PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JAIME “JIMMY” AGUSTIN, ET AL.

circumstances which in themselves are insufficient to authorize a conviction

G.R. NO. 110290 – JANUARY 25, 1995 and which can only tend to establish the ultimate facts of guilt.

FACTS: Order of the Lower Court was reversed.

 There were five separate information filed with the court wherein the  Confession or admission obtained in violation of the constitution shell be
accused were charged with Murder, Frustrated Murder and Attempted inadmissible in evidence.
Murder. The crime resulted to the death of Dr. Napoleon Bayquen and  Respondent’s extrajudicial statement is inadmissible in evidence because it
Anna Francisco, and the wounding of Anthony Bayquen, Dominic Bayquen was obtained in violation of Section 12 Article II of the constitution. Since it
and Danny Ancheta. was only evidence which links him to the crime of which he was convicted,
 The information in the murder case charged that the accused acted in he must then be acquitted.
conspiracy and alleged the presence of treachery and evident
premeditation as aggravating circumstances.
 Respondents, pleaded not guilty
 The Trial Court acquitted the accused on the frustrated and attempted
murder charges due to insufficiency of evidence but convicted him as guilty
for two counts of murder.
 The conviction of the Trial court was base on the extrajudicial confession
made by the respondent with the city Fiscal.
 The respondent insist that his extrajudicial confession was taken in
violation of his rights under Section 11 Article III if the constitution. He
argues that the lawyer who assisted him was not of his own choice but was
foisted upon him by the city Fiscal, and that it was only conferred with him
in English and tagalog although he only understood only Ilocano. Also he
mentioned that the lawyer who assisted him was a law partner of the
private prosecutor and had only conferred to him briefly and when he was
interrogated by the fiscal, the later was with his military escorts.
 Respondent asserts that the lawyer who assist the suspect under custodial
investigation should be of the latters choice and not foisted on him by
police investigators or other parties, and that there were doubts on the
voluntariness of his extrajudicial confession and it was inadmissible, and
that his conviction should not stand for there were no other evidence
linking him of the crime charge.

ISSUE: W/N the Extrajudicial confession of the respondent should be considered by

the court at the case at bar as an admissible evidence?

RULING: No

 Confession is an acknowledgement in express terms by the party in a

criminal case of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a
statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue,
and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt.
 Admission is something less than a confession. It tends only to establish
ultimate facts.
 Nothing in the extrajudicial statement of the respondent indicates that he
expressly acknowledge his guilt, he merely admitted some facts or
TUAZON V. COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. NO. 113779-80, FEBRUARY 23, 1995) Second, the court resulted to wild guess work when it mentioned that Ochoa could
have covered up the scar to make it look like a mole. This is a grave error. The trial
FACTS: court cannot convict petitioner on the basis of a deduction that is irrational because
Madarog, Cipriana Torres‘ maid, was often left alone in Cipriana‘s house. The it is not derived from an established fact. The records do not show any fact from
incident happened when somebody pretended to buy ice in their residence. When which the trial court can logically deduce the conclusion that petitioner covered up
Madarog was about to hand over the ice to the buyer, one of the robbers jumped in his scar with black coloring to make it appear as a mole. And thirdly, corroborating
the house and pointed a gun on Jovina. witness Barbieto has serious lapses in her testimony that diluted her credibility. she
and Quintal merely testified they saw petitioner within the vicinity where the crimes
Four of the assailants then went inside the house and demanded the keys to the car were committed. By itself, this circumstance cannot lead to the conclusion that
and vault. Petitioner Ochoa was their lookout. While ransacking the house, they petitioner truly committed the crimes at bench. Petitioner, we note, lives in the
were able to find the keys to the car as well as valuable items. They then escaped same vicinity as the victim.
using Cipriana‘s car.
To use his words, he lives some six (6) posts from the house of Torres. His presence
Madarog then cried for help and the neighbours, Quintal and Garcia responded and in the said vicinity is thus not unnatural. The respondent appellate court, however,
told Cipriana what happened. Cipriana then reported the robbery to the police. dismissed this claim of petitioner as self-serving. Again, the ruling misconstrues the
Madarog and Quintal described the features of the robbers to the NBI. meaning of self-serving evidence. Self-serving evidence is not to be literally taken
Subsequently, Ochoa was then arrested and was pointed by Madarog and other as evidence that serves one's selfish interest. Under our law of evidence, self-
witnesses namely Quintal and Barbietoas one of the perpetrators. serving evidence is one made by a party out of court at one time; it does not
include a party's testimony as a witness in court. It is excluded on the same ground
Quintal says that she saw petitioner allegedly among the three (3) men whiling as any hearsay evidence, that is the lack of opportunity for cross-examination by
away their time in front of Alabang's store some time before the crimes were the adverse party, and on the consideration that its admission would open the door
committed. Quintal is a neighbouring maid. Barbieto likewise declared that she saw to fraud and to fabrication of testimony.
petitioner allegedly with several companions standing-by at Torres' house that
morning of July 19, 1988.

She is a teacher and lives within the block where the crimes were committed. Ochoa
anchored his defence on alibi and insufficiency of identification by the prosecution.
The court however rendered a decision convicting Ochoa. CA affirmed.

ISSUE:
Whether the court erred in convicting Ochoa based on thewitnesses?

HELD:
No. evidence to be believed, must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible
witness but the same must be credible in itself. The trial court and respondent
appellate court relied mainly on the testimony of prosecution witness Madaraog that
from her vantage position near the door of the bedroom she clearly saw how
petitioner allegedly participated in the robbery.

After a careful review of the evidence, we find that the identification of petitioner
made by Madaraog and Quintal is open to doubt and cannot serve as a basis for
conviction of petitioner.

Firstly, it must be emphasized that of the four (4) prosecution witnesses, only the
maid Madaraog actually saw petitioner in the act of committing the crimes at bench.
Witnesses Quintal and Barbieto testified they only saw petitioner at the vicinity of
the crimes before they happened. There is, however, a serious doubt whether
Madaraog and Quintal have correctly identified petitioner. At the NBI headquarters,
Madaraog described petitioner as 5'3" tall and with a big mole between his
eyebrows.As it turned out, petitioner has no mole but only a scar between his eyes.
Moreover, he is 5'8 1/2" and not 5'3" tall. There is a big difference between a mole
and a scar. A scar is a mark left in the skin by a new connective tissue that replaces
tissue injured. On the other hand, a mole is a small often pigmented spot or
protuberance on the skin.
MANUEL V. N.C. CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY ISSUE:
G.R. NO. 127553 | NOVEMBER 28, 1997
Whether the admission may be admitted in evidence
FACTS:
HELD:
Petitioners Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana, Rogelio Pagtama, Jr. and Joel Rea were
employed as drivers at N.C. Construction Supply owned by private respondents NO. We are not convinced by petitioners' allegation that such admission was
Johnny Lim (Lao Ching Eng) and Anita Sy. obtained by means of threat or intimidation as such allegation is couched in general
terms and is unsupported by evidence.
On June 3, 1995, the security guards of respondent company caught Aurelio We also reject petitioners' argument that said admission is inadmissible as evidence
Guevara, a company driver, and Jay Calso, his helper ("pahinante"), taking out from against them under Section 12 Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The right to
the company premises two rolls of electrical wire worth P500.00 without authority. counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a
Calso was brought to the Pasig Police station for questioning. During the criminal case under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation is the stage
investigation, Calso named seven other employees who were allegedly involved in a where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
series of thefts, among them petitioners Manuel, Bana, Pagtama, Jr. and Rea. but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who had been taken into custody by
the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit
Petitioners then received separate notices from company informing them that they incriminating statements. It is when questions are initiated by law enforcement
were positively identified by their co-worker, Jay Calso, as perpetrators of the series officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
of thefts committed at respondent company. They were thus invited to the Pasig freedom of action in any significant way. The right to counsel attaches only upon
police station for investigation regarding their alleged involvement in the offense. the start of such investigation. Therefore, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (3)
Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal
Atty. Ramon Reyes, private respondents' counsel conducted in their behalf an investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation.
investigation regarding petitioners' involvement in the theft. Atty. Reyes
interrogated the petitioners on their alleged participation in the series of thefts In the case at bar, the admission was made by petitioners during the course of the
committed at respondent company. Petitioners initially denied the charge. However, investigation conducted by private respondents' counsel to determine whether there
after being positively identified by Jay Calso, petitioners admitted their guilt and is sufficient ground to terminate their employment. Petitioners were not under
offered to resign. Petitioners Bana and Rea filed separate resignation letters while custodial investigation as they were not yet accused by the police of committing a
petitioners Manuel and Pagtama, Jr. tendered their resignations orally. crime. The investigation was merely an administrative investigation conducted by
the employer, not a criminal investigation. The questions were propounded by the
Atty. Reyes accepted petitioners' resignation effective June 5, 1995. On July 17, employer's lawyer, not by police officers. The fact that the investigation was
1995, petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents for illegal dismissal. conducted at the police station did not necessarily put petitioners under custodial
Petitioners alleged that they were not informed of the charge against them nor were investigation as the venue of the investigation was merely incidental. Hence, the
they given an opportunity to dispute the same. They also alleged that their admissions made by petitioners during such investigation may be used as evidence
admission made at the Pasig police station regarding their involvement in the theft to justify their dismissal.
as well as their resignation were not voluntary but were obtained by private
respondents' lawyer by means of threat and intimidation. We likewise agree that employees were dismissed for a just cause. Petitioners'
culpability in the instant case was sufficiently proved by private respondents. Jay
LA ruled in favour of petitioners and found their dismissal to be illegal. He held that Calso, an employee of respondent company who has personal knowledge about the
private respondents failed to show a just cause for the termination of petitioners' series of thefts that has been going on at respondent company, positively identified
services. He declared that petitioners' admission regarding their involvement in the petitioners. In addition, petitioners admitted their participation in the theft during an
theft was inadmissible in evidence as it was taken without the assistance of counsel, investigation conducted by private respondents' lawyer.
in violation of Section 12 of the Bill of Rights.
However, the employer failed to observe due process in terminating the
On appeal, the NLRC reversed and ruled that petitioners were dismissed for a just employment of petitioners. The TWO-NOTICE requirement was not complied with.
cause. It further stated that such admission may be admitted in evidence because
Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to criminal proceedings but not to
administrative proceedings.
PEOPLE V. SOLAYAO admission in criminal cases is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
GR 119220, 20 SEPTEMBER 1996 commission of the crime charged.

This Court agrees with the argument of the Solicitor General that "while the
FACTS: prosecution was able to establish the fact that the subject firearm was seized by the
police from the possession of appellant, without the latter being able to present any
On 9 June 1992, CAFGU members, headed by SPO3 Nino, were conducting an license or permit to possess the same, such fact alone is not conclusive proof that
intelligence patrol to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming he was not lawfully authorized to carry such firearm. In other words, such fact does
around the barangays of Caibiran. In Baragay Onion, they met the 5-man group of not relieve the prosecution from its duty to establish the lack of a license or permit
accused Nilo Solayao, who was also wearing a camouflage uniform. His companions, to carry the firearm by clear and convincing evidence, like a certification from the
upon seeing the government agents, fled. SPO3 Niño told Salayao not to run away government agency concerned."[24]
and introduced himself as "PC," after which he seized the dried coconut leaves Putting it differently, "when a negative is averred in a pleading, or a plaintiff's case
which the latter was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-inch long homemade depends upon the establishment of a negative, and the means of proving the fact
firearm locally known as "latong." When he asked Salayao who issued him a license are equally within the control of each party, then the burden of proof is upon the
to carry said firearm or whether he was connected with the military or any party averring the negative."[25]
intelligence group, the latter answered that he had no permission to possess the In this case, a certification from the Firearms and Explosives Unit of the
same. Thereupon, SPO3 Niño confiscated the firearm and turned him over to the Philippine National Police that accused-appellant was not a licensee of a firearm of
custody of the policemen of Caibiran who subsequently investigated him and any kind or caliber would have sufficed for the prosecution to prove beyond
charged him with illegal possession of firearm. reasonable doubt the second element of the crime of illegal possession of firearm.

Salayao did not contest the confiscation of the shotgun but averred that this was
only given to him by one of his companions, Hermogenes Cenining, when it was still
wrapped in coconut leaves, which they were using the coconut leaves as a torch.
Salayao’s claim was corroborated by one Pedro Balano.

On 15 August 1994, the RTC of Naval Biliran (Branch 16) found Salayao guilty of
illegal possession of firearm under Section 1 of PD 1866 and imposed upon him the
penalty of imprisonment ranging from reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion
perpetua.

Salayao appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether the Solayao’s admission that he had no permission to possess the firearm
is sufficient to convict him of illegal possession of firearms

HELD:

Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused-appellant does not prove
beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm that
the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or
permit to possess the same.It does not even establish a prima facie case. It merely
bolsters the case for the prosecution but does not stand as proof of the fact of
absence or lack of a license.

". . . By its very nature, an "admission is the mere acknowledgment of a fact or of

circumstances from which guilt may be inferred, tending to incriminate the speaker,
but not sufficient of itself to establish his guilt." In other words it is a "statement by
defendant of fact or facts pertinent to issues pending, in connection with proof of
other facts or circumstances, to prove guilt, but which is, of itself, insufficient to
authorize conviction." From the above principles, this Court can infer that an
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAMON CHUA UY order. Neither did he move to reconsider it. The facts thus stipulated and
G.R. No. 128046. March 7, 2000 incorporated in the pre-trial order bound him. Moreover, at the trial RAMON
never raised the question of the non-presentation of the forensic chemist;
FACTS: Accused-appellant Chua Uy was convicted of drug pushing and possession
what his counsel objected to was with respect to the presentation and
in three separate cases filed against him for violation of Sections 15 and 16 of
identification of the shabu wherein defense objected to the irregular act of
Article III, R.A. No. 6425, as amended. Accused was arrested during a buy-bust
showing the confiscated drug to SPO1 Nepomuceno without laying the
operation for the illegal sale of 5.8564 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
basis therefore. The defense counsel did not also object to the direct
“shabu,” and possession of 401 grams of the same drug.
examination of SPO4 Regalado concerning the whereabouts and
identification of the subject shabu.
After obtaining a tip from an informant regarding the accused illegal activity a team
from the Anti-Narcotics Division planned an entrapment operation where one of the HELD: No.
police officers will act as a poseur-buyer. The sale was consummated and the police
yielded more packets of shabu from the attaché case of the appellant. Appellant was
It may at once be noted that neither Chua nor his counsel made
arrested and brought to the police station. Subsequent search in his house yielded
more packets of the illegal substance. The appellant’s version tells that on that express admission that the contents of the plastic bags to "be marked" as Exhibits
same evening, he just got home from tending to his garments business and was "D," "D-1," "D-2," "D-3," "D-4," and "E" contain methamphetamine hydrochloride.
carrying a large amount of money, P132,000 to be exact from his collections for the
sales of the day. He said that he saw a white Toyota car outside his residence, the That Chua agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic
same being offered to him for sale. He allegedly refused but agreed to test-drive the Chemist Bravo may not be considered an admission of the findings of Bravo
said car. It was then that he was allegedly stopped by the police and was ordered to on the contents of the plastic bag. Strictly, from the tenor of the portion of the
give up his attaché case and forcible taken to the police station. It was there that he
Joint Order, it is clear that Chua and his counsel merely agreed to the marking
was accused that said case contained the illegal substance.
of the exhibits, and the clause "thereby dispensing with the testimony of forensic
Chemist Loreto E. Bravo" must be understood in that context.
The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence and testimony of
witnesses despite the non-presentation of the NBI forensics chemist who tested and
confirmed that substance found in the accused possession is indeed shabu. The Even if Chua admitted during the pre-trial the abovementioned Exhibits,
accused interposed the defense of frame-up and alleged that the evidence was still, the admission cannot be used in evidence against him because Chua and his
merely ‘planted.’ counsel did not sign the Joint Order. Section 4 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court
expressly provides:
ISSUE: Did the trial court err in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses and in disregarding the evidence for the defense? SEC. 40. Pre-trial agreements must be signed. No agreement or
admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be used in
 Trial Court: gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence and testimony evidence against the accused unless reduced to writing and signed and his
of witnesses despite the non-presentation of the NBI forensics chemist who counsel.
tested and confirmed that substance found in the accused possession is
indeed shabu. To bind the accused the pre-trial order must be signed not only by him but
 Accused: submitted that without the testimony of NBI Forensic Chemist, his counsel as well. The purpose of this requirement is to further safeguard the
the prosecutions case "falls to pieces." rights of the accused against improvident or unauthorized agreements or
 Accused: Bravo’s testimony cannot be waived since only he could say admissions which his counsel may have entered into without his knowledge, as he
whether the substance allegedly seized is indeed shabu, and also may have waived his presence at the pre-trial conference; eliminate any doubt on
determine its actual weight upon which depends the penalty to be the conformity of the accused to the facts agreed upon.
imposed. Thus, whatever he said in his report is hearsay and hearsay
evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value. Nevertheless, Chua cannot take advantage of the absence of his and his
 Accused: insisted that at the pretrial he did not waive the testimony of the counsel’s signatures on the pre-trial order. When the prosecution formally offered in
chemist but only "stipulated on the markings of the prosecutions evidence evidence what it had marked in evidence during the pre-trial, he did not object to
interposed the defense of frame-up and alleged that the evidence was the admission of Bravos Preliminary Report.
merely ‘planted.’
 OSG: argued that Bravo’s finding that the drugs seized from RAMON were Disposition: Appealed decision of RTC was affirned.
indeed the regulated methampethamine hydrochloride or shabu, is not
hearsay. Bravo did not testify anymore because the parties agreed during
the pre-trial to dispense with his testimony. RAMON never objected to the
PEOPLE V. CEPEDA  The accused’s wife, Dory Cepeda, testified that indeed the complainant has
G.R. NO. 124832 | FEBRUARY 1, 2000 gone to their house several times
 Trial Court Decision
FACTS: o Rendered judgment against accused Dante Cepeda
 Insisting on his innocence, accused claims in his defense that he and private
 Conchita Mahomoc went to the PNP Station to complain that she was raped by complainant were carrying on an adulterous love affair
Dante Cepeda (signed her complaint the day after) o Per him, his request to private complainant that the latter massage his
 She claims that 2 days prior, in the afternoon, Dante Cepeda went to her house allegedly ill wife is a pre-arranged lie between the accused and private
and asked her to go to his house to massage his wife who was suffering from complainant in order to mislead Regina Carba
stomach ache o He asserts that the charge of rape was a contrivance or an
 Regina Carba, her neighbor, was in her house and she asked her to go with her afterthought rather that a truthful plaint of redress of an actual wrong
 Cepeda was at his kitchen door when they reached his house
o He told Gina to leave as his wife, who was Muslim, would get angry if ISSUE: WON Cepeda guilty of rape
there were many many people in their home
 Cepeda led the complainant to his bedroom HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the appealed decision.
o At the door, Conchita peeped inside and saw a figure covered by a
blanket whom she presumed was Cepeda’s wife Court provides that Accused-appellant’s allegation of an illicit amorous relationship
o At that instance, accused immediately placed his left arm around her is too shopworn to deserve serious consideration and is totally unworthy of
shoulders and ponted a knife at the pit of her stomach saying: “Just credence. A circumspect scrutiny of the record discloses that the ‘illicit love affair’
keep quiet, do not make any noise, otherwise I will kill you.” angle appears as a fabrication by accused-appellant. As an affirmative defense, the
o She elbowed him, stooped and shouted “Help!” alleged ‘love affair’ needs convincing proof. Having admitted to having had carnal
o But, Cepeda carried her to the room knowledge of the complainant several times, accused-appellant bears the burden of
o There, he threatened her with a knife and ordered her to remove her proving his defense by substantial evidence. The record shows that other than his
pany and lie on the bed self-serving assertions, there is no evidence to support the claim that accused-
o Afraid, she did as ordered and accused also removed his pants and appellant and private complainant were in love.
brief
o He placed himself on top of her, spread her legs with his legs, inserted It must be noted that accused-appellant and private complainant are both married
his penis inside her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her and are living together with their respective spouses. In this case, other than
o After he was through, she ran towards the kitchen with Cepeda accused-appellant’s self-serving testimony, no other evidence like love letters,
chasing her mementos or pictures were presented to prove his alleged amorous relationship
 Regina Carba confirmed this narration of the claimant with private complainant. Neither was there any corroborative testimony supporting
o Also said that Conchita had been a masseuse this pretended illicit affair. If accused-appellant were really the paramour of private
 A certain Veronica Delmiguez declared that in the afternoon of said date, she complainant, she would not have gone to the extent of bringing this criminal action
heard a shout for help from the house of Cepeda which inevitably exposed her to humiliation of recounting in public the violation of
o She looked and saw that the windows were closed her womanhood. Moreover, she would not have implicated a person, who is
 The charge is refuted by the accused claiming that he and Conchita are lovers allegedly her lover, as the perpetrator of an abominable crime and thereby lay open
o He came to know her as he passes by her house in going to his place their illicit relationship to public shame and ridicule not to mention the ire of a
of work cuckolded husband and the withering contempt of her children were it not the truth.
o The complainant has gone to their house a couple of times Evidence to be believed must not only come from a credible source but must also be
o On one time, he courted her by saying: “Sing, I knew that you like me credible in itself such as one that the common experience and observation of
and I like you.” mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. The Court has taken
 Then they had sexual intercourse (which happened several judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas in this country, women by custom
times) and tradition act with circumspection and prudence, and that great caution is
o On a certain day, she asked him to leave his wife to elope with her as observed so that their reputation remains untainted. Such circumspection must
she would also leave her husband have prompted the victim to request Regina Carba to accompany her on the errand
 He rejected this proposal because he loved his wife and of mercy to accused-appellant’s house. Unfortunately, Carba was shooed away by
Conchita had 3 daughters accused-appellant on the pretext that his wife who was a Muslim was averse to
 Conchita, according to him, was displeased because he would having too many people in their house.
not elope with her
o On the day when it was alleged that complainant was raped, he Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that acused-appellant and private complainant
alleged that Conchita again came to his house and while they were were indeed sweethearts as he claims, this fact alone will not extricate him from his
petting, somebody outside his house said: “You there, what are you predicament. The mere assertion of a love relationship’ would not necessarily rule
doing?” out the use of force to consummate the crime. It must be stressed that in rape
 At this Conchita left his house and went home cases, the gravamen of the offense is sexual intercourse with a woman against her
 In the evening, he was arrested will or without her consent. Thus, granting arguendo that the accused and the
victim were really lovers this Court has reiterated time and again that “[A]
sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot
demand sexual-gratification from a fiancee, worse, employ violence upon her on the
pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust”

As aptly pointed out in People v. Mendoza, a married woman with a husband and
three (3) daughters would not publicly admit that she had been criminally abused
unless that was the truth. Similarly, it defies reason in this case why a mother of
four (4) would concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private
parts and publicly disclose that she has been sexually abused if her motive were
other than to fight for her honor and bring to justice the person who defiled her.

In scrutinizing the credibility of witnesses, case law has established the following
doctrinal guidelines: first, the appellate tribunal will not disturb the findings of the
lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or
misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have
affected the result of the case; second, the findings of the trial court pertaining to
the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality since it had
the opportunity to examine their demeanor as they testified on the witness stand;
and third, a witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and
frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.

To restate what had been said earlier, it is highly inconceivable visàvis the
prevailing facts of the case for the victim to conjure a tale of ravishment and, in the
process, subject herself and her family to the disgrace, social humiliation and
trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape as well as the stigma of a lifetime of
shame incident thereto. Furthermore, the conduct of the victim immediately
following the alleged assault is of utmost importance so as to establish thetruth or
falsity of the charges of rape. In this case, we find the private complainant’s prompt
report of her defilement to her husband as well as the authorities as convincing
indications that she has been truly wronged. A complainant’s act in immediately
reporting the commission of rape has been considered by this Court as a factor
strengthening her credibility.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ALBERTO LASE, ALIAS "BERT", A. He wanted to pay me but I did not agree.
G.R. NO. 97957 MARCH 5, 1993
Q. You mean that he wanted to settle this case but you refused?
NATURE OF THE CASE: Accused-appellant appeals the decision of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate convicting him of the crime of murder for the death of A. Yes, sir.
Dante Huelva on 18 May 1987 in Barangay Pia-ong, Dimasalang, Masbate.
Q. How much were they offering you for this case to be settled?
FACTS: Two days after the death of Dante Huelva, the Acting Station Manager of
the National Police of Masbate filed a murder case with MTCT. The Judge issued a A. About ten thousand."
warrant of arrest against the accused.
Accused version of the incident:
Accused-appellant was arrested on 20 May 1987 and was released the following day
after posting the required bond. Accused-appellant Alberto Lase testified that on May 18, 1987, at around
5:30 in the afternoon, he was with Miguel Andueza at the house of
Having failed to submit his counter-affidavit for purposes of the preliminary Kagawad Marcelo Tamayo. They waited for Artemio Andueza who was then
investigation, the MCTC considered him as having waived the second stage of the drunk. At around 7:00 in the evening, they were fetched by Mrs. Andueza
preliminary investigation and ordered the records of the case forwarded to the who informed them that something happened in Piaong.
Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate.
The charges levelled against him is (sic) not true. In fact, after preliminary
Accused-appellant then sought a reinvestigation of the case; this request was investigation by the fiscal, the case against him was dismissed. The reason
consequently granted. The provincial prosecutor dismissed the investigation for why he was implicated in this case was because Ramon Sayson told the
insufficiency of evidence against the accused. On appeal to the Department of policeman that Dante Huelva's assailant was tall and that victim's (sic)
Justice by the offended party, however, the abovecited resolution was reversed by parents wanted to be paid for the death of the victim."
the then Secretary of Justice.
In his surrebuttal testimony, accused-appellant vaguely denied this offer of
On 9 November 1988, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal filed with the Regional Trial compromise. He, however, insinuated that he could offer a higher amount:
Court (RTC) of Masbate an Information.
Q. Mrs. Huelva testified here that you are offering in this case for P10,000,
Upon being arraigned on 1 September 1989, accused-appellant entered a plea of is that true. (sic).
not guilty.
WITNESS:
Prosecution’s Version of the Incident:
A. I did not say that. If that is true even P50,000 I am going to pay them."
On May 18, 1987, at about 6:30 o'clock in the evening, Domingo (sic)
Pangantihon was on his way home from Piaong, Dimasalang, Masbate, The defense also sought to discredit the testimony of Dominico
when appellant Alberto Lase and Ramon Sayson passed him by. At that Pangantihon because it was months after the incident, and only after
moment, Dante Huelva was about six meters ahead of them and was Ramon Sayson failed to testify, that he decided to come out and testify as
urinating by the roadside. Appellant proceeded directly to the back of an alleged eyewitness to the killing.
Dante Huelva and without any warning stabbed him once with a 7-inch
The trial court gave full credit to the version of the prosecution and disregarded the
long Batangas knife in the stomach. Afterwards, appellant ran away. Dante
defense of alibi in view of the positive identification of the accused-appellant and the
Huelva shouted for help. Ramon Sayson came to his rescue and brought
possibility of his being at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
him towards the Poblacion.

ISSUE: Whether the accused offer to settle can be used against him?
In her rebuttal testimony, Godofreda Huelva testified that accused-
appellant offered to settle the case for the sum of P10,000.00.
HELD: Yes. The alleged contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of Cpl.
Mitra relate to minor, if not inconsequential, matters. The rule is settled that minor
Q. Now the accused also testified that you filed this case against
inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of witnesses; on the contrary, they may
him because you wanted him to be paid about (sic) the death of the
even heighten their credibility.
victim?
Then too, accused-appellant offered to compromise the case for the sum of
P10,000.00. The second paragraph of Section 27, Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules of Court expressly provides that:

"In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal

negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt."

The accused merely provided alibi as a defense wherein he was identified positively,
there is no motive against him. The testimony of the witness are given respect since
credibility of the witness are left with the trial court to be observed and respected
by this Court except if there are apparent mistake in the interpretation or
appreciation of the testiomony.

The penalty prescribed for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, a penalty which consists of
three (3) periods. 39 There being neither generic aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances present, the imposable penalty is the medium period of the
prescribed penalty - reclusion perpetua. 40 The trial court is therefore correct.
However, conformably with the prevailing jurisprudence, the indemnity should be
increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00.

WHEREFORE, except for the above observations with respect to the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime, and the modification of the indemnity which is hereby
increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, the challenged Decision of Branch 45 of
the Regional Trial Court of Masbate in Criminal Case No. 5557 finding the accused-
appellant ALBERTO LASE, alias "BERT" guilty of the crime charged, is hereby
AFFIRMED.
TRANS-PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, INC., vs.The COURT OF APPEALS find sufficient justification to overthrow the presumption of payment generated by
and ASSOCIATED BANK the delivery of the documents evidencing petitioners indebtedness.
G.R. No. 109172 August 19, 1994
It may not be amiss to add that Article 1271 of the Civil Code raises a presumption,
not of payment, but of the renunciation of the credit where more convincing
FACTS: evidence would be required than what normally would be called for to prove
 Petitioner applied for and was granted several financial accommodations by payment. The rationale for allowing the presumption of renunciation in the delivery
respondent Associated Bank, which were secured by 4 PNs, a REM (three of a private instrument is that, unlike that of a public instrument, there could be
parcels of land) and a chattel mortgage over petitioner's stock and inventories. just one copy of the evidence of credit. Where several originals are made out of a
 Unable to settle, petitioner requested, and was granted by respondent bank, a private document, the intendment of the law would thus be to refer to the delivery
restructuring of the remaining indebtedness. To secure, 3 new PNs were only of the original original rather than to the original duplicate of which the debtor
executed by Trans-Pacific as follows: (1) Promissory Note No. TL-9077-82 for would normally retain a copy. It would thus be absurd if Article 1271 were to be
the amount of P1,050,000.00 denominated as working capital; (2) Promissory applied differently.
Note No. TL-9078-82 for the amount of P121,166.00 denominated as
restructured interest; (3) Promissory Note No. TL-9079-82 for the amount of (Relevant to the topic)
P42,234.00 denominated similarly as restructured interest. That petitioner has not fully liquidated its financial obligation to the Associated Bank
 The released parcels of land were sold and the proceeds were applied to Trans- finds more than ample confirmation and self-defeating posture in its letter dated
Pacific's restructured loan. Respondent bank returned the duplicate original December 16, 1985, addressed to respondent bank, viz.:
copies of the 3 PNs to Trans-Pacific with the word "PAID" stamped thereon.
 Despite the return of the notes, Associated Bank demanded from Trans-Pacific we propose that you permit us to fully liquidate the remaining obligations
payment of the amount of P492,100.00 representing accrued interest on PN No. to you of P492,100 through a payment in kind (dacion en pago)
TL-9077-82. According to the bank, the promissory note PNs were erroneously arrangement by way of the equipments (sic) and spare parts under chattel
released. mortgage to you to the extent of their latest appraised values."
 Trans-Pacific initiated an action before the RTC praying that the mortgage over
the two parcels of land be released and its stock inventory be lifted and that its Followed by its August 20, 1986 letter which reads:
obligation to the bank be declared as having been fully paid.
 RTC ruled in favor of Trans-Pacific. On appeal, CA reversed the decision of the We have had a series of communications with your bank regarding our
trial court. proposal for the eventual settlement of our remaining obligations . . .
we have always been conscious of our obligation to you which had not
ISSUE: been faithfully serviced on account of unfortunate business reverses. ….
Whether or not petitioner has indeed paid in full its obligation to respondent bank. But because of interest and other charges, we find ourselves still obligated
to you by P492,100.00. . . .
HELD: No. Respondent court is of the view that: . . . We continue to find ourselves in a very fluid (sic) situation… Principally
for this reason, we had proposed to settle our remaining obligations to you
Art. 1271 (NCC) The delivery of a private document evidencing a by way of dacion en pago of the equipments (sic) and spare parts
credit, made voluntarily by the creditor to the debtor, implies the mortgaged to you to (the) extent of their applicable loan values.
renunciation of the action which the former had against the latter.
Petitioner claims that the offer of settlement or compromise is not an admission that
must be construed to mean the original copy of the document evidencing the credit anything is due and is inadmissible against the party making the offer (Sec. 24,
and not its duplicate. Rule 130, Rules of Court). Unfortunately, this is not an iron-clad rule.

The above pronouncement of respondent court is manifestly groundless. It is To determine the admissibility or non-admissibility of an offer to compromise, the
undisputed that the documents presented were duplicate originals and are therefore circumstances of the case and the intent of the party making the offer should be
admissible as evidence. Further, it must be noted that respondent bank itself did considered. Thus, if a party denies the existence of a debt but offers to pay the
not bother to challenge the authenticity of the duplicate copies submitted by same for the purpose of buying peace and avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement
petitioner. A duplicate copy of the original may be admitted in evidence when the is inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party making the offer admits the
original is in the possession of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the claim amicably,
the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice (Sec. 2[b], Rule 130), as in the then, the admission is admissible to prove such indebtedness. Indeed, an offer of
case of respondent bank. settlement is an effective admission of a borrower's loan balance. Exactly, this is
what petitioner did in the case before us for review. WHEREFORE, the petition is
This notwithstanding, we find no reversible error committed by the respondent court DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.
in disposing of the appealed decision. The presumption created by the Art. 1271 of
the Civil Code is not conclusive but merely prima facie. If there be no evidence to
the contrary, the presumption stands. Conversely, the presumption loses its legal
efficacy in the face of proof or evidence to the contrary. In the case before us, we
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. VEVINA BUEMIO PEOPLE VS. AMACA
G.R. NOS. 114011-22. DECEMBER 16, 1996 GR NO. 110129 AUGUST 11, 1997

FACTS: FACTS: Accused Amaca and another known as “Ogang” were charged for shooting
Wilson Vergara. During the trial, the prosecution presented Dr. Edgar Pialago, a
resident physician on duty when the victim was brought to the hospital after the
1. Herein accused Buemio was charged with several information on illegal
shooting. The doctor testified that he was able to attend to the victim who had
recruitment and estafa.
undergone a surgical operation conducted by another doctor. At that time, the
a. She is charged with illegal recruitment by several people. Her
major organs of the victim were no longer functioning normally, while his pancreas
modus is that she would tell the victims that she can help them
was likewise injured due to the 2 gunshot wounds at his back. The victim was
place jobs in Japan, earning 10,000 yen per day. She would
admitted at 10:45PM but expired the following evening at 10PM. According to Dr.
collect 60k as placement fee, and when the time comes, they
Pialago, even with immediate medical attention, the victim could not survive the
would get a ticket to Korea instead, Buemio claiming that it’s
wounds he sustained.
“easier” to get into Japan if they are in Korea.
b. However, this would turn out to be a hoax as the victims would
Another witness testified, PO Mangubat, a police officer , who interviewed the
never go to Japan and would be forced to use their return tickets.
victim (Wilson Vergara) right after the shooting. Mangubat testified that he saw the
Buemio would also fail to return the money they paid even though
victim already on board a Ford Fiera pick-up ready for transport to the hospital. He
she promised to do so.
inquired from the victim about the incident, and the former answered he was shot
2. Hence, her victims filed a complaint with the NBI, who later found probable
by CVO Amaca and Ogang. Upon query why he was shot, the victim said he did not
cause.
know the reason why he was shot. Upon being asked as to his condition, the victim
3. RTC found her GUILTY. SC AFFIRMED.
said that he was about to die. He was able to reduce into writing the declaration of
4. Based on the facts, some of those complainants were never mentioned in
the victim and made latter affixed his thumb mark with the use of his own blood in
the award of damages.
the presence of Wagner Cardenas, the brother of the City Mayor.
5. SC found that the reason why RTC did not mention the other complainants
was due to an affidavit of desistance they filed.
Segundina Vergara, mother of the victim, and her son-in-law Jose Lapera both
desisted from further prosecution of the case. the former because of the "financial
help" extended by the accused to her family, and the latter because Segundina had
ISSUE: W/N the complainant’s affidavits of desistance would be enough to already "consented to the amicable settlement of the case." Despite this, the
exonerate the accused of the crime charged Department of Justice found the existence of a prima facie case based on the
victim's ante mortem statement.
Ruling: NO.
The lower court convicted Amaca on the basis of the victim's ante mortemstatement
Ratio: Generally, the court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of desistance, to Police Officer Mangubat positively identifying accused. The dying declaration was
especially when it is executed as an afterthought. Some of the complainants may deemed sufficient to overcome the accused’s defense of alibi. However, due to the
voluntary desistance of the victim's mother from further prosecuting the case, the
have had a change of heart as the offense on their person is concerned, but this will
court a quo declined to make a finding on the civil liability of the appellant.
not affect the public prosecution of the offense itself.
ISSUE: Whether or not offer of compromise is admissible against the accused
The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by
a natural law belongs to the sovereign power instantly charged by the common will HELD: YES. The "financial help" when viewed as an offer of compromise may be
of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the interest of the deemed as additional proof to demonstrate appellant's criminal liability. The victim's
community mother desisted from prosecuting the case in consideration of the "financial help"
extended to her family by the accused-appellant.
The cardinal principle which states that to the State belongs the power to prosecute
It is a well-settled rule that that the desistance of the victim's complaining mother
and punish crimes should not be overlooked since a criminal offense is an outrage does not bar the People from prosecuting the criminal action, but it does operate as
to the sovereign State. a waiver of the right to pursue civil indemnity. Hence, in effectively waiving her
right to institute an action to enforce the civil liability of accused-appellant, she also
waived her right to be awarded any civil indemnity arising from the criminal
prosecution. This waiver is bolstered by the fact that neither she nor any private
prosecutor in her behalf appealed the trial court's refusal to include a finding of civil
liability. But the heirs, if there are any may file an independent civil action to
recover damages for the death of Wilson Vergara.
FELICIANO B. GARDINER, AS ACTING PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF PAMPANGA privy to the acts of the others; the act of one conspirator is the act of all the
V. HONORABLE PEDRO MAGSALIN, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF coconspirators.
PAMPANGA, ET AL.
G.R. NO. 48185. AUGUST 18, 1941 DISPOSITION: Let the writ of mandate issue as prayed for by the petitioner.

PETITION: Petition for the writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to
admit the testimony of Catalino Fernandez, one of the accused, to prove the alleged
conspiracy between him and his five co-accused.

FACTS: Gardiner, filed an information against the Catalino Fernandez and

respondents Pedro Yalung, Eugenio Villegas, Maximo Manlapid, Magno Icban, and
Rufino Maun, charging them with having conspired together to kill, and that they did
kill, Gaudencio Vivar, with evident premeditation.

Upon arraignment Catalino Fernandez pleaded guilty and his five co-accused, not
guilty. At the trial of the latter, Catalino was called by the fiscal as his first witness,
to testify to the alleged conspiracy. Upon objection of counsel for the defense, the
Respondent Judge Magsalin did not permit the witness Catalino Fernandez to testify
against his co-accused, on the ground that he being a conspirator, his act or
declaration is not admissible against his co-conspirators until the conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration, under section 12, rule 123 of
the Rules of Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Catalino can validly testify to the conspiracy. YES.

RULING:

SEC. 12. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator

relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence
against the coconspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such
act or declaration.

It is one of the exceptions to the "res inter alios" rule. It refers to an extrajudicial
declaration of a conspirator — not to his testimony by way of direct evidence.

For illustration, let us suppose that after the formation but before the
consummation of the alleged conspiracy between Catalino Fernandez and his five
co-accused, the former borrowed a bolo from a friend, stating that he and his co-
accused were going to kill Gaudencio Vivar. Such act and declaration of Fernandez
could not be given in evidence against his co-accused unless the conspiracy be
proven first. The testimony of Fernandez’s friend to the effect that Fernandez
borrowed his bolo and told him that he (Fernandez) and his co-accused were going
to kill Gaudencio Vivar would be admissible against Fernandez, but not against his
co-accused unless the conspiracy between them be proven first.

But, without proof of conspiracy, it is not admissible against Fernandez’s co-accused

because the act and declaration of Fernandez are res inter alios as to his co-accused
and, therefore, cannot affect them. But if there is conspiracy, each conspirator is
PEOPLE VS CONDEMENA Extrajudicial confessions, independently made without collusion, which are identical
G.R. NO. L-22426 | MAY 29, 1968 with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on
record, are admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated to
FACTS: show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the
crime. As this Court has said:
On October 6, 1962, at about 6 o'clock in the afternoon, Barcelisa Lamoste was
sitting by the side of the cradle of her child facing her husband Fermin Lamoste who While confession of a co-conspirator are not ordinarily admissible as
was on the yard of the house. Their eldest daughter, Esmeralda Lamoste, 14 years evidence against another co-conspirator, the fact that they implicate the
old at that time, was at the door of their house together with her younger brothers latter and were made soon after the commission of the crime, is
and sisters. Suddenly, four men arrived at their house. That Simplicio Aniel and circumstantial evidence to show the probability of their co-conspirator
Casamero Patino were armed with guns, and Pelagio Condemena and Ricarido having actually participated therein. (People vs. Lumahang et al., L-6357,
Causing were armed with bolos when these four men arrived in their house on May 7, 1954.)
October 6, 1962, at about 6 o'clock in the afternoon. That upon their arrival,
Simplicio Aniel rushed towards her and pointed the gun, about one foot long, at her The appellant Simplicio Aniel is liable as principal because the evidence does not
face, telling her the following words: "Do not shout. If you shout. I will kill you." show that he had attempted to prevent the assault and the killing of Fermin
Lamoste. (People vs. Garduque, et al., L-10133, July 31, 1958.)
Barcelisa Lamoste, out of fear, did not in fact shout. While Simplicio Aniel was thus
pointing the gun at her, the three other men went directly towards where her
husband was. Two of them, Casamero Patino and Ricarido Causing, each held the
hands of her husband and when resistance from Fermin Lamoste was already
impossible, Pelagio Condemena, with the use of his bolo, stabbed her husband on
the right side of the breast. Upon being hit with the bolo-stab, she heard her
husband said: "Dong, why did you stab me when I did not commit any wrong?"
After Fermin Lamoste was stabbed, Pelagio Condemena, Ricarido Causing and
Casamero Patino dragged her husband towards the kitchen of the house. Pelagio
Condemena stayed outside while Casamero Patino and Ricarido Causing went up the
house through the kitchen and took the amount of P200.00.

ISSUE:

Whether or not appellant Simplicio Aniel has been sufficiently identified as one of
the four men who participated in the commission of the crime charged?

HELD: YES.

Well settled is the rule that the defense of alibi is weak where the prosecution
witnesses positively identified the accused. To prosper such a defense, it must be
established by clear and convincing evidence and not merely supported by
witnesses who bear close ties of relationship to the accused. The degree of the
evidence trust be such as to preclude any doubt that the accused could not have
been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity, at the
time of its commission.

The positive identification of appellant Simplicio Aniel was further bolstered when
Pelagio Condemena and Casamero Patino, in their sworn statements Exhibits "B"
and "C", named Simplicio Aniel as one of them in the group when they killed Fermin
Lamoste and robbed the house of P200.00 on October 6, 1962, at about 6:00
o'clock in the afternoon.
PEOPLE VS PROVO  The defense presented these testimonies:
GR L-28347 | January 20, 1971 o Leonard David claimed his brother Federico, was the one who
urged him to come with Jose Mesina. His brother was the one who
NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CFI decision. apparently held Matignas on the shoulder before wresting the
Carbine rifle from the victim. Matignas was then led to the bottom
FACTS: of the hill and hit with fist blows and the butt of the rifle until he
 On October 9 1958, MATIGNAS SERRANO,a security guard in a guard post was unconscious. This was subscribed and sworn before the
in “Pisok” (a small plateau) near Clark Airfield, was forcibly taken by FIVE Justice of Peace in Pampanga.
men shortly after dusk. The security guard was then found dead two days o Emilio Provo, the son of the accused PAN PROVO, in his statement
later in a sugarcane plantation near the post, with a broken jaw and spine. before the Fiscal of Tarlac at the preliminary investigation, claimed
 On December 2 1958, an Information was filed charging (1) Jose Messina, that Jose Mesina frequently met with his father Pan Provo.
(2) Leonard David, (3) PAN PROVO, and two other John Does for the Apparently In 1958, Pan Provo was the supervisor in the digging
offense of kidnapping with murder. of cables in Clark Airfield, along with Jose Mesina and Emilio, and
 The prosecution presented the testimony of Armstrong, the superintendent that they were selling the stolen cables to a Chinaman in
of the police at CLARK AIRFIELD, and some other people, including the Pampanga.
testimony of the victim’s brother Anastacio, and the victim’s wife Benita  ON the fateful day, just after twilight, Emilio and Pan
(the testimony of the second group were lumped together). Provo went to the house of Jose Mesina, whom the latter
o ARMSTRONG testimony – invited to go to “Pisok”, the area guarded by Matignas;
 Clark Airfield used to maintain communications with that on the way thereto, Federico David, alias "Pedring,"
Camp O’Donnel by radio and underground cables. To and Leonardo David, alias "Benaring," joined them; that
protect the installation of the cables, the US engaged the before reaching the place, Emilio's companion said that
PH Scouts and a non-Christian Tribe (the BALUGA, of they would get Matignas Serrano, the guard in that place,
which the victim Serrano is a member). "because of the tubes" they were taking "and that one
 Early 1958, the comms were experiencing technical that was enclosed in a tank which were being guarded by
difficulty, due to the pilferage of cables. Matignas Serrano. Then the kidnapping and killing of
 He saw Pan Provo conversing with Jose Messina on Matignas was again narrated. Afterwards, Emilio and Pan
several occasions. Provo fled to the mountains after the body of Matignas
 Pan Provo is another BALUGA chief in the region, and was found.
that Provo asked Armstrong to engage the services of  Emilio Provo DENIED however that this testimony in the
Matignas Serrano as sentry. lower court, and merely claimed he gave it upon the
o Second group’s testimonies – instructions of an Angel Manipon who assured him he
 Anastacio claimed that Jose Mesina once went to him would free after giving the same.
with 3 other people on the morning of that fateful day, o Jose Messina claimed he did go to Anastacio’s house on the fateful
and after having lunch, asked Anastacio to let him get day, but claimed he attended religious service with the INC which
some “pipes” (referring to the cables) near the area lasted until 8PM that day. At about 8:30 p.m. he and Ruben Villas
guarded by his brother. attended a barrio meeting called by barrio lieutenant Remigio
 Anastacio refused, to which Jose Messina remarked that Ocampo; that, upon adjournment of the meeting, around 10:00
“if you don’t know how to talk with people, you will not p.m., they returned to the house of Mesina and then went to bed.
live long”. Mesina left at 3PM  RTC acquitted Leonard David and Pan Provo based on reasonable doubt,
 Benita claimed that she gave a flashlight to her husband but CONVICTED Jose Mesina.
just after sunset. Afterwards, Jose Mesina arrived with  Jose Mesina filed the appeal.
four other masked men, and asked for a light for his
cigarette from Matignas, and then grabbed hold of ISSUE: Whether or not Mesina’s case can be harmed by the admissions/confessions
Matignas’ rifle and dragged him down the hill. of David and Provo.
 Benita screamed for help, and her nephew called
Anastacio, who reported the kidnapping to the Air Base. HELD: YES. The circumstantial evidence of the David and Provo admissions are
The next morning a search team looked for clues. admissible against Mesina.
 The story of the search team’s efforts were relayed by
LAXAMANA. Apparently, Jose Mesina joined the search RULING:
team. At a certain juncture, he implored the team to go a It should be noted that, although extrajudicial confessions are in general admissible
left (despite Laxamana wanting to turn right to follow a only against those who made the same, this rule is subject to an exception.
small set of footprints), at which point the team found
nothing. Upon their return, Benita for the first time Extra-judicial confessions independently made without collusion, which are identical
claimed Jose Mesina is the one who kidnapped with each other in their essential detailsand are corroborated by other evidence on
Matignas. record, are admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated to
show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the
crime.

The applicability of the foregoing exception — which has been repeatedly

acknowledged and applied by this Court — to the case at bar becomes apparent
when we bear in mind that the statements contained in the statements of Leonardo
David and Emilio Provo were made — obviously without collusion and
independently of each other — for the purpose of establishing the guilt of
Federico David and Pan Provo, respectively, and that they corroborate one
anotherand the testimony of Benita Mayuyu, Anastacio Serrano and Kudiaru
Laxamana with respect to the fact that Matignas Serrano was dragged away from
his guard post in the evening of October 9, 1958, by Mesina and several other
persons — apparently for not allowing them to steal and take away electric cables
from Clark Field Air Base — and then killed. Hence, said Exhibits were properly
admitted as circumstantial evidence tending to show the probability of the
participation of appellant in the commission of said offense, as testified to by said
witnesses for the prosecution.

Furthermore, this is coupled with the weak defense of the appellant, which cannot
stand as against the evidence stacked against him by the prosecution, namely the
positive identification by the wife, and corroborated by the extrajudicial
admissions/confessions.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: the Decision of the Court of FIRST INSTANCE is

AFFIRMED, with modification on the indemnity.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARCADIO PUESCA alias "Big Boy",
WALTER, APA, FILOMENO MACALINAO, JR. alias "White", MAGNO
MONTANO alias "Edol", JOSE GUSTILO alias "Peping" and RICARDO
DAIRO alias 'Carding"

G.R. No. L-27909 December 5, 1978

Nature of the case: Automatic review of the judgment

FACTS:

Puesca, Apa, Gustilo, Macalinao, Dairo, Montano (6 in all)were charged

with robbery in band with homicide, to which they pleaded not guilty. Sgt. Lucio
Bano, testified as a prosecution witness regarding the extrajudicial confession made
to him by the accused Arcadio Puesca. He said that Puesca, aside from admitting his
participation in the commission of the offense charged, revealed that other persons
conspired with him to commit the offense, mentioning the name of each and
everyone of them. Following up to the testimony, the prosecuting officer asked the
witness to mention in court the names of Puesca's alleged co-conspirators. Counsel
for the accused Macalinao, Gustilo and Dairo objected to this, upon the ground that
whatever the witness would say would be hearsay as far as his clients were
concerned. The judge resolved the objection directing the witness to answer the
question but without mentioning or giving the names of the accused who had
interposed the objection. In other words, the witness was allowed to answer the
question and name his co-conspirators except those who had raised the
objection. The prosecution filed a certiorari to allow the witness to answer in full.

ISSUES:

WON Sgt. Bano should be allowed to mention all the names of the alleged
conspirators

RULING:

Yes, he should be allowed.

RATIO:

- Hearsay evidence, if timely objected to, may not be admitted. But while the
testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if intended
to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay
evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is
merely to establish the fact that the statement was made.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARCELINO CEDON  Another witness (Rudito Basilan) supports the respondent’s protestation of
G.R. NO. 101117 – JUNE 15, 1994 innocence. According to him he was also forced to go to the said barangay
by Bulan to gather bamboo.
Facts:  If respondent’s culpability was based on the sole fact that he was seen
near the house of Felimon when the latter was kidnapped, then Basilan
 The Respondent Accused, who being a member of a terrorist group and should have been indicted also for he was also in the crime scene.
armed with assorted firearms, conspiring, confederating together and  Conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court does not
mutually helping and aiding one another with other individuals who are still find respondent to be a conspirator for his was a passive presence in the
at large, did and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and illegally kidnap scene of the crime. Mere presence of the accused at the scene of the crime
and carry away the person of Felimon Gerona from his house to an does not imply conspiracy.
unknown island and kept the same under heavy guard to better secure the  The prosecution failed to prove any overt act showing that respondent
consent of the victim through fear the ransom in the amount of 5,000 joined the gang of Bulan to perpetrate the crime. Mere knowledge,
pesos. acquiescence to or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one
 Felimon while having lunch in his house, several armed men ordered him as a party to a conspiracy, absent an active participation in the commission
to go down his house. His hands were bound and he recognize some of of the crime.
them as Teofilo Bulan and Ruben Bolito who belong to a gang of robbers
called “Sabarra”. He also noticed appellant standing on the concrete SC reverse decision of the lower court and Acquit the accused.
pavement near the beach.
 Felimon was being accussed by the perpetrators on being an intelligent
agent which he denied, and he was taken eventually to Aripuyok island People v. Camiling (424 SCRA 698)
known as the killing fields.
 Felimon agreed to give 5,000 pesos and he was taken back to his
FACTS:
Barangay. When they arrived on the said barangay he again saw the
respondent sitting on the concrete fence near the beach. Masterline Grocery was robbed by men with firearms. Upon escaping they killed a
 Felimon withdrew the ransom money and had his wife sent it to Bulan. cop and wounding the owner of a nearby bread store. When an investigation was
 Felimon did not immediately report the incident to the police authorities being conducted after the apprehension of theaccused robbers, one NatyPanimbaan
but informed the same only after the town people had organized the “alsa testified that she was present when all the other robbers were planning the heist.
masa” as a counter insurgency movement. He also enlisted as a CAFGU as Camiling, among the robbers, denied liability and impugned the credibility of Naty,
as she was allegedly a polluted source, hence making her testimony inadmissible.
a means to retaliate against the extortionist.
 Respondent was later on arrested by Felimon. Respondent claimed his
innocence and that he was force by Bulan to come with them for fear of his ISSUE:
life. Whether Naty‘s testimony is admissible?
 Respondent assert that he was only apprehended by Felimon for the latter
wanted him to testify against Bulan, from which he refused.
 RTC find the respondent guilty of Kidnapping for Ransom RULING:
The rules on Admission by Conspirator prescribe that any declaration made by a
conspirator relating to the conspiracy is admissible against him alone but not
Issue: W/N Respondent should be held liable as conspirator for the crime of
against his co-conspirators unless the conspiracy is first shown by other
Kidnapping for Ransom in relation to the testimony for Felimon Gerona and Pedro independent evidence. However, such rule only applies to extrajudicial declarations
Comeque? or admissions and not to testimony given on the witness stand where the party
adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Naty made
Ruling: No the testimony in open court sooo....alamna.

 Testimony of Felimon cas doubt as to whether respondent was really an

active participant on the said crime.
 Comeque’s testimony had an admission that his testimony that respondent
was a member of the group of Bulan was based on heasay.
US V. BAY the arrival of those aboard was a fortunate coincidence which she could not well
G.R. NO. L-9341 | AUGUST 14, 1914 have anticipated, had she planned the filing of false charges against the accused.
There can be no question also that she went immediately to the councilman of her
FACTS: The information in this case charges the appellant, Servando Bay, with the barrio to make complaint against the accused, accompanied by some of the
crime of rape committed against Florentina Alcones. passengers on the boat. And there can be no question also that as a result, these
proceedings were instituted forthwith in the court of the justice of the peace.
The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution is substantially as follows: That
the complaining witness and the accused are neighbors: that about 7 o'clock in the There is a direct conflict in the testimony as to whether the accused, when the
evening of June 7, when turning from her rice field she was joined by the accused, complaint was made to the councilman of the barrio, did or did not admit his guilt,
and that a short distance from the mouth of Subaan River he caught hold of her, and this evidence is so contradictory that it would be difficult if not possible to make
picked her up, and carried her to the edge of some thickets, where he threw her on an express finding on this point. But whatever be the truth as to these alleged
the ground and attempted to have carnal intercourse with her; that angered by her admissions of his guilt, the evidence leaves no room for doubt that neither at the
resistance he drew his dagger, and forced her under threat of her life to accede to moment when the party in the boat came upon him in company with his victim nor
his desires; that a party who were passing near the place where the crime was when he appeared before the councilman upon her complaint did he claim, as he
committed heard her cries, and put into shore; that one of the parties stepped does now, that her charge that he had assaulted her was a pure fabrication,
ashore, and seeing the accused get up from the place where the woman claims the invented for the purpose of wreaking vengeance upon him.
crime was committed, asked "What's this?"; that the accused made no explanation
of his conduct or his presence there, and left the place forthwith; that immediately Under such circumstances, we are convinced that an innocent man would instantly
thereafter the woman, accompanied by some of the party from the boat, went to and indignantly repudiate such a charge, and attempt there and then to establish
the councilman of the barrio and made the complaint; that the accused, having his innocence, explaining how he came to be there present with the woman, and the
been brought before the councilman and asked had he committed the crime of conditions under which she had made the false charge.
which he was charged, admitted that he had; that thereafter the accused was sent
to the justice of the peace, who held him for trial. The witnesses called both for the prosecution and the defense go into considerable
detail as to all that occurred at the time when the party on board the boat
Counsel for appellant lays great stress upon certain apparent contradictions and responded to the calls of the woman and immediately thereafter, and yet there is
inconsistencies in the testimony of some of the witnesses for the prosecution, and not the slightest indication in the evidence that there was on the part of the accused
vigorously contends that the trial court erred in accepting as true the testimony of any such indignant denials and protests as would be expected from an innocent
the complaining witness and of the witnesses called by the prosecution to man suddenly confronted with such a charge under such circumstances. Indeed his
corroborate her. He emphasizes what he calls the inherent improbability of the story conduct at that time was, to our minds, wholly at variance with that which might
told by the offended woman, and points to the facts that she appears to be much fairly be expected from him, granting the truth of his testimony and that of the
more than twice the age of the accused, and anything but attractive in her personal other witnesses for the defense.
appearance . His contention is that the charge of rape is a pure fabrication, and that
it was brought by the woman for the sole purpose of wreaking her vengeance and
spite upon the accused, with whom she had a quarrel over the trespass of one of his
carabaos on her land.

ISSUE: Whether the conduct of the accused on the day he was brought to the
councilman showed his attempt to establish his innocence

HELD: NO. It is true that there are some apparent contradictions and
inconsistencies in the testimony of some of the ignorant witnesses called for the
prosecution, and that it is somewhat difficult to understand how the accused, a
young married man, could have been so lost to all sense of right and decency as to
assault a woman so much older than himself, a neighbor, and an old friend of his
family. But her evidence, supported by that of other witnesses for the prosecution,
is so convincing and conclusive that we are forced to believe that he did it in fact
commit the atrocious crime with which he is charged.

It conclusively appears that the offended woman sought assistance and made
formal and official complaint immediately after the commission of crime under such
conditions as practically to preclude the possibility of a conspiracy between herself
and the other prosecuting witnesses to press a false charge against the accused.

There can be no possible doubt that the party passing in a boat the deserted place
where the crime was committed was attracted by her cries and complaints, and that
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MANUEL NAVOA Y MARTINEZ AND Navoa's confession was far from being the product of his free will. Assuming there
BERNARDO LIM Y RAMIREZ ALIAS "JACK ROBERTSON," ALIAS "LIM MING was no torture, there was, at the very least, improper pressure and intimidation.
TAK," ALIAS "CHRISTOPHER KELLY,"
G.R. NO. L-59551 AUGUST 19, 1986
The written waiver of appellant Navoa purportedly waiving his constitutional rights
to silence and to counsel should have been excluded by the trial court.ch In the
FACTS: case at bar, there was no such voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver. Exhibit
"O" is so pat and aptly worded, so contrived as to be exactly suited to meet legal
objections that it could have been prepared only by a veteran police investigator
This is an automatic review of the decision of the then Court of First Instance of
and not by an ordinary layman like appellant Manuel Navoa.
Manila, Sixth Judicial District, Branch XXX convicting defendants-appellants Manuel
Navoa and Bernardo Lim of the crime of Arson.
When Navoa waived his right to counsel and executed the extra-judicial confession,
he was alone in the company of the police interrogators, deprived of outside
Allegedly, Navoa and his companions, set fire to and burn the MANILA CINEMA
support. The Supreme Court is far from satisfied that the waiver of counsel and the
BUILDING with the use of gasoline, which resulted to substantial loss of property
subsequent confession were indeed products of Navoa's free will.
and the death of fourteen (14) victims

Further, the alibi of Navoa is well-supported by the collective testimonies of his

Defendant-appellant Bernardo Lim informed the latter that it was Manuel Navoa who
teachers who categorically testified that on those dates, he was present in their
was responsible for the fire that destroyed Manila Cinema 1 and 2.
classes based on their recollections and evidenced by their class records.

Relying solely on the credibility of Bernardo Lim and without first securing a warrant
aIn this particular case, the police should have been more aware of the protections
of arrest, Corporals Palmon and Harrison Tolosa arrested appellant Manuel Navoa.
afforded by Article IV, Section 20 of the Bill of Rights to persons undergoing
At the police headquarters, appellant Navoa allegedly executed statements waiving
custodial interrogation. In the belief that the extrajudicial confession and the re-
his constitutional rights to silence and to counsel and giving an extra-judicial
enactment, taken without the required constitutional safeguards, were enough to
confession
sustain conviction, determined efforts to apprehend the six other arsonists or to get
admissible and more convincing evidence were no longer taken.
Appellant Bernardo Lim likewise executed a waiver of his constitutional rights to
silence and to counsel and also gave an extra-judicial confession
Section 20 of the Bill of Rights which provides:

Solely on the basis of the extra-judicial confessions of both defendants-appellants

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under
the trial court rendered the appealed judgment of conviction.
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent
and to counsel and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat,
Thus, both defendants appealed to the Supreme Court intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against
him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in
ISSUE: evidence.

Whether the defendants’ extra judicial confession is sufficient to sustain a conviction WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Appellants Manuel Navoa and Bernardo Lim are ACQUITTED of the crime charged on
grounds of reasonable doubt.
RULING:

No. The main thrust of the defendants-appellants' arguments on appeal is that they
were not afforded the opportunity to avail of their rights under Section 20, Article IV
of the 1973 Constitution; that there was no intelligent waiver of their rights, and as
such, their extra-judicial confessions are inadmissible against them.

The records show that the extra-judicial confessions of the accused formed
the only basis for the judgment of conviction. The confessions were taken
without the assistance of any counsel for the accused. The confessions were
preceded by waivers of the right to counsel. During the trial, accused Navoa
repudiated the waivers and the confessions. He testified that the police investigators
employed force and intimidation, including outright torture to secure his confession.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO LUVENDINO y COTAS confessant carries the burden of convincing the court that his
G.R. No. 69971. July 3, 1992. admissions are involuntary and untrue. (People v. Manabo, 18
SCRA 30). This Luvendino had failed to do.
Facts:
Ratio:
 Lifeless body of Rowena Capcap was found in a grassy vacant lot within the
Deva Village Subdivision, Autopsy report stated that the victim’s death was The Supreme Court declined to uphold the admissibility of evidence relating
due to asphyxia by manual strangulation. to the re-enactment. The decision of the trial court itself, however, states that the
 An information has been filed in the trial court charging Luvendino , Borca re-enactment took place before Luvendino was brought to the police station. Thus,
and de Guzman with the crime of rape with murder. Warrants of arrest it is not clear from the record that before the re-enactment was staged by
were issued against all the accused. Luvendino, who was apprehended, Luvendino, he had been informed of his constitutional rights including, specifically,
pleaded not guilty at the arraignment where his counsel, Atty. Sardillo, his right to counsel and that he had waived such right before proceeding with the
assisted him. demonstration.
 TC - found Luvendino guilty and sentenced him to death.
 Luvendino contends that TC committed grievous error in admitting and The presumption of the law is one of spontaneity and voluntariness of an
giving credence to the evidence of re-enactment and admission of guilt, extrajudicial confession of an accused in a criminal case, for no person of normal
both of which were uncounseled. mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to being the perpetrator of a crime,
especially a heinous crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience.
Issue: Did the court err in holding that his "demonstration" or re-enactment of the
crime as well as his confession and subsequent written admission of guilt as Court has ruled that where the confessant failed to present any evidence of
admissible for having been made without the benefit of counsel. compulsion or duress or violence on his person for purposes of extracting a
confession; where he failed to complain to the officers who administered the oaths,
Held: For the re-enactment of the crime – Yes. such as the Fiscal in this case; where he did not institute any criminal or
administrative action against his alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where he
 Appellant Luvendino: contends that the "demonstration" or re- did not have himself examined by a reputable physician to buttress his claim of
enactment and his extrajudicial confession were effected and secured in maltreatment; and where the assailed confession is replete with details which could
the absence of a valid waiver by him of his constitutional rights and that not have been known to the police officers if they merely concocted the confession,
the re-enactment and the confession should be held inadmissible in since the statements were inculpatory in character, the extrajudicial confession
evidence because they had been involuntarily made. may be admitted, the above circumstances being considered as factors
 TC: records indicate that immediately after his apprehension, the police indicating voluntariness.
officers brought him to the Deva Subdivision where he demonstrated how
the victim was boxed, dragged and taken to the vacant lot, where she was Disposition: The decision of TC was modified changing the enforceable penalty
raped and throttled to death. According to the evidence for the from death to reclusion perpetua; Luvendino was required to pay heirs of Rowena
prosecution, Luvendino in the re-enactment, had not only admitted his Capcap actual and moral damages.
presence in the commission of the crime but had likewise admitted he was
with Borca in abusing Rowena. Significantly, the evidence for the
prosecution in this regard was not rebutted nor denied by the accused.
 TC: found that the accused was informed of his constitutional rights
"before he was investigated by Sgt. Galang in the police
headquarters" and cited the "Salaysay" 11 of appellant Luvendino.

For the extrajudicial confession of Luvendino – No.

 Appellant 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 police station and that a chain had been wrapped around
his neck.
 TC: disbelieved and rejected Luvendino’s claim that he had been beaten
into making his confession. In an extra-judicial confession, the
PEOPLE V. AGUSTIN (PEOPLE V. JAIME “JIMMY AGUSTIN, WILFREDO o While giving his statement at the fiscal’s office, the armed men stayed
“SONNY” QUIANO, MANUEL “JUN” ABENOJA, JR., AND FREDDIE “BOY” with him and their presence deterred him from telling the investigating
CARTEL, ACCUSED. JAIME “JIMMY” AGUSTIN, ACCUSED-APPELLAN) fiscal that he was being threatened
G.R. No. 110290 | Janaury 25, 1995 o He further declared that although he was given a lawyer to assist him,
he, nevertheless, asked for his uncle who is a lawyer, Atty. Oliver
Nature: Tabin, and that Atty. Cajucom, assisting counsel, interviewed him for
Appeal from a decision of the RTC only 2 minutes in English and Tagalog but not in Ilocano, the dialect he
understands
FACTS: o He eventually asserted that he was promised by his captors that he
would be discharged as a state witness if he cooperates, but the plan
 Dr. Napoleon Bayquen, a dentist, together with his son, Anthony; Anthony’s did not push through because his co-accused, Quiano, escaped
girlfriend, Anna Theresa Francisco; his daughter, Dominic; and Danny Ancheta,  Elizabeth Agustin corroborated her husband’s story
a family friend, were on their way aboard their Brasilia to the doctor’s residence  The Trial Court admitted the appellant’s extrajudicial statement and gave scant
from his clinic consideration to his claim of force, intimidation, and other irregularities
o Anthony as driving the car  The trial court then concluded that there was conspiracy and the accused was a
 While they were cruising, near a Baptist Church, a man came out from the right direct participant in the crime, and that while he tried to minimize his
side of a car parked about 2 meters to the church culpability, his extrajudicial confesion shows that he was in on the plan, and
o The man approached the Brasilia, aimed his armalite rifle through its even expected to be paid, to be rewarded monetarily; and that he decided to
window, and fired at the passengers give a statement only when he was not given the money
o The Brasilia swerved and hit a fence o Since the proof of corpus delicti required in Section 3, Rule 133 of the
o The gunman immediately returned to the parked car which then sped Rules of Court was established by the prosecution’s evidence, it found
away his conviction for murder inevitable
 All those in the car were hit and Dr. Bayqueen and Anna Theresa died on the  On appeal, the appellant insists that his extrajudicial confession was taken in
spot violation of his rights under Section 11, Article III of the Constitution
o Dominic was able to get out of the Brasilia to run to the Alabanza store o He argues that the lawyer who assisted him, Atty. Reynaldo, was not
where she telephoned her mother and told her what had happened of his own choice but was foisted upon him by the City Fiscal
o Later, she and her mother brought her father and Anthony to the o Worse, the said lawyer is a law partner of the private prosecutor and
hospital conferred with him in English and Tagalog although he understood only
o Danny Ancheta went home and was then brought to the Notre Dame Ilocano.
Hospital for treatment
o Anna Theresa Francisco was brought to the funeral parlor ISSUE: WON accused-appellant’s extrajudicial statements are admissible as
 The police later arrived at the crime scene and conducted an investigation evidence to warrant conviction
 Later, accused Wilfredo “Sonny” Quiano, an alleged former military agent or
asset who had been picked up by the police authorities, confessed during the HELD: No. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged decision of the RTC and
investigation that he was the triggerman in the fatal shooting of Dr. Bayqueen acquitted Jaime “Jimmy” Agustin.
and Anna Theresa Francisco
o He implicated Manuel “Jun” Abenoja, Jr., allegedely a fellow military Contrary to the pronouncement of the trial court and the characterization given by
agent and the “bagman” who engaged him to kill Dr. Bayqueen for a the appellant himself, the assailed extrajudicial statement is not an extrajudicial
fee, Freddie “Boy” Cargel, who provided the armalite, and certain confession. It is only an extrajudicial admission. We take this opportunity to once
“Jimmy.” more distinguish one from the other. Sections 26 and 33, Rule 30 of the Rules of
 Subsequently, “Jimmy,” who turned out to be appellant Jaime Agustin, was Court clearly show such a distinction. In a confession, there is an acknowledgment
picked up by military personnel and was investigated in connection with the of guilt. Admission is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the
crime accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of guilt of the accused or
 The defense presented the appellant and his wife of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged
o The appellant impugned the validity of his extrajudicial statement
o He alleged that on the day of the crime, he went to buy some fertilizer Wharton defines a confession as follows: “A confession is an acknowledgment in
and upon his return he was met by 2 armed men who took him to express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while
their car where 2 other companions, armed with armalites, were an admission is a statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to
waiting the issue, and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt. In
o Inside the car, he was asked if he knew Boy and Jun, and he answered other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is but an
that he did not acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to
o He was also made to kneel at gunpoint in order to force him to admit authorize a conviction, and which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.”
his involvement in the shooting, which he finally did out of fear
It was examined the assailed extrajudicial statement of the appellant, and we are
satisfied that nothing therein indicates that he expressly acknowledged his guilt; he
merely admitted some facts or circumstances which in themselves are insufficient to the City Fiscal for the purpose of giving free legal aid to the appellant, These
authorize a conviction and which can only tend to establish the ultimate fact of guilt. possibilities are not remote but whether it was one or the other, it is clear to us that
Nevertheless, when what is involved is the issue of admissibility in evidence under Atty. Cajucom was in fact foisted upon the appellant, for as shown in the
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, the distinction is irrelevant because abovequoted portion of Exhibit “C,” the City Fiscal immediately suggested the
Paragraph thereof expressly refers to both confession and admission. Thus: “(3) availability of Atty. Cajucom without first distinctly asking the appellant if he had a
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall counsel of his own choice and if he had one, whether he could hire such counsel;
be inadmissible in evidence against him.” and if he could not, whether he would agree to have one provided for him; or
whether he would simply exercise his right to remain silent and to counsel. In short,
Thefirst two paragraphs of Section 12, Article III of the present Constitution have after the appellant said that he wanted to be assisted by counsel, the City Fiscal,
broadened the aforesaid Section 20 in these respects: (1) the right to counsel through suggestive language, immediately informed him that Atty. Cajucom was
means not just any counsel, but a “competent and independent counsel, preferably ready to assist him. While it is true that in custodial investigations the party to be
of his own choice”; (2) the right to remain silent and to counsel can only be waived investigated has the final choice of counsel and may reject the counsel chosen for
in writing and in the presence of counsel; and (3) the rule on inadmissibility him by the investigator and ask for another one, the circumstances obtaining in the
expressly includes admissions, not just confessions. custodial interrogation of the appellant left him no freedom to intelligently and
freely do so. For as earlier stated, he was not even asked if he had a lawyer of his
Theright to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates own choice and whether he could afford to hire such lawyer; on the other hand, the
“the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and CityFiscal clearly suggested the availability of Atty. Cajucom.
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.” It is not enough for
the investigator to merely repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of Then too, present at that time were Capt. Antonio Ayat and Sgt. Roberto Rambac,
Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution or Section 12, Article III of the military officers of RUCI, who brought him to the City Fiscal’s Office for investigation
present Constitution; the former must also explain the effects of such provision in the afternoon of the day when he was unlawfully arrested in Sto. Tomas,
inpractical terms, e.g., what the person under investigation may or may not do? and Pangasinan. Along Kennon Road, on the way to Baguio City, he was coerced and
in a language the subject fairly understands. The right to be informed carries with it threatened with death if he would not admit knowing “Jun” and “Sonny” and his
a correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain, and contemplates participation in the crime. This testimony was unrebutted by the prosecution. The
effective communication which results in the subject understanding what is presence of the military officers and the continuing fear that if he did not cooperate,
conveyed. Since it is comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree of something would happen to him, was like a Damocles sword which vitiated his free
explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on the education, intelligence, will.
and other relevant personal circumstances of the person undergoing the
investigation.

In further ensuring the right to counsel, it is not enough that the subject is informed
of such right; he should also be asked if he wants to avail of the same and should
be told that he can ask for counsel if he so desires or that one will be provided him
at his request. If he decides not to retain counsel of his choice or avail of one to be
provided for him and, therefore, chooses to waive his right to counsel, such waiver,
to be valid and effective, must be made with the assistance of counsel. That counsel
must be a lawyer.

Thewaiver of the right to counsel must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.

Consequently, even if the confession of an accused speaks the truth, if it was made
without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the
absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.

Theextrajudicial admission of the appellant, contained in twenty-two pages of yellow

pad, does, indeed, appear to be signed by him and Atty. Reynaldo Cajucom. What
we find in these yellow pads are stenographic notes. These were transcribed by the
stenographer who took down the stenographic notes, but for reasons not explained
in the records, the transcript of the notes (Exhibit “C”),

Secondly, Atty. Cajucom can hardly be said to have been voluntarily and
intelligently “accepted” by the appellant as his counsel to assist him in the
investigation. Atty. Cajucom’s presence in the Office of the City Fiscal at the time
the appellant was brought there for investigation is unclear to us. At least two
possibilities may explain it: it was a mere coincidence in the sense that he
happened to be attending to some professional matter, or he was earlier called by
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SATURNINA SALAZAR y PALANAS "x x x. Appellant's conformance to these documents are declarations
G.R. No. 98060. January 27, 1997 against interest and tacit admissions of the crime charged. They were
obtained in violation of his right as a person under custodial investigation
NATURE OF THE CASE for the commission of an offense, there being nothing in the records to
show that he was assisted by counsel. Although appellant manifested
This appeal seeks the reversal of the Decision in Criminal Case No. 925 of the during the custodial investigation that he waived his right to counsel, the
Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Branch 13, finding appellant Saturnina waiver was not made in writing and in the presence of counsel, hence
Salazar y Palanas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II whatever incriminatory admission or confession may be extracted from
of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by him, either verbally or in writing, is not allowable in evidence. Besides, the
Presidential Decree No. 1675, and imposing upon her the penalty of life arrest report is self-serving and hearsay and can easily be concocted to
imprisonment and payment of P20,000.00 as fine, with costs. implicate a suspect."

The Facts Prosecution's Other Evidence

In a buy-bust operation, the accused Salazar sold and delivered to a NARCOM Agent Sufficient for Conviction
posing as a buyer, marijuana sticks and leaves. Found in Salazar’s possession was
the 5.00 marked bill and marijuana. Salazar was then arrested. Appellant's contention that she could not have taken the risk of selling the five (5)
marijuana sticks for only five pesos and therefore the contraband was "planted," is
At the PC headquarters in Camp Naranjo, Sgt. Cubillan interrogated appellant while totally baseless. She herself did not bring out this alleged irregularity in the
Cpl. de Guzman took her bio-data. Her fingerprints were also taken. Thereafter, performance of the NARCOM agents' duty at the witness stand. On the other hand,
Cpl. de Guzman made her sign her bio-data and the paper containing her the testimony of the two (2) peace officers carried with it the presumption of
fingerprints. It was Sgt. Cubillan who instructed her to sign the piece of bond paper regularity in the performance of official functions.
which was used to wrap the marijuana sticks before they were submitted to the
laboratory for examination. Appellant claims that the prosecution evidence is weak because Sgt. Cubillan was
allegedly caught lying on the witness stand. She alleges that the prevarication of
The Trial court find the accused, Salazar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling a said witness was reflected by his testimony that after arresting appellant, they
prohibited drug without being authorized by law, she is hereby sentenced to life proceeded to the PC headquarters. Later, he testified that they still dropped by
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 Bayotas' residence to arrest her. This alleged change in testimony which was
explained by the witness himself, [43] is too inconsequential to dent the
The accused appeal that arguing the her right to counsel has been violated. prosecution's compelling evidence on the fact of sale of illegal drugs.

ISSUE: Whether the right of the accused to counsel has been violated, hence any The Court also finds too preposterous to merit scrutiny appellant's contention that in
confession made by her is inadmissible. convicting her, the trial court relied on her previous conviction for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Law. Her being under probation was not alleged in the
RULING: Yes. But there is still enough evidence to convict the accused
Information. It was brought out in the trial where she herself admitted that she was
on probation when she committed the offense in this case. However, while the trial
Violation of Appellant's Right to Counsel
court mentioned that fact in the Decision of March 1, 1991, it based its findings on
evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense and not on the fact
We find appellant's claim that she was not informed of her right to counsel
that appellant was a probationer convicted of engaging in the abominable trade of
during custodial investigation to be correct. Moreover, the NARCOM agent's
illegal drugs when she committed the offense.
admission that they made her sign and thumbmark the bond paper which
they used to wrap the marijuana found in her possession was violative of
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision convicting appellant Saturnina Salazar y
her constitutional right to counsel. While the bond paper does not appear to
Palanas of the crime of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act. No 6425, as
have been considered as a pivotal piece of evidence against appellant, such act of
amended, is hereby AFFIRMED.
the NARCOM agents is worth noting if only to provide guidance to law enforcement
operatives. In People vs. Simon, where the accused was made to sign the booking
sheet and arrest report stating that he was arrested for selling two tea bags of
suspected marijuana and the receipt for the seized property, the Court said:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EUTROPIO TIOZON y ACID
G.R. No. 89823, June 19, 1991 Part of the res gestae — Statement made by a person while a
startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior tor (sic)
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstance thereof, may
FACTS: be given in evidence as a part of res gestae . . . (Sec. 36, Rule
130, Revised Rules of Court, as amended).
Accused-appellant was charged for violation of Presidential Decree 1866,
(possession, custody and control one .38 cal. revolver, marked Squires Bingham In support of the assigned error accused-appellant submits, among others, that:
with SN 180169 with three live ammunitions without authority of law), which (d) The testimony of the wife of the victim that after hearing two
firearm was used with treachery and evident premeditation in shooting one successive gunshots accused-appellant went back to her house
Leonardo Bolima y Mesia, which caused death. Accused-appellant pleaded not and informed her that he accidentally shot her husband, should
guilty. The court a quo found accused-appellant guilty of the crime of P.D. 1866 and not have been considered by the trial court as part of the res
Murder qualified by treachery. Accused-appellant filed a motion to reconsider the gestae.
decision which, however, was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not the statement made by the accused-appellant to the wife of
The facts as found by the court a quo are as follows: That in the evening of the victim immediately after the shooting incident that he accidentally shot the
February 24, 1989, while Rosalina and her husband (Leonardo Bolima) were victim is covered by the rule on res gestae
sleeping inside their house, they were awakened by the loud knocks on their door;
Her husband opened the door and they saw that the person who was knocking was HELD:
their "Pareng Troping", accused herein; her husband invited the accused, who No. The first to the sixth circumstances mentioned by the trial court were duly
appeared to be very drunk, to come inside their house; she saw the accused established and constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
showing a gun to her husband and the latter even toyed with it; she took a few conclusion that the accused-appellant, and no other else, shot and killed the victim.
steps away from the two, however, when she looked back to the place where her We do not, however, agree with the additional observation of the trial court, in
husband and the accused was, she found out that the two had already left; five respect to the sixth circumstance, that the statement made by the accused-
minutes later and/or after she had heard two successive gunshots, she heard appellant to the wife of the victim immediately after the shooting incident that he
accused knocking at their door and at the same time informing her that he accidentally shot the victim is covered by the rule on res gestae. This is a
accidentally shoot (sic) her husband, "Mare, mare, nabaril ko si Pare, hindi ko misapplication of the rule in the instant case. Statements as part of the res
sinasadya"; accused extended his help by helping them in carrying the victim gestae are among the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The rule is that a witness "can
towards the main road, however, after a few steps, he changed his mind and put testify only to those facts which he knows of or his own knowledge; that is, which
down the victim; accused reasoned out that the victim was already dead; she are derived from his own perceptions.17 Accordingly, a testimony of a witness as to
pushed the accused and even without the latter's help, they were able to reach the what he heard other persons say about the facts in dispute cannot be admitted
main road; thereafter, Kalookan policemen arrived and so she caused the arrest of because it is hearsay evidence. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. One of
the accused. them is statements as part of the res gestae under Section 36 of Rule 130 of the
Revised Rules of Court. The exceptions assume that the testimony offered is in fact
The version of the defense: That while passing infront of the house of Nardo, his hearsay; but it is to be admitted in evidence. Under the aforesaid Section 36,
Pareng Nardo called him up; when he was about to enter the door of the house of statements may be deemed as part of the res gestae if they are made by a person
the victim, the latter, poked a gun at him; he grabbed the gun from his Pareng while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
Nardo and at that instance, Rosalina Bolima emerging from her room, saw him thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof. Statements accompanying an
holding the gun; he returned the gun to his Pareng Nardo and the latter tucked it in equivocal act material to the issue and giving it a legal significance may also be
his waistline; accused was left behind to answer the call of nature; while in the act received as part of the res gestae.
of urinating, he heard two successive gunshots; he followed the victim and he saw
the latter already sprawled on the ground; he inquired from his Pareng Nardo as to In the instant case, however, the questioned testimony of the wife of the
what had happened to him, "Pareng Nardo, ano ang nangyari sa iyo? and the victim is not hearsay. She testified on what the accused-appellant told her,
victim's replied (sic) was "Pare, binaril ako", not what any other party, who cannot be cross-examined, told her. The
accused-appellant's statement was an "oral confession", not a part of res
In holding the accused-appellant guilty as above-stated, the court a quo relied on gestae, which he can easily deny if it were not true, which he did in this
circumstantial evidence because the prosecution failed to present an eyewitness case. In People vs. Tulagan, 143 SCRA 107,116-117, We declared that a
who could give an account as to the actual shooting incident. It considered seven statement allegedly made by one of the accused to Natalia Macaraeg that
circumstances, including the following: "we killed him" (referring to himself and his co-accused) and which Natalia
repeated in her testimony in open court was merely an "oral confession"
The testimony of the wife that accused, immediately after the and not part of the res gestae. Moreover, even assuming that the testimony of
shooting incident took place admitted to her having accidentally the wife of the victim on the alleged statement of the accused-appellant is hearsay,
shoot (sic) the victim is admissible evidence against the accused the latter is barred from questioning its admission due to his failure to object
declarant since this is covered by the rule on res gestae or one of thereto at the time the testimony was given.
an exception to the hearsay rule.
PEOPLE VS. TUJON
G.R. NO. 66034. NOVEMBER 13, 1992

FACTS: Tujon, Parola and Paredes were charged with Robbery with Homicide.
Paredes remained at large. Tujon and Parola were convicted. They allegedly robbed
and killed a taxi driver.

There is no eyewitness for the prosecution. To establish the case against the
accused, the prosecution relied mainly on the extra-judicial confession of Tujon and
Parola. The confessions were signed by police detective and by the accused.

During trial, Tujon denied the charges against him. He testified that he came from
the province and looked for a job in Manila. He was arrested for unknown reasons.
He also testified that he did not know his other co-accused. The policemen asked
him to sign a paper the contents of which he did not know.

ISSUE:

WON the confession is admissible

HELD: No. This Court has consistently ruled that waiver of right to counsel to be
valid, must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. Extra-judicial confessions
taken without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence (People v.
Albofera, 152 SCRA 123 [1987]). Hence, while the right to counsel may be waived,
such waiver must be done voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently, and made in the
presence of the accused’s lawyer. If the records do not show that the accused was
assisted by counsel in making his waiver, this defect nullifies and renders
inadmissible in evidence his confession (People v. Nolasco, 163 SCRA 623, [1988]).
In the case of People v. Hizon, 163 SCRA 760 {1988}, this Court, citing the
procedure laid down in the case of People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 [1985]), ruled
that the suspect must be informed that he has a right to the assistance of counsel
and assured that he will be provided with one for free. While he may choose to
waive the right, such waiver must be a knowing and intelligent one and in any case
must be made only with the assistance of counsel. Any waiver made without
observance of these requirements is null and void. Indeed, the ban against
uncounselled confessions is even more pronounced under Sec. 12, Art. III of the
1987 Constitution.

It is a matter of record that the interrogation was made in the absence of counsel
de parte or de oficio and the waiver of counsel, if made at all, was not made with
the assistance of counsel as required.

It is not clear that the accused were actually offered the services of a lawyer and
they refused. In any event, it is undisputed that the waiver of the accused of their
right to counsel was made without the assistance of counsel.

Furthermore, this Court has consistently ruled that waiver of right to counsel to be
valid, must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. Extra-judicial confessions
taken without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence
PEOPLE VS. MACAM of custodial identification of an uncounseled accused can not be applied. On the
G.R. NOS. L-91011-12 NOVEMBER 24, 1994 other hand, appellants did not object to the in-court identification made by the
prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses, who made the identification of
appellants at the police line-up at the hospital, again identified appellants in open
FACTS:
court. Appellants did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by the
illegal line-up. In the absence of such objection, the prosecution need not show that
Prosecution’s version: On Aug 18,1987, Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro, Eugenio
said identifications were of independent origin
Cawilan Jr., Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque went to the house of Benito Macam
(uncle of Eduardo Macam) located at 43 Ferma Road QC. Upon the arrival of the
The arrest of the appellants was without a warrant. However, they are estopped
accused, Benito invited the former to have lunch. Benito asked his maid Salvacion
from questioning the legality of such arrest because they have not moved to quash
Enrera to call the companions of Eduardo who were waiting in a tricycle outside the
the said information and any irregularity attendant to their arrest was cured when
house. A. Cedro, E. Cawilan and D. Roque entered the house while E. Roque
they voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court by
remained in the tricycle. After all the accused had taken their lunch, Eduardo
entering a plea of not guilty and by participating in the trial
Macam grabbed the clutch bag of Benito Macam and pulled out his uncle’s gun then
declared a hold-up. They tied up the wife (Leticia Macam), children, maid
The court believed the version of the prosecution. Ernesto Roque, while remaining
(Salvacion) and Nilo Alcantara and brought them to the room upstairs. After a while
outside the house served as a looked out.
Leticia was brought to the bathroom and after she screamed she was stabbed and
killed by A. Cedro. Benito, Nilo and Salvacion was also stabbed but survived. The
Wherefore, decision of lower court is Affirmed. Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque is
total value of the items taken was P536, 700.00.
guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide as co-conspirators of the other accused
to suffer reclusion perpetua.
Defense’s version: Danilo Roque stated that he being a tricycle driver drove the 4
accused to Benito’s house for a fee of P50.00. Instead of paying him, he was given
a calling card by Eduardo Macam so that he can be paid the following day. Upon
arriving, he went with the accused inside the house to have lunch. Thereafter he
washed the dishes and swept the floor. When Eugenio Cawilan pulled a gun and
announced the hold-up, he was asked to gather some things and which he abided
out of fear. While putting the said thins inside the car of Benito (victim) he heard
the accused saying “kailangan patayin ang mga taong yan dahil kilala ako ng mga
yan”. Upon hearing such phrase he escaped and went home using his tricycle. He
also testified that his brother Ernesto Roque has just arrived from the province and
in no way can be involved in the case at bar. On the following day, together with his
brother, they went to the factory of the Zesto Juice (owned by the father of Eduardo
Macam) for him to get his payment (50.00) . He and his brother was suddenly
apprehended by the security guards and brought to the police headquarters in Q.C.
They were also forced to admit certain things.

After which, he together with all the accused, in handcuffs and bore contusions on
their faces caused by blows inflicted in their faces during investigation, was brought
to the QC General Hospital before each surviving victims and made to line-up for
identification. Eugenio Cawilan was also charged with Anti-fencing Law but was
acquitted in the said case.

Issue: Whether or Not their right to counsel has been violated. WON the arrest
was valid. WON the evidence from the line-up is admissible.

Held: It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of

prosecution even before trial. A police line-up is considered a “critical” stage of the
proceedings. Any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up
is inadmissible. After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an
uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly
true in the case at bench where the police officers first talked to the victims before
the confrontation was held. The circumstances were such as to impart improper
suggestions on the minds of the victims that may lead to a mistaken identification.
Appellants were handcuffed and had contusions on their faces. However, the
prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant's identification at the
police line-up. Hence, the exclusionary sanctions against the admission in evidence
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAFAEL OLIVAREZ, JR., and DANILO said crime, other aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and unlawful entry were
ARELLANO present.
G.R. NO. 77865. DECEMBER 4, 1998
LOWER COURT DECISION: Lower court rendered a decision convicting appellants
of the crime charged, sentenced them to suffer the death penalty.
FACTS: A case for robbery with homicide committed during the season of yuletide.
Prosecution witness Sgt. Eduardo Marcelo testified that he took the statements of ISSUE: Whether or not the confessions obtained from the accused are admissible in
appellant Rafael Olivares, Jr. and Purisimo Macaoili and verbal investigation of evidence. NO
appellant Danilo Arellano because the latter refused to give any statement.
RULING: Initially, the categorization by the prosecution of the crime of robbery
Prosecution witness Cpl. Tomas Juan testified that in the morning of December 28, with double homicide is erroneous because the word homicide in Article 294 of the
1981, he was assigned by his station commander to follow-up the robbery with Revised Penal Code should be taken in its generic sense absorbing not only acts
homicide that took place at Tanada Subdivision. He learned from Patrolman Bote which results in death but also all other acts producing anything short of death. The
that a regular employee of the Cardinal Plastic Industries (where the crime was indictable offense is the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
committed) had not yet reported for work. With that information, Cpl. Juan and
others proceeded to the business establishment and were able to confirm from the The essential elements of which are:
workers that appellant Danilo Arellano failed to report for work since the a.) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a
commission of the crime. elchor Salle (cousin of appellant Arellano) volunteered to person;
bring them to Danilo Arellano, in a factory situated in San Juan. Melchor Salle was b.) the property thus taken belongs to another;
able to secure information from the barkada of appellant Arellano who turned out to c.) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi;
be appellant Olivares, Jr. Appellant Olivares accompanied them to Broadway where d.) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide was
they found appellant Arellano. After being asked about the incident that took place committed.
at the Cardinal Plastic Industries, appellant Arellano readily admitted to the police
authorities his participation in the commission of the crime. Thereafter, appellant
In this case, there were no eyewitnesses to the killing and robbery and; thus, no
Arellano was invited to the police station. On further direct examination, Cpl. Juan
direct evidence points to appellants criminal liability. The prosecutions principal
identified in open court the Sanyo cassettes, the tapes and the wristwatch they
evidence against them is based solely on the testimony of the police officers who
recovered from the place where appellant Arellano pointed to them.
arrested, investigated and subsequently took their confession. Such evidence when
juxtaposed with appellants constitutional rights concerning arrests and the taking of
Prosecution witness Purisimo Macaoili testified that he found the dead body of Mr.
confessions leads to a conclusion that they cannot be held liable for the offense
Sy in the morning of December 26, 1981 inside the building where the business
charged despite the inherent weakness of their defenses of denial and alibi, not
establishment is situated. Mr. Sy was residing alone inside his room because at that
because they are not guilty but because the evidence adduced against them are
time his wife was in Hongkong. Some of the workers also reside inside the business
inadmissible to sustain a criminal conviction.
establishment. Mr. Macaoili also saw the dead body of the father of Mr. Sy in the
same building. is companion Erning phoned Mr. Sys brother. The same brother
asked for the assistance of the police who arrived at the scene of the crime and who First, appellants were arrested without a valid warrant of arrest and their arrest
conducted on-the-spot investigation. cannot even be justified under any of the recognized exceptions for a valid
warrantless arrest. At the time appellants were apprehended, two days have
Mr. Macaoili testified that he came to know that the wristwatch, the cassettes, and already lapsed after the discovery of the crime they were not doing nor have they
other personal items of the victims were missing when appellants were done any criminal act. Neither were they caught in flagrante delicto or had escaped
apprehended. He knew the cassette and the wristwatch because said items had from confinement. Probably aware of the illegality of the arrest they made, the
been used by the victim. He knew appellant Arellano because he is his barriomate at arresting officers testified that appellants were merely invited to the police
Tuburan, Iloilo. He also knew appellant Olivarez, Jr. as they are also barriomates. precinct. Such invitation, however, when construed in the light of the circumstances
He testified that appellant Olivarez, Jr. twice visited the factory and saw him two or is actually in the nature of an arrest designed for the purpose of conducting an
three weeks before said date interrogation. Mere invitation is covered by the proscription on a warrantless arrest
because it is intended for no other reason than to conduct an
Prosecution witness, Sgt. Eduardo Marcelo testified that he conducted an investigation. Thus, any evidence obtained in violation of their right shall be
investigation on the person of Rafael Olivarez, Jr. Sgt. Marcelo apprised him of his inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. By virtue of said constitutional
constitutional rights. When informed, appellant Olivarez, Jr. declined any assistance protection, any evidence obtained, including all the things and properties alleged to
of a lawyer during the investigation considering that he will tell the truth about the be stolen by appellants which were taken by the police from the place of the illegal
incident. Mr. Melchor Salle and the chief of Sgt. Marcelo were present during the arrest cannot be used as evidence for their conviction.
police investigations. Sgt. Marcelo prepared a statement signed by appellant
Olivarez, Jr. relative to the investigation. Even assuming arguendo that by entering a plea without first questioning the
legality of their arrest, appellants are deemed to have waived any objection
For the death of the two victims and the loss of some items, appellants were charge concerning their arrest, yet the extrajudicial confession of appellant Olivares, Jr. on
with the complex crime of robbery with double homicide. In the commission of the which the Under the Constitution, any person under investigation for the
prosecution relies, is likewise inadmissible in evidence. commission of an offense
shall have the right among others, to have a counsel which right can be validly
waived. In this case, the said confession was obtained during custodial investigation
but the confessant was not assisted by counsel. His manifestation to the
investigating officer that he did not need the assistance of counsel does not
constitute a valid waiver of his right.

Consequently, the invalid waiver of the right to counsel during custodial

investigation makes the uncounselled confession, whether verbal or non-
verbal obtained in violation thereof as also inadmissible in evidence.

Under the present laws, a confession to be admissible must be:

1.) express and categorical;
2.) given voluntarily, and intelligently where the accused realized the
legal significance of his act;
3.) with assistance of competent and independent counsel;
4.) in writing; and in the language known to and understood by the
confessant; and
5.) signed, or if the confessant does not know now to read and write,
thumbmarked by him.

In this case, the absence of the third requisite above makes the confession
inadmissible. The purpose of providing counsel to a person under custodial
investigation is to curb the uncivilized practice of extracting confession even by the
slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. What is
sought to be avoided is the evil of extorting from the very mouth of the person
undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense, the very evidence with
which to prosecute and thereafter convict him.

With the inadmissibility of the material circumstantial evidence which were premised
on the likewise extrajudicial confession upon which both the prosecution and the
lower court relied to sustain appellants conviction, the remaining circumstances
cannot produce a logical conclusion to establish their guilt. In order to sustain a
conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that the same
satisfies the following elements:

1. there is more than one circumstance;

2. the fact from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
3. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, appellants conviction is herein REVERSED and both

are ACQUITTED for the crime charged. The person detaining them is ordered to
IMMEDIATELY RELEASE appellants UNLESS they are held for some other lawful
cause.
PEOPLE V. MAGPAYO 1993 and inserted his organ into her mouth while she was seated on the ground. He
G.R. NO. NOS. 92961-64 SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 removed Lilibeth's shorts and panty and she was made to sit on a bench. Appellant
parted her legs and inserted his organ into hers while he was in a standing position.
DOCTRINES:
After his coitus with her, appellant took the P26.00 of Lilibeth and warned her to
- It is well settled that the testimony of a single witness free from any signs keep quiet as he was not alone and that she should not leave until he has gotten
of impropriety or falsehood is sufficient to convict an accused even if out of the cemetery. Lilibeth told appellant to leave and that she would not complain
uncorroborated. to the police (Ibid., pp. 4-7).
- Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to
warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his When she was certain that appellant had already left, Lilibeth put on her clothing
observation as been inaccurate. and went back to her mother at the market, to whom she told that she was raped.
- As a rule, evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show, that Thereafter, both of them informed her father of the matter and they all proceeded
the accused in a criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent to the police station, where they were advised to go to the National Bureau of
of the offense for which he is on trial. It is not competent to prove that he Investigation (NBI) to have Lilibeth examined.
committed other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing that he
committed the crime charged in the complaint or information. ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo erred in convicting him in all charges?
- An exception to this rule is when such evidence tends directly to establish
the particular crime, and it is usually competent to prove the motive, the HELD: No, he is guilty and judgment affirmed.
intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan
embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other In resolving whether or not rape was committed, the evidence for conviction must
that proof of one tends to establish the other, or the identity of the person be clear and convincing to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence
charged with the commission of the crime on trial. Appellant vehemently questions the trial court's decision finding him guilty beyond
- The evidence in one was not offered and admitted to prove the other but reasonable doubt because the prosecution witnesses allegedly failed to positively
only to show the plan, scheme or modus operandi of the offender. identify him. He avers that when he was arrested to answer for an alleged
- It is well-settled that for a conviction to occur, absolute certainty of guilty wrongdoing on May 22, 1988, complainants were hesitant to point at him and kept
is not demanded. on looking at their parents. However, the Court is of the opinion that the lingering
shock caused by such harrowing experience at the hands of appellant could have
FACTS:
caused the minor complainants to hesitate in directly identifying him.
Appellant Benjamin C. Magpayo was charged with Rape, Robbery, Robbery with Hence, the fact that complainants kept on looking at their parents is of no moment.
Hold-up and Forcible Abduction with Rape before the Regional Trial Court of They were simply scared, looked at their parents for assurance, and such initial
Malabon in four (4) separate complaints and informations. Upon arraignment, hesitation could by no means indicate that complainants were guilty of fabrication.
appellant entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges. After trial, he was found
guilty of all the offenses charged in a joint decision rendered by the trial court. Also, although Lilibeth Bobis admitted that she was not able to immediately identify
Appellant appeals from the aforementioned joint decision of the court a quo. the appellant at the police station after his arrest, she declared that she thought it
over very carefully if the appellant was indeed the offender Also, what is important
is that Bobis remembered the square shape of appellant's face, his eyes to be
At 9:30 in the morning of April 10, 1988, the 10-year old complainant Lilibeth Bobis,
"singkit" and his nose as "matangos" Indeed, familiarity with the physical features,
went to the Malabon market to get money from her parents to buy milk for her
particularly those of the face, is actually the best way to identify the person
younger sister. After receiving P26.00 from them, she proceeded to the store near
their house but before reaching it, she paused in front of Betsy's Restaurant near Furthermore, It is well settled that the testimony of a single witness, free from any
the municipal building. There she was approached by appellant, who accused her of
signs of impropriety or falsehood, is sufficient to convict an accused, even if
involvement in a theft of coffee. Lilibeth denied the accusation but appellant told her
uncorroborated. In the instant case, the testimonies of eight-year old Daniel and the
that the thief had a tattoo on the back (tsn, July 25, 1988, pp. 2-3). Appellant then
demanded threateningly that she go with him as they would look at some boxes and pedicab driver would have been merely corroborative. Furthermore, there is no
broken bottles, and for her to tell fully that she had nothing to do with the theft. showing that the privilege to present Chico's brother and the pedicab driver was
withheld from appellant. In any event, the prosecution has the prerogative to
present as many witnesses it deems proper and the non-presentation of some does
They proceeded to the San Bartolome Church, which they circled twice, and then
not militate against the State for the number of such witnesses is addressed to the
entered the cemetery beside the church. Once inside, Lilibeth, upon the prodding of
appellant, raised her blouse to show that she had no tattoo. But appellant said: sound discretion of the prosecuting officers.
"Ano ang gusto mo, kakantutin ka o makakauwi ka ng buhay." For fear of her life,
Lilibeth pleaded with appellant not to kill her. Then appellant removed his shorts
NELLY LIM vs CA, Juan SIM The physician may be considered to be acting in his professional capacity when he
GR 91114 | September 25, 1992 attends to the patient for curative, preventive, or palliative treatment. Thus, only
disclosures which would have been made to the physician to enable him "safely and
NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition for Review of Certiorari assailing the CA resolution efficaciously to treat his patient" are covered by the privilege. It is to be
denying due course to a petition to annul the order of the trial court allowing a emphasized that "it is the tenor only of the communication that is privileged. The
Psychiatrist of the National Mental Hospital to testify as an expert witness and not mere fact of making a communication, as well as the date of a consultation and the
as an attending physician of petitioner. number of consultations, are therefore not privileged from disclosure, so long as the
subject communicated is not stated."
FACTS:
 Nelly Lim and Juan Sim are married to each other. In order that the privilege may be successfully claimed, the following requisites
 Juan Sim filed a petition to declare the nullity of the the marriage on the must concur:
ground of Article 36 of the Family Code, for schizophrenia before, during, 1. the privilege is claimed in a civil case;
and after the marriage and until the present. 2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to
 At a certain point in the trial, Juan Sim’s counsel announced he would practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
present as witness the Chief of the Female Services of the National Mental 3. such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient
Hospital, Dr. Lydia Acampado, a Doctor of Medicine who specializes in in his professional capacity;
Psychiatry, and sought a subpoena to have the doctor testify. 4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and
 Nelly Lim’s counsel opposed on the ground that the testimony sought to be 5. the information was confidential, and, if disclosed, would blacken the
elicited from the witness is privilegedsince the latter had examined reputation (formerly character) of the patient.
the petitioner in a professional capacity and had diagnosed her to be
suffering from schizophrenia. These requisites conform with the four (4) fundamental conditions necessary for the
 The trial court denied the opposition and isued the subpoena. establishment of a privilege against the disclosure of certain communications, to
 Nelly Lim’s counsel filed an omnibus motion to quash the subpoena and wit:
hold the proceedings in abeyance pending such resolution. 1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be
 The next day, the doctor appeared in court, and the court held a hearing disclosed.
on the motion before the doctor could testify. Nelly Lim’s counsel reiterated 2. This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory
their objection arguing it was privileged. Juan Sim’s counsel however maintenance of the relation between the parties.
merely averred that the doctor was being presented as an EXPERT 3. The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to
WITNESS, and was going to be asked HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS about be sedulously fostered
her field of specialization. 4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the
 The RTC then allowed her to testify as an expert witness only. The court communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the
further advised Nelly Lim’s counsel to object as soon as it becomes correct disposal of litigation.
apparent that privileged information might be disclosed.
o On the witness box, Dr. Acampado answered routinary (sic) Nelly Lim’s counsel has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the
questions to qualify her as an expert in psychiatry; she was asked information is covered by the privilege. In the first place, Dr. Acampado was
to render an opinion as to what kind of illness (sic) are stelazine presented and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly held by the Court of
tablets applied to; she was asked to render an opinion on a (sic) Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her examination,
hypothetical facts respecting certain behaviours of a person; and interview and treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions
finally she admitted she saw and treated Nelly Lim but she never alleged in the hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever
revealed what illness she examined and treated her (sic); nor (sic) information or findings the doctor obtained while attending to the patient. There is,
the result of her examination of Nelly Lim, nor (sic) the medicines as well, no showing that Dr. Acampado’s answers to the questions propounded to
she prescribed her relating to the hypothetical problem were influenced by the information
 Upon a R65 petition to the CA, the CA dismissed the same. obtained from the petitioner. Otherwise stated, her expert opinion excluded
whatever information or knowledge she had about the petitioner which was acquired
ISSUE: Whether or not Dr. Acampado can testify as an expert witness. by reason of the physician-patient relationship existing between them. As an expert
witness, her testimony before the trial court cannot then be excluded.
HELD: YES. This rule on the physician-patient privilege is intended to facilitate and
make safe full and confidential disclosure by the patient to the physician of all facts, Secondly, it is quite clear from Dr. Acampado’s testimony that the petitioner was
circumstances and symptoms, untrammeled by apprehension of their subsequent never interviewed alone. Said interviews were always conducted in the presence of
and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness stand, to the end that the a third party. She was first accompanied by her husband during the consultations,
physician may form a correct opinion, and be enabled safely and efficaciously to and then afterwards always with Nelly Lim’s father. There is authority to the effect
treat his patient. It rests in public policy and is for the general interest of the that information elicited during consultation with a physician in the presence of third
community. parties removes such information from the mantle of the privilege.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

PEOPLE V. GALLENO genital area. Dr. Toledo " … pack(ed) the area to prevent further bleeding and
G.R. NO. 123546 JULY 2, 1998 (he) … admitted the patient for possible repair of the laceration and blood
transfusion because she has anaemia 2ndary to bleeding." Two hundred fifty
FACTS: five (255) cc of blood was transfused to Evelyn and she was given antibiotics
to prevent infection. Five days later, Evelyn was discharged and sent home
Evelyn Obligar Garganera 5year old daughter of Rosita Obligar Garganera, with medication.
together with her 3-year old Eleazar brother, live under the care and custody of
their uncle, Emetario Obligar, and aunt, Penicola Obligar. Upon his examination of Evelyn on August 19, 1994, Dr. Toledo disclosed that
the child suffered severe compound laceration which could have been caused
Less than kilometer away from their place of residence lived accused- by a normal and fully developed penis of a man in a state of erection that was
appellant, 19-year old Joeral Galleno, known well Evelyn's family. On August 16, forcibly inserted into her vagina and that the insertion caused her vagina to
1994, at around 4pm, JOERAL GALLENO passed by the Obligars' residence and hemorrhage which thus required the transfusion of 255 cc of blood
found the two children left to themselves.
Prior to her confinement in the Roxas Memorial General Hospital on August 19,
According to Prosecution JOERAL took advantage of the situation by sexually Emetario and Penicola Obligar brought Evelyn to the Maayon Police Station on
molesting Evelyn. The penetration caused the child's vagina to bleed, making August 18, 1994, where they reported the crime to SPO1 Paulino Durana. That
her cry in pain Accused tried to stop the bleeding by applying, with his finger, same day, appellant was apprehended in a house near the Balighot Elementary
the sap of "madre de cacao" leaves on her vagina. Unsuccessful in his attempt, School and brought to the police station
he left Evelyn grimacing and crying in pain.

Shortly, Emeterio and Penicola came home from work. They arrived to find
Evelyn crying. Emetario noticed that there was blood in Evelyn's dress and she Defense allegation. Accused-appellant testified that when he arrived at the
was pressing a rug against her genital organ. He saw that her vagina had been Obligar residence that afternoon of August 16, 1994, he found the two
lacerated and blood was oozing therefrom. He summoned a "quack" doctor children, Evelyn and Eleazar While seated at the balcony, accused-appellant
who applied herbal medicine on Evelyns's vagina but did not stop the bleeding. was approached by Evelyn, who knew him. He cajoled her by throwing her up
and down, his right hand holding the child and his left hand covering her
The following day, August 17, 1994, Emeterio brought Evelyn to the clinic of vagina. Upon lifting up the child the first time, his left ring finger was
Dr. Alfonso D. Orosco, the Rural Health Physician of Maayon, Capiz. After accidentally inserted into the vagina of child since his fingernail was long and
examining EVELYN, he affirmed that Evelyn's vaginal laceration could have the child was not wearing any underwear. Consequently, Evelyn began to cry
been by blunt instrument inserted into the vigina, that it was possible that a because her vagina started to bleed. Upon seeing this, he immediately went
human penis in full erection had been forcibly inserted into her vagina, and down the house and got some bark or leaves of madre de cacao tree and
that a human penis in full errection is considered a blunt intrument. While he applied the sap on the child's wound. The bleeding ceased and Evelyn stopped
was examining Evelyn, Dr. Orosco asked Evelyn what caused her injuries. The crying. Thereafter, accused-appellant went home
child told him that a penis was inserted into her vagina and that its insertion
caused her pain. Accused's father Raul Galleno was called to the witness stand and he testified
that he learned about the arrest of his son on August 18, 1994. The following day,
Since his clinic lacked the proper medical facilities needed to treat Evelyn, Dr. he went to the house of the Obligars to ask Evelyn what happened to her. The child
Orosco, after dressing the victim's wound which continued to bleed, advised allegedly answered that a finger was accidentally inserted into her genital organ,
Emeterio and Penicola to bring the child to the hospital for further medical but that Penicola who was then present, butted into the conversation and told Raul
treatment Galleno that the penis of accused-appellant was likewise inserted.

On August 18, 1994, Emeterio brought Evelyn to the Roxas Memorial General ISSUE: WON the accused raped the victim Evelyn Obligar?
Hospital were she was examined by resident physician Dr. Ma. Lourdes
Lañada. Dr. Lañada, upon examining Evelyn found that "there was a 3 cm. RULING:
lacerated wound at the left anterior one-third of the vagina" and "the
pressence of about 10-15cc of blood" at the vaginal vault. As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give
Dr. Lañada opined that "a lot of things will cause the lacerated wound in the opinions. It is the court's duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form
vagina. According to Dr. Lañada, the vaginal laceration may be caused (1) by opinions upon the facts proved. However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are
trauma to the area, when a girl falls and hits her genital area on a blunt received in many cases, and are not confined to expert testimony, based on the
instrument; (2) by medical instrumentation, like the insertion of a speculum principle that either because of the special skill or expert knowledge of the witness,
into the vagina; or (3) by the insertion of blunt foreign object into the vagina, or because of the nature of the subject matter under observation, of for other
like a finger or a penis of a man in full erection. reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment.

On August 19, 1994, Emetario brought Evelyn back to the Roxas Memorial The trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the aid of the expert
General Hospital where she was attended to by Dr. Machael Toledo, the testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible cause of the victim's
resident physician on duty, who found blood clots and minimal bleeding in the laceration, but also the testimony of the other prosecution witness, especially the
victim herself. In other words, the trial court did not rely solely on the testimony of CEBU SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS VS WILLIAM LINES INC AND
the expert witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided the trial court in the PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE COMPANY INC.
exercise of its judgment on the facts. Hence, the fact that the experts enumerated G.R. NO. 132607 – MAY 5, 1999
various possible causes of the victim's laceration does not mean the trial court's
interference is wrong.
FACTS:
The absence of spermatozoa in the victim's vagina does not negate the
conclusion that it was his penis which was inserted in the victim's vagina. In rape,  Petitioner Cebu Shipyard is a domestic corporation engaged in the business
the important consideration is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the of dry-docking and repairing of marine vessels. Private respondent
female genitalia by the male organ. Verily, it is entirely probable that climax on the Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc, is a domestic corporation
part of accused-appellant was not reached due to the cries of pain of the victim and engaged in the non-life insurance business. Private Respondent William
the profuse bleeding of her vagina. Lines Inc is in the shipping business and owner of M/V Manila City, a luxury
passenger-cargo vessel which would be the main topic of the issue of this
Section 4, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides that "(e)vidence must have case.
such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nor-  William lines brought its vessel (M/V Manila) to the Cebu Shipyard for
existence." This simply means that relevancy is determinable by the rules of logic annual dry-docking and repair.
and human experience. There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided  When The Vessel M/V Manila City was transferred to the docking quay, it
by law. However, the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests caught on fire and sank, resulting to its eventual total loss. At the time of
largely at the discretion of the court, which must be exercised according to the the unfortunate occurrence, subject vessel was insured with Prudential for
teachings of logic and everyday experience hull and machinery.
There is no explanation how the left ring finger (allegedly with long fingernail)  William lines filed a complaint for damages against petitioner alleging that
the fire broke out in the vessel was caused by Petitioner’s negligence and
of accused-appellant penetrated the victim's vagina by a depth of one fourth of an
lack of care. Later on the complaint was amended to implede Prudential
inch. Guarantee after the later had paid for the insurance value with William
Lines. Prudential was subrograted to the claim of William Lines.
The trial court's conclusions finds supports in the testimony of accused-  Trial court decided against Cebu Shipyard and in favour of William lines and
appellant's own witness, Dr. Lourdes Lañada (who was earlier presented during the Prudential.
trial as a prosecution witness), who testified that a laceration is caused by a blunt  A partial dismissal was ordered by the CA due to the amicable settlement
instrument and that a fingernail is not a blunt but a sharp instrument. of the parties. CA also affirmed the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE: W/N the Court erred on the inadmissibility of the expert testimonies
presented by the petitioner, that introduced the cause and origin of the fire.

RULING: No

 Courts are not bound by the testimonies of expert witness.

 Although they have probative value. The reception of evidence of expert
witness is within the discretion of the court.
 Under section 49 of Rule 30 it provides that opinion of expert witness,
maybe received in evidence.
 The word “may” signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness as
evidence is a prerogative of the court. It is never mandatory for the judge
to give substantial weight to expert testimonies.
 If from facts and evidence on record, a conclusion is readily ascertainable,
there is no need for the judge to resort to expert opinion evidence.
 In the case at bar, the testimonies of the fire experts were not the only
available evidence on the probable cause and origin of the fire. There were
witnesses who were actually on board the vessel when the fire occurred.
 Between the testimonies of the fire expert who merely based their findings
and opinions on interviews and testimonies of those present during the fire,
the latter are of more probative value.
 The trial court did not err in giving more weight to said testimonies.
Petition denied
PEOPLE V. SOLIMAN improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not necessary in
101 SCRA 767, G.R. NO. L-9723 crime of murder where killing is committed through treachery
premeditation.
FACTS o Proof of character may only be allowed in homicide cases to show
"that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in
 Ernesto Basa was sleeping in a pushcart with Ernesto Balaktaw sleeping on the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt
a box situated near the pushcart with heads opposite each other. defensive action was necessary."
o Suddenly Balaktaw’s hand was kicked
o Woke up and saw a Sofronio Palin hold Basa by the shoulders RULING:
while his companion Geronimo Soliman stabbed Basa with a
balisong many times WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified in the sense of imposing upon
o Then assailants raw away. appellants merely the penalty of reclusion perpetua, affirming the decisions in all
 Took Basa to the hospital but he still died. other respects, with costs.
 Appellant Soliman testified that he acted on self-defense since he claims
that deceased beat him up previous to the incident since he didn’t let him
borrow his pushcart; then the deceased provoked him and boxed him
which prompted Soliman to pull out his knife and in the course of the
fighting, appellant stabbed the deceased.
o Appellant Palin corroborated the testimony claiming that he was
eating at a restaurant when he saw Soliman and deceased
grappling with each other and that he tried to separate them and
even advised Soliman to surrender which he followed.
 Conviction in mainly predicated on the testimony of one eyewitness –
Ernesto Balaktaw

ISSUE/S

 W/N testimony of Balaktaw is credible?

HELD: YES

 TC was careful in taking notice not only of conduct of witness during trial
but also the extraneous matters that may help in reaching a correct
conclusion. (i.e. corroborated by testimony of appellant who admitted in
having inflicted the wounds and also supported by nature of wounds as
found by Dr. in autopsy)
 TC also made careful observation of the conduct and demeanor of
the two accused during trial
o Soliman: well built, robust and apparently strong
o Palin: a little bigger than other accused, stronger physique
o Deceased: slightly higher in stature thart Soliman but has a
thinner constitution and also much smaller than Palin
o Manner of testifying: Apparent indifference to all court
proceedings despite seriousness of crime; short, curt and
confused manner convinced Court they gave little importance to
the case and the proceedings
 Although initially Balaktaw was confused in identifying accused by their
names, when asked by court immediately thereafter to put his hands on
each of them, he was able to identify them correctly. Initial mistake must
have been due to accused being seated together.
 TC also did not err in not allowing the defense to prove that the
deceased had a violent, quarrelsome or provocative character.
While good/character may be availed as an aid to determine probability or