. He claimed that he was assisted by
to go out with his friends to see a movie. He also asked for a cash advance of Atty. Restituto Viernes only when he was forced to sign the extra-judicial
P300.00 (TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 4-5). confession (TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 9-11).6

At 2 oclock in the afternoon, appellant, instead of going out with his friend, This being a death penalty case, the Court exercises the greatest
opted to rejoin Gregorio Rivera and Totoy for another drinking session. They circumspection in the review thereof since there can be no stake higher and no
consumed one case of red horse beer. Around 6 oclock p.m., Zaldy, a co- penalty more severe x x x than the termination of a human life.7 For life, once
worker, fetched him at Gregorio Riveras house. They went to Zaldys house taken is like virginity, which once defiled can never be restored. In order
and bought a bottle of gin. They finished drinking gin around 8 oclock p.m. therefore, that appellants guilty mind be satisfied, the Court states the reasons
After consuming the bottle of gin, they went out and bought another bottle of why, as the records are not shy, for him to verify.
gin from a nearby store. It was already 9 oclock in the evening. While they
were at the store, appellant and Zaldy met Boyet. After giving the bottle of gin The proven circumstances of this case when juxtaposed with appellants
to Zaldy and Boyet, appellant left (TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 6-7). proffered excuse are sufficient to sustain his conviction beyond reasonable
doubt, notwithstanding the absence of any direct evidence relative to the
On his way home, appellant passed by Norgina Riveras store to commission of the crime for which he was prosecuted. Absence of direct
buy lugaw. Norgina Rivera informed him that there was none left of it. He left proof does not necessarily absolve him from any liability because under the
Rules on evidence8 and pursuant to settled jurisprudence,9 conviction may be accused did not reply to her queries why he looked worried but went inside
had on circumstantial evidence provided that the following requisites concur: the compound.

1. there is more than one circumstance; SECOND Prosecution witness Sgt. Roberto G. Suni, categorically, testified
that on June 25, 1995 between 6:00 and 7:00 in the evening, on his way to his
2. the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and in-laws house, he met accused Larry Mahinay walking on the road leading to
his in-laws residence which is about 50 to 75 meters away to the unfinished
3. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction big house of Maria Isip. That he also saw victim Maria Victoria Chan standing
beyond reasonable doubt. at the gate of the unfinished big house of Maria Isip between 8:00 and 9:00 in
the same evening.
Simply put, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a
conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent THIRD Prosecution witness Maria Isip, owner of the unfinished big house
with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time where victims body was found inside the septic tank, testified that accused
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other Larry Mahinay is her houseboy since November 20, 1993. That in the
rational hypothesis except that of guilt.10 Facts and circumstances consistent morning of June 25, 1995, a Sunday, Larry Mahinay asked permission from
with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, constitute evidence which, in her to leave. That after finishing some work she asked him to do accused
weight and probative force, may surpass even direct evidence in its effect Larry Mahinay left. That it is customary on the part of Larry Mahinay to
upon the court.11cräläwvirtualibräry return in the afternoon of the same day or sometimes in the next morning.
That accused Larry Mahinay did not return until he was arrested in Batangas
In the case at bench, the trial court gave credence to several circumstantial on July 7, 1995.
evidence, which upon thorough review of the Court is more than enough to
prove appellants guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. These FOURTH Prosecution witness Fernando Trinidad, a passenger jeepney driver
circumstantial evidence are as follows: plying the route Karuhatan-Ugong and vice versa which include Diam St.,
Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, pinpointed the accused Larry
FIRST Prosecution witness Norgina Rivera, sister-in-law of Maria Isip, owner Mahinay as one of the passengers who boarded his passenger jeepney on June
of the unfinished big house where the crime happened and the septic tank 26, 1995 at 2:00 early morning and alighted on top of the overpass of the
where the body of Maria Victoria Chan was found in the morning of June 26, North Expressway.
1995 is located, categorically testified that at about 9:00 in the evening on
June 25, 1995, accused Larry Mahinay was in her store located in front FIFTH Personal belongings of the victim was found in the unfinished big
portion of the compound of her sister-in-law Maria Isip where the unfinished house of Maria Isip where accused Larry Mahinay slept on the night of the
big house is situated buying rice noodle (lugaw). That she noticed the incident. This is a clear indication that the victim was raped and killed in the
accuseds hair was disarranged, drunk and walking in sigsaging manner. That said premises.
the accused appeared uneasy and seems to be thinking deeply. That the
There is no showing that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (sic) There is no clear proof of maltreatment and/or tortured in giving the
fabricated or there was any reason for them to testify falsely against the statement. There were no medical certificate submitted by the accused to
accused. The absence of any evidence as to the existence of improper motive sustain his claim that he was mauled by the police officers.
sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive exists and that the
testimonies of the witnesses, therefore, should be given full faith and credit. There being no evidence presented to show that said confession were obtained
(People vs. Retubado, 58585 January 20, 1988 162 SCRA 276, 284; People as a result of violence, torture, maltreatment, intimidation, threat or promise of
vs. Ali L-18512 October 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 756). reward or leniency nor that the investigating officer could have been
motivated to concoct the facts narrated in said affidavit; the confession of the
SIXTH Accused Larry Mahinay during the custodial investigation and after accused is held to be true, correct and freely or voluntarily given. (People v.
having been informed of his constitutional rights with the assistance of Atty. Tuazon 6 SCRA 249; People v. Tiongson 6 SCRA 431, People v. Baluran 52
Restituto Viernes of the Public Attorneys Office voluntarily gave his SCRA 71, People v. Pingol 35 SCRA 73.)
statement admitting the commission of the crime. Said confession of accused
Larry Mahinay given with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes is believed SEVENTH Accused Larry Mahinay testified in open Court that he was not
to have been freely and voluntarily given. That accused did not complain to able to enter the apartment where he is sleeping because it was already closed
the proper authorities of any maltreatment on his person (People vs. delos and he proceeded to the second floor of the unfinished house and slept. He
Santos L-3398 May 29, 1984; 150 SCRA 311). He did not even informed the said while sleeping Zaldy and Boyet arrived carrying the cadaver of the victim
Inquest Prosecutor when he sworn to the truth of his statement on July 8, 1995 and dumped it inside his room. That at the point of a knife, the two ordered
that he was forced, coersed or was promised of reward or leniency. That his him to have sex with the dead body but he refused. That the two asked him to
confession abound with details know only to him. The Court noted that a assist them in dumping the dead body of the victim in the septic tank
lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office Atty. Restituto Viernes and as downstairs. (Tsn pp8-9 October 16, 1995). This is unbelievable and unnatural.
testified by said Atty. Viernes he informed and explained to the accused his Accused Larry Mahinay is staying in the apartment and not in the unfinished
constitutional rights and was present all throughout the giving of the house. That he slept in the said unfinished house only that night of June 25,
testimony. That he signed the statement given by the accused. Lawyer from 1995 because the apartment where he was staying was already closed. The
the Public Attorneys Office is expected to be watchful and vigilant to notice Court is at a loss how would Zaldy and Boyet knew he (Larry Mahinay) was
any irregularity in the manner of the investigation and the physical conditions in the second floor of the unfinished house.
of the accused. The post mortem findings shows that the cause of death
Asphyxia by manual strangulation; Traumatic Head injury Contributory Furthermore, if the child is already dead when brought by Zaldy and Boyet in
substantiate. Consistent with the testimony of the accused that he pushed the the room at the second floor of the unfinished house where accused Larry
victim and the latters head hit the table and the victim lost consciousness. Mahinay was sleeping, why will Boyet and Zaldy still brought the cadaver
upstairs only to be disposed/dumped later in the septic tank located in the
Pagpasok niya sa kuwarto, hinawakan ko siya sa kamay tapos tinulak ko siya, ground floor. Boyet and Zaldy can easily disposed and dumped the body in
tapos tumama iyong ulo niya sa mesa. Ayon na, nakatulog na siya tapos ni- the septic tank by themselves.
rape ko na siya.
It is likewise strange that the dead body of the child was taken to the room 3). The evidence of the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and
where accused Larry Mahinay was sleeping only to force the latter to have sex cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.
with the dead body of the child.
the foregoing circumstantial evidence clearly establishes the felony of rape
We have no test to the truth of human testimony except its conformity to aver with homicide defined and penalized under Section 335 of the Revised Penal
knowledge observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these Code, as amended by Section 11, R.A. 7659, which provides:
belongs to the miraculous. (People vs. Santos L-385 Nov. 16, 1979)
When and how rape is committed Rape is committed by having carnal
EIGHT If the accused did not commit the crime and was only forced to knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances.
disposed/dumpted the body of the victim in the septic tank, he could have
apprise Col. Maganto, a high ranking police officer or the lady reporter who 1.) By using force or intimidation;
interviewed him. His failure and omission to reveal the same is unnatural. An
innocent person will at once naturally and emphatically repel an accusation of 2.) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
crime as a matter of preservation and self-defense and as a precaution against
prejudicing himself. A persons silence therefore, particularly when it is 3.) When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
persistent will justify an inference that he is not innocent. (People vs. Pilones,
L-32754-5 July 21, 1978). The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

NINTH The circumstance of flight of the accused strongly indicate his Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or
consciousness of guilt. He left the crime scene on the early morning after the by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
incident and did not return until he was arrested in Batangas on July 7, 1995.12
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane,
Guided by the three principles in the review of rape cases, to the penalty shall be death.
wit:13cräläwvirtualibräry
When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by
1). An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; death.

2). In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, where only two persons When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the
are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with penalty shall be death.
extreme caution; and
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with
any of the following attendant circumstances:
1.) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a Conviction will therefore lie, provided sexual intercourse is be proven. But if
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity the woman is 12 years of age or over at the time she was violated, as in this
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the case, not only the first element of sexual intercourse must be proven but also
victim. the other element that the perpetrators evil acts with the offended party was
done through force, violence, intimidation or threat needs to be established.
2.) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities. Both elements are present in this case.

3.) When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the Based on the evidence on record, sexual intercourse with the victim was
children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. adequately proven. This is shown from the testimony of the medical doctor
who conducted post mortem examination on the childs body:
4.) When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.
Q: And after that what other parts of the victim did you examine?
5.) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease. A: Then I examined the genitalia of the victim.

6.) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Q: And what did you find out after you examined the genitalia of the victim?
or Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.
A: The hymen was tall-thick with complete laceration at 4:00 oclock and 8:00
7.) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered oclock position and that the edges were congested.
permanent physical mutilation.14
Q: Now, what might have caused the laceration?
At the time of the commission of this heinous act, rape was still considered a
crime against chastity,15 although under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (R.A. No. A: Under normal circumstances this might have (sic) caused by a penetration
8353), rape has since been re-classified as a crime against persons under of an organ.
Articles 266-A and 266-B, and thus, may be prosecuted even without a
complaint filed by the offended party. Q: So, the laceration was caused by the penetration of a male organ?

The gravamen of the offense of rape, prior to R.A. 8353, is sexual congress A: Adult male organ, sir.
with a woman by force and without consent.16 (Under the new law, rape may
be committed even by a woman and the victim may even be a man.)17 If the Q: You are very sure of that, Mr. Witness?
woman is under 12 years of age, proof of force and consent becomes
immaterial18 not only because force is not an element of statutory rape,19 but A: I am very sure of that.20
the absence of a free consent is presumed when the woman is below such age.
Besides, as may be gleaned from his extrajudicial confession, appellant 21. T: Saan lugar ito nangyari?
himself admitted that he had sexual congress with the unconscious child.
S: Sa Diam, Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela, M.M.
15. T: Ano ang nangyari ng mga sandali o oras na iyon?
22. T: Alam mo na ba ang pangalan ng batang babae na ni rape mo?
S: Natutulog po ako sa itaas ng bahay ni ATE MARIA, yung malaking bahay
na ginagawa, tapos dumating yung batang babae. Pag-pasok niya sa kuwarto S: Hindi ko po alam.
hinawakan ko siya sa kamay tapos tinulak ko siya. Tapos tumama yung ulo
niya sa mesa. Ayon na, nakakatulog na siya tapos ni rape ko na siya. 23. T: Ngayon, nais kong ipaalam sa iyo na ang pangalan ng batang babae na
iyong ni rape at pinatay ay si MA. VICTORIA CHAN? Matatandaan mo ba
16. T: Ano ang suot nung batang babae na sinasabi mo? ito?

S: Itong short na ito, (pointing to a dirty white short placed atop this S: Oho.
investigators table. Subject evidence were part of evidences recovered at the
crime scene). 24. T: Nung ma-rape mo, nakaraos ka ba?

17. T: Bakit mo naman ni rape yung batang babae? S: Naka-isa po.

S: Eh nasobrahan ako ng lasing. Hindi ko na alam ang ginagawa ko. 25. T: Nais kong liwanagin sa iyo kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng NAKARAOS,
maaari bang ipaliwanag mo ito?
18. T: Ano ba ang inyong ininom bakit ka nasobrahan ng lasing?
S: Nilabasan po ako ng tamod.
S: Red Horse po at saka GIN.
26. T: Nung nakaraos ka, nasaan parte ng katawan ng batang babae yung
19. T: Saan lugar ng malaking bahay ni ATE MARIA mo ni rape yung batang iyong ari?
babae?
S: Nakapasok po doon sa ari nung babae.
S: Sa kuwarto ko po sa itaas.
27. T: Natapos mong ma-rape si MA. VICTORIA CHAN, ano pa ang
20. T: Kailan ito at anong oras nangyari? sumunod mong ginawa?

S: Mga bandang alas 8:00 ng gabi, araw ng Linggo, hindi ko na matandaan S: Natulak ko siya sa terrace.
kung anong petsa, basta araw ng Linggo.
28. T: Ano ang nangyari kay MA. VICTORIA matapos mong itulak sa S: Buhay pa po.
terrace?
36. T: Papaano mo siya pinatay?
S: Inilagay ko po sa poso-negra.
S: Tinulak ko nga po siya sa terrace.21
29. T: Saan makikita yung poso-negra na sinasabi mo?
In proving sexual intercourse, it is not full or deep penetration of the victims
S: Doon din sa malaking bahay ni ATE MARIA. vagina; rather the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex
organ is enough to consummate the sexual intercourse.22 The mere touching
30. T: Bakit mo namang naisipang ilagay si MA. VICTORIA sa poso-negra? by the males organ or instrument of sex of the labia of the pudendum of the
womans private parts is sufficient to consummate rape.
S: Doon ko lang po inilagay.
From the wounds, contusions and abrasions suffered by the victim, force was
31. T: Bakit nga doon mo inilagay siya? indeed employed upon her to satisfy carnal lust. Moreover, from appellants
own account, he pushed the victim causing the latter to hit her head on the
S: Natatakot po ako. table and fell unconscious. It was at that instance that he ravished her and
satisfied his salacious and prurient desires. Considering that the victim, at the
32. T: Kanino ka natatakot? time of her penile invasion, was unconscious, it could safely be concluded that
she had not given free and voluntary consent to her defilement, whether before
S: Natatakot po ako sa ginawa kong masama, natatakot ako sa mga pulis. or during the sexual act.

33. T: Buhay pa ba si MA. VICTORIA nung ilagay mo siya sa poso-negra? Another thing that militates against appellant is his extrajudicial confession,
which he, however, claims was executed in violation of his constitutional right
S: Hindi ko po alam dahil nung pagbagsak niya inilagay ko na siya sa poso- to counsel. But his contention is belied by the records as well as the testimony
negra. of the lawyer who assisted, warned and explained to him his constitutionally
guaranteed pre-interrogatory and custodial rights. As testified to by the
34. T: Nung gawin mo ba itong krimen na ito, mayroon ka kasama? assisting lawyer:

S: Nag-iisa lang po ako. Q Will you please inform the Court what was that call about?

35. T: Noong mga oras o sandaling gahasain mo si MA. VICTORIA CHAN, A We went to the station, police investigation together with Atty. Froilan
buhay pa ba siya o patay na? Zapanta and we were told by Police Officer Alabastro that one Larry Mahinay
would like to confess of the crime of, I think, rape with homicide.
Q And upon reaching the investigation room of Valenzuela PNP who were the A Yes, sir.
other person present?
Q Now, when Atty. Zapanta left at what time did the question and answer
A Police Officer Alabastro, sir, Police Officer Nacis and other investigator period start?
inside the investigation room and the parents of the child who was allegedly
raped. A If I am not mistaken at around 4:05 of July 7, 1995 in the afternoon, sir.

Q- And when you reached the investigation room do you notice whether the Q And when this question and answer period started, what was the first thing
accused already there? that you did as assisting lawyer to the accused?

A The accused was already there. A First, I tried to explain to him his right, sir, under the constitution.

Q Was he alone? Q What are those right?

A he was alone, sir. A That he has the right to remain silent. That he has the right of a counsel of
his own choice and that if he has no counsel a lawyer will be appointed to him
Q So, when you were already infront of SPO1 Arnold Alabastro and the other and that he has the right to refuse to answer any question that would
PNP Officers, what did they tell you, if any? incriminate him.

A They told us together with Atty. Zapanta that this Larry Mahinay would like Q Now, after enumerating these constitutional rights of accused Larry
to confess of the crime charged, sir. Mahinay, do you recall whether this constitutional right enumerated by you
were reduced in writing?
Q By the way, who was that Atty. Zapanta?
A Yes, sir, and it was also explained to him one by one by Police Officer
A Our immediate Superior of the Public Attorneys Office. Alabastro.

Q Was he also present at the start of the question and answer period to the Q I show to you this constitutional right which you said were reduced into
accused? writing, will you be able to recognize the same?

A No more, sir, he already went to our office. I was left alone. A Yes, sir.

Q But he saw the accused, Larry Mahinay? Q Will you please go over this and tell the Court whether that is the same
document you mentioned?
A Yes, sir, these were the said rights reduced into writing. Q After you said that you apprised the accused of his constitutional right
explaining to him in Filipino, in local dialect, what was the respond of the
ATTY. PRINCIPE: accused?

May we request, Your Honor, that this document be marked as our Exhibit A A- Larry Mahinay said that we will proceed with his statement.
proper.
Q What was the reply?
Q Do you recall after reducing into writing this constitutional right of the
accused whether you asked him to sign to acknowledge or to conform? A He said Opo.

A I was the one who asked him, sir. It was Police Officer Alabastro. Q Did you ask him of his educational attainment?

Q But you were present? A It was the Police Officer who asked him.

A I was then present when he signed. Q In your presence?

Q There is a signature in this constitutional right after the enumeration, before A In my presence, sir.
and after there are two (2) signatures, will you please recognize the two (2)
signatures? Q And when he said or when he replied Opo so the question started?

A These were the same signatures signed in my presence, sir. A Yes, sir.

Q The signature of whom? Q I noticed in this Exhibit A that there is also a waiver of rights, were you
present also when he signed this waiver?
A The signature of Larry Mahinay, sir.
A Yes, sir, I was also present.
ATTY. PRINCIPE:
Q Did you explain to him the meaning of this waiver?
May we request, Your Honor, that the two (2) signatures identified by my
compaero be encircled and marked as Exhibit A-1 and A-2. A I had also explained to him, sir.

Q In Filipino?
A In Tagalog, sir. knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these
belongs to the miraculous, and is outside of judicial cognizance.
Q And there is also a signature after the waiver in Filipino over the
typewritten name Larry Mahinay, Nagsasalaysay, whose signature is that? Ultimately, all the foregoing boils down to the issue of credibility of
witnesses. Settled is the rule that the findings of facts and assessment of
A This is also signed in my presence. credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its
unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence
Q Why are you sure that this is his signature? of the witnesses department on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is
denied to the appellate courts.25 In this case, the trial courts findings,
A He signed in my presence, sir. conclusions and evaluation of the testimony of witnesses is received on appeal
with the highest respect,26 the same being supported by substantial evidence
Q And below immediately are the two (2) signatures. The first one is when on record. There was no showing that the court a quo had overlooked or
Larry Mahinay subscribed and sworn to, there is a signature here, do you disregarded relevant facts and circumstances which when considered would
recognize this signature? have affected the outcome of this case27 or justify a departure from the
assessments and findings of the court below. The absence of any improper or
A This is my signature, sir. ill-motive on the part of the principal witnesses for the prosecution all the
more strengthens the conclusion that no such motive exists.28 Neither was any
Q And immediately after your first signature is a Certification that you have wrong motive attributed to the police officers who testified against appellant.
personally examined the accused Larry Mahinay and testified that he
voluntary executed the Extra Judicial Confession, do you recognize the Coming now to the penalty, the sentence imposed by the trial court is correct.
signature? Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A.
7659 when by reason or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the
A This is also my signature, sir.23 (emphasis supplied). penalty shall be death. This special complex crime is treated by law in the
same degree as qualified rape -- that is, when any of the 7 (now 10) attendant
Appellants defense that two other persons brought to him the dead body of the circumstances enumerated in the law is alleged and proven, in which
victim and forced him to rape the cadaver is too unbelievable. In the words of instances, the penalty is death. In cases where any of those circumstances
Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet of New Jersey,24cräläwvirtualibräry is proven though not alleged, the penalty cannot be death except if the
circumstance proven can be properly appreciated as an aggravating
Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible circumstance under Articles 14 and 15 of the RPC which will affect the
witness, but must be credible in itself- such as the common experience and imposition of the proper penalty in accordance with Article 63 of the RPC.
observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We However, if any of those circumstances proven but not alleged cannot be
have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our considered as an aggravating circumstance under Articles 14 and 15, the same
cannot affect the imposition of the penalty because Articles 63 of the RPC in
mentioning aggravating circumstances refers to those defined in Articles 14 committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which
and 15. Under R.A. No. 8353, if any of the 10 circumstances is alleged in the the death penalty is authorized by present amended law, the civil indemnity
information/complaint, it may be treated as a qualifying circumstance. But if it for the victim shall be not less than seventy-five thousand pesos
is not so alleged, it may be considered as an aggravating circumstance, in (P75,000.00).32 In addition to such indemnity, she can also recover moral
which case the only penalty is death subject to the usual proof of such damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code33 in such amount as the
circumstance in either case. court deems just, without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis
thereof.34 Civil Indemnity is different from the award of moral and exemplary
Death being a single indivisible penalty and the only penalty prescribed by damages.35 The requirement of proof of mental and physical suffering
law for the crime of rape with homicide, the court has no option but to apply provided in Article 2217 of the Civil Code is dispensed with because it is
the same regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may recognized that the victims injury is inherently concomitant with and
have attended the commission of the crime29 in accordance with Article 63 of necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award
the RPC, as amended.30 This case of rape with homicide carries with it penalty of moral damages.36 Thus, it was held that a conviction for rape carries with it
of death which is mandatorily imposed by law within the import of Article 47 the award of moral damages to the victim without need for pleading or proof
of the RPC, as amended, which provides: of the basis thereof.37cräläwvirtualibräry

The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed Exemplary damages can also be awarded if the commission of the crime was
under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) attended by one or more aggravating circumstances pursuant to Article 2230
years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than of the Civil Code38 after proof that the offended party is entitled to moral,
seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by temperate and compensatory damages.39 Under the circumstances of this case,
the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the appellant is liable to the victims heirs for the amount of P75,000.00 as civil
imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
perpetua. (emphasis supplied).
Lastly, considering the heavy penalty of death and in order to ensure that the
In an apparent but futile attempt to escape the imposition of the death penalty, evidence against and accused were obtained through lawful means, the Court,
appellant tried to alter his date of birth to show that he was only 17 years and a as guardian of the rights of the people lays down the procedure, guidelines and
few months old at the time he committed the rape and thus, covered by the duties which the arresting, detaining, inviting, or investigating officer or his
proscription on the imposition of death if the guilty person is below eighteen companions must do and observe at the time of making an arrest and again at
(18) years at the time of the commission of the crime.31 Again, the record and during the time of the custodial interrogation40 in accordance with the
rebuffs appellant on this point considering that he was proven to be already Constitution, jurisprudence and Republic Act No. 7438:41 It is high-time to
more than 20 years of age when he did the heinous act. educate our law-enforcement agencies who neglect either by ignorance or
indifference the so-called Miranda rights which had become insufficient and
Pursuant to current case law, a victim of simple rape is entitled to a civil which the Court must update in the light of new legal developments:
indemnity of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) but if the crime of rape is
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must 7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights
be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he
the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other understood the same;
warnings, information or communication must be in a language known to and
understood by said person; 8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be
informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel,
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his
statement he makes may be used as evidence against him; waiver and chooses to speak;

3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and 9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any
have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be
own choice; questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police may
not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services must ceased if it has already begun;
of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be
engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon 10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to
petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf; remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from
invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed answered some questions or volunteered some statements;
that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the
presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made; 11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may
be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or
6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
communicate or confer by the most expedient means telephone, radio, letter or
messenger with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his Four members of the Court although maintaining their adherence to the
immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or separate opinions expressed in People v. Echegaray42 that R.A. No. 7659,
by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional nevertheless
by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-government submit to the ruling of the Court, by a majority vote, that the law is
organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.
accomplished;
WHEREFORE, the conviction of appellant is hereby AFFIRMED except for
the award of civil indemnity for the heinous rape which is INCREASED
to P75,000.00, PLUS P50,000.00 moral damages.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 1aw library
of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of
this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible That on or about June 14, 1999, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
exercise of the pardoning power. accused without being authorized by law to possess or use any regulated drug,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession
in Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109242, January 26, 1999, where, and under his custody and control one (1) knot tied transparent plastic bag
during the investigation conducted by the NBI, the petitioner and his containing TWO HUNDRED FOUR (204) grams of white crystalline
coaccused were made to sign on the envelopes seized from them (subject of substance known as "Shabu" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
the mail theft), the Supreme Court said that these signatures were actually regulated drug, without the corresponding license or prescription thereof.
evidence of admission contemplated in Secs. 12 and 17, Art. Ill, and they
should be excluded. See also Gutang v. People, G.R. No. 135406, July 11, Contrary to law. 2
2000; People v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 146277, June 20, 2002; and People v.
Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the
Benny Go, G.R. No. 144639, September 12, 2003 offense charged. 3 Subsequently, at the pre-trial conference on August 10,
1999, the parties stipulated that" (1) the subject Search Warrant is valid; and
(2) the Forensic Chemist conducted only a qualitative examination on the
[G.R. No. 144639. September 12, 2003.] subject specimen." 4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BENNY GO, Appellant. The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Police Inspector Edwin
Zata, Forensic Chemical Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
DECISION Crime Laboratory; (2) PO2 Gerardo Abulencia (PO2 Abulencia); (3) SPO1
Edgardo G. Fernandez (SPO1 Fernandez); and (4) SPO1 Ver M. Serqueña
(SPO1 Ver Serqueña) whose testimonies sought to establish the following
CARPIO-MORALES, J.: facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On April 28, 1999, SPO1 Fernandez, SPO1 Serqueña and a confidential

On direct appeal before this Court is the Decision of the Regional Trial Court informant conducted a "test buy" operation at the residence of appellant at
of Manila, Branch 41, in Criminal Case No. 99-174439 finding appellant 1480 General Luna Street, Ermita, Manila during which they purchased from
Benny Go guilty of violating Section 16, Article III in relation to Section 2 (e- him P1,500.00 worth of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu." 5 The
2), Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, 1 as amended, and sentencing him to police officers did not immediately arrest him, however. Instead, they applied
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of for a Search Warrant for appellant’s residence from the Regional Trial Court
P1,000,000.00.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary (RTC) of Pasay City 6 based on their firm belief that there was a large
quantity of illegal drugs in his house. 7
The Information filed against appellant charged as follows:chanrob1es virtual
On June 14, 1999, a raiding team composed of SPO1 Fernandez and SPO1 In the course of the search of the premises which took place from 6:00 to
Serqueña, together with PO2 Abulencia, PO3 Noel Adtu and PO2 Gerardo 11:00 in the evening, 16 Kagawad Lazaro and PO2 Abulencia recovered "one
Jimenez, 8 proceeded to appellant’s above-said residence armed with Search knot tied transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance" 17
Warrant No. 99-0038 9 issued by Br. 109 of the RTC of Pasay City from the drawer of a cabinet.
commanding them to "make an immediate search anytime of the day or night"
of appellant’s residence and to seize and take possession of Also seized from the residence of appellant were the following: (a) "one
"METAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu), weighing scale, other plastic bag containing yellowish substance" 18 found by SPO1 Serqueña; 19
drug paraphernalias and proceeds of the above crime."cralaw virtua1aw (b) a weighing scale discovered by SPO1 Fernandez; (c) assorted documents;
library (d) passports; (e) bank books; (f) checks; (g) a typewriter; (h) a check writer;
(i) several dry seals and (j) stamp pads; 20 (k) Chinese and Philippine
Soon after the police officers arrived at appellant’s residence at around 6:00 in currency; 21 (l) and appellant’s Toyota Corolla GLI 22 car (the car).
the evening, 10 they, to enable them to gain entry to the two-storey house,
"sideswept (sinagi) a little" appellant’s Toyota Corolla GLI car which was The plastic bag containing the white crystalline substance was marked by
parked outside. 11 Jack Go, appellant’s son and the only one present at the SPO1 Fernandez as "EGF-A-1," while the plastic bag with the yellowish
house at the time, thereupon opened the door of the house and the policemen substance was marked as "EGF-A-2." 23
at once introduced themselves, informed him that they had a warrant for the
search of the premises, and promptly handcuffed him to a chair. SPO1 With the exception of the car, all the seized items were brought to the dining
Fernandez, SPO1 Serqueña and PO2 Abulencia entered the house, while PO3 table on the ground floor of appellant’s house for inventory. 24
Adtu and PO2 Jimenez remained outside. 12
In the meantime, appellant’s wife Shi Xiu Ong and his friends Samson Go and
On instruction of SPO1 Fernandez, SPO1 Serqueña left to summon barangay Peter Co arrived one after the other at the house. 25 Appellant himself arrived
officials to witness the search. SPO1 Serqueña returned five minutes later with at 9:30 in the evening when the search was almost through. 26
Barangay Kagawads Gaspar Lazaro (Kagawad Lazaro) and Emmanuel
Manalo (Kagawad Manalo) who were advised by SPO1 Fernandez to be After the inventory had been taken, SPO1 Fernandez prepared a handwritten
witnesses to the search and to afterwards sign the inventory receipt and Inventory Receipt 27 and a document captioned "Affidavit of Orderly
affidavit of orderly search. Search," 28 the contents of which he read to appellant. On instruction of SPO1
Fernandez, Jack Go also explained the contents of the documents to appellant
As instructed, the two barangay kagawads proceeded to the upper floor of who then signed them as did kagawads Manalo and Lazaro and Jack Go as
appellant’s house with SPO1 Serqueña and PO2 Abulencia. 13 While SPO1 witnesses. 29
Fernandez, who remained downstairs in the sala, 14 instructed the handcuffed
Jack Go to witness the search, the latter refused since "there will be no more The police officers then brought appellant, his wife, son and friends, along
left in the sala of the house anyway there is a barangay official." 15 with the seized items, to Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila
for "verification" and investigation.
Kagawad Lazaro further claimed that the first entry on the first page of the
Appellant was detained while the others were eventually released. 30 The Inventory Receipt, whereon he and his co-witnesses affixed their signatures,
arresting officers jointly prepared an Affidavit of Arrest dated June 15, 1999 reading "Chinese Medicine" had been replaced with "undetermined quantity
31 which, among other things, contained an enumeration of the seized items of white crystalline granules;" 43 that what was recovered from the room of
identical to that in the handwritten Inventory Receipt. And SPO1 Fernandez Jack Go by PO2 Abulencia was Exhibit "B," the plastic bag containing the
prepared a Return of Search Warrant 99-0038 dated June 18, 1999 and a yellowish powder, and not Exhibit "A," the plastic bag containing the
referral paper — "1st Indorsement" 32 — with the same enumeration of suspected shabu; and that Exhibit "A" was not even among the items seized
seized items. and inventoried. 44

Also on June 15, 1999, SPO1 Serqueña brought the plastic bag containing the The defense, which adopted the testimony of Kagawad Lazaro, presented
white crystalline substance (Exhibit "A") and the plastic bag containing the appellant, his son Jack Go, and Kagawad Manalo whose version of the facts of
yellowish substance (Exhibit "B") to the PNP Crime Laboratory 33 together the case follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
with a request for laboratory examination. 34 Upon examination, Exhibit "A"
was found to contain 204 grams of white crystalline substance containing In November 1998, while appellant was walking along Gen. Luna Street, he
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. 35 Exhibit "B," on the was accosted by SPO1 Serqueña and another police officer who accused him
other hand, was found negative for any prohibited and/or regulated drug. 36 of manufacturing shabu and divested him of money amounting to more than
P5,000.00. He was later released as the policemen could not charge him with
Meanwhile, the seized documents, passports, dry seals and stamp pads were anything. 45
brought to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, 37 while the bank
books were forwarded to the corresponding banks for verification. 38 On July 14, 1999 at around 5:30 in the afternoon, Jack Go opened the door of
their house after hearing somebody shout that the car had been bumped. Five
The prosecution presented in evidence the Yamato weighing scale, 39 claimed armed policemen then entered the house, one of whom handcuffed him while
to have been recovered by SPO1 Fernandez from the top of appellant’s two went up to the upper floor of the house and searched for about thirty (30)
refrigerator, 40 although it was not among those listed in the handwritten minutes. 46
Inventory Receipt, Affidavit of Arrest or Return of the Search Warrant. 41
Also presented by the prosecution, as a hostile witness, to corroborate in part At past 6:00 p.m., as the two kagawads entered the house which was already
the foregoing facts was Kagawad Lazaro. He claimed, however, that the first in disarray, SPO1 Fernandez formed two groups to conduct the search at the
page of the handwritten Inventory Receipt submitted in evidence had been second floor: (1) that of PO2 Abulencia, with Kagawad Lazaro to serve as
substituted with another, asserting that he and the other witnesses affixed their witness, and (2) that of SPO1 Serqueña, with Kagawad Manalo to serve as
signatures on the left-hand margin of the first page of the handwritten witness. 47
Inventory Receipt which they were asked to sign whereas that submitted in
court did not bear their signatures. 42 PO2 Abulencia, together with Kagawad Lazaro, searched the room of Jack
Go. SPO1 Serqueña, accompanied by Kagawad Manalo, searched the study a transparent plastic envelope" as among those seized from the residence of
room where he seized documents, passports and assorted papers. appellant, does not bear the signatures of appellant, the kagawads and Jack
Go, hence, it is not the same first page of the handwritten Inventory Report on
SPO1 Serqueña and Kagawad Manalo then proceeded to the room of appellant which they affixed their signatures. 57 In fact the policemen did not leave a
followed by PO2 Abulencia and Kagawad Lazaro. From the room of copy of this Inventory Receipt with either appellant or the barangay
appellant, the policemen seized documents, passports, bankbooks and money. kagawads. 58
48
The policemen continued to search appellant’s residence until around 11:00
After the search, the policemen and barangay kagawads went down with three p.m. when they brought appellant, Jack Go, Shi Xiu Ong, Samson Go and
boxes containing passports, money and assorted Chinese medicine. 49 Peter Co, together with the seized items, to Bicutan. 59

When appellant’s wife arrived at around 7:30 p.m., 50 SPO1 Fernandez On the way to Bicutan, PO2 Abulencia, who boarded the same vehicle as
ordered her to open the safe ("kaha de yero") inside appellant’s room where appellant, told the latter that the policemen wanted P10,000,000.00 from him
the police officers seized money, passports, bankbooks, Chinese currency and or he would be charged with possession of illegal drugs. The amount
pieces of jewelry. 51 demanded was later reduced to P5,000,000.00, then to P2,000,000.00, and
finally to P500,000.00. Appellant refused, however, to heed the policemen’s
The seized items were placed on appellant’s table on the first floor of the demands since he did not commit any crime. 60
house where they were inventoried by SPO1 Fernandez 52 during which the
barangay kagawads did not see either Exhibit "A," the plastic bag containing Finding for the prosecution, the trial court rendered the appealed Decision on
the suspected shabu, or the weighing scale. 53 June 7, 2000, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library
After SPO1 Fernandez prepared a two-page Inventory Receipt and Affidavit
of Orderly Search, he asked Jack Go to sign the receipt. While Jack Go WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby ordered rendered finding the accused
initially refused, he eventually did sign both documents without having read Benny Go guilty of the offense charged in the information and sentencing him
them completely after he was hit by the policemen. The two barangay to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of One Million Pesos
kagawads also signed both pages of the Inventory Receipt as witnesses. 54 (P1,000,000.00)

When appellant arrived at around 8:30 p.m., he was handcuffed and likewise The subject shabu is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government and
made to sign the Inventory Receipt without having been able to read its the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to deliver and/or cause the delivery of
contents. 55 Jack Go was prevented from explaining its contents to him. 56 the said shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition, upon the
finality of this Decision.
The first page of the handwritten Inventory Receipt presented in court, which
includes an "undetermined quantity of white crystalline granules placed inside SO ORDERED. 61
His Motion for Reconsideration 62 of the decision having been denied by During the pendency of the appeal, appellant filed a verified Motion for
Order of July 24, 2000, 63 appellant lodged the present appeal. In his Brief, 64 Return of Personal Documents, Vehicle and Paraphernalia dated September
he assigns the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library 10, 2001 66 praying for the release of the following seized
properties:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
a. several pcs. transparent plastic envelopes
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCORDING THE POLICE OFFICERS
THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF b. one (1) unit Toyota Corolla GLI with PN UTT 658
DUTY IN IMPLEMENTING THE SEARCH WARRANT BASED ON
THEIR TESTIMONIES, THERE BEING CONVINCING PROOFS TO THE c. Cash amounting to Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Pesos
CONTRARY. (P52,760.00) in different denominations

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR d. Twenty-Five Thousand Chinese Yuan (CY25,000.00)

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT 204 GRAMS OF e. Sixty-Seven (67) pieces of Chinese passports
SHABU WAS RECOVERED FROM THE HOUSE OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT ON JUNE 14, 1999 BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF PO1 f. Twenty-Eight (28) pieces of assorted bankbooks
GERARDO ABULENCIA AND THE SUPPORTING INVENTORY
RECEIPT, BOTH OF WHICH WERE COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED g. Two Hundred Eighty Five (285) pieces of assorted checks
BY THE PROSECUTION WITNESS BARANGAY KAGAWAD GASPAR
LAZARO AS WELL AS BY DEFENSE WITNESSES. h. Fifty-Three (53) pcs. rubber stamp and related paraphernalia

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR i. One (1) piece "Underwood" typewriter with SN 9861952

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RENDERING JUDGMENT FINDING j. One (1) piece check writer
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF TWO
HUNDRED FOUR (204) GRAMS OF SHABU AS CHARGED IN THE k. Two (2) pieces of dry seal
INFORMATION AND SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER THE (sic)
PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA AND A FINE OF ONE MILLION m. Five (5) boxes of assorted documents
PESOS (P1,000,000.00), INSTEAD OF ACQUITTING ACCUSED-
APPELLANT FOR FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS n. Three (3) bags of assorted documents 67
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 65 (Emphasis supplied)
This Court is thus called upon to determine (1) whether appellant’s guilt has presumptions of regularity are to be invoked in aid of the process when an
been proven beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) whether the items enumerated officer undertakes to justify under it. 72 (Emphasis supplied; Citations
in appellant’s Motion for Return of Personal Documents, Vehicle and omitted)
Paraphernalia, which items are allegedly not among those particularly
described in Search Warrant No. 99-0038, should be returned to him. These Indeed, a strict interpretation of the constitutional, statutory and procedural
issues shall be resolved in seriatim. rules authorizing search and seizure is required, and strict compliance
therewith is demanded because:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Illegal Possession of 204 Grams of Shabu
. . . Of all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater importance or more
As appellant questions the legality of the search of his residence, the actions essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and
of the police officers, as agents of the State, must be carefully considered in that involves the exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the
light of appellant’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures inspection and scrutiny of others. While the power to search and seize is
guaranteed by Sections 2 and 3, Article III of the Constitution. 68 necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced
without transgressing the constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is a purely of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic
judicial question determinable from a consideration of the attendant principles of government. 73
circumstances including the purpose of the search, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the In arriving at the appealed decision, the trial court placed greater weight on
place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured. 69 the testimony of the police officers to whom it accorded the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duty, viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Since no presumption of regularity may be invoked by an officer to justify an
encroachment of rights secured by the Constitution, 70 courts must cautiously Coming to the first issue raised, the Court gives credence to the testimonies of
weigh the evidence before them. As early as in the 1937 case of People v. the police officers and accords them the presumption of regularity in the
Veloso, 71 this Court held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library performance of their duty. The Court has observed the demeanor of the
witnesses and finds the prosecution witnesses more credible than the defense
A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the witnesses. . . .
constitutional and statutory provisions under which it is issued. Otherwise, it
is void. The proceedings upon search warrants, it has rightly been held, must On the other hand, there is no showing that the police officers had ill motive
be absolutely legal, "for there is not a description of process known to law, the when they applied for and secured the Search Warrant, raided the house of the
execution of which is more distressing to the citizen. Perhaps there is none accused and arrested him. Accused is a Chinese national who appeared to
which excites such intense feeling in consequence of its humiliating and have no quarrel with the arresting police officers and thus the police officers
degrading effect." The warrant will always be construed strictly without, had no reason to fabricate or trump up charges against him. Hence, there
however, going the full length of requiring technical accuracy. No appears to be no reason the police officers should not be accorded the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty. As held by the By PO2 Abulencia’s own account, in order to enter the premises to be
Supreme Court," (L)aw enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed searched, the police officers deliberately side-swiped appellant’s car which
their official duty, in the absence of the evidence to the contrary. . . . We see was parked alongside the road, instead of following the regular "knock and
no valid obstacle to the application of the ruling in People v. Capulong, (160 announce" procedure as outlined in Section 7 (formerly Section 6), Rule 126
SCRA 533 {1988}) that credence is accorded to the testimonies of the of the Rules of Court. 78
prosecution witnesses who are law enforcers for it is presumed that they have
regularly performed their duty in the absence of convincing proof to the Q Mr. Witness, how did you enter the house of Benny Go?
contrary. The appellant has not shown that the prosecution witnesses were
motivated by any improper motive other than that of accomplishing their A It’s really heard (sic) to enter the house. Before the door, there was a still
mission." (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Said Sariol Y (sic) supporting the door and they will not allow us to enter because they don’t
Muhamading, Accused-appellant, 174 SCRA 238). 74 (Emphasis supplied) know us. Then, in order that we could enter the house, we side swept (sinagi)
a little the vehicle that was parked in front of their house. And their neighbor
At the same time, the trial court based its finding that the search of appellant’s knocked at the house of the subject and that’s the time that we were able to
residence was proper and valid on the so-called "Affidavit of Orderly enter. 79 (Emphasis supplied)
Search."cralaw virtua1aw library
Since the police officers had not yet notified the occupant of the residence of
On the second issue raised, the validity of the Search Warrant is clearly shown their intention and authority to conduct a search and absent a showing that
by the Affidavit of Orderly Search signed by the accused and his son Jack Go they had any reasonable cause to believe that prior notice of service of the
and his witnesses Salvador Manalo and Gaspar Lazaro. Such Affidavit of warrant would endanger its successful implementation, the deliberate
Orderly Search coupled with the testimonies of the police officers have clearly sideswiping of appellant’s car was unreasonable and unjustified.
established the propriety and validity of the search." 75 (Emphasis supplied)
Also by PO2 Abulencia’s own account, upon entry to appellant’s residence, he
The rule that a trial court’s findings are accorded the highest degree of respect, immediately handcuffed Jack Go to a chair. Justifying his action, PO2
it being in a position to observe the demeanor and manner of testifying of the Abulencia explained that not only was he unfamiliar with Jack Go and unsure
witnesses, 76 is not absolute and does not apply when a careful review of the of how the latter would react, but it was a standard operating
records and a meticulous evaluation of the evidence reveal vital facts and procedure:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
circumstances which the trial court overlooked or misapprehended and which
if taken into account would alter the result of the case. 77 Pros. Rebagay:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In the case at bar, an examination of the testimonies of the police officers Now, what happened on June 14, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. when you were armed
brings to light several irregularities in the manner by which the search of with the Search Warrant issued by Judge Lilia Lopez?
appellant’s residence was conducted.
A We entered inside the house of the subject and we were able to see crime," the policemen, by SPO1 Fernandez’s admission, seized numerous
(nadatnan naming) Jack Go, the son of Benny Go, sir. other items, which are clearly unrelated to illegal drugs or illegal drug
paraphernalia:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
x         x       x
Q In the presence of the barangay officials, what are those items which you
seized or your raiding team seized, if any?
Q And what was the reaction of Jack Go, if any?
A With the permission of the Honorable Court, Your Honor, can I take a look
A We introduced ourselves as police officers and we have a Search Warrant to at my notes.
conduct a search to the above subject place and also we handcuffed Jack Go to
the chair, sir. Court

Q Why did you do that, Mr. witness? Proceed.

A "Hindi naming kakilala iyong mga tao, sir kaya ganoon ang ginawa namin Witness
para hindi kami maano, eh hindi naming kabisado iyong ugali," sir.
Thank you very much.
Pros. Rebagay:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
A Seized or confiscated form the said residence are: (1) undetermined quantity
And is that an (sic) standard operating procedure Mr. witness, when you are of white crystalline granules placed inside the transparent plastic envelope, (2)
serving a search warrant? undetermined quantity of yellowish powder placed inside the transparent
plastic envelope; (3) several pieces of transparent plastic envelopes; (4) one
A Yes, sir. 80 (Emphasis supplied) unit Toyota Corolla GLI with Plate No. UPT-658; (5) P52,760.00 in different
denominations; (6) 25,000.00 Chinese Yuan; (7) 67 pieces of Chinese
There is no showing, however, of any action of provocation by Jack Go when passports; (8) 28 pieces of assorted bank book; (9) 285 pieces of assorted
the policemen entered appellant’s residence. Considering the degree of checks; (10) 53 pieces rubber stamps and related paraphernalia; (11) one piece
intimidation, alarm and fear produced in one suddenly confronted under Underwood typewriter with Serial No. 9861952; (12) one piece checkwriter;
similar circumstances, the forcible restraint of Jack Go all the more was (13) two pieces dry seals; (14) 5 boxes of assorted documents; (15) 3 bags of
unjustified as was his continued restraint even after Barangay Kagawads assorted documents; and I will add another one Your Honor, a weighing scale.
Lazaro and Manalo had arrived to justify his forcible restraint. 81

While Search Warrant No. 99-99-0038 authorized the immediate search of While an inventory of the seized items was prepared, also by SPO1
appellant’s residence to seize "METAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE Fernandez’s admission, it did not contain a detailed list of all the items seized,
(Shabu), weighing scale, other drug paraphernalias and proceeds of the above
particularly the voluminous documents:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library things seized. Going over the receipts (Annexes "B", "B-1", "B-2", "B-3" and
"B-4" of the Petition) issued, We found the following: one bordereau of
Q Why is it that you did not make a detailed inventory or receipt of the reinsurance, 8 fire registers, 1 marine register, four annual statements, folders
passports? Why did you not give any detailed receipt or inventory on the described only as Bundle gm-1 red folders; bundle 17-22 big carton folders;
passports. folders of various sizes, etc., without stating therein the nature and kind of
documents contained in the folders of which there were about a thousand of
A There were lots of documents during the time on the table, voluminous them that were seized. In the seizure of two carloads of documents and other
documents that I was not able to make a listing of the said passports. papers, the possibility that the respondents took away private papers of the
petitioner, in violation of his constitutional rights, is not remote, for the NBI
Q And it was only this October 8, 1999 or four months after that you made a agents virtually had a field day with the broad and unlimited search warrant
detailed receipt of those seized items, am I right? issued by respondent Judge as their passport. 84 (Emphasis and Italics
supplied)
A Yes, sir.
After the inventory had been prepared, PO2 Abulencia presented it to
x         x       x appellant for his signature 85 without any showing that appellant was
informed of his right not to sign such receipt and to the assistance of counsel.
Neither was he warned that the same could be used as evidence against him.
Q Is it your standard operating procedure that when there are voluminous Faced with similar circumstances, this Court in People v. Gesmundo 86
seized items you will not (sic) longer made (sic) an inventory report, am I stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
right?
It is true that the police were able to get an admission from the accused-
A It’s not an SOP. appellant that marijuana was found in her possession but said admission
embodied in a document entitled "PAGPATUNAY" previously prepared by
Q Why did you not make a detailed inventory or receipt? the police, is inadmissible in evidence against the accused-appellant for
having been obtained in violation of her rights as a person under custodial
A As I’ve said earlier, it’s voluminous. 82" (Emphasis supplied) investigation for the commission of an offense. The records show that the
accused-appellant was not informed of her right not to sign the document;
In Asian Surety And Insurance Co., Inc. v. Herrera, 83 this Court stressed the neither was she informed of her right to the assistance of counsel and the fact
necessity for a detailed receipt of the items seized in order to adequately that the document may be used as evidence against her." 87 (Emphasis
safeguard the constitutional rights of the person searched:chanrob1es virtual and Italics supplied, Citations omitted)
1aw library
In People v. Policarpio, 88 this Court held that such practice of inducing
Moreover, as contended by petitioner, respondents in like manner transgressed suspects to sign receipts for property allegedly confiscated from their
Section 10 of Rule 126 of the Rules for failure to give a detailed receipt of the
possession is unusual and violative of the constitutional right to remain silent, A I gave them a xerox copy. I remember I gave them a xerox copy.
viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Q Is there any proof that they received an inventory report?
What the records show is that appellant was informed of his constitutional
right to be silent and that he may refuse to give a statement which may be A Nothing, sir. 91
used against him, that is why he refused to give a written statement unless it is
made in the presence of his lawyer as shown by the paper he signed to this Moreover, an examination of Exhibit "Z," the Return of Search Warrant No.
effect. However, he was made to acknowledge that the six (6) small plastic 99-0038 submitted by SPO1 Fernandez to Br. 109 of the RTC of Pasay City
bags of dried marijuana leaves were confiscated from him by signing a receipt was not verified under oath, 92 as required by Section 12(a) (formerly Section
and to sign a receipt for the P20.00 bill as purchase price of the dried 12), Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. 93
marijuana leaves he sold to Pat. Mangila.
The delivery of the items seized to the court which issued the warrant together
Obviously the appellant was the victim of a clever ruse to make him sign these with a true and accurate inventory thereof, duly verified under oath, is
alleged receipts which in effect are extra-judicial confessions of the mandatory in order to preclude the substitution of said items by interested
commission of the offense. Indeed it is unusual for appellant to be made to parties. 94 Under Section 12 of Rule 126, 95 the judge which issued the
sign receipts for what were taken from him. It is the police officers who search warrant is mandated to ensure compliance with the requirements for (1)
confiscated the same who should have signed such receipts. No doubt this is a the issuance of a detailed receipt for the property received, (2) delivery of the
violation of the constitutional right of appellant to remain silent whereby he seized property to the court, together with (3) a verified true inventory of the
was made to admit the commission of the offense without informing him of items seized. Any violation of the foregoing constitutes contempt of court.
his right. Such a confession obtained in violation of the Constitution is
inadmissible in evidence. 89 (Emphasis supplied) Given the foregoing deviations from the normal and prescribed manner of
conducting a search, as disclosed by the members of the raiding team
The Inventory Receipt signed by appellant is thus not only inadmissible for themselves, the reliance by the trial court on the disputable presumption that
being violative of appellant’s custodial right to remain silent; it is also an the police officers regularly performed their official duty was evidently
indicium of the irregularity in the manner by which the raiding team misplaced.
conducted the search of appellant’s residence.
The "Affidavit of Orderly Search" is not of any help in indicating the
At the same time, it is unclear whether appellant was furnished a copy of the regularity of the search. Not having been executed under oath, it is not
Inventory Receipt as mandated by Sec. 11, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. 90 actually an affidavit, but a pre-prepared form which the raiding team brought
with them. It was filled up after the search by team leader SPO1 Fernandez
Q Now, while you were making an inventory of that, am I right, that you did who then instructed appellant to sign it as he did instruct Jack Go, Kagawad
not give a copy to Benny Go, am I right? Manalo and Kagawad Lazaro to sign as witnesses.
More importantly, since the "Affidavit of Orderly Search" purports to have except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his
been executed by appellant, the same cannot establish the propriety and family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and
validity of the search of his residence for he was admittedly not present when discretion residing in the same locality. (Emphasis supplied)
the search took place, he having arrived only when it was "almost
through."cralaw virtua1aw library As pointed out earlier, the members of the raiding team categorically admitted
that the search of the upper floor, which allegedly resulted in the recovery of
Q And while your officers and the barangay kagawad were searching the the plastic bag containing the shabu, did not take place in the presence of
house Mr. Benny Go is not yet present in that house, am I right? either the lawful occupant of the premises, i.e. appellant (who was out), or his
son Jack Go (who was handcuffed to a chair on the ground floor). Such a
A Yes, sir. procedure, whereby the witnesses prescribed by law are prevented from
actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises, violates both the
Q And you made to sign Benny Go in the inventory receipt when the search spirit and letter of the law:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
was already over, am I right?
Furthermore, the claim of the accused-appellant that the marijuana was
A He was already present when I was making the inventory. He arrived at planted is strengthened by the manner in which the search was conducted by
around 9:30. the police authorities. The accused-appellant was seated at the sala together
with Sgt. Yte when they heard someone in the kitchen uttered "ito na."
Q Yes, and the search was already finished, am I right? Apparently, the search of the accused-appellant’s house was conducted in
violation of Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which specifically
A Almost through. 96 provides that no search of a house, room or any other premise shall be made
except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his
In fine, since appellant did not witness the search of his residence, his alleged family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2) witnesses of
"Affidavit of Orderly Search," prepared without the aid of counsel and by the sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. This requirement is
very police officers who searched his residence and eventually arrested him, mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant.
provides no proof of the regularity and propriety of the search in question. Violation of said rule is in fact punishable under Article 130 of the Revised
Penal Code.
On the contrary, from the account of the police officers, their search of
appellant’s residence failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of As we have ruled in Eduardo Quintero v. The National Bureau of
Section 8 (formerly Section 7), Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, Investigation, Et. Al. a procedure, wherein members of a raiding party can
viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library roam around the raided premises unaccompanied by any witness, as the only
witnesses available as prescribed by law are made to witness a search
SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises, to be made in presence of two conducted by the other members of the raiding party in another part of the
witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made house, is violative of both the spirit and letter of the law. 97 (Emphasis
and Italics supplied) We thus entertain serious doubts that the shabu contained in a small canister
was actually seized or confiscated at the residence of Accused-Appellant. In
That the raiding party summoned two barangay kagawads to witness the consequence, the manner the police officers conducted the subsequent and
search at the second floor is of no moment. The Rules of Court clearly and much-delayed search is highly irregular. Upon barging into the residence of
explicitly establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses in whose presence the accused-appellant, the police officers found him lying down and they
search of the premises must be conducted. Thus, Section 8, Rule 126 provides immediately arrested and detained him in the living room while they searched
that the search should be witnessed by "two witnesses of sufficient age and the other parts of the house. Although they fetched two persons to witness the
discretion residing in the same locality" only in the absence of either the search, the witnesses were called in only after the policemen had already
lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family. Thus, the search entered accused-appellant’s residence (pp. 22–23, tsn, December 11, 1991),
of appellant’s residence clearly should have been witnessed by his son Jack and, therefore, the policemen had more than ample time to plant the shabu.
Go who was present at the time. The police officers were without discretion to Corollary to the Constitutional precept that, in all criminal prosecutions, the
substitute their choice of witnesses for those prescribed by the law. accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved (Sec. 14 (2),
Article III, Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines) is the rule that in
The claim of SPO1 Fernandez and PO2 Abulencia that Jack Go voluntarily order to convict an accused the circumstances of the case must exclude all and
waived his right to witness the search, allegedly because there would be no each and every hypothesis consistent with his innocence (People v. Tanchoco,
one left in the sala and anyway barangay officials were present, cannot be 76 Phil. 463 [1946]; People v. Constante, 12 SCRA 653 [1964]; People v.
accepted. To be valid, a waiver must be made voluntarily, knowingly and Jara, 144 SCRA 516 [1986]). The facts of the case do not rule out the
intelligently. 98 Futhermore, the presumption is always against the waiver of a hypothesis that accused-appellant is innocent. 103 (Emphasis supplied)
constitutionally protected right. 99
The raiding team’s departure from the procedure mandated by Section 8, Rule
While Jack Go was present from the time the raiding team entered the 126 of the Rules of Court, taken together with the numerous other
premises until after the search was completed, he was, however, handcuffed to irregularities attending the search of appellant’s residence, tainted the search
a chair in the sala. 100 All alone and confronted by five police officers who with the vice of unreasonableness, thus compelling this Court to apply the
had deprived him of his liberty, he cannot thus be considered to have exclusionary rule and declare the seized articles inadmissible in evidence. This
"voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently" waived his right to witness the must necessarily be so since it is this Court’s solemn duty to be ever watchful
search of the house. "Consent" given under such intimidating, coercive for the constitutional rights of the people, and against any stealthy
circumstances is no consent within the purview of the constitutional guaranty. encroachments thereon. 104 In the oft-quoted language of Judge Learned
101 Hand:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The search conducted by the police officers of appellant’s residence is As we understand it, the reason for the exclusion of evidence competent as
essentially no different from that in People v. Del Rosario 102 where this such, which has been unlawfully acquired, is that exclusion is the only
Court observed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library practical way of enforcing the constitutional privilege. In earlier times the
action of trespass against the offending official may have been protection
enough; but that is true no longer. Only in case the prosecution which itself Q Can you recall what was the first item included in that list which you signed
controls the seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong, will in the first page?
that wrong be repressed. 105 (Emphasis supplied)
A Chinese medicine, sir.
In all prosecutions for violation of The Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of
the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction since the Q Now, you also testified that you were with Officer Abulencia when you
dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime. 106 With the exclusion conducted the search inside the room of Jack Go, now, did you recover
of Exhibit "A," the plastic bag containing the shabu allegedly recovered from anything from the room of Jack Go?
appellant’s residence by the raiding team, the decision of the trial court must
necessarily be reversed and appellant acquitted. A PO2 Abulencia recovered one small plastic in the drawer of Jack Go and
Naphthalene balls, sir.
What is more, a thorough evaluation of the testimonies and evidence given
before the trial court fails to provide the moral certainty necessary to sustain x         x         x
the conviction of Appellant.

In particular, Barangay Kagawads Lazaro and Manalo, the two witnesses to Atty. Reyes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
the search chosen by the police officers in substitution of Jack Go, both
categorically testified under oath that no shabu was recovered from If that small plastic will be shown to you, will you be able to identify it?
appellant’s residence by the police. Thus, Kagawad Lazaro testified that the
plastic bag containing white crystalline granules, later found positive for A Yes, sir.
shabu, was not recovered from the room of Jack Go:chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library Atty. Reyes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Atty. Reyes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library I have here a plastic which contained yellowish powder. Could you go over
this and tell us if this was the one recovered from the room of Jack Go?
You were shown a while ago by the prosecution of (sic) an Inventory Receipt
allegedly prepared by Office Fernandez which includes the list of the items A This is the one, sir.
seized from the premises of Benny Go, now, you said that there’s no white
crystalline granules included in that list which you signed during the Q I have here another plastic containing white crystalline substance marked by
inventory? the prosecution as Exh. "A" Will you tell us if this is also recovered from the
room of Jack Go?
A Yes, sir.
A No, this was not recovered from the room of Jack Go, sir.
Q During the preparation of the inventory of the seized items, was this also when he was confronted with Exh. "B" which is the inventory receipt the said
included? witness denied that the first page of Exh. "B" was genuine on the fact that his
signature and likewise [that of] his co-colleague did not appear on the first
A I did not see that, sir. 107 (Emphasis supplied) page of the said inventory receipt, what can you say to that statement made by
Salvador Manalo?
Similarly, Kagawad Manalo testified that neither the plastic bag of shabu nor
the weighing scale was among the seized items inventoried by the raiding A Well, it has not been our practice to let the witness sign on the first page of
team:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library the 2-page inventory receipt and with regards to the said inventory receipt that
he signed on June 4, it is the same inventory receipt that I prepared, sir.
Q You said that you were present during the time when SPO1 Fernandez was
preparing the inventory of all the items taken from the premises of Benny Go, x         x         x
can you recall what are these items?

A Yes sir, assorted Chinese medicines, assorted documents, papers, passports, Q Likewise, Mr. witness, the said witness Salvador Manalo also denied that
stamp pad, bankbooks and checks and it was placed in five (5) boxes and three the shabu which is the subject of this case has never been recovered by them,
(3) ladies bag. what can you say to that?

Q What about a weighing scale? Is there a weighing scale, Mr. Witness? A Well, it’s a lie, sir.

A I did not see any weighing scale, sir. Q Why do you say that?

Q How about drugs or shabu contained in a plastic pack? A Because when the illegal drug was found by PO2 Abulencia, he was
accompanied by Gaspar Lazaro at that time. Then he called my attention and
A I did not see any also. 108 (Emphasis supplied) he also called the attention of SPO2 Serqueña as well as the attention of Mr.
Salvador Manalo. When I went upstairs, they were already inside the said
On rebuttal, SPO1 Fernandez alleged that the two barangay kagawads were room so the five of us saw the illegal drugs, sir.
lying when they claimed that no shabu was recovered from appellant’s
residence, and implied that they had been asked to falsify their testimonies in x         x         x
court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Pros. Rebagay:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Pros. Rebagay:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Mr. witness, when Salvador Manalo testified before this Honorable Court Mr. witness, when Salvador Manalo testified here on cross-examination, he
mentioned that after the search of the house of Benny Go, a certain
investigator, a policeman pretended that he is making a follow-up with respect
to the search made by you and your team, will you please tell us if A That was after June 23, sir.
immediately after the incident or after the investigation conducted by the City
Prosecutor’s Office when you had an occasion to meet Salvador Manalo after Q Where?
that?
A At his store in A. Linao Street, Paco, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q And what was your response after you heard that answer from Salvador
Q And what happened to that meeting with Salvador Manalo after the Manalo, if any, Mr. witness?
preliminary investigation?
Witness:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Witness:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
"Siyempre nagtaka ako, bakit ganoon ibig sabihin implied baka nagka-
Because during the preliminary investigation, we were surprised why our aregluhan na, iyan ang iniisip ko," sir 109 (Emphasis supplied)
witness has taken side, it is on the side of the accused Benny Go so I decided
to pay him a visit that day after that confrontation on June 23 and I asked him Regrettably, no further evidence, aside from the foregoing allegations and
what happened, "tinanong ko siya kung ano ang nangyari bakit mukhang suspicions of SPO1 Fernandez, was ever presented to substantiate the claim
nakampi na siya roon sa kabila." Ang sagot niya sa akin "ang sabi sa amin ni that the two kagawads had deliberately falsified their testimonies. On the
Atty. Galing kakausapin ka rin niya." That is the exact words. contrary, it appears that the police officers did not actively pursue their
complaint for obstruction of justice against the two kagawads with the
Atty. Reyes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Department of Justice. Moreover, to completely discount the testimonies of
kagawads Lazaro and Manalo would be tantamount to having no witnesses to
We will object to that for being hearsay. May we move that the latter portion the search of appellant’s residence at all except the police officers themselves,
be stricken off the record. a situation clearly contrary to the tenor and spirit of Section 8 of Rule 126.

Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library The prosecution’s attempt to introduce the weighing scale, supposedly seized
during the search, only casts more doubt on its case. Said weighing scale was
Let it remain conspicuously absent from the enumeration of seized items in the handwritten
Inventory Receipt, the Return of the Search Warrant and the Affidavit of
Pros. Rebagay:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Arrest prepared by the police officers. SPO1 Fernandez’s claim that the
omission was an honest mistake, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
And will you please tell us exactly when this incident occur (sic), Mr.
witness? Pros. Rebagay
Q Mr. Witness, a while ago you added another item which was not included in Q No, during the time that you signed this?
the inventory list and this was the weighing scale. Please tell us, why is it only
now that you are adding it to the list of those items that you seized? A No, sir.

A Well, with all honesty Your Honor, I cannot offer any alibi except to say Q You did not notice that?
that I committed an honest mistake when I did not include that weighing scale
in the inventory receipts. 110 A No, sir.

does not inspire credence. Neither does SPO1 Serqueña’s Q As well as the time when Officer Fernandez was preparing this Inventory,
explanation:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library you did not call his attention that there are some items missing in that
Inventory?
Q What was the search warrant all about? It commands you to search and
seize what items? A I did not call his attention. Honestly speaking . . . (unfinished)

A Regarding drugs, drug paraphernalias and proceeds of the crime, sir. x         x         x

Atty. Reyes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A Honestly speaking, we confiscated so many evidence including papers,
What else? boxes, voluminous quantity of evidence recovered and only one officer is
conducting the Inventory. We cannot conduct Inventory two at a time or three
A Weighing scale, sir. at a time, only one. Because maybe, you see, he’s only one. Maybe he did not
list it because of that so many evidence confiscated.
Q Weighing scale is included in the search warrant. So the warrant
specifically commands you to seize drugs, drug paraphernalias and weighing Atty. Reyes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
scale?
But the weighing scale is not a small item, is that correct? It’s a big item?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q And you read this Affidavit of Arrest before you signed this. Did you notice
that the weighing scale is not included here? Q Do you want to tell us that you missed that item?

A Yes, sir. Now I noticed. A I was not the one who missed it, sir.
Q How about your Affidavit of Arrest? more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty
of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The
A Officer Fernandez prepared that Affidavit, sir. Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection that innocent and the
guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities,
Q So you are not the one who prepared this? You merely signed it? however praiseworthy their intentions.

A I signed it in their presence, sir. 111 Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding
the right of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for
The foregoing explanations are improbable and far from persuasive. the loss of liberty. As Justice Holmes, again, said "I think it is less evil that
Considering that a weighing scale was among the items particularly described some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble
in Search Warrant No. 99-0038, it would be expected that the police officers part." It is simply not allowed in the free society to violate a law to enforce
would be actively searching for it and, if found, they would take care to another, especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself. 114
include it in the inventory and the return of the search warrant. But while
numerous seals, stamps, checks and documents not described in the search Return of Seized Property Not Described in the Search Warrant
warrant were seized and carefully inventoried by the raiding team, none of the
five police officers bothered to point out that the weighing scale had not been Turning now to the Motion for Return of Personal Documents, Vehicle and
included in the inventory. Paraphernalia, the general rule is that only the personal properties particularly
described in the search warrant may be seized by the authorities. Thus, in
The implausibility of the story put forward by the police officers leads to no Tambasen v. People, 115 this Court held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
other conclusion than that the weighing scale was introduced as an
afterthought in order to bolster the case against Appellant. Moreover, by their seizure of articles not described in the search warrant, the
police acted beyond the parameters of their authority under the search warrant.
With the persistence of nagging doubts surrounding the alleged discovery and Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires that a search warrant
seizure of the shabu, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to discharge should particularly describe the things to be seized. "The evident purpose and
its burden of proof and overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only
It is thus not only the accused’s right to be freed; it is, even more, this Court’s those, particularly described in the search warrant — to leave the officers of
constitutional duty to acquit him. 112 Apropos is the ruling in People v. the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end
Aminnudin, 113 viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made and that abuses may
not be committed" (Corro v. Lising, 137 SCRA 541, 547 [1985]; Bache & Co.
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug [Phil.], Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 [1971]; Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, 42 Phil.
addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against 886 [1920]). 116 (Emphasis supplied)
those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the
susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be There are, however, several well-recognized exceptions to the foregoing rule.
Thus, evidence obtained through a warrantless search and seizure may be it during the time that you . . . (unfinished)
admissible under the following circumstances: (1) search incident to a lawful
arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs A It was parked in front of the house of Benny Go.
laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; and (5) when the accused himself
waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 117 Q And you seized it?

To be valid, therefore, the seizure of the items enumerated in appellant’s A Yes, sir.
Motion for Return of Personal Documents, Vehicle and Paraphernalia must
fall within the ambit of Search Warrant No. 99-0038 or under any of the Q Why?
foregoing recognized exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
A Because during the surveillance operation we saw some known pusher
In this regard, the raiding team sought to justify the seizure of the car, the riding in that car?
Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Pesos (P52,760.00) in different
denominations, and the Twenty Five Thousand Chinese Yuan (C¥25,000.00) Q Who are these drug pushers?
as either "proceeds of the offense" or "means of committing an offense"
within the purview of the warrant. Thus PO2 Abulencia testified:chanrob1es A One of those guys is Mr. Peter Co, also a subject of our investigation.
virtual 1aw library
Q Which (sic) you released after the arrest, after he was invited for
Q And how about the money, Mr. witness? Why did you confiscate the investigation in your office on June 14, 1999?
money?
A Yes, sir. 119
A It’s considered as proceed of the crime, sir.
The foregoing rationalizations are unacceptable. Admittedly, neither the
Q How about the vehicle, Mr. witness? Why did you took (sic) custody of the money nor the car was particularly described in the search warrant. In seizing
vehicle when it was not listed in the search warrant? the said items then, the police officers were exercising their own discretion
and determining for themselves which items in appellant’s residence they
A This is part and parcel of the evidence, sir. Because it’s being used in believed were "proceeds of the crime" or "means of committing the offense."
transporting drugs, sir. 118 This is absolutely impermissible. It bears reiterating that the purpose of the
constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly
Similarly, with respect to the car, SPO1 Fernandez stated:chanrob1es virtual described in the warrant is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only
1aw library those, particularly described in the search warrant — to leave the officers of
the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize. A search
Q This vehicle, Toyota Corolla GLI with Plate No. PNU-TT-658, where was warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a
fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or
articles relating to a crime. 120 Q This Box "A" marked as Exhibit "G", in what part of the room did you
recover this?
At the same time, the raiding team characterized the seizure of the assorted
documents, passports, bankbooks, checks, check writer, typewriter, dry seals A We recovered all the evidence within our plain view, sir. The evidence were
and stamp pads as "seizure of evidence in plain view." 121 scattered in his house. I cannot remember whether Box "A" or Box "B", but
all the evidence were within our plain view that’s why we confiscated them,
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer sir.
who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure
and may be presented as evidence. 122 This Court had the opportunity to Q What do you mean by plain view?
summarize the rules governing plain view searches in the recent case of
People v. Doria, supra, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library A "Nakikita namin, sir. Yung kitang-kita namin."cralaw virtua1aw library

The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) Q Where in the premises of Benny Go did you see all these documents?
the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification
for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; A Ground floor and upstairs but mostly in the ground floor, on the table and
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is on the floor, sir.
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence
of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement Atty. Reyes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position
from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful This Box "A" marked as Exh. "G" contains what documents again?
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the
accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery A Can I see my notes, sir?
inadvertent. (Emphasis supplied; Citations omitted) 123
Atty. Reyes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Measured against the foregoing standards, it is readily apparent that the
seizure of the passports, bankbooks, checks, typewriter, check writer, dry seals Go ahead.
and stamp pads and other assorted documents does not fall within the "plain
view" exception. The assertions of the police officers that said objects were A Box "A" contains different bundle of pieces of document, NBI and BI
"inadvertently" seized within their "plain view" are mere legal conclusions clearances, Application of Chinese National, different papers, sir.
which are not supported by any clear narration of the factual circumstances
leading to their discovery. PO2 Abulencia could not even accurately describe Q Can you remember where in particular did you recover these documents?
how the raiding team came across these items:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
A I cannot remember, sir. Q So, you first saw the rubber stamps and the dry seals, is that correct?
Because they are atop the table?
Q All of these documents were recovered primarily on the ground floor and on
the second floor? A Yes, sir.

A Yes, sir. Q And then later on you also saw the documents?

Q Where in particular at the second floor, there are three to four rooms there? A Yes, sir it’s beside the table.

A "Sir, nandoon sa mesa lahat iyan eh don sa taas rin may mesa din doon at Q Contained in a box half opened?
saka doon naming nakuha ang ibang mga dokumento."cralaw virtua1aw
library A Yes, sir.

Q Is (sic) that room belongs (sic) to Jack Go? Q Which did you touch first, the rubber stamps, the dry seals or the
documents?
A I don’t know, sir, but all these (sic) evidence were recovered from the house
of Benny Go. 124 A I did not touch anything, I only inventoried that when the searching team
were through with what they are doing. Now, all the evidence were placed
SPO1 Fernandez’s account of how he came across the dry seals, rubber atop the dining table, located also at the sala of the house or at the dining area.
stamps and papers is just as opaque:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Then, that’s when I asked some of my co-members to place all those
document and the other confiscated items atop the table also. 125
Q For how long have you been inside the house of Benny Go when you
noticed these dry seals? The foregoing testimonies are clearly evasive and do not establish how the
police officers became aware of the seized items which were allegedly within
A I think more than an hour, I don’t exactly remember the time. their "plain view."cralaw virtua1aw library

Q But during the time you have not yet noticed the documents which you Finally, it appears from the testimony of SPO1 Fernandez that the supposed
brought to this Court, what call (sic) your attention was these dry seals first? illegal character of the items claimed to have been seized within the "plain
view" of the policemen was not readily and immediately apparent. Rather, the
A Well, actually the dry seals and the rubber stamps were all placed atop the suspicions of the policemen appear to have been aroused by the presence of
table and as well as the documents because the box where the documents were the numerous passports and immigration documents which they discovered in
placed are half opened. They are opened actually that’s why I saw them. the course of their search. After they confirmed that appellant was not
operating a travel agency, they concluded that his possession of said
documents and passports was illegal even though they could not identify the personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. 132
alleged law supposedly violated. 126
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
To be sure, the policemen also filed a complaint against appellant for alleged 41, convicting appellant Benny Go of violation of Section 16, Article III in
possession of instruments or implements intended for the commission of relation to Section 2 (e-2) Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, is
falsification under Paragraph 2 of Article 176 of the Revised Penal Code on REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
the basis of dry seals and rubber stamps also found in appellant’s residence.
127 Appellant Benny Go is ACQUITTED of the crime charged and is hereby
ordered immediately RELEASED from confinement, unless he is lawfully
However, the illegal character of said dry seals and stamp pads cannot be said held in custody for another cause.
to have been immediately apparent. For SPO1 Fernandez had to first make an
impression of the dry seal on paper before he could determine that it purported The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to forthwith
to be the seal of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. 128 The IMPLEMENT this Decision and to INFORM this Court, within ten (10) days
counterfeit nature of the seals and stamps was in fact not established until after from receipt hereof, of the date appellants was actually released from
they had been turned over to the Chinese embassy and Bureau of Immigration confinement.
and Deportation for verification. It is, therefore, incredible that SPO1
Fernandez could make such determination from a "plain view" of the items Appellant’s Motion For Return of Personal Documents, Vehicle and
from his vantage point in the sala. Paraphernalia is GRANTED IN PART, and the trial court is hereby ordered to
return to him those items seized from the subject premises which belong to
In sum, the circumstances attendant to the case at bar do not warrant the him as listed in said Motion.
application of the "plain view" doctrine to justify the seizure and retention of
the questioned seized items. The things belonging to appellant not specifically The subject shabu is ORDERED forfeited in favor of the State and the trial
mentioned in the warrants, like those not particularly described, must thus be court is hereby directed to deliver and/or cause its delivery to the Dangerous
ordered returned to him. 129 Drugs Board for proper disposition.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Be that as it may, considering that the two (2) dry seals and eight (8) of the The two (2) dry seals and eight (8) of the rubber stamps certified to be
rubber stamps have been certified to be counterfeit by the Bureau of counterfeit by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation are likewise
Immigration and Deportation, 130 they may not be returned and are hereby ORDERED forfeited in favor of the State for proper disposition.
declared confiscated in favor of the State to be disposed of according to law.
131 Moreover, the various bankbooks and passports not belonging to SO ORDERED.
appellant may not be ordered returned in the instant proceedings. The legality
of the seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been
impaired thereby, and the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely Re-enactment of the crime. Not being clear from the record that before the re-
enactment was staged by the accused, he had been informed of his
constitutional rights, and that he had validly waived such rights before Panfilo returned home and, with the help of some neighbors, launched a
proceeding with the demonstration, the Supreme Court declined to uphold the search party for the missing Rowena. The search ended in a grassy vacant lot
admissibility of evidence relating to the re-enactment [People v. Luvendino, within the Deva Village Subdivision, only about 70 to 80 meters from the
211 SCRA 36] Capcap residence, where lay the apparently lifeless body of Rowena, her pants
pulled down to her knees and her blouse rolled up to her breasts. Her
underwear was blood-stained and there were bloody fingerprint marks on her
neck. Rowena, her body still warm, was rushed to a hospital in Taguig, where
G.R. No. L-69971 July 3, 1992 on arrival she was pronounced dead.4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, An autopsy was conducted on the following day by the National Bureau of
vs. Investigation and the autopsy report disclosed the following:
ERNESTO LUVENDINO y COTAS, accused/appellant.
Cyanosis, lips and fingernail beds with pupils dilated and
  bloody froths coming out of nostrils.

FELICIANO, J.: Abrasions, 1.0 x 3.0 cm., area of the buttocks, left side; 1.5 x
3.0 cm., area of right elbow.
On the morning of 17 January 1983, 18-year old Rowena Capcap left her
home at Deva Village, Tambak, Taguig, Metro Manila to attend classes at the Contused-abrasions, 3.0 x 8.0 cm., area of the lateral aspect of
University of Manila where she was a sophomore commerce student. She the right chest; 4.0 x 5.0 cm., area of the antero-lateral aspect,
would usually be home by 7:30 to 8:00 on school evenings, 1 but on that tragic middle third, left arm.
day, she would not reach home alive. On that particular evening, her father
Panfilo Capcap arriving home from work at around 7:30 p.m., noted her Contusion, 7.0 x 13.0 cm., area of the anterior aspect of the
absence and was told by his wife and other children that Rowena was not yet neck from left to right in varying sizes and shapes.
home from school. Later, a younger brother of Rowena, sent on an errand,
arrived home carrying Rowena's bag which he had found dropped in the Interstitial hemorrhages among the muscles and soft tissues in
middle of a street in the village. 2 the anterior aspect of the neck with petechial hemorrhages
noted and severe congestion of the pharynx with subpleural,
Panfilo Capcap lost no time in seeking the help of the barangay captain of subpericardial puntiform hemorrhages.
Hagonoy, Taguig. Not being satisfied with the latter's promise to send for a
"tanod" to help locate his missing daughter, Panfilo went to the Taguig Police Fracture, laryngeal cartilage.
Station to report his daughter as missing. The desk officer there advised him
that a search party would be mounted presently. 3
 Lungs, presence of multiple petechial hemorrhages along the the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
surface of both lungs; cut sections showed severe congestion. accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping and aiding one another, by means of force and
Heart, covered with moderate amount of adipose tissues with intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
right chamber distended with dark fluid blood. feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Rowena Capcap y
Talana, against her will and consent; that by reason or on the
Brain and other visceral organs are congested. occasion thereof, the said accused in pursuance of their
conspiracy, with intent to kill and treachery and taking
Stomach, one-third filled with digested food materials. advantage of their superior strength, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit and
CAUSE OF DEATH: strangulate the said Rowena Capcap y Talana which directly
caused her death.
Asphyxia by manual strangulation (throttling).
Contrary to law. 7
REMARKS:
Warrants of arrest were issued against all the above accused but only accused-
Genital examination revealed the presence of an old healed appellant Ernesto Luvendino was actually apprehended; the other two (2) have
hymenal laceration at 6:00 o'clock position corresponding to remained at large. At arraignment, Luvendino assisted by his counsel, Atty.
the face of the watch, edges rounded, base retracted and non- Luisito Sardillo, pleaded not guilty and then proceeded to trial.
coaptable. Smears taken for presence of spermatozoa yield a
positive a positive result. 5 On 12 December 1984, the trial court rendered a decision finding Luvendino
guilty, sentencing him to death, requiring him to indemnify the heirs of the
The autopsy report also stated that the multiple injuries indicated the victim victim Rowena in the amount of P50,000.00 for the damages suffered as a
had struggled vigorously with her attacker(s); that the presence of result of her death.
spermatozoa showed that the victim had sexual intercourse prior to death; and
that death was due to asphyxia by mutual strangulation. 6 Appellant Luvendino contends that the trial court committed grievous error in
—
By 5 March 1984, an information had been filed in the trial court charging
Ernesto C. Luvendino, Cesar Borca alias "Cesar Putol" and Ricardo de I
Guzman alias "Ric" with the crime of rape with murder committed as follows:
. . . having required Atty. Luisito Sardillo to continue as
That on or about the 17th day of January, 1983, in the counsel of the accused-appellant notwithstanding his
Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within [Sardillo's] express mental reservations.
 II constitutional rights and that the re-enactment and the confession should be
held inadmissible in evidence because they had been involuntarily made.
. . . believing the insidious machinations of third persons and
witness Salvador B. Cemitara surrounding the alleged threats We turn first to the admissibility of the testimony (of Panfilo Capcap) relating
[against] Cemitara, including Exhibit "D." to the contents of the demonstration or re-enactment of the crime. The
decision of the trial court had the following to say about the re-enactment:
III
For sometime, the suspects had not been known. As a matter of
. . . admitting and giving credence to the evidence of re- fact, in the January 22 and 23, 1983 issues of TEMPO, a
enactment and admission of guilt, both of which were newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila, it was
uncounseled. reported that the group of men who waylaid her were still
unidentified, (Exhs. C & R). However, Panfilo Capcap stated
IV that at about midnight of February 10, 1983, he was awakened
by the police at their residence. They went to the vacant lot
. . . giving credence and weight to the identification of where they found dead body of Rowena. A police officer,
appellant Ernesto Luvendino by witness Cemitara. whom he later knew to be Sgt. Birxo, told him they had
arrested Ernesto Luvendino, alias "Joey". The accused was
V then demonstrating how they brought the girl to the vacant lot.
While Luvendino was re-enacting the events that transpired in
. . . finding appellant Luvendino guilty of rape with murder. 8 the evening of January 17, pictures were taken by a
photographer brought by the police officers. As the re-
The above assignments of error may be condensed to three (3), that is, enactment was going on, Capcap said he heard the accused
whether or not the trial court erred in: (1) not holding that his "demonstration" said that he and his companion boxed her in the stomach,
or re-enactment of the crime as well as his subsequent written admission of dragged her to the lot and raped her there. The accused
guilt as inadmissible for having been made without the benefit of counsel; (2) allegedly admitted he and Cesar Borca had strangled Rowena
according credence to the identification and other statements made by and he likewise admitted he had abused her. Capcap stressed
prosecution witness Cemitara; and (3) allowing Luvendino's counsel before that in the course of the demonstration Luvendino remarked:
the trial court to continue as such notwithstanding such counsel's express "Inaamin ko po na kasama ko si Cesar Borca sa pag re-rape
mental reservations. kay Rowena." Luvendino allegedly demonstrated how she was
boxed, dragged and abused and pointed to the place where they
Under his first assignment of error, appellant Luvendino contends that the had left her remains. Capcap drew a sketch of the scene (Exh.
"demonstration" or re-enactment and his extrajudicial confession were I). He also narrated that after the re-enactment, he and
effected and secured in the absence of a valid waiver by him of his Luvendino were taken to the Eastern Police District in Pasig
 and were investigated separately. He likewise testified that been informed of his constitutional rights including, specifically, his right to
sometime before the apprehension of Luvendino he was counsel and that he had waived such right before proceeding with the
informed by Ernesto Uy that a certain Bayani Cemitara had demonstration. Under these circumstances, we must decline to uphold the
seen Rowena with several men by the entrance of Deva Village admissibility of evidence relating to that re-enactment. 13
in the early evening of January 17, 1983.
We consider next the extrajudicial confession of appellant Luvendino.
xxx xxx xxx Luvendino claimed first of all that the extrajudicial confession had been
extracted from him by means of a beating administered by many policemen at
. . . . The records indicate that immediately after his the police station and that a chain had been wrapped around his neck. The trial
apprehension, the police officers brought him to the Deva court disposed of this claim in the following manner:
Subdivision where he demonstrated how the victim was boxed,
dragged and taken to the vacant lot where she was raped and In an extra-judicial confession, the confessant carries the
throttled to death. According to the evidence for the burden of convincing the court that his admissions are
prosecution, Luvendino in the re-enactment, had not only involuntary and untrue. (People v. Manabo, 18 SCRA 30). This
admitted his presence in the commission of the crime but had Luvendino had failed to do. He claimed he was given fist
likewise admitted he was with Borca in abusing Rowena. blows by many policemen and his neck was strangled with a
Significantly, the evidence for the prosecution in this regard chain when he refused to admit guilt at the Eastern Police
was not rebutted nor denied by the accused. District and then later given the "7-up treatment" in another
place. Although he said he sustained injuries, no proof was
xxx xxx xxx 9 submitted to that effect except his bare and uncorroborated
testimony. He admitted that his mother and Atty. [Eustacio]
(Emphasis supplied) Flores were present when he subscribed before the fiscal the
next day, but he did not say that he had told them about the
Clearly, the trial court took into account the testimony given by Panfilo torture employed on him. If it were really true that he was
Capcap on what had occurred during the re-enactment of the crime by abused in the manner he described it, tale-tell signs of the
Luvendino. We note that the re-enactment was apparently staged promptly maltreatment could have been visible the following morning
upon apprehension of Luvendino and even prior to his formal investigation at and would not escape the notice of his mother and his lawyer
the police station. 10 The decision of the trial court found that the accused was and appropriate steps could have been taken so that he may be
informed of his constitutional rights "before he was investigated by Sgt. examined by a competent physician. It is interesting to note
Galang in the police headquarters" and cited the "Salaysay" 11 of appellant that Atty. Flores made no mention of such injuries when he
Luvendino. 12 The decision itself, however, states that the re-enactment took was called as a defense witness. 14
place before Luvendino was brought to the police station. Thus, it is not clear
from the record that before the re-enactment was staged by Luvendino, he had
The trial court disbelieved and rejected Luvendino's claim that he have been confession in the presence of the Provincial Fiscal, his mother and Atty.
beaten into making his confession. Appellant has given us no basis for Eustacio Flores were also present. Said the trial court:
overturning this conclusion of fact. The presumption of the law is one of
spontaneity and voluntariness of an extrajudicial confession of an accused in a But even as he had waived the right to counsel while
criminal case, for no person of normal mind would deliberately and interrogated by Sgt. Galang, the accused was nevertheless
knowingly confess to being the perpetrator of a crime, especially a heinous assisted by one before he signed the "Salaysay", Exhibit "L".
crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience. 15 Thus the Court has ruled From the narration of the accused himself it can be gathered
that where the confessant failed to present any evidence of compulsion or that the was brought to the Fiscal's Office in Pasig in the
duress or violence on his person for purposes of extracting a confession; morning of February 10, 1983. At that office, he was at first
where he failed to complain to the officers who administered the oaths, such aided by a lawyer from the CLAO. He did not sign the
as the Fiscal in this case; where he did not institute any criminal or statement for he wanted to talk to his mother. He was returned
administrative action against his alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where to the police station where his mother saw him in the
he did not have himself examined by a reputable physician to buttress his afternoon. In the headquarters, they requested that they be
claim of maltreatment; and where the assailed confession is replete with allowed to engage a lawyer of their choice and their request
details which could not have been known to the police officers if they merely was granted. The mother called for Atty. Flores who
concocted the confession, since the statements were inculpatory in character, arrived when the accused was already back in the Office of the
the extrajudicial confession may be admitted, the above circumstances being Fiscal. In the presence of Atty. Flores and his mother, the
considered as factors indicating voluntariness. 16 accused was investigated by the fiscal after which, also in the
presence of his mother and assisted by Atty. Flores, the
Luvendino next claimed that he had not been informed of his constitutional accused signed Exhibit "L". 19 (Emphasis supplied)
rights before his confession was given by him or extracted from him. In the
first place, Police Sgt. Galang testified as prosecution witness that he had Although Atty. Eustacio Flores, a former Mayor of Pateros, did not serve as
indeed informed Luvendino of the latter's constitutional rights before he defense counsel during the trial, it is clear that Luvendino and his mother
commenced investigating Luvendino at the police headquarters. 17 In the regarded Atty. Flores as Luvendino's counsel at least in respect of that specific
second place, the written extrajudicial confession itself stated that Luvendino occasion in the Fiscal's office, and that Atty. Flores did so act as counsel of
was informed of his constitutional rights and that he was waiving those Luvendino.
rights. 18 In the third place, according to Luvendino himself, he first signed his
extrajudicial statement, which also set out a separately signed waiver of his It is, however, claimed by appellant Luvendino that at the time he had first
rights, at the police department and that later, when he was brought to the signed his extrajudicial confession at the police headquarters, he was without
office of Provincial Fiscal Mateo, he subscribed to or signed once more the counsel. Luvendino thus apparently seeks to distinguish the initial signing of
same document, this time under oath. As already noted from the trial court's his "Salaysay" (Exhibit "L") at the police headquarters from his subsequent
decision, when Luvendino subscribed under oath to his extrajudicial subscribing thereto under oath in the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal.
There is no question that on the latter occasion, Luvendino was questioned by
the Fiscal in the presence of his mother while Luvendino was assisted by Atty. presented as a witness by the prosecution — the above statements were
Eustacio Flores. clearly appropriate. In the case at bar, Police Sgt. Galang who had
interrogated Luvendino at the police station was, as already pointed
In People v. Burgos,  20 the Court did make the following general statements: out, presented as a witness by the prosecution and had testified in
extenso, that Luvendino had been informed by him (Police Sgt.
The trial court validly rejected the extra-judicial confession of Galang) of his constitutional rights, that Luvendino had waived his
the accused as inadmissible in evidence. The court stated that rights voluntarily and intelligently, being convinced that he did not
the appellant's having been exhaustively subjected to physical need the assistance of a lawyer and could, by himself, clarify what had
terror, violence, and third degree measures may not have been taken place. Moreover, Luvendino in the Office of the Provincial
supported by reliable evidence but the failure to present the Fiscal in Pasig, had initially been assisted by a Citizens Legal Aid
investigator who conducted the investigation gives rise to the Office (CLAO) lawyer. But he at that time nonetheless declined to
"provocative presumption" that indeed torture and physical swear to Exhibit "L" and later, together with his mother, insisted that
violence may have been committed as stated. he be allowed to retain a lawyer of their own choice, which requests
was honored. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the trial court
The accused-appellant was not accorded his constitutional right in the instant case did not accord any credence to Luvendino's claim
to be assisted by counsel during the custodial that he had been physically beaten up by the police officers at the
interrogation. The lower court correctly pointed out that the Taguig police station. In the afternoon of the same day, Luvendino had
securing of counsel, Atty. Anyog, to help the accused when he every opportunity in the presence of his mother and his own chosen
subscribed under oath to his statement at the Fiscal's Office counsel, Atty. Eustacio Flores, to denounce to the Provincial Fiscal at
was too late. It could have no palliative effect. It cannot cure the latter's office any maltreatment that the police officers might have
the absence of counsel at the time of the custodial investigation earlier in the day administered to him, to abjure the extrajudicial
when the extrajudicial statement was being taken. 21 (Emphasis confession or the waiver of his right to counsel there incorporated as
supplied) non-voluntary of non-intelligent and to refuse to sign once more under
oath his "Salaysay". He did not do so; Atty. Flores did not do so either
The above statements in Burgos were not, however, intended to then and there or when he testified as a defense witness. Their failure
establish a rigid and automatic rule that the subsequent presence of and to do so deprives his contention before this Court of any real force.
assistance by counsel of the accused prior to and during the Luvendino may be deemed to have in effect ratified, before the Fiscal
subscribing under oath of an extrajudicial confession and an and with the aid of counsel, the extrajudicial confession and waiver of
accompanying waiver of right to counsel, cannot have any legal effect the right to counsel which he had earlier signed without the presence
at all. For one thing, under the factual circumstances of People v. of counsel in the police station.
Burgos — where the trial court believed the statements of the accused
that he had been "exhaustively subjected to physical terror, violence But even if appellant Luvendino's contention were to be accepted at face value
and third degree measures" and where the investigating officer was not (and we do not so accept it), the same result must be reached. The doctrine
that an uncounseled waiver of the right to counsel is not to be given legal In People v. Nabaluna, 24 the Court upheld the validity of the waiver of the
effect was initially a judge-made one and was first announced on 26 April right to counsel which had been made on 5 December 1977, that is, prior to 26
1983 in Morales v. Enrile 22 and reiterated on 20 March 1985 in People v. April 1983, which waiver had been made without the assistance of counsel,
Galit. 23 In Morales, the Court explained that Section 20, Article IV of the for the reason that at the time such waiver was made, there was no rule or
1973 Constitution required that: doctrine or guideline requiring the waiver of the right to counsel should itself
be made only in the presence and with the assistance of counsel. The trial
7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the court admitted in evidence the extrajudicial statements made by appellant
arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and Nabaluna and found the accused guilty of robbery with homicide in a decision
he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be rendered on 26 September 1981. In affirming the decision of the trial court,
informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to the Court said:
counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used
against him. The person arrested shall have the right to The court in mindful of the strictures and pronouncements
communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he choses found in the case of Morales v. Ponce Enrile, G.R. Nos. 61106
by the most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or and 61107, promulgated on April 26, 1983, 121 SCRA 538,
by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the quoted and reiterated in the case of People v. Galit, L-51770,
arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No March 20, 1985 and in the case of People v. Pascual, 109
custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the SCRA 197, promulgated on November 12, 1981, particularly
presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any as to the requisite steps before a person under custodial
person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition investigation may be deemed to have properly waived his right
either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The to counsel, such as a counsel being present to assist him when
right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be the accused manifests such waiver. However, the stated
valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any requirements were laid down in the said cases, to serve as
statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid governing guidelines, only after the judgment in this case had
down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in already been rendered by the trial court. Consequently, no error
part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. (Emphasis supplied). should attach to the admission by the trial court of the extra-
judicial statements given by the accused as evidence in this
While the Morales-Galit doctrine eventually became part of Section 12(1) of case. The trial court was then sufficiently convinced that the
the 1987 Constitution, that doctrine affords no comfort to appellant Luvendino accused had waived assistance of counsel and there was at that
for the requirements and restrictions outlined in Morales and Galit have no time no pronounced guidelines requiring that the waiver of
retroactive effect and do not reach waivers made prior to 26 April 1983, the counsel by accused can be properly made only with the
date of promulgation of Morales. presence and assistance of a counsel. . . . . 25 (Emphasis
supplied)
It may be recalled that even before Nabaluna, the Court had already against Luvendino, nor any evidence of any ill motive weighty enough to have
determined that Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, was to be moved Cemitara falsely to testify for the prosecution. Indeed, there was
given prospective effect only. In Magtoto v. Manguera, 26 the Court sustained nothing to show that Cemitara was in the least bit acquainted with appellant
the admission in evidence of an extrajudicial confession which had Luvendino before the events which culminated in the slaying of Rowena
incorporated an uncounseled waiver by the confessant of his constitutional Capcap.
rights during custodial investigation established in Section 20, Article IV of
the 1973 Constitution, upon the ground that such confession and waiver had Luvendino asserts, as his third principal assignments of error, that he had been
been executed before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. 27 The decision deprived of due process because he was represented, or continued to be
in Magtoto v. Manguera was not unanimous, but the majority decision has represented, by a lawyer who had manifested mental reservations. Neither
been reiterated many times 28 and it is much too late in the day to consider Luvendino nor his counsel — Atty. Sardillo — had indicated what precisely
re-examining the doctrine there laid down. the latter's mental reservations were. We assume that those mental
reservations consisted of private doubts as to the innocence of Luvendino of
Applying Nabaluna to the case at bar, we believe and so hold that appellant the crime with which he was charged. Atty. Sardillo was Luvendino's choice
Luvendino validly waived his right to counsel so far as his extrajudicial as defense counsel. Atty. Sardillo had appeared in at least two (2) previous
confession was concerned, although he was not assisted by counsel when he hearings and had cross-examined prosecution witness Cemitara before he
initially signed his confession at the police headquarters (disregarding for (Sardillo) offered in open court to withdraw as defense counsel on 14
present purposes only, the subsequent events in the office of the Provincial November 1983. The trial court could scarcely be faulted for declining Atty.
Fiscal). At the time the extrajudicial confession and waiver were first executed Sardillo's offer to withdraw, considering that such offer had been made
(i.e., 10 February 1983), there was no rule of doctrine prescribing that waiver without the conformity or permission of Luvendino. Atty. Sardillo himself did
of the right to counsel may be validly made only with the assistance of not insist on withdrawing as defense counsel. If appellant Luvendino in truth
counsel. It is scarcely necessary to add that we are here referring only to had entertained substantial doubts as to the sincerity or capability or
extrajudicial confessions and waivers which were made voluntarily and impartiality of his lawyer, he could have easily terminated the services of that
intelligently. counsel and retained a new one or sought from the trial court the appointment
of counsel de officio. Instead, Luvendino continued to retain the services of
Coming now to the second error assigned by appellant Luvendino — that the Atty. Sardillo until the trial court rendered its decision. In any event, an
trial court had erred grieviously in believing the testimony of prosecution examination of the record will show that Atty. Sardillo continued to represent
witness Cemitara — the Court finds no reason to depart from the well-settled appellant Luvendino as defense counsel with reasonable competence.
rule that the assessments by a trial court of the credibility and sincerity of the
witnesses who testified before it, are to be accorded great respect by appellate We would note, finally, that doubts on the part of a lawyer as to the ultimate
courts. The trial court gave full faith and credence to the testimony of innocence of a client accused of a serious felony do not, in themselves,
prosecution witness Salvador Cemitara in view of the straightforward constitute bases for claiming miscarriage of justice or failure of due process or
character of his testimony. We need only to note that appellant Luvendino assailing the professional work done by the lawyer. Of course, complete
presented no evidence to show any personal grudge on the part of Cemitara confidence in the innocence of one's client may lend added sincerity and even
passion to the lawyer's pleading and argumentation. It is, however, precisely WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 54537 is
one of the demanding requirements of the legal profession that the lawyer hereby MODIFIED by changing the enforceable penalty from death
must present all the defenses and arguments allowed by the law to a person to reclusion perpetua and by requiring appellant Ernesto C. Luvendino to pay
accused of crime, without regard to the lawyer's private beliefs or suspicions the heirs of Rowena Capcap the amount of P4,500.00 as actual damages and
as to his client's guilt. P30,000.00 as moral damages, in addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000.00
awarded by the trial court. In all other respects, the decision of the trial court
Appellant Luvendino's principal defense on the merits was that of alibi. It is is AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellant.
too well-settled to require documentation that, for the defense of alibi to
prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else during SO ORDERED.
the approximate time of the commission of the crime; he must further prove
that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado,
crime during its commission. Luvendino testified that on or about that time the Davide, Jr., Nocon, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
rape with homicide was committed, he was at his house in Pateros,
recuperating from a wound allegedly sustained from a beating inflicted upon Narvasa, C.J., concurs in the result.
him by one Romy Boy. Except for his own uncorroborated testimony,
however, Luvendino failed to present any evidence showing that he was  
medically incapacitated to be at the scene of the crime during its commission.
He filed no complaint against his alleged assailant "Romy Boy." Besides,  
Pateros and Taguig are neighboring municipalities which public transport
readily and quickly available between the two (2) locales; there was simply no  
showing that Luvendino could not have been in Taguig during the time the
crime was committed. Separate Opinions

Finally, in respect of the civil liability aspects of the crime, the Court  
considers that the amount of P4,500.00 representing funeral expenses actually
incurred by the family of Rowena Capcap, should be awarded to them as ROMERO, J.: concurring:
actual damages.29 Further, given the circumstances obtaining in the instant
case, especially the ruthless and mindless slaying of Rowena after she had What is writ large in the ponencia is the ambiguity of the validity of the
been raped, the Court believes that the amount of P30,000.00 should be waiver of the right to counsel made by an accused who is unassisted by
awarded to Rowena's heirs as moral damages, over and above the civil counsel in a written and signed extrajudicial confession. Unable to support his
indemnity of P50,000.00 which was awarded by the trial court. position with a specific legal provision on the matter, the ponente has had to
fall back on cases where the facts are not exactly on all fours with the case at
bar. The strictures and guidelines laid down in the Morales v.
Enrile and People v. Galit cases for uncounseled waivers to be valid hardly same at the Office of the Provincial Fiscal in Pasig with the aid of counsel and
afforded protection for appellant Luvendino, for the doctrines embodied in the presence of his mother.
therein could not be applied retroactively.
CRUZ, J.:  concurring and dissenting:
However, time seems to be on the side of appellant Luvendino now. Republic
Act No. 7438 approved on April 27, 1992 which defines "certain rights of I agree with the ponencia except only where it adopts the excerpt from People
persons arrested, detained or under custodial investigation as well as the duties v. Nabaluna making the doctrine announced in Morales v. Enrile effective
of the arresting, detaining and investigating officers" provides explicitly in only on April 26, 1983, the date of its promulgation. I concurred only in the
Sec. 2 (d): result of Nabaluna precisely because I could not agree with that observation,
which was merely obiter dictum. The ratio decidendi of the case consisted of
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, the telling testimonial evidence against the accused, not the challenged extra-
detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and judicial confession. I had (and still have) misgivings about the quoted portion
signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the because I believed (and still do) that the right to counsel and the limitations on
latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any its waiver existed even before Morales and indeed even before  Magtoto v.
of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the Manguera, 63 SCRA 5. That case held that the right to counsel began only
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school when the 1973 Constitution became effective. Three strong dissents were filed
supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; by Castro, Fernando, and Teehankee, JJ., who all became Chief Justice. I
otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible particularly agreed with Justice Fred Ruiz Castro who pointed out that the
as evidence in any proceedings. right to counsel was even then, and even before, already available under Art.
125 of the Revised Penal Code. He complained against the majority ruling in
Can the aforecited provision with its much broader protection for persons who these stirring words:
execute extrajudicial confessions while under arrest, detained or under
custodial investigation, be invoked by appellant so as to render his confession I regard as intolerable in a civilized nation, which proclaims
which was not signed in the presence of counsel or any of the persons equal justice under law as one of its ideals, that any man should
enumerated therein invalid? be handicapped when he confronts police agencies because of
the happenstance that he is poor, underprivileged, unschooled
Although at first blush, it would seem that said provision may be applied or uninformed. The majority interpretation does violence to the
retroactively by way of exception to the general rule that laws should only be democratic tradition of affording the amplest protection to the
applied prospectively as it is clearly beneficial to the accused, appellant's individual — any and every individual — against the tyranny
conviction, however, stands. Although he was not assisted by counsel when he of any governmental agency. It should be unthinkable that an
signed his confession with the waiver of his right to counsel at the police innocent man may be condemned to penal servitude or even
headquarters, it may be deemed to have been ratified when he repeated the sent to his death because he is not blessed with familiarity with
the intricacies of the law.
The present ponencia says that the Magtoto decision "has been reiterated The following day, 8 May 1984, the following police report was entered as
many times and it is much too late in the day to consider re-examining the Entry No. 3904 in the police blotter of the Malay Police Sub-station, Malay,
doctrine laid down." I regret I have to disagree. It is never too late to re- Aklan:
examine any decision of this Court and amend or even reverse it whenever
warranted regardless of the number of times it has been reiterated. Rectifying That on or about 0700H 8 May 1984, Pat. Padilla RR reported
error is better than persisting in it. (to) this sub-station with the living body of one Beny Dy, with
caliber .38 Danao made, as suspect to the shooting incident at
  Sitio Angol, Manoc-Manoc Malay, Aklan, which cause(d) the
untimely death of one Christian Langel Philippe, tourist, 24
Res gestae. The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to the years old and a Swiss nationale. Pat. Salibio rushed to the
police desk officer after the crime was committed may be given in evidence hospital at Caticlan to obtain antemortem but the victim died at
against him by the police officer to whom the admission was made, as part of about 0600H in the morning. Suspect Benny Dy voluntarily
the res gestae [People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111] surrendered to the sub-station commander with his caliber 38
with serial number 33169 Smith and Wesson (US), [Exhibit
G.R. No. 74517 February 23, 1988 "G"].

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Acting on the report, Chief of Police Tambong, also on 8 May 1984, prepared
vs. a Complaint (Exhibits "H" and 'H-l") charging the Accused, Benny Dy, the
BENNY DY, accused-appellant. owner of "Benny's Bar," situated on the Island, with the crime of Murder With
the Use of Unlicensed firearms (Ibid., p. 2, Original Record). The Complaint
was subscribed and sworn to before Judge Jaime R. Tonel of the 5th
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga, Aklan, on 17 May 1984 (Exhibit
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: "H-2") and docketed as Criminal Case No. 1776 of that Court on the same day
(Exhibit "H-3", Order, p. 4, Original Record).
At around midnight of 7 May 1984, death cast its shadow over Boracay
Island, an internationally known tourist spot famous for its powdery white The witnesses listed in that Complaint, namely, Bernadette Langel of
sand beach.The Island is accessible by an from Kalibo, Aklan, after a one-and- Chatelaine Geneve, Switzerland, who is the victim's sister, and Ian Mulvey, of
a-half hour trip. It can also be reached in twenty (20) minutes by pumpboat Essex, England, executed separate Sworn Statements giving their respective
from Barangay Caticlan, the loading point for tourists going to the Island. versions of the incident (Exhibits "H-4" and 'H-7"). They did not take the
Caticlan has a small airfield which can service small planes. Felled by a stand, however, for fear of reprisal" so that said Statements were correctly
gunshot wound on the neck, which caused his death approximately, six (6) considered by the Trial Court as hearsay. On 17 May 1984, Judge Tonel
hours later, was Christian Langel y Philippe, a Swiss tourist who was issued the following:
vacationing on the Island together with his sister and some friends.
 ORDER Hence, this appeal. The last Brief before this Court was filed on 26 February
1987 and the case was deliberated upon on 25 January 1988.
Having conducted the preliminary examination of this case,
this Court finds probable cause that the crime as charged has Testifying for the prosecution in the Court below, one Wilson TUMAOB, a
been committed and that the accused may be responsible resident in the area, and a fisherman by occupation, gave his account of the
thereof. incident as follows:

WHEREFORE, let the records of this case be registered in the At around 12:00 midnight while inside the bar, he saw the
docket. No warrant of arrest is issued for the apprehension of accused Benny Dy shoot a white person, (meaning a European)
the accused for the reason that he is already under police who was hit on the right side of the neck Tsn. Nov. 12, 1984,
custody before the filing of the complaint. For the provisional pp. 78, 80). He recognized the accused as the one who shot the
liberty of the accused, bail is hereby fixed in the amount of white person because of the light coming from the petromax
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). (p. 4, Original Record) lamp which was in front of him and he was just one-and-one-
half meters from the accused and about the same distance from
The Accused posted the required bail on 13 June 1984, which was approved the victim (Tsn. Nov. 12, 1984, p. 81). When he saw the
by Judge Tonel on the same day. On 12 July 1984 the records of the case were accused shoot the victim, he did not hear any conversation
forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, Kalibo, Aklan, "for further between them (Tsn. Nov. 14, 1984, pp. 81, 82). At that precise
proceedings" (Order, p. 10, Original Record) time, there were many people of different nationalities coming
in and out of the bar. He did not know anyone of them except
On 27 July 1984 the Provincial Fiscal filed the Information before the the accused Benny Dy (Tsn. Nov. 14, 1984, p. 108). Neither
Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, charging the Accused with Murder. did he know the helpers in the bar, nor see anyone of these
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2001 in that Court. customers to be residents of, or friends of his from, barrio
Balusbos, Malay, where he resides.
After trial, the lower Court rendered judgment * on 9 December 1985 with the
following decretal portion: In the courtroom during the trial, the witness Wilson Tumaob
demonstrated how the a shot the victim.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the
accused BENNY DY y LIM guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Q. When you said you saw Benny Dy shoot the
the crime of MURDER and sentencing him to suffer the victim, can you demonstrate to the Court how he
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the did it?
heirs, for the death of the victim, in the sum of P30,000.00;
actual damages of P33,243.10; moral damages of P30,000.00; A (As demonstrated, the victim and the accused
exemplary damages of P30,000.00; and to pay the costs. were sitting and facing then immediately the
 accused stood up and shot the victim. (Tsn. Nov. A At home after coming from the radio station,
14, 1984, pp. 117, 118). Benny Dy came to me and inquired if the Office
of the Chief of Police was opened?
Wilson Tumaob testified that the accused was about one meter
from the victim when the accused shot the latter. The table Q And what did you answer him when the
where he was sitting was parallel to the table where the victim accused asked you that?
was sitting. He was looking at the accused and the victim when
he saw the accused shoot the victim, and the chair occupied by A I answered him that the Office of the Chief of
him and the chair occupied by the victim were at the same side. Police is opened for twenty four hours.
(Tsn Nov. 14, 1984, pp. 119-120). After shooting the victim,
the accused remained at the place where the accused was Q Did you ask Benny Dy why he asked you if
standing (Tsn. Nov. 14, 1984, p. 118). the Office of the Chief of Police was opened?

The victim was carried by the victim's companions to the shore A I inquired him why, then he answered me that
and they loaded him on a pumpboat which was anchored about he had shot a tourist." (P. 6, t.s.n., October
fifty meters from the bar. Wilson Tumaob helped in carrying 17,1984).
the victim to the pumpboat to be brought to the hospital in
Caticlan (Tsn. Nov. 12, 1984, pp. 82, 83). After the incident the xxx xxx xxx
eye-witness (Wilson Tumaob) went home and slept at around
1:30 in the morning of May 8,1984. (pp. 4-5, Annex '1', ATTY. RESURRECCION:
Appellant's Brief).
Q When Benny Dy answered you that he shot a
Additional prosecution evidence is to the effect that in the early morning after tourist, what did you do?
the incident, the Accused confessed orally to Pat. Rodolfo Padilla, the
operator of the radio station on the Island, and voluntarily surrendered the gun A I inquired him further if the tourist was dead
he had used in shooting the victim. Pat. Padilla's testimony reads in part: but he answered me that the victim was brought
to the hospital.
ATTY. RESURRECCION:
Q What did you do as police officer when
Q Sometime on May 8,1984, can you tell the Benny Dy told you that he shot a tourist? A He
Honorable Court if you have met the accused asked me to accompany him to the Office of the
Benny Dy? Chief of Police and I further asked him the gun
he used in shooting the victim and he answered Manuel Casimiro who gave or surrendered the
that it was still in his house. gun to you?

Q When Benny Dy told you that the gun he used ATTY. MARIN:
in shooting the tourist was in his house, what
did you do? Benny Dy voluntarily gave the gun to him and
Pat. Casimiro.
A I advised him to get that gun and give it to me
to be deposited in the Office of the Chief of COURT TO THE WITNESS:
Police.
Q Where did Benny Dy give to you and Pat.
Q Were you able to get that gun from the house Manuel Casimiro the gun that is surrendered to
of Benny Dy A Yes, sir. Q Were you alone you?
when you went to the house of Benny Dy to get
that gun A In their house.

A I called one of the policemen to accompany COURT:

me.
Proceed.
Q What is the name of the policeman who
accompanied you? ATTY. RESURRECCION:

A Pat. Manuel Casimiro. Q Who were the persons present in the house of
Benny Dy when the gun was given to you by
Q Were you able to get the gun from the house him?
of Benny Dy together with your companion Pat.
Manuel Casimiro? A His houseboy called Tan-tan'.

A Benny Dy voluntarily gave the gun to us. Q Was this Tan-tan already adult or teen-ager?

Q So do we understand from you that it was A Teenager.

Benny Dy also together with your companion
 Q What time of May 8, 1984, did Benny Dy COURT:
give to you and Pat. Manuel Casimiro the gun
he gave to you? Mark it.

A About 6:00 in the morning. (pp. 7-9, Id.) ATTY. RESURRECCION:

xxx xxx xxx Q Is this the same gun you are referring to
which was surrendered by Benny Dy?
Q When Benny Dy told you that he shot a
tourist in his establishment, known as Benny's A Yes, sir, this is the one. (Witness identifying
Bar, what else did he tell you? the gun.) (pp. 11-12, Id.)

A He told me that after shooting the victim he The sequence of events presented by the prosecution then discloses that
requested somebody to rush the victim to the
hospital. Together with Pat, Manuel Casimiro, Pat. Padilla accompanied
Benny Dy to the police headquarters at the Poblacion of Malay.
Q Did you ask him why he shot the victim? At the police headquarters, Pat. Padilla gave the gun
surrendered by Benny Dy to Chief of Police Ariston Tambong
A I did not. who in turn handed it over to police supply officer Pat. Romulo
Sijano for safekeeping (pp. 13-24, 27, Id). (pp- 7-9, Appellee's
Q You stated that the accused Benny Dy Brief).
surrendered to you a gun together with Pat.
Manuel Casimiro, if that gun is shown to you, The defense version, on the other hand, professes the innocence of the
will you be able to Identify the same? Accused, denies his presence inside the bar during the shooting, and attributes
the offense to an unrecognized person. Thus:
A Yes, sir.
On May 7, 1984, Benny Dy was inside his bar. However, he
Q I am showing to you a gun in a container remained therein for a few hours as he had a headache. He left
revolver caliber.38 and one (1) bullet exhibit his bar at around 9:30 or 10:00 o'clock in the evening, and went
against Benny Dy, which we request that this to bed in a room at the annex building behind the bar. He left
container be marked as Exhibit 'A' for the his friend, Francisco Ureta known as Tan-tan and his new
prosecution, Your Honor. helper, Romy, to attend and take charge of the bar.
In that evening of May 7, 1984, there were several customers the following morning while cleaning the bar, eventually found
inside the bar. Some people were dancing. At about midnight, a himself t suspect in shooting of Langel. (pp. 1-3, Appellant's
person entered Benny's Bar and in less than two (2) minutes, an Brief)
explosion was heard inside the bar. The explosion caused the
customers to scream; they rushed out of the bar including the All defense witnesses were one in testifying that the culprit was someone else
person who entered immediately before the explosion. other than the Accused. Thus, Rodrigo Lumogdang, a carpenter allegedly
hired by a friend of the Accused to repair the kitchen of the bar, testified that
The loud explosion coupled with the screaming and rushing of around 11:30 P.M. of 7 May 1984, he saw a person go inside Benny's Bar but
customers awakened Benny Dy. He was prompted to could not recognize him because the petromax lamp in the bar was not so
immediately come out of his room and directly proceeded to bright as it was covered by colored red paper. In less than two minutes after
the bar. Inside the bar, Benny saw a man lying on the sand said person entered, a shot exploded from the inside of the bar. Thereafter he
floor with blood on his shirt. saw the man who had just entered rush outside holding a gun tucked to his
waist (t.s.n., June 25, 1985, pp. 7-8). He then ran a few meters away and when
Instinctively, Benny Dy carried this man to the beach, and he came back he saw the Accused asking "Tantan" what had happened to
woke up Charlie the owner of a pump boat which could take which the latter replied that a white person had been shot. In particular,
the wounded man to the hospital. While the wounded man was Lumogdang stated that he did not see the Accused at 6:30 P.M., when he took
being loaded in a pumpboat, several persons arrived including a stroll in the beach nor when he came back at around 11:30 P.M. Much less
Australian Nurses to render assistance. The wounded man was did he see TUMAOB inside the bar.
finally brought to Aklan Baptist Hospital at Caticlan, Malay,
Aklan for treatment. Unfortunately, the patient, whose real Another defense witness, Rogelio Lakandula, testified that he went to Benny's
name is Christian Langel, died. Bar at around 10:00 P.M. of 7 May 1984. While drinking beer thereat he saw
a white person, who was three meters away from him, shot by a person he did
The shooting in Benny's Bar may nabaril sa Benny's Bar', not recognize but he saw him come from the door and enter Benny's Bar
immediately, spread like forest wild fire in the small Island of alone. Before and after the shooting incident, he did not see either the Accused
Boracay and rapidly transferred from one ear to another and in or TUMAOB inside the bar.
the course thereof, it became distorted from 'may nabaril sa
Benny's Bar' to 'may nabaril sa Benny and finally may nabaril Wolfer Tumaob, Jr., a nephew of the principal prosecution witness,
si Benny'. Consequently, loose talks rapidly spread that TUMAOB, testified that on 7 May 1984 at 11:00 P.M., TUMAOB, Jover
somebody was shot by Benny ('may nabaril si Benny'). Casidsid, Welmer Taunan, Wolfer Tumaob, Sr., and he, went out fishing at
midsea staying thereat up to 6:00 A.M. of 8 May 1984 and that they did not
Appellant Benny Dy who carried the victim to the shore to be pass Boracay Island at all on 7 May 1984 but went home on 8 May 1984.
brought to the hospital to save the latter, and who facilitated the
surrender to Pat. Rodolfo Padilla a gun which his helper found
The accused stoutly denied having made any oral confession alleging that he The trial Court erred in holding that Wilson Tumaob had no unfair motive to
went to Pat. Padilla not to report the incident but to state that a boy helper in fabricate a story different from what he actually witnessed, and in giving
the bar had found a gun on the sand floor while cleaning and that Pat. Padilla weight to his testimony.
picked up the gun from the bar at his (Accused's) request (t.s.n., September 2,
1985, pp. 33-36). The Accused argues that even if he did make such a IV
confession, the same would be inadmissible in evidence.
The trial Court erred in holding that accused shot Langel.
The Trial Court found the testimonies of defense witnesses enmeshed in
contradictions on material points, rejected the disclaimers they had made, V
accorded more credence to the prosecution version, and as previously stated,
rendered a judgment of conviction. The trial Court erred in holding that the conflicting testimonies of Pat. Padilla
and Casimiro relate to minor matters which do not affect their credibility.
In this appeal, the accused raises the following
VI
Assignments of Error
The trial Court erred in holding that appellant made the oral confession, and in
I admitting the same as well as the entries in the police blotter.

The trial Court erred in holding that the Smith & Wesson revolver cal. .38 VII
with Serial No. 33169 was the gun which caused the death of Christian
Langel. The trial Court erred in holding that compliance with the constitutional
procedure on custodial interrogation is not applicable in the instant case.
II
VIII
The trial Court erred in finding that Wilson Tumaob testified in court ahead of
Dr. Caturan, so the former's testimony on the relative position of the accused The trial Court erred in holding that the uncorroborated testimony of Wilson
and victim could not have been influenced or tailored to conform to Dr. Tumaob is sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction.
Caturan's findings on the trajectory of the bullet slug found in the victim's
body. IX

III The trial Court erred in holding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution
is overwhelming and satisfied the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt in
convicting appellant.
X The revolver, marked as Exhibit "F", in turn, was Identified by Pat. Padilla as
the firearm surrendered by the Accused. When Pat. Padilla stated that he saw
The trial Court erred in holding that appellant's defense of alibi is weak. the fatal gun, its serial number and name for the first time (t.s.n., October 17,
1984, pp. 17-19) he was clearly referring to particulars which he did not
XI concern himself with at the time of surrender.

The trial Court erred in convicting accused-appellant. Appellant's assertion that the gun he had surrendered was merely found by a
boy helper while cleaning the bar deserves no credence for, if it were so, it
XII would have been absurd for him to have placed himself under police custody
in the early morning after the incident.
The trial Court erred in denying accused-appellant's motion for new trial.
(2) The sworn Complaint for "Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm"
The basic issue is actually one of credibility, the crucial question being signed by the Chief of Police (Exhibit"H"), dated 8 May 1984, also attests to
whether the Accused had orally admitted his authorship of the crime and Appellant's oral confession. Said officer could not have prepared the
surrendered the gun he had used in shooting the victim, as the prosecution Complaint with such promptitude sans investigation at "0700H" the morning
claims, or, whether he had no involvement whatsoever, the gun surrendered after the incident were it not for Appellant's outright admission. That
having been found by a boy helper inside the bar while cleaning the place the Complaint forms part of the record of the proceedings before the Municipal
morning after the incident, as the defense would have us believe. Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga, Aklan, and is prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated (Section 38, Rule 130, Rules of Court). That said
The case history and the documentary evidence attest strongly to Appellant's Complaint was sworn to before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge and
oral confession and voluntary surrender. Thus, (1) Entry No. 3904 in the filed before this Court only on 17 May 1984 will not detract from the fact that
police blotter of the Malay Police Sub-station, dated 8 May 1984, supra, the Chief of Police had taken official action promptly the very morning of
confirms three significant details: a) Pat. Padilla's testimony that he had Appellant's surrender by charging him with "Murder with the Use of
accompanied the Accused to police headquarters in the early morning of 8 Unlicensed Firearm" after having heard his admission.
May 1984 after the latter admitted having "shot a tourist;" b) Appellant's
voluntary surrender to the Chief of Police; and c) his surrender of his Smith & (3) The fact of Appellant's surrender is further borne out by the Order of the
Wesson revolver, cal. .38, also to the Chief of Police. Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge, Judge Tonel dated 17 May 1984,
categorically reciting that "no warrant of arrest is issued for the apprehension
It may be that Chief of Police Ariston T. Tambong, who had presumably made of the accused for the reason that he is already under police custody before the
such entry, died on 15 August 1984 before the start of the trial of this case filing of the complaint." It would have been at variance with ordinary
below and was not in a position to Identify the same before the Court. His voluntarily placed himself human behavior for Appellant to have under police
successor (Lt. Audie Arroyo), however, was presented as a prosecution custody absent any culpability for any offense.
witness and Identified said entry (t.s.n., October 17, 1984, pp. 29-33).
Contrary to the defense contention, the oral confession made by the accused to The issue raised in Error II as to who testified ahead, TUMAOB or the
Pat. Padilla that he had shot a tourist' and that the gun he had used in shooting examining physician, Dr. Othello Caturan, also becomes irrelevent,
the victim was in his bar which he wanted surrendered to the Chief of Police TUMAOB's testimony being corroborated by the documentary evidence
(t.s.n., October 17, 1984, pp. 6-9), is competent evidence against him. The heretofore mentioned. Besides, even without TUMAOB's testimony the
declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged may documentary evidence on record more than suffices to overcome the
be given in evidence against him (See. 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court). It may disclaimers by Appellant and on which his assigned Errors VIII & IX are
in a sense be also regarded as part of the res gestae. The rule is that, any predicated.
person, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is
competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and TUMAOB's motive in testifying the way he did, further assailed in Error III,
understood all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in is immaterial considering the corroboration his testimony received from
such a case it must be given in substance (23 C.J.S. 196, cited in People vs. Appellant's proven actuations after the incident. Efforts by the defense to
Tawat, G.R. No. 62871, May 25, 1985, 129 SCRA 431). discredit him as a "professional witness," who allegedly asked for a
consideration from Appellant of P500. 00 to swing the testimony in
What was told by the Accused to Pat, Padilla was a spontaneous statement not Appellant's favor, but which the latter rejected, with the insinuation that he
elicited through questioning, but given an ordinary manner. No written could have been paid by Swiss authorities to testify the way he did in Court, is
confession was sought to be presented in evidence as a result of formal unavailing since conviction is not based on his testimony alone.
custodial investigation. (People vs. Taylaran, G.R. No. 49149, October 31,
1981, 108 SCRA 373). The Trial Court, therefore, cannot be held to have Whatever inconsistencies there may have been in the testimonies of Patrolmen
erred in holding that compliance with the constitutional procedure on Padilla and Casimiro, posited in Error V, are sufficiently overcome by the
custodial interrogation is not applicable in the instant case, as the defense documentary evidence of record.
alleges in its Error VII.
As to the testimonial evidence presented by the defense, which the Trial Court
With the indubitable official and documentary evidence on record, the identity rejected, we find no reversible error in the meticulous assessment it had made
of the Accused as the victim's assailant is indisputable. The denials by the thereof, ably pointing out the material contradictions in the testimonies and
defense immediately lose their credibility and the errors it has assigned are consequently their lack of credibility.
rendered without any merit whatsoever.
The entries in the police blotter were properly admitted by the Trial Court,
Thus, contrary to Error I, the gun which Appellant surrendered to Pat. Padilla contrary to the allegation in Error VI forming, as they do, part of official
and the Chief of Police, coupled with his voluntary surrender, cannot but be records.
the weapon which caused the death of the victim. That is no inference; it is
clear and direct evidence, To further require a ballistic examination and a The defense of alibi must likewise be rejected in the face of overwhelming
paraffin test would have been a superfluous exercise. evidence against the Accused. The Trial Court cannot ba faulted, therefore, for
denying Appellant's bid for acquittal contrary to the allegations in Errors IV, months and one (1) day to eighteen (18) years and eight (8) months. For the
X and XI. application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the range of the penalty next
lower is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
Lastly, neither was any error committed by the Trial Court in denying the medium period, or, from ten (10) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17)
defense Motion for New Trial (Error XII) based on the affidavit of recantation years and four (4) months.
of witness TUMAOB that he was not at Benny's Bar when the victim was
shot. Even assuming that it can be considered as newly discovered evidence it WHEREFORE, the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt having been met,
is insufficient to overturn the judgment already rendered, for, it bears the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED but with the penalty
emphasizing that conviction is not based on TUMAOB's testimony alone. MODIFIED to an indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years and one (1) day of
Moreover, prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Costs against the accused-
Affidavits of retraction executed by witnesses who had appellant Benny Dy.
previously testified in court will not be countenanced for the
purpose of securing a new trial — It would be a dangerous rule
for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before courts of
justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later
on change their mind for one reason or another, for such a rule
would make solemn trials a mockery and place the
investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.
Affidavits of retraction can be easily secured from poor and
ignorant witnesses usually for a monetary consideration.
Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. So courts are
wary or reluctant to allow a new trial based on retracted
testimony. (People vs. Saliling, et al, L-27974, February
27,1976, 69 SCRA 427, cited in Ibabao vs. People, L-36957,
September 28, 1984, 132 SCRA 216).

The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the Trial Court, however, will

have to be modified. With the abolition of the death penalty in the 1987
Constitution, the penalty for Murder is now reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua. With the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender to which the Accused should be entitled, the penalty is
imposable in its minimum period or from seventeen (17) years, four (4)