G.R. No.
L-51770 March 20, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO GALIT, defendant-appellant.
FACTS.
The prisoner was arrested for killing the victim while on the occasion of a
robbery. He had been detained and interrogated almost continuously for
five days, to no avail. He consistently maintained his innocence. There was
no evidence to link him to the crime. A confession was absolutely necessary.
So the investigating officers began to maul him and to torture him
physically. Still the prisoner insisted on his innocence.
His will had to be broken. A confession must be obtained. So they continued
to maltreat and beat him. 'They covered his face with a rag and pushed his
face into a toilet bowl full of human waste.
The prisoner could not take any more. His body could no longer endure the
pain inflicted on him and the indignities he had to suffer. His will had been
broken. He admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit
and he signed the confession they prepared.
Later, against his will, he posed for pictures as directed by his investigators,
purporting it to be a reenactment.
THE ORIGINAL CASE.
The record shows that in the morning of August 23, 1977, Mrs. Natividad
Fernando, a widow, was found dead in the bedroom of her house located
at Barrio Geronimo, Montalban, Rizal, as a result of seven (7) wounds
inflicted upon different parts of her body by a blunt instrument.
More than two weeks thereafter, police authorities of Montalban picked
up the herein accused, Francisco Galit, an ordinary construction worker
(pion) living in Marikina, Rizal, on suspicion of the murder.
On the following day, however, September 8, 1977, the case was
referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further
investigation in view of the alleged limited facilities of the Montalban
police station.
Accordingly, the herein accused was brought to the NBI where he was
investigated by a team headed by NBI Agent Carlos Flores. NBI Agent
Flores conducted a preliminary interview of the suspect who allegedly
gave evasive answers to his questions.
But the following day, September 9, 1977, Francisco Galit voluntarily
executed a Salaysay admitting participation in the commission of the
crime. He implicated Juling Dulay and Pabling Dulay as his companions in
the crime.
As a result, he was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide
RTC decision: Trial was held, and on August 11, 1978, immediately after
the accused had terminated the presentation of his evidence, the trial
judge dictated his decision on the case in open court, finding the
accused guilty as charged and sentencing him to suffer the death
penalty; to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P110,000.00,
and to pay the costs.
Hence this mandatory review is the death sentence imposed upon the
accused Francisco Galit.
ISSUE. Whether the extra-judicial confession extracted from him through
torture, force and intimidation as described earlier, and without the benefit of
counsel is admissible and sufficient to convict herein accused Galit.
RULING. NO.
We find that the evidence presented by the prosecution does not support a
conviction. In fact, the
findings of the trial court relative to the acts attributed to the accused are not
supported by competent evidence.
The evidence presented were only the testimony of the principal prosecution
witness, Florentino Valentino who only testified that he lived with the accused and
heard his mother-in-law and the accused arguing to which the accused
subsequently uttered that he robbed and killed a certain Aling Nene.
This Court, in the case of Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, 7 laid down the correct
procedure for peace officers to follow when making an arrest and in conducting a
custodial investigation, and which We reiterate:
At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting
officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be
shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any
statement he might make could be used against him. The person
arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a
relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means — by
telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. It shall be the
responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is
accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it
be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any
person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either
of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to
counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made
with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of
the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory,
in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
There were no eyewitnesses, no property recovered from the accused, no state
witnesses, and not even fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime.
The only evidence against the accused is his alleged confession. It behooves Us
therefore to give it a close scrutiny. The statement begins as follows:
I. TANONG: Ipinagbibigay-alam ko sa inyo ang inyong
mga karapatan sa ilalim ng Saligang-Batas ng Pilipinas na
kung inyong nanaisin ay maaaring hindi kayo magbigay
ng isang salaysay, na hindi rin kayo maaaring pilitin o
saktan at pangakuan upang magbigay ng naturang
salaysay, na anuman ang inyong sasabihin sa pagsisiyasat
na ito ay maaaring laban sa inyo sa anumang usapin na
maaaring ilahad sa anumang hukuman o tribunal dito sa
Pilipinas, na sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay maaaring
katulungin mo ang isang manananggol at kung sakaling
hindi mo kayang bayaran ang isang manananggol ay
maaaring bigyan ka ng isa ng NBI. Ngayon at alam mo na
ang mga ito nakahanda ka bang magbigay ng isang
kusang-loob na salaysay sa pagtatanong na ito?
SAGOT: Opo.
Such a long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the
requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights under the
Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be several short and clear
questions and every right explained in simple words in a dialect or language
known to the person under investigation. Accused is from Samar and there is
no showing that he understands Tagalog. Moreover, at the time of his arrest,
accused was not permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a
friend. In fact, his sisters and other relatives did not know that he had been
brought to the NBI for investigation and it was only about two weeks after he
had executed the salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit him. His
statement does not even contain any waiver of right to counsel and yet during
the investigation he was not assisted by one. At the supposed reenactment,
again accused was not assisted by counsel of his choice. These constitute gross
violations of his rights.
The alleged confession and the pictures of the supposed re-enactment are
inadmissible as evidence because they were obtained in a manner contrary to
law.
Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances surrounding
the taking of any confession, especially where the prisoner claims having been
maltreated into giving one. Where there is any doubt as to its voluntariness,
the same must be rejected in toto.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Minister of
Justice for whatever action he may deem proper to take against the investigating
officers.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, SET ASIDE,
and another one entered ACQUITTING the accused Francisco Galit of the crime
charged. Let him be released from custody immediately unless held on other
charges. With costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.
