1

RULE 130 SECTION 26 - Admissions of a Party knowledge of the shooting of Dr. Bayquen and revealed the
identities of his cohorts in the crime. In a confrontation two
G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 days later, he identified Quiaño as "Sony," the triggerman.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
The appellant, who is a farmer and whose highest educational
vs.
attainment was grad four, impugned the validity of his
JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN
extrajudicial statement which he finally did out of fear caused
by the arresting officers prior to him being brought to the
station which he alleged in detail. Then he was brought to the
Facts:
Office of the City Fiscal of Baguio City.
At past 7:30 p.m. of 6 September 1986 in Baguio City, Dr.
Napoleon Bayquen, a dentist, together with his son, Anthony; In five separate informations filed on 22 May 1987 with the
Anthony's girlfriend, Anna Theresa Francisco; his daughter, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Baguio City, the accused
Dominic; and Danny Ancheta, a family friend, were on their were charged with murder in Criminal Cases Nos. 4647-R and
way aboard their Brasilia to the doctor's residence at 4648-R, with frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 4649-R,
Trancoville at 21-D Malvar Street, Baguio City, from his driving and with attempted murder in Criminal Cases Nos. 4650-R and
the car. While they were cruising along Malvar Street and 4651-R. The crimes were allegedly committed on 6 September
nearing the Baptist church, a man came out from the right side 1986 in Baguio City and resulted in the deaths of Dr. Napoleon
of a car parked about two meters to the church. The man Bayquen and Anna Theresa Francisco and the wounding of
approached the Brasilia, aimed his armalite rifle through its Anthony Bayquen, Dominic Bayquen, and Danny Ancheta.
window, and fired at the passengers. The Brasilia swerved and
hit a fence. The gunman immediately returned to the parked The informations in the murder cases charged that the
car which then sped away. accused acted in conspiracy and the presence of the qualifying
circumstance of treachery and the ordinary aggravating
Dr. Bayquen and Anna Theresa died on the spot. Dominic was circumstances of evident premeditation and price.
bale to get out of the Brasilia to run to the Alabanza store
where she telephoned her mother and told her what had Only the appellant and Wilfredo Quiaño were arrested.
happened. Later, she and her mother brought her father and However, before Quiaño could be arraigned, he escaped on 12
Anthony to the hospital. Danny Ancheta went home and was July 1987 while under the custody of the Philippine
then brought to the Notre Dame Hospital for treatment. Anna Constabulary/PNP Regional Command I at Camp Dangwa, La
Theresa Francisco was brought to the funeral parlor. The Trinidad, Benguet.2 The cases, which were consolidated and
police later arrived at the crime scene and conducted an jointly tried, proceeded only against the appellant.
investigation. they recovered some empty shells of an armalite Trial court then concluded that "[t]here was conspiracy and
rifle. the accused was a direct participant in the crime," and that
On 30 January 1987, accused Wilfredo "Sonny" Quiaño, an while he tried to minimize his culpability, his "extrajudicial
alleged former military agent or "asset" who had been picked confession" shows that "he was in on the plan," and even
up in La Union by the police authorities, confessed during the "expected to be paid, to be rewarded monetarily"; and that he
investigation conducted by Baguio City Fiscal Erdolfo Balajadia "decided to give a statement only when he was not given the
in his office that he was the triggerman in the fatal shooting of money." Since the proof of corpus delicti required in Section 3,
Dr. Bayquen and Anna Theresa Francisco. He implicated Rule 133 of the Rules of Court was established by the
Manuel "Jun" Abenoja, Jr., allegedly a fellow military agent and prosecution's evidence, it found his conviction for murder
the "bagman" who engaged him to kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee, inevitable.
Freddie "Boy" Cartel, who provided the armalite, and a certain Issue:
"Jimmy." During the investigation, Wilfredo Quiaño was
assisted by Atty. Reynaldo Cajucom, a representative of the Whether or not the alleged extrajudicial confession is
Integrated bar of the Philippines (IBP). Ms. Christie Napeñas, a admissible as evidence against the accused-appellant,
stenographic notes of the proceedings during the investigation. "Jimmy".
Thereafter, she transcribed the notes and the transcription Held:
became the sworn statement of Wilfredo Quiaño which he
signed, with the assistance of Atty. Cajucom, and swore to No. After a careful study of the records of Criminal Cases Nos.
before City Fiscal Balajadia. 4647-R and 4648-R and a painstaking evaluation of the
evidence, we find this appeal to be impressed with merit.
In the morning of 10 February 1987, "Jimmy," who turned out Indeed, the extrajudicial admission — not extrajudicial
to be appellant Jaime Agustin, was picked up in Sto. Tomas, confession — of the appellant, which is the only evidence of
Pangasinan, by military personnel (without a warrant) and the prosecution linking him to the commission of the crime
brought to Baguio city. At 4:00 p.m. of that date, he was taken charged, is wholly inadmissible because it was taken in
to the office of City Fiscal Erdolfo Balajadia where he was violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. We also
investigated in connection with the crime. Atty. Reynaldo see in these cases a blatant disregard of the appellant's right
Cajucom assisted the appellant during the investigation. Ms. under Section 2 of Article III when he was unlawfully arrested.
Christie Napeñas took down stenographic notes of the
proceedings during the investigation. The stenographic notes A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a
consisted of 22 pages (Exhibit "B"), each of which was signed party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while
afterwards by the appellant and Atty. Cajucom. Ms. Napeñas an admission is a statement by the accused, direct or implied,
subsequently transcribed these notes which the prosecution of facts pertinent to the issue, and tending, in connection with
marked as Exhibit "C." The appellant narrated therein his proof of other facts, to prove his guilt. In other words, and

1
 2

admission is something less than a confession, and is but an The trial court convicted Tuason. He appelled to
acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is respondent CA which affirmed in toto the decision of lower
insufficient to authorize a conviction, and which tends only to court. Thus, this petition for certiorari.
establish the ultimate fact of guilt.
ISSUE:
Nevertheless, when what is involved is the issue of admissibly
WON CA erred for ignoring or disregarding the glaring and
in evidence under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution,
fatal infirmities of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses,
the distinction is irrelevant because Paragraph 3 thereof
specially as identification, as well as to the palpable
expressly refers to both confession and admission.
improbability of herein petitioner having been a supposed
Considering that the appellant is familiar only with Ilocano, the participant in the offenses charged, the error being
Court has serious doubts about his ability to understand Atty. tantamount to gross misapprehension of the record.
Cajucom's explanation of his constitutional rights since Atty.
RULING:
Cajucom did so in English and Tagalog. He also was not
explicitly told of his right to have a competent and The SC reversed the decision.
independent counsel of his choice, specifically asked if he had
in mind any such counsel and, if so, whether he could afford to The court ruled that evidence to be believed, must
hire his services, and, if he could not, whether he would agree proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but the
to be assisted by one to be provided for him. He was not same must be credible in itself.  The trial court and respondent
categorically informed that he could waive his rights to remain appellate court relied mainly on the testimony of prosecution
silent and to counsel and that this waiver must be in writing witness Madaraog that from her vantage position near the
and in the presence of his counsel. door of the bedroom she clearly saw how petitioner allegedly
participated in the robbery. After a careful review of the
Ruling: evidence, we find that the identification of petitioner made by
Madaraog and Quintal is open to doubt and cannot serve as a
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING the
basis for conviction of petitioner.
challenged judgment of the Regional Trial Court, branch 3,
Baguio City, in Criminal Case No. 4647-R and Criminal Case it must be emphasized that of the four (4) prosecution
No. 4648-R, and ACQUITTING appellant JAIME "JIMMY" witnesses, only the maid Madaraog actually saw petitioner in
AGUSTIN. His immediate release from confinement is hereby the act of committing the crimes at bench. Witnesses Quintal
ORDERED unless for some other lawful cause his continued and Barbieto testified they only saw petitioner at the vicinity of
detention is warranted. 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
G.R. No. 113779-80 February 23, 1995
petitioner as 5'3" tall and with a big mole between his
ALVIN TUASON y OCHOA VS CA
eyebrows. While Quintal also described petitioner as 5'3" and
with a black mole between his eyebrows. On the basis of their
FACTS:
description, the NBI cartographer made a drawing of petitioner
Petitioner Alvin Tuason y Ochoa, John Doe, Peter Doe, and
showing a dominant mole between his eyes. As it turned out,
Richard Doe were charged with Robbery. The incident
petitioner has no mole but only a scar between his eyes.
happened when the house of Cipriana Torres was robbed and
Moreover, he is 5'8 1/2" and not 5'3" tall.
the only person inside her house is her maid Jovina Madaraog
Torres. Torres reported the robbery to the police authorities at The records do not show any fact from which the trial
Fairview, Quezon City and the National Bureau of Investigation court can logically deduce the conclusion that petitioner
(NBI). On July 25, 1988, Madaraog and Quintal described the covered up his scar with black coloring to make it appear as a
physical features of the four (4) robbers before the NBI mole. Such an illogical reasoning cannot constitute evidence of
cartographer. One of those drawn by the artist was a person guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This palpable error was
with a large mole between his eyebrows. 9 On August 30, 1988, perpetrated by respondent appellate court when it relied on
petitioner was arrested by the NBI agents. The next day, at the theory that this "fact" should not be disturbed on appeal
the NBI headquarters, he was pointed to by Madaraog and the because the trial court had a better opportunity to observe the
other prosecution witnesses as one of the perpetrators of the behavior of the prosecution witnesses during the hearing. This
crimes at bench. is a misapplication of the rule in calibrating the credibility of
witnesses. The subject finding of the trial court was not based
He was arrested more than one (1) month after the
on the demeanor of any witnesses which it had a better
robbery. Petitioner ALVIN TUASON, 12 on the other hand,
opportunity to observe. Rather, it was a mere surmise, an
anchored his defense on alibi and insufficient identification by
illogical one at that. By no means can it be categorized as a
the prosecution. he has lived within the neighborhood of the
fact properly established by evidence.
Torres family since 1978. He averred that on July 19, 1988, he
was mixing dough and rushing cake orders from 7:00 o'clock The respondent appellate court, however, dismissed this claim
in the morning till 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon at his sisters' of petitioner as self-serving. Under our law of evidence, self-
TipTop bakeshop in Antipolo Street, Tondo, Manila. It takes serving evidence  is one made by a party out of court at one
him two (2) hours to commute daily from Lagro, Novaliches to time; it does not include a party's testimony as a witness in
Tondo. court. It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay
evidence that is the lack of opportunity for cross-examination
The prosecution presented Jovina and a certain Barbieto
by the adverse party and on the consideration that its
while Tuason maintained his alibi and corroborated by the
admission would open the door to fraud and to fabrication of
testimony of his sister Angeli Tuason.
2
 3

testimony. On the other hand, a party's testimony in court is The SC reject petitioners' argument that said admission is
sworn and affords the other party the opportunity for cross- inadmissible as evidence against them under Section 12 Article III
examination.3Clearly, petitioner's testimony in court on how he of the 1987 Constitution. The right to counsel under Section 12 of
was identified by the prosecution witnesses in the NBI the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case
headquarters is not self-serving. under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation is the stage
where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into
an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect
G.R. No. 127553 November 28, 1997 who had been taken into custody by the police to carry out a
EDDIE MANUEL vs. N.C. CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating
statements. It is when questions are initiated by law enforcement
FACTS: officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
The security guards of respondent company caught Aurelio deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. The right
Guevara, and Jay Calso, taking out from the company to counsel attaches only upon the start of such
premises two rolls of electrical wire worth P500.00 without investigation. Therefore, the exclusionary rule under paragraph
authority. Calso was brought to the Pasig Police station for (3) Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admission made
questioning. During the investigation, Calso named seven in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an
other employees who were allegedly involved in a series of administrative investigation.
thefts at respondent company, among them petitioners
Manuel, Bana, Pagtama, Jr. and Rea.Petitioners received In the case at bar, the admission was made by petitioners during
separate notices from respondent company informing them the course of the investigation conducted by private respondents'
that they were positively identified by their co-worker, Calso, counsel to determine whether there is sufficient ground to
They were thus invited to the Pasig police station for terminate their employment. Petitioners were not under custodial
investigation regarding their alleged involvement in the investigation as they were not yet accused by the police of
offense. committing a crime. The investigation was merely an
Atty. Ramon Reyes, private respondents' counsel administrative investigation conducted by the employer, not a
conducted in their behalf an investigation regarding petitioners' criminal investigation. The questions were propounded by the
involvement in the theft. Petitioners initially denied the charge. employer's lawyer, not by police officers. The fact that the
However, after being positively identified by Jay Calso, investigation was conducted at the police station did not
petitioners admitted their guilt and offered to resign in necessarily put petitioners under custodial investigation as the
exchange for the withdrawal of any criminal charge against venue of the investigation was merely incidental. Hence, the
them.Petitioners Bana and Rea filed separate resignation admissions made by petitioners during such investigation may be
letters while petitioners Manuel and Pagtama, Jr. tendered used as evidence to justify their dismissal.
their resignations orally. Petitioner Bana's resignation letter.
G.R. No. 119220 September 20, 1996
Reyes accepted the resignation letter however, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents for vs. NILO SOLAYAO, accused-appellant.
illegal dismissal. Petitioners alleged that they were not
informed of the charge against them nor were they given an FACTS:
opportunity to dispute the same. They also alleged that their SPO3 Niño and his team were to conduct an intelligence patrol
admission made at the Pasig police station regarding their as required of them by their intelligence officer to verify
involvement in the theft as well as their resignation were not reports on the presence of armed persons roaming around the
voluntary but were obtained by private respondents' lawyer by barangays of Caibiran when they met the group of accused-
means of threat and intimidation. appellant Nilo Solayao numbering five. The former became
The LA ruled in favor of petitioners and found their suspicious when they observed that the latter were drunk and
dismissal to be illegal. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the that accused-appellant himself was wearing a camouflage
decision of the Labor Arbiter. It ruled that petitioners were uniform or a jungle suit. Accused-appellant's companions,
dismissed for a just cause. It held that petitioners failed to upon seeing the government agents, fled.
adduce competent evidence to show a vitiation of their Police Officer Niño told accused-appellant not to run
admission regarding their participation in the theft. It further away and introduced himself as "PC," after which he seized the
stated that such admission may be admitted in evidence dried coconut leaves which the latter was carrying and found
because Section 12 Article III of the 1987 Constitution applies wrapped in it a 49-inch long homemade firearm locally know
only to criminal proceedings but not to administrative as "latong." When he asked accused-appellant who issued him
proceedings. a license to carry said firearm or whether he was connected
ISSUE: with the military or any intelligence group, the latter answered
that he had no permission to possess the same. Thereupon,
WON the National Labor Relations Commission committed SPO3 Niño confiscated the firearm and turned him over to the
grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the admission of custody of the policemen of Caibiran who subsequently
petitioners is admissible in evidence despite the fact that it was investigated him and charged him with illegal possession of
obtained in a hostile environment and without the presence or firearm.
assistance of counsel
Solayao claimed that he was not aware that there
RULING: was a shotgun concealed inside the coconut leaves since they
The SC affirmed the decision of the NLRC. were using the coconut leaves as a torch. He further claimed

3
 4

that this was the third torch handed to him after the others G.R. No. 128046             March 7, 2000
had been used up. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. RAMON CHUA UY
The trial court convicted the accused.Hence, this
petition for certiorari.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Evidence on record shows that SPO1 Nepomuceno acted as a
WON trial court erred in admitting in evidence the homemade poseur buyer and transacted a sale of shabu with Chua Uy.
firearm. Thereupon, SPO1 Nepomuceno introduced himself and
informed the accused of his constitutional rights before placing
RULING: him under arrest.The team brought accused Chua Uy to their
The SC ruled that accused-appellant's arguments are hardy office where he was referred to SPO2 Vicente Mandac for
tenable proper investigation. In the course thereof, it was learned that
there were still undetermined quantity of shabu left at the
residence of the accused. Forthwith, SPO4 Regalado applied
Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in
on the following day for a search warrant before this Court to
admitting the subject firearm in evidence as it was the product of
lawfully search the said premises of the accused for
an unlawful warrantless search. He maintained that the search
methamphetamine hydrochloride. However, accused Chua Uy
made on his person violated his constitutional right to be secure in
claimed his innocence by insisting that the quantity of the illicit
his person and effects against unreasonable searches and
drug allegedly seized from him were merely "planted" by the
seizures. Not only was the search made without a warrant but it
police officers.
did not fall under any of the circumstances enumerated under
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure The trial court convicted the accused with two charges in
which provides, inter alia: relation to RA 6425. Unsatisfied, he appealed from decision of
trial court. RAMON submits that the trial court erred (1) in
A peace officer or a private person may, without a giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
warrant, arrest a person when in his presence, the and in disregarding the evidence for the defense; and (2) in
person to be arrested has committed, is actually finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. drug pushing and drug possession.He assails the credibility of
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the buy-bust
operation, thus, the female confidential agent/police informer
Accused-appellant's arguments follow the line of
should have testified in court to prove her claims against
reasoning in People v. Cuizon, et al. 12 where this Court
him.RAMON submits that without the testimony of NBI
declared: ". . . emphasis is to be laid on the fact that the
Forensic Chemist, the prosecution's case "falls to pieces."
law requires that the search be incident to a lawful
Bravo's testimony cannot be waived since only he could say
arrest, in order that the search itself may likewise be
whether the substance allegedly seized is indeed shabu, and
considered legal. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that a
also determine its actual weight upon which depends the
lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his
penalty to be imposed. Thus, whatever he said in his report is
belongings. Were a search first undertaken, then an
hearsay and hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has
arrest effected based on evidence produced by the
no probative value. He insists that at the pretrial he did not
search, both such search and arrest would be unlawful,
waive the testimony of the chemist but only "stipulated on the
for being contrary to law."
markings of the prosecution's evidence.

In the present case, after SPO3 Niño told accused- ISSUE:

appellant not to run away, the former identified himself as a (1) WON the trial court erred in giving credence to the
government agents. The peace officers did not know that he had testimony of prosecution and discredited the evidence of
committed, or was actually committing, the offense of illegal defense.
possession of firearm. Tasked with verifying the report that there
were armed men roaming in the barangays surrounding Caibiran, (2) WON the testimony of NBI Forensic is considered as
their attention was understandably drawn to the group that had hearsay.
aroused their suspicion. They could not have known that the RULING: The SC find no merit.
object wrapped in coconut leaves which accused-appellant was
carrying hid a firearm. (1) The failure to present the informer did not diminish
the integrity of the testimony of the witnesses for
Thus, there was no violation of the constitutional the prosecution. Informers are almost always never
guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. Nor was presented in court because of the need to preserve
there error on the part of the trial court when it admitted the their invaluable service to the police.Their testimony
homemade firearm as evidence. or identity may be dispensed with since his or her
narration would be merely corroborative, as in this
case, when the poseur- buyer himself testified on
the sale of the illegal drug.

As against the positive testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses that they caught RAMON in a buy-bust operation,
4
 5

supported by other evidence such as the packets of shabu sold As to the reports of Forensic Chemist Bravo, it must
by and seized from him, RAMON's negative testimony must be stressed that as an NBI Forensic Chemist, Bravo is a public
necessarily fail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a officer, and his report carries the presumption of regularity in
negative testimony, especially when it comes from the mouth the performance of his function and duty. Besides, by virtue of
of credible witness. The failure to present the informer did not Section 44, Rule 130, entries in official records made in the
diminish the integrity of the testimony of the witnesses for the performance of office duty, as in the case of the reports of
prosecution. Informers are almost always never presented in Bravo, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. We
court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service are also aware that "the test conducted for the presence of
to the police. Their testimony or identity may be dispensed 'shabu' (infrared test) is a relatively simple test which can be
with since his or her narration would be merely corroborative, performed by an average or regular chemistry graduate" and
as in this case, when the poseur- buyer himself testified on the where "there is no evidenceto show that the positive results
sale of the illegal drug. for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride ('shabu')
are erroneouscoupled with the undisputed presumption that
Since RAMON was caught in flagrante selling shabu, the
official duty has been regularly performed, said results" may
trial court correctly ruled that his warrantless arrest and the
"adequately establish" that the specimens submitted were
seizure of his attache case containing more shabu was also
indeed shabu.
valid and lawful. Besides, Ramon never raised, on
constitutional grounds, the issue of inadmissibility of the G.R. No. 124832           February 1, 2000
evidence thus obtained. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 
vs. DANTE CEPEDA y SAPOTALO
(2) RAMON's premise is that at the pre-trial he did not
waive the Forensic Chemist's testimony but only FACTS:
"stipulated on the markings of the prosecution's Conchita claims that at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of
evidence.” The record disclosed that during pre-trial April 2, 1994, Dante Cepeda went to her house at Buhang,
conducted immediately after the arraignment, duly Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, and asked her to [go to] his
represented by counsel de parte Atty. Gerardo house to massage (hilot) his wife who was suffering from
stomach ache. Regina Carba, her neighbor, was in her house
Alberto, and the prosecution stipulated on the
and she asked her to go with her. Cepeda was at his kitchen
markings of the prosecution's exhibits, and agreed to door when they reached his house. He told Gina to leave as his
dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist wife, who was Muslim, would get angry if there were many
Loreto F. Bravo. people in their home. He insisted on this many times so that
Gina had to leave. Cepeda led the complainant to his bedroom.
RAMON nor his counsel made express admission that At the door, Conchita peeped inside and saw a figure covered
the contents of the plastic bags to "be marked" as Exhibits "D," by a blanket whom she presumed was Cepeda's wife. At that
"D-1," "D-2," "D-3," "D-4," and "E" contain methamphetamine instance, accused immediately placed his left arm around her
hydrochloride. That RAMON agreed to dispense with the shoulders and pointed a knife at the pit of her stomach saying:
testimony of Forensic Chemist Bravo may not be considered an "Just keep quiet, do not make any noise, otherwise I will kill
admission of the findings of Bravo on the contents of the you." 
plastic bag.To bind the accused the pre-trial order must be
signed not only by him but his counsel as well. The purpose of She elbowed him, stooped and shouted "Help!" three
this requirement is to further safeguard the rights of the times but Cepeda covered her mouth then carried her to the
accused against improvident or unauthorized agreements or room by her armpits. Shaking herself, free from, his grasp, she
admissions which his counsel may have entered into without hit her left shin at the edge of the floor of the bedroom. Inside
his knowledge, as he may have waived his presence at the the room, he threatened her with a knife and ordered her to
pre-trial conference; eliminate any doubt on the conformity of remove her panty and lie on the bed. Afraid she did as ordered
the accused to the facts agreed upon. and the accused also removed his pants and brief. He placed
himself on top of her, spread her legs with his legs, inserted
In addition to the foregoing admission by RAMON of his penis inside her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her
the prosecution's exhibits, he likewise never raised in issue at the same time embracing and kissing her. After he was
before the trial court the non-presentation of Forensic Chemist through, she ran towards the kitchen with Cepeda chasing her.
Bravo. RAMON cannot now raise it for the first time on appeal.
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on This charge is refuted by the accused claiming that he
appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence and Conchita are lovers. Conchita asked him to leave his wife
offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without to elope with her as she would also leave her husband.He
such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time rejected this proposal because he loved his wife and Conchita
on appeal.The familiar rule in this jurisdiction is that the had three daughters. Conchita, according to him, was
inadmissibility of certain documents upon the ground of displeased because he would not elope with her. On April 2,
hearsay if not urged before the court below cannot, for the 1994, Conchita again came to his house and while they were
first time, be raised on appeal.In U.S. v. Choa Tong   where the petting, somebody outside his house said: "You there, what
defense counsel did not object to the form or substance of a are you doing?" At this Conchita left his house and went home.
laboratory report that the specimen submitted was opium, the The trial convicted the accused with the crime of rape.
Court ruled that "[t]he objection should have been made at
the time the said analysis was presented. ISSUE:
WON the testimony of Conchita is credible.

5
 6

RULING: rape has been considered by this Court as a factor

strengthening her credibility.
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Accused-appellant's allegation of an illicit amorous
relationship is too shopworn to deserve serious consideration RULE 130 SECTION 27 - Offer of Compromise Not
and is totally unworthy of credence. A circumspect scrutiny of Amissible
the record discloses that the "illicit love affair" angle appears
G.R. No. 97957 March 5, 1993
as a fabrication by accused-appellant. As an affirmative
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
defense, the alleged "love affair" need convincing proof.Having
vs.
admitted to having had carnal knowledge of the complainant
ALBERTO LASE, alias "BERT", accused-appellant.
several times,accused-appellant bears the burden of proving
his defense by substantial evidence.The record shows that
FACTS:
other than his elf-serving assertions, there is no evidence to
Accused-appellant appeals from the decision of Branch 45 of
support the claim that accused-appellant and private
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate in Criminal Case No.
complainant were in love.
55571 convicting him of the crime of murder for the death of
Other than accused-appellant's self-serving testimony, Dante Huelva on 18 May 1987 in Barangay Pia-ong,
no other evidence like love letters, mementos or pictures were Dimasalang, Masbate, and sentencing him:
presented to prove his alleged amorous relationship with . . . to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
private complainant. Neither was there any corroborative PERPETUA in the absence of any mitigating
testimony supporting this pretended illicit affair. If accused- circumstance and to indemnify the parent of the
appellant were really the paramour of private complainant, she victim in the amount of P30,000.00. 2
would not have gone to the extent of bringing this criminal
action which inevitably exposed her to humiliation of The decision was promulgated on 18 February 1991.
recounting in public the violation of her womanhood. The prosecution presented Dr. Ernesto Tamayo, the Municipal
Moreover, she would not have implicated a person, who is Health Officer of Dimasalang, Masbate who identified the post-
allegedly her lover, as the perpetrator of an abominable crime mortem examination report (Exhibit "A") and the death
and thereby lay open their illicit relationship to public shame certificate of Dante Huelva (Exhibit "B"), DominicoPangantihon,
and ridicule not to mention the ire of a cuckolded husband and Godofreda Huelva and Cpl. Carlos Mitra as witnesses for its
the withering contempt of her children were it not the truth. evidence in chief.
Evidence to be believed must not only come from a
On the other hand, accused-appellant interposed the defense
credible source but must also be credible in itself such as one
of alibi; he relied on the testimony of his principal witnesses to
that the common experience and observation of mankind can
support his version that he was somewhere else and not at the
approve as probable under the circumstances.The Court has
scene of the crime at the time of the killing.
taken judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas in this
country, women by custom and tradition act with
In his surrebuttal testimony, accused-appellant vaguely denied
circumspection and prudence, and that great caution is
this offer of compromise. He, however, insinuated that he
observed so that their reputation remains untainted.Such
could offer a higher amount.
circumspection must have prompted the victim to request
Regina Carba to accompany her on the errand of mercy to
The defense also sought to discredit the testimony of
accused-appellant's house. Unfortunately, Carba was shooed
DominicoPangantihon because it was months after the
away by accused-appellant on the pretext that his wife who
incident, and only after Ramon Sayson failed to testify, that he
was a Muslim was averse to having too many people in their
decided to come out and testify as an alleged eyewitness to
house.
the killing.
In scrutinizing the credibility of witnesses, case law
has established the following doctrinal guidelines:  first, the The trial court gave full credit to the version of the prosecution
appellate tribunal will not disturb the findings of the lower and disregarded the defense of alibi in view of the positive
court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, identification of the accused-appellant and the possibility of his
misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of being at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
weight and substance that would have affected the result of Thus, in a Decision promulgated on 18 February1991, 17 the
the case; second, the findings of the trial court pertaining to trial court held him liable for the killing of Dante Huelva which,
the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and in view of the attendance of treachery, was qualified to
even finality since it had the opportunity to examine their murder.
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.
The 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

6
 7

The accused-appellant now comes to the Court to question his regard. Nor has he shown any improper motive which could
conviction based on the lack of credibility of the witnesses have impelled Dominico to testify against him or implicate him
presented against him. He alleges that in the commission of the crime. The absence of evidence as to
DominicoPangantihonbelatedly came out in the open as a an improper motive strongly tends to sustain the conclusion
witness to the incident, and Police Corporal Carlos Mitra’s that none existed, and that the testimony is worthy of full faith
testimony "incurred various glaring material inconsistencies and credit. 30For indeed, if an accused had nothing to do with
which render his testimony doubtful and the crime, it would be against the natural order of events and
unreliable."Additionally, accused-appellant suggests that the of human nature and against the presumption of good faith for
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Dr. Tamayo and a prosecution witness to falsely testify against the accused. 31
Godofreda Huelva are likewise unreliable.
The alleged contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony
ISSUE: of Cpl. Mitra relate to minor, if not inconsequential, matters.
Whether or not the witnesses presented against the accused- The rule is settled that minor inconsistencies do not affect the
appellant were reliable and credible. credibility of witnesses; 32 on the contrary, they may even
HELD: heighten their credibility. 33
Yes. The challenged Decision of Branch 45 of the Regional
Trial Court of Masbate in Criminal Case No. 5557 finding the Then too, accused-appellant offered to compromise the case
accused-appellant ALBERTO LASE, alias "BERT" guilty of the for the sum of P10,000.00. The second paragraph of Section
crime charged, is hereby AFFIRMED. 27, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly provides
that:
REASONING:
At the bottom of the first and second assigned errors is the
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-
issue of the credibility of witnesses, a matter appropriately
offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed
addressed to the trial court 24 because it is in a better position
by law to be compromised, an offer of
to decide the matter, having heard the witnesses and observed
compromise by the accused may be received in
their deportment and manner of testifying during the
evidence as an implied admission of guilt. 34
trial. 25 Thus, the said court's findings on the credibility of
witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will
not be disturbed on appeal absent any clear showing that it Murder is not among those criminal cases which may be
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or compromised.
circumstances of weight or substance which could have
affected the result of the case. 26 G.R. No. 109172 August 19, 1994
The failure of prosecution witness DominicoPangantihon to TRANS-PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES,
immediately report the incident certainly did not detract from INC., petitioner, 
his credibility. While it was his duty as a barangay official to vs. CA
have assumed the responsibility of reporting the incident,
come to the succor of the victim or even run after and arrest FACTS:
the assailant, it is a sad reality that not all in our society, Sometime in 1979, petitioner applied for and was granted
including many of our public officials, are imbued with the several financial accommodations amounting to P1,300,000.00
highest sense of civic duty which is necessarily expected of by respondent Associated Bank. The loans were evidenced and
leaders in the community. Such indifference or apathy should secured by four (4) promissory notes, a real estate mortgage
not, however, cast any shadow of doubt on or impair the covering three parcels of land and a chattel mortgage over
credibility of a person who fails to report a crime or petitioner's stock and inventories.
immediately come forward to testify. The initial reluctance of
witnesses in this country to volunteer information about a
The mortgaged parcels of land were substituted by another
criminal case or their unwillingness to be involved in or
mortgage covering two other parcels of land and a chattel
dragged into criminal investigations is common. 27 Delay in
mortgage on petitioner's stock inventory. The released parcels
itself is, therefore, not enough. It would, of course, be entirely
of land were then sold and the proceeds amounting to
different if it clearly appears to the trial court that the witness
P1,386,614.20, according to petitioner, were turned over to
himself is not credible for the rule is settled that evidence, to
the bank and applied to Trans-Pacific's restructured loan.
be believed, must not only proceed from a credible witness but
Subsequently, respondent bank returned the duplicate original
must also be credible in itself. 28 Respect should not likewise be
copies of the three promissory notes to Trans-Pacific with the
accorded to such testimony if there is proof that the said
word "PAID" stamped thereon.
witness is influenced by improper or ulterior motives in so
volunteering to testify for the victim sometime after the
occurrence of the incident. Despite the return of the notes, or on December 12, 1985,
Associated Bank demanded from Trans-Pacific payment of the
amount of P492,100.00 representing accrued interest on PN
The trial court, after observing the demeanor and deportment
No. TL-9077-82. According to the bank, the promissory notes
of said witness, together with the variations in his expressions
were erroneously released.
while on the witness stand — which are badges of
truthfulness 29 — concluded that both he and his testimony are
credible. Accused-appellant presents no factual bases or strong Initially, Trans-Pacific expressed its willingness to pay the
arguments to convince Us that the trial court erred in that amount demanded by respondent bank. Later, it had a change

7
 8

of heart and instead initiated an action before the Regional copies submitted by petitioner. In People vs. Tan, (105 Phil.
Trial Court of Makati, Br. 146, for specific performance and 1242 [1959]), we said:
damages. There it prayed that the mortgage over the two
parcels of land be released and its stock inventory be lifted and When carbon sheets are inserted between two
that its obligation to the bank be declared as having been fully or more sheets of writing paper so that the
paid. writing of a contract upon the outside sheet,
including the signature of the party to be
After trial, the court a quo  rendered judgment in favor of charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the
Trans-Pacific, declaring plaintiff's obligations to defendant to sheets beneath, such signature being thus
have been already fully paid and ordering defendant to reproduced by the same stroke of pen which
execute and deliver to plaintiffs a release on the mortgage made the surface or exposed impression, all of
over the parcels of land and chattel mortgage. the sheets so written on are regarded as
duplicate originals and either of them may be
Respondent bank elevated the case to the appellate court introduced in evidence as such without
which, as aforesaid, reversed the decision of the trial court, on accounting for the nonproduction of the others.
the ground that the petitioner’s offer to compromise proved
that the debt was not fully paid. A duplicate copy of the original may be admitted in evidence
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari seeking the when the original is in the possession of the party against
reversal of the appellate court’s decision. whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice (Sec. 2[b], Rule 130), as in the case of
ISSUE: respondent bank.
Whether or not Trans-Pacific’s obligation to Asia Bank is fully
paid. The presumption created by the Art. 1271 of the Civil Code is
not conclusive but merely prima facie. If there be no evidence
HELD: to the contrary, the presumption stands. Conversely, the
No. The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against presumption loses its legal efficacy in the face of proof or
petitioner. evidence to the contrary. In the case before us, we find
sufficient justification to overthrow the presumption of
REASONING: payment generated by the delivery of the documents
Applying the legal presumption provided by Art. 1271 of the evidencing petitioners indebtedness.
Civil Code, the trial court ruled that petitioner has fully
discharged its obligation by virtue of its possession of the It may not be amiss to add that Article 1271 of the Civil Code
documents (stamped "PAID") evidencing its indebtedness. raises a presumption, not of payment, but of the renunciation
Respondent court disagreed and held, among others, that the of the credit where more convincing evidence would be
documents found in possession of Trans-Pacific are mere required than what normally would be called for to prove
duplicates and cannot be the basis of petitioner's claim that its payment. The rationale for allowing the presumption of
obligation has been fully paid. Accordingly, since the renunciation in the delivery of a private instrument  is that,
promissory notes submitted by petitioner were duplicates and unlike that of a public instrument, there could be just one copy
not the originals, the delivery thereof by respondent bank to of the evidence of credit. Where several originals are made out
the petitioner does not merit the application of Article 1271 of a private document, the intendment of the law would thus
(1st par.) of the Civil Code which reads: be to refer to the delivery only of the original original  rather
Art. 1271. The delivery of a private document than to the original duplicate  of which the debtor would
evidencing a credit, made voluntarily by the normally retain a copy. It would thus be absurd if Article 1271
creditor to the debtor, implies the renunciation were to be applied differently.
of the action which the former had against the
latter. While it has been consistently held that findings of facts are
not reviewable by this Court, this rule does not find application
Respondent court is of the view that the above provision must where both the trial and the appellate courts differ thereon
be construed to mean the original copy of the document (Asia Brewery, Inc. v. CA, 224 SCRA 437 [1993]).
evidencing the credit and not its duplicate, thus:
As for the records, there is actually none submitted by
petitioner to prove that the contested amount, i.e., the
. . . [W]hen the law speaks of the delivery of
interest, has been paid in full. In civil cases, the party that
the private document evidencing a credit, it alleges a fact has the burden of proving it (Imperial Victory
must be construed as referring to the original.
Shipping Agency v. NLRC 200 SCRA 178 [1991]). Petitioner
In this case, appellees (Trans-Pacific) presented, could have easily adduced the receipts corresponding to the
not the originals but the duplicates of the three
amounts paid inclusive of the interest to prove that it has fully
promissory notes." (Rollo, p. 42) discharged its obligation but it did not.

The above pronouncement of respondent court is manifestly There is likewise nothing on the records relied upon by the trial
groundless. It is undisputed that the documents presented court to support its claim, by empirical evidence, that the
were duplicate originals and are therefore admissible as amount corresponding to the interest has indeed been paid.
evidence. Further, it must be noted that respondent bank itself The trial court totally relied on a disputable presumption that
did not bother to challenge the authenticity of the duplicate the obligation of petitioner as regards interest has been fully
8
 9

liquidated by the respondent's act of delivering the instrument indebtedness (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 5,
evidencing the principal obligation. Rebuttable as they are, the p. 233 [1980 ed.); Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. VII, p. 325
court a quo  chose to ignore an earlier testimony of Mr. Mesina [1973 ed.] citing McNiel v. Holbrook, 12 Pac. (US) 84, 9 L.ed.
anent the outstanding balance pertaining to interest. 1009). Indeed, an offer of settlement is an effective admission
of a borrower's loan balance (L.M. Handicraft Manufacturing
That petitioner has not fully liquidated its financial obligation to Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 640 [1990]). Exactly, this
the Associated Bank finds more than ample confirmation and is what petitioner did in the case before us for review.
self-defeating posture in its letter dated December 16, 1985, As petitioner would rather vehemently deny, undisputed is the
addressed to respondent bank, viz.: fact of its admission regarding the unpaid balance of
P492,100.00 representing interests. It cannot also be denied
that petitioner opted to sue for specific performance and
. . . that because of the prevailing unhealthy
damages after consultation with a lawyer (Rollo, p. 99) who
economic conditions, the business is unable to advised that not even the claim for interests could be
generate sufficient resources for debt servicing.
recovered; hence, petitioner's attempt to seek refuge under
Art. 1271 (CC). As previously discussed, the presumption
Fundamentally on account of this, we propose generated by Art. 1271 is not conclusive and was successfully
that you permit us to fully liquidate the rebutted by private respondent. Under the circumstances, i.e.,
remaining obligations to you of P492,100 outright and honest letters of admission vis-a-vis  counsel-
through a payment in kind (dacion en pago) induced recalcitrance, there could hardly be honest belief. In
arrangement by way of the equipments (sic) this regard, we quote with approval respondent court's
and spare parts under chattel mortgage to observation:
you  to the extent of their latest appraised The countervailing evidence against the claim of
values." (Rollo, pp. 153-154; Emphasis supplied) full payment emanated from Transpacific itself.
Followed by its August 20, 1986 letter which It cannot profess ignorance of the existence of
reads: the two letters, Exhs. 3 & 4, or of the import of
We have had a series of communications with what they contain. Notwithstanding the letters,
your bank regarding our proposal for the Transpacific opted to file suit and insist(ed) that
eventual settlement of our remaining obligations its liabilities had already been paid. There was
... thus an 
As you may be able to glean from these letters ill-advised attempt on the part of Transpacific to
and from your credit files, we have always been capitalize on the delivery of the duplicates of the
conscious of our obligation to you  which had promissory notes, in complete disregard of what
not been faithfully serviced on account of its own records show. In the circumstances, Art.
unfortunate business reverses. Notwithstanding 2208 (4) and (11) justify the award of attorney's
these however, total payments thus far remitted fees. The sum of P15,000.00 is fair and
to you already exceede (sic) the original equitable. (Rollo, pp. 46-47)
principal amount of our obligation.  But because
of interest and other charges, we find ourselves G.R. Nos. 114011-22 December 16, 1996
still obligated to you by P492,100.00. . . . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
. . . We continue to find ourselves in a very fluid vs. VEVINA BUEMIO, accused-appellant.
(sic) situation in as much as the overall outlook
of the industry has not substantially improved. FACTS:
Principally for this reason, we had proposed to VevinaBuemio, a field officer of a travel agency, appeals from
settle our remaining obligations to you by way the decision of the Regional Trial Court which convicted her of
of dacion en pago of the equipments (sic) and the crime of illegal recruitment, punishable under Art. 39 of
spare parts mortgaged to you to (the) extent of the Labor Code.
their applicable loan values. (Rollo, p. 155; She allegedly received payments from the complainants,
Emphasis supplied) without license, so she could help them get jobs in Japan.
Such payments were evidenced by receipts issued by Buemio.
Petitioner claims that the above offer of settlement or Unable to fulfill her promises, the complainants demanded the
compromise is not an admission that anything is due and is return of their payments. Then said complainants lodged their
inadmissible against the party making the offer (Sec. 24, Rule complaints before the NBI.
130, Rules of Court). Unfortunately, this is not an iron-clad
rule. The POEA accordingly issued a certification dated June 11,
1992 stating that "VEVINA BUEMIO, in her personal capacity"
To determine the admissibility or non-admissibility of an offer was "neither licensed nor authorized . . . to recruit workers for
to compromise, the circumstances of the case and the intent of overseas employment from Jan., 1991 to the present."
the party making the offer should be considered. Thus, if a
party denies the existence of a debt but offers to pay the same Buemio was convicted by the trial court. Hence, this appeal
for the purpose of buying peace and avoiding litigation, the questioning the trial court's giving weight and credence to the
offer of settlement is inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and alleging denial of
party making the offer admits  the existence of an due process to the appellant.
indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the claim
amicably, then, the admission is admissible to prove such ISSUE:
9
 10

Whether or not the weight and credence of the testimony of benefit the appellant, because in a criminal case, the accused
the prosecution’s witnesses established the accused-appellant’s may be held accountable only for the crime charged (or for the
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. crime necessarily included therein), and every doubt must be
resolved in his favor. Thus, we hold him guilty only of
homicide. Furthermore, since the heirs of the victim waived
HELD:
their claim through an affidavit of desistance, no award for civil
Yes. The Decision of the trial court finding appellant indemnity should be included in this Decision finding the
VevinaBuemio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of accused guilty of the homicide.
illegal recruitment in large scale under Arts. 38 and 39 of the
FACTS:
Labor Code and imposing on her the penalty of life
imprisonment and the payment of a fine of P100,000.00 is Appeal from the Decision 1 dated November 19, 1992 of the
hereby AFFIRMED. Regional Trial Court of Baisconvicting Accused Edelciano
Amaca of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
Bernardo Mangubat, member of the Philippine National
REASONING:
Police of Canlaon City, testified that as a police investigator
On the merits of the appeal, appellant contends in the main
one of his companions in the force fetched him from his
that the testimonies of Principe, Villanueva and Gutierrez are
residence at about 7:00 in the evening of October 1, 1990, and
contrary to ordinary human experience. Thus, they could not
informed him of a shooting incident, where the victim was at
have been enticed to work in factories in Japan as there was
the clinic of Dr. Cardenas, which was near his residence. Upon
no mention of any contacts of appellant in that country who
reaching the clinic of Dr. Cardenas, he saw the victim already
could provide them employment, nor were their specific work
on board a Ford Fiera pick up ready for transport to the
and workplaces as well as the peso equivalent of their
hospital. He inquired from the victim about the incident, and
supposed salary ever pointed out by the appellant. Neither was
the former answered he was shot by CVO Amaca and Ogang.
it proven that appellant enticed them with convincing benefits
Upon query why he was shot, the victim said he did not know
in working in Japan which would be enough for them to part
the reason why he was shot. Upon being asked as to his
with their money just so they could be "TNTs" 29 in Japan.
condition, the victim said that he was about to die. (TSN, p.
22, March 4, 1992) Upon being asked, the victim identified
Appellant's contentions boil down to the issue of credibility. As himself as Nelson (sic) Vergara. He was able to reduce into
a rule, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial writing the declaration of victim Vergara, and have the latter
court on said issue unless certain facts or circumstances of affixed (sic) his thumbmark with the use of his own blood in
weight have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the presence of Wagner Cardenas, the brother of the City
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is Mayor. (Exh. "C")
because the trial court heard the testimony of the witnesses
and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during Interposing the defense of alibi, the accused corroborated
the trial. 30 No negative circumstances attend this case as to (by) his witnesses, namely, Felix Ponting, and Alfredo
warrant departure from the general rule. Gabucero, portrayed the following scenario: Felix Ponting and
Alfredo Gabucero were members of the CAFGU (Civilian Armed
Forces Geographical Unit) and accused as member of the
In fact, a review of the transcript of stenographic notes in this Civilian Volunteer Organization (CVO) with station at Barangay
case shows that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
Lumapao, Canlaon City. On October 1, 1990, the accused
are credible. Taken as a whole and even under the crucible together with his companion Felix Ponting were on duty at the
test of examination by the defense, said testimonies are not
said station from 6:00 o'clock in the evening to 8:00 o'clock
only consistent on all material respects but also replete that same evening. After their duty at 8:00 o'clock, they went
with minutiae of the questioned transactions with the
to sleep at the detachment, and were relieved by Alfredo
appellant.31 Inasmuch as the trial court found the positive Gabutero, whose duty covered from 8:00 to 9:00 that same
declarations of the complainants more credible than the sole
evening. 10
testimony of the appellant denying said transactions, there
must be a well-founded reason in order to deny great weight Prosecution Witnesses Segundina Vergara, mother of the
to the trial court's evaluation of the prosecution witnesses' victim, and her son-in-law Jose Lapera both desisted from
testimonies. 32 The defense has failed to provide that reason as further prosecution of the case; the former because of the
it has failed to prove any ill-motive on the part of the "financial help" extended by the accused to her family, and the
complainant-witnesses in so imputing to appellant such a latter because Segundina had already "consented to the
serious crime as illegal recruitment. amicable settlement of the case." This notwithstanding, the
Department of Justice found the existence of a prima facie
G.R. No. 110129 August 12, 1997 case based on the victim's ante mortem statement.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES The trial court deemed the victim's statement to Police
vs. EDELCIANO AMACA @ "EDDIE" Officer Mangubat, positively identifying Appellant Amaca, a
dying declaration sufficient to overcome the latter's defense of
The ante mortem statement of the victim is sufficient to alibi. However, due to the voluntary desistance of the victim's
identify the assailant in the case at hand. However, the mother from further prosecuting the case, the court a quo
accused cannot be convicted of murder attended by treachery, declined to make a finding on the civil liability of the appellant.
because the Information charged him with murder qualified
only by evident premeditation. This legal lapse of the ISSUE:
prosecution — for that matter, any prosecution lapse — should
10
 11

Whether or not the trial court erred in finding accused particular case." They cited a case from Vibert's Precis de Med.
Edelciano Amaca guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime Leg., 4th ed., p. 286, where a man after being shot in the
of murder on the sole basis of the alleged dying declaration of chest threw a lamp at his adversary. The lamp started a fire;
the victim to Police Officer Bernardo Mangubat. and to extinguish the fire, the wounded man fetched a pail of
water from the courtyard. When the fire was extinguished, the
HELD:
man lay down in bed and died. Vibert performed the autopsy,
The appeal is partially granted. The appellant is guilty only of and found that the left ventricle of the heart had been
homicide, not murder, and civil indemnity shall not be awarded perforated by the revolver's bullet. It is evident from the
to the heirs of the deceased. foregoing that Dr. Acosta's assertion that the victim of a
gunshot wound would immediately lose consciousness, after
REASONING: infliction of the wound, may not be true in all cases. . . . 17
Dying Declaration, Sufficient to Identify Assailant Appellant also argues that the declarant could not have
A dying declaration is worthy of belief because it is highly seen who shot him because "the actual shooting occurred at
unthinkable for one who is aware of his impending death to 7:00 o'clock in the evening." 18 This statement is bereft of
accuse, falsely or even carelessly, anyone of being responsible factual basis. The record shows that Police Officer Mangubat
for his foreseeable demise. Indeed, "when a person is at the was fetched from his house at 7:00 p.m. to investigate the
point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced and the shooting. He was informed that the victim had already been
mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak brought to the clinic of Dr. Cardenas. 19 It may thus be
the inferred that the shooting occurred sometime before the victim
was found, brought to the clinic, and before Mangubat was
truth." 13 This is the rationale for this exception to the fetched from his house. Thus, a considerable period of time
hearsay rule under Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. must have elapsed from the time of the actual shooting until
The elements of such exception are: (1) the deceased made the policeman was fetched from his house around 7:00 p.m.
the declaration conscious of his impending death; (2) the That he was shot way before 7:00 p.m. does not lead to the
declarant would have been a competent witness had he inference that it was pitch-black at the time of the shooting.
survived; (3) the declaration concerns the cause and Indeed, from the foregoing, it is reasonable to assume that the
surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (4) the crime was committed before nightfall and that there was
declaration is offered in a criminal case where the declarant's sufficient daylight to enable the victim to identify his assailant.
death is the subject of inquiry; and (5) the declaration is At any rate, there are no indicia in the record that lighting
complete in itself. 14 All these concur in the present case. conditions made it impossible for declarant to identify his
Declarant a Competent Witness assailant. Ineluctably, the positive assertion of the declarant
that he did recognize his shooter has greater persuasive value
The appellant contends that had he survived, the declarant than the baseless negative speculation of the defense that he
would not have been a competent witness to identify his did not.
assailant. He emphasizes that
Genuineness of the Dying Declaration
the victim was shot twice at the back at nighttime and that
". . . the witness/victim based on the foregoing circumstance The defense attempts to cast doubt on the genuineness of
was not able to see the alleged assailants . . . 15 We are not the dying declaration by suggesting that since "the relationship
persuaded. True, the victim, Wilson Vergara, was hit at the between CAFGU and the PNP is marred by jealousy, suspicion
back by two bullets. But as the prosecution clearly showed by and general dislike for one another," 20 Police Officer
other evidence, Wilson did not lose consciousness upon being Mangubat had enough motive to falsely implicate appellant
shot. In fact, his ante mortem statement clearly indicates that who was a CAFGU member. The defense also asks: "Why was
he was able to see and recognize who shot him. In this light, the alleged dying declaration of the victim merely thumbmark
appellant is assailing the credibility, not the competency, of the (sic) when in fact he was still coherent, conscious and very
victim. Competency of a witness to testify requires a minimum capable of writing his name at that time?" 21 Additionally, the
ability to observe, record, recollect and recount as well as an defense questions why Wagner Cardenas who signed the ante
understanding of the duty to tell the truth. 16 Appellant does mortem statement as witness was not presented as such by
not dispute that the victim was capable of observing and the prosecution. 22
recounting the occurrences around him; appellant merely The foregoing ulterior-motive theory is thoroughly
questions whether the victim, under the circumstances of this unconvincing. Clearly, it does not destroy the genuineness of
case, could have seen his assailant. In effect, appellant the ante mortem statement. Police Officer Mangubat is
challenges merely the credibility of the victim's ante mortem presumed under the law to have regularly performed his duty.
statement. We hold that the serious nature of the victim's There is nothing in the circumstances surrounding his
injuries did not affect his credibility as a witness since said investigation of the crime which shows any semblance of
injuries, as previously mentioned, did not cause the immediate irregularity or bias, much less an attempt to frame Appellant
loss of his ability to perceive and to identify his shooter. The Amaca. As aptly noted by the trial court, even appellant
Court had occasion in the past to rule on a similar issue as testified that he had no previous misunderstanding with Police
follows: Officer Mangubat and knew no reason why the latter would
. . . (') The question as to whether a certain act could have falsely testify against him. 23 This dismal failure of the defense
been done after receiving a given wound,(') according to to show any ill motive on the part of said police officer adds
Wharton and Stilles (Vol. III, Medical Jurisprudence, p. 212), credence to Mangubat's testimony. 24
"is always one that must be decided upon the merits of a

11
 12

Moreover, that the declarant attested to his ante mortem bodied appellant was only an hour's walk and a short fifteen-
statement through his thumbmark in his own blood is sufficient minute tricycle ride from the locus criminis. 33 As correctly
to sustain the genuineness and veracity thereof. This manner argued by the trial court, "(i)t would not have been impossible
of authentication is understandable in view of the necessity for the accused to be at Purok Liberty Hills, and shoot the
and urgency required by the attendant extreme circumstances. victim, and come back to his detachment in a matter of thirty
It cannot be indicative of any ulterior motive on the part of (30) minutes, the time testified by the defense witness
Police Officer Mangubat. We have clearly ruled that an ante Gabutero as to going to and coming back from these two
mortem statement may be authenticated through the places. (TSN, p. 17, July 15, 1992)" 34 The alibi of appellant
declarant's thumbmark imprinted which his own blood, and cannot overcome, therefore, the very persuasive declaration of
serve as evidence in the form of a dying declaration in a the victim. 35
criminal case involving his death. 25 Verily, such declaration
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court's conscience
need not even be in writing and may be proven by testimony
rests easy with the moral certainty that indeed accused-
of witnesses who heard it.
appellant committed the crime charged. His pretense at
Finally, the non-presentation of Wagner Cardenas as innocence is futile in view of the overwhelming evidence
witness during the trial is not fatal, as his testimony would presented against him. Even his flight — eluding the police for
have been merely corroborative of Mangubat's. In addition, the almost six months after the issue of the warrant for his arrest
presumption that evidence omitted by a party would be — clearly bespeaks hisguilt. 36
adverse if presented does not obtain in this case, since
Non-Award of Indemnity
Wagner Cardenas is also available and could have been called
to the witness stand by accused-appellant. Besides, it is the The trial court did not make a finding on the civil liability of
prosecutor's prerogative to choose his own witnesses to prove accused-appellant, reasoning that it was prevented from doing
the People's cause. 26 so by the "unwillingness" of the victim's mother, Segundina
Vergara, to further prosecute the case against the accused. 40
Ante Mortem Statement as Res Gestae
The trial court cited the resolution of the Department of Justice
The ante mortem statement may also be admitted in (DOJ) denying the motion for reinvestigation. The DOJ held
evidence when considered as part of the res gestae, another that the ante mortem statement of the victim testified to by
recognized exception to the hearsay rule provided specifically Pfc. Mangubat accorded prima facie validity to the case against
under Rule 130, Section 36 of the Rules of Court. The the accused, but it noted and confirmed the desistance of the
requisites for the admissibility of statements as part of the res victim's mother and her son-in-law from further prosecuting
gestae are: (a) the statement is spontaneous; (b) it is made the case.
immediately before, during or after a startling occurrence; and
The Solicitor General finds nothing wrong with the trial
(c) it relates to the circumstances of such occurrence. 27
court's reasoning and recommends that its decision be
These requirements are obviously fulfilled in the present case
affirmed. 42 We agree. The facts of this case show that the
where the statement, subject of this discussion, was made
victim's mother desisted from prosecuting the case in
immediately after the shooting incident and, more important,
consideration of the "financial help" extended to her family by
the victim had no time to fabricate.
the accused-appellant. Such "financial help" when viewed as
An ante mortem statement may be admitted in evidence as an offer of compromise may also be deemed as additional
a dying declaration and as part of the res gestae. This dual proof to demonstrate appellant's criminalliability. 43
admissibility is not redundant and has the advantage of Parenthetically, her claim that the cause of her son's death
ensuring the statement's appreciation by courts, particularly was an accident attributable to the latter, has no basis. It is
where the absence of one or more elements in one of the said inconceivable that the victim's two gunshot wounds at the
exceptions may be raised in issue. In this manner, the back were self-inflicted. Well-settled it is that the desistance of
identification of the culprit is assured. 28 the victim's complaining mother does not bar the People from
prosecuting the criminal action, but it does operate as a waiver
Alibi Debunked
of the right to pursue civil indemnity. Hence, in effectively
The defense also contests the trial court's finding that waiving her right to institute an action to enforce the civil
the"alibi interposed by the accused miserably fall short of liability of accused-appellant, she also waived her right to be
exculpation. (Decision, p. 7)" 29 Appellant insists that, since awarded any civil indemnity arising from the criminal
the dying declaration was unreliable and since there was no prosecution. 44 This waiver is bolstered by the fact that
positive identification aside from this declaration, the defense neither she nor any private prosecutor in her behalf appealed
of alibi gained strength. 30 There is no basis for this the trial court's refusal to include a finding of civilliability. 45
contention for, as previously discussed, the ante mortem
The records, however, do not show whether the deceased
statement met all requirements for its admissibility either as a
had other compulsory heirs. Such heirs, if there are any, may
dying declaration or as part of the res gestae or both. 31 It
file an independent civil action to recover damages for the
must be remembered that alibi is inherently weak and the
death of Wilson Vergara.
facts in the case at hand show that it was not at all impossible,
considering the circumstances of time and place, for the RULE 130 SECTION 30 - Admissions by Conspirator
accused-appellant to have been present at the crime scene at
G.R. No. L-48185 August 18, 1941
the time of its commission. 32 The military detachment at
FELICIANO B. GARDINER vs. HONORABLE MAGSALIN
Barangay Lumapao, where appellant allegedly slept, is a mere
seven kilometers away from Barangay Mabigo, Purok Liberty
FACTS:
Hills where the crime was committed. In other words, the able-

12
 13

This is an original petition for writ of Mandamus to Pending their appeal, PelagioCondenema,
compel respondent judge to admit the testimony of Catalino CasameroPatino and Ricardo Causing withdraw their appeal
Fernandez, one of the accused in a case to prove the alleged which was granted by the court. Hence, only SimplicioAniel
conspiracy between him and his co-accused. remained as the appellant.
Herein petitioner, as acting Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga The evidence of the prosecution has established, through
filed an information against Catalino and his five co-accused the testimonies of BarcelisaLamoste, wife of the victim and her
charging them with having conspired together to kill, and did daughter Esmeralda who was then 14 years old as
kill one GaudencioVivar with evident premeditation. eyewitnesses to the crime. BarcelisaLamoste testified that she
recognized PelagioCondenema as one of the accused. She
Upon arraignment Catalino Fernandez pleaded guilty and
does not know the names of the other accused but she
his co-accused not guilty. At the trial of the five co-
recognized their faces and she pointed to SimplicioAniel as the
accused,Catalino Fernandez was called by the fiscal as his first
one who pointed the gun , about one foot long on her face.
witness, to testify on the alleged conspiracy. Upon objection of
CasameroPatino and Ricardo Causing held the hands of the
counsel for the defense, the respondent judge did not permit
victim and when it was impossible already for the victim to
Fernandez to testify against his co-accused on the ground that
resist, PelagioCondenema stabbed the victim on his right
as a conspirator, his act or declaration is not admissible
breast,
against his co-conspirators until the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration, under Sec.12 rule Her testimony was corroborated by the testimony of
123 of the Rules of Court. A motive for reconsideration was Esmeralda who was then at the door of the house.
filed but to no avail. Hence, petition for Mandamus.
The defense of accused-appellant was alibi.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Sec. 12 of Rule 123 was correctly
Whether or not appellant SimplicioAniel has been
interpreted in this case.
sufficiently identified as one of the four men who participated
RULING: in the commission of the crime charged.
The court ruled that respondents completely missed the RULING:
real meaning of Sec. 12 of Rule 123. This rule is one of the
The court ruled that the defense of alibi was weak where
exceptions to the “res inter alios” rule, which refers to an
the prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused. To
extrajudicial declaration of a co-conspirator, not to his
prosper such a defense, it must be established by clear and
testimony by way of direct evidence.
convincing evidence. The degree of the evidence must be such
The evidence adduced in court by the co-conspirator as a as to preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been
witness is not declarations of conspirator but direct testimony physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate
to the fats which they testify. Aside from the discredit which to vicinity at the time of its commission.
them as accomplices, their evidence is entirely competent to
The positive identification of appellant Aniel was further
establish the facts to which they testify. The rule for which
bolstered when PelagioCondenema and CasameroPatino, in
counsel contends is applicable only when it sought to introduce
their sworn statements, named him as one of them in the
extrajudicial declarations and statements of co-conspirators.
group who killed FerminLamoste and robbed the house.
There is no rule requiring the prosecution to establish
Extrajudicial confession, independently made without
conspiracy in order to permit a witness to testify what one or
collusion, which are identical with each other in their essential
all of the several accused persons did; and evidence adduced
details and are corroborated by other evidence on record, as
by the co-conspirators as witnesses, which is direct evidence of
admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person
the facts to which they testify is not within the rule requiring a
implicated to show the probability of the Latter’s actual
conspiracy to be shown as prerequisite to its admissibility.
participation in the commission of the crime.
The petition for writ of Mandamus was granted.
The commission of the crime was attended by treachery.
G.R. No. L-22426 May 29, 1968 The act of the accused in suddenly rushing toward the victim,
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, then two of them, each holding the hands of the victim, and
vs. PELAGIO CONDEMENA et al the third stabbed the victim is characterized by treachery
insuring the accomplishment of their purpose without risk to
FACTS: themselves from any defense or retaliation the victim might
offer.
PelagioCondenema, CasameroPatino, Ricardo Causing
and SimplicioAniel were charged with the crime of robbery in The conspiracy among the accused is evident and equally
band with homicide, with the qualifying circumstance of proven. Appellant Aniel is liable as principal because the
treachery, and aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, abuse evidence does not show that he attempted to prevent the
of superior strength and dwelling. assault and the killing. The aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity cannot be appreciated without any evidence that
After trial, the court found all the accused guilty beyond
the peculiar advantage of night time was purposely and
reasonable doubt of crime of robbery in band with homicide
deliberately sought by the accused.
without making a finding on the aggravating circumstances
alleged in the information.
G.R. No. L-28347 January 20, 1971

13
 14

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Serrano, Laxamana and Benita Mayuyu to falsely incriminate
vs.PAN PROVO, ET AL., defendants, JOSE MESINA, appellant Mesina.
defendant-appellant.
On the third issue, the court ruled that extrajudicial
CONCEPCION, J.:
confessions are in general admissible only against those who
made the same; this rule is subject to exception. Extrajudicial
FACTS:
confessions independently made without collusion, which are
Appellant Mesina was found guilty of the crime of murder identical with each other in the essential details and are
while his two co-accused were acquitted. The penalty was corroborated by other evidence on record, are admissible as
imposed in its medium period, instead of the maximum circumstantial evidence against the person implicated to show
because the aggravating circumstance of night time and use of probability of actual participation in the commission of the
superior strength alleged in the information have already been crime. Hence, Exhibits C and E were properly admitted as
absorbed in the qualifying circumstance of treachery. circumstantial evidence tending to show the probability of the
participation of appellant in the commission of said offense as
The main evidence for the prosecution against Mesina
testified to by the witnesses for the prosecution.
consisted of the testimonies of the BenetaMayuyu who
positively identified the appellant corroborated by the On the fourth issue, the court ruled that the
testimonies of other witnesses. Appellant denied having alibi set up by the appellant is one of the weakest defense
performed any of the acts imputed to him by the prosecution available in criminal cases, it cannot offset the testimony of
and interposed the defense of alibi. Benita Mayuyu, who positively identified him as one of those
who seized Matignas Serrano at Pisok, corroborated by the
ISSUES:
testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and by the
1.) Whether or not the court erred in relying upon the aforementioned Exhibits C and E. The testimony of Lazaro
testimony of Benita Mayuyu David to corroborate the testimony of Mesina could not explain
2.) Whether or not the court erred in giving credence to why the allegedly remembered the presence of Mesina at the
religious service in the Iglesiani Cristo, but could not remember
the testimony of Anastacio Serrano, Apolonio Gilbert
other events of similar nature at about that period of time.
and KudiaruLaxamana
3.) Whether or not the court erred in admitting Exhibits The court found no reason to disturb the decision of
the Trial Court.
C and E as evidence
4.) Whether or not the court erred in not believing the G.R. No. L-27909 December 5, 1978
evidence of defense. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ARCADIO PUESCA alias "Big Boy et. al
RULING:
FACTS:
On the first issue, the Defense assails the credibility of
Benita Mayuyu’s testimony upon the ground that she had ArcadioPuesca, alias “Big Boy”, Jose Gustilo alias
given conflicting versions. "Peping", MagnoMontaño alias "Edol", FilomenoMacalinao, Jr.
alias "White", Walter Apa and Ricardo Dairo alias "Carding"
The Court was not dissuaded considering that Benita was were charged with the crime of Robbery in Band with Homicide
a member of an non-Christian tribe known as the Baluga. She allegedly for killing Candido Macias and taking the amount of
grew up and lived in a primitive condition and devoid of P20,000.00 from the victim.
education, illiterate and cannot read, not even a time piece.
She explained that the time she was referring to was just an While Candido Macias and his wife Marcela Macias were
estimate. taking their supper, strangers with firearms suddenly entered
their house. Three of them went upstairs and one of them
Her failure to forthwith reveal the participation of Mesina from the sala ordered the occupants of the house to lie down
in the commission of the crime can be explained by an intense on the floor. CAndido Macias went to the sala and two
lamentation and expression of grief for a misfortune, which gunshots were fired upon him and caused his death.
when unchecked may result in a condition of numbness, under
which the mind becomes somewhat dull. Well settled is the After trial, they were found guilty beyond reasonable
rule that inconsistency and contradictions incurred by an doubt of the crime charged attended by aggravating
illiterate witness in the course of a lengthy examination will not circumstance of nocturnity and penalty of death was imposed
affect the credibility of the testimony. It was Benita who upon them.
positively identified accused Mesina. Hence, the automatic review of said judgment.
On the second issue, the court found no sufficient ISSUES:
grounds to doubt the veracity of the witnesses for the
prosecution. The argument of Mesina that his act of dissuading 1. Whether or not the court a quo erred in giving
the posse headed by KudiaruLaxamana from following the set credence to declarations of the relatives of the
of footprints going to the right of the coconut plantation deceased.
instead of going to the left was too insignificant to implicate 2. Whether or not the court erred in admitting and
him was found by the court to be devoid of merit, aside from
believing the confessions of the appellants.
being immaterial to the issue of credibility of Laxamana’s
testimony. The court found no possible motive from witnesses 3. Whether or not the court erred in denying
appellant’s motion for new trial.

14
 15

RULING: Felimon Gerona was illegally kidnapped by TeodoroZaldo

alias "PiloBulan", Eli Lomuardo, SimoCedon, Ruben Molito,
On the first issue, the court finds that the evidence
Mepen Doe, Lando Doe, Davis Doe and Jaime Doe, who are
clearly shows that the appellants were positively identified by
still at large and whose identities are still unknown. He
the prosecution witnesses as participants of the crime.
recognized, as among the group, TeofiloBulan and Ruben
AnacletoDelfino declared that ArcardioPuesca and
Bolito, who belonged to a gang of robbers called "Sabarra." He
MagnoMontaño were the persons he saw under the house of
also noticed the appellant standing on the concrete pavement
the victim because he raised the lamp higher to see who they
near the beach.
were, and that Puesca was the one who fired at him.
Marietta Macias-Olarte and Francisco Urbano testified
He was carried away from his house to Aripuyok Island. In
that Walter Apa and Ricardo Dairo were the ones who escorted
the island, Gerona’s captors tried to force him to admit that he
Francisco Macias passing through the backyard. They testified
was an intelligence agent but he stuck to his denial of the
that they recognized Walter Apa as tall, stoop-shouldered
charge. Bulan finally told him that he needed funds to buy
person holding a gun and that the shorter fellow armed with a
certain equipment for the use of his band. After Gerona agreed
carbine was Ricardo Dairo.
to give P5,000.00, he was taken back to Barangay Bulo-an,
The arguments of the appellant that it was improbable with his left hand tied to the mast of the motorboat.
for Delfino to have recognized Jose Gustilo and
FilomenoMacalinao, Jr. since he saw them for the first time Gerona did not immediately report the incident to the police
under the light of a kerosene lamp and he was gripped by fear authorities. It was only after the townspeople organized the
and lying on the floor face down was not believed by the "alsamasa" as a counter — insurgency movement, did he
court. Accordingly, fear does not necessarily detract from a inform the authorities of the extortion. He also enlisted with
person’s ability to observe. A person will easily remember one the CAFGU as a means to retaliate against the extortionists. In
who does him harm, because consciously and unconsciously 1990, Gerona together with some members of the CAFGU,
he turns his attention to the offender. arrested appellant (MarcelinoCedon) and another suspect,
Danny Alvarez.
The court was not persuaded that the prosecution
eyewitnesses should be disbelieved because they are related Appellant claimed that he was apprehended by Gerona
to the victim. Relationship to the victim, standing by itself, because the latter wanted him to testify against PiloBulan.
does not prove that they are prejudiced or biased, considering When appellant refused to do so, Gerona demanded P2,500.00
that their testimonies were clear and convincing and from him. Since appellant failed to give the said amount,
corroborated by other facts and circumstances. Gerona arrested him.
The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrate that
the appellants were engaged in conspiracy to effect the object Consequently, an information for kidnapping for
of their criminal purpose. ransom was filed charging the accused, together with
As to the second issue, the confessions of ArcadioPuesca, TeodoroZaldo alias “PiloBulan”, Eli Lomuardo, Ruben Molito
MagnoMontaño and Jose Gustilo are admissible against them. and some unknown persons.
It could be considered as corroborative evidence of the After trial, accused-appellant was found guilty beyond
testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses pointing to them as reasonable doubt for the crime charged against him. Hence,
participants in the commission of the crime. this appeal.
It is true that extrajudicial confession is admissible only
against the person who made it, but it is also settled that such ISSUES:
confession is admissible as corroborative evidence of the other 1. The court erred when it gave weight and
facts that tend to establish the guilt of his co-defendants. credence to the improbable and contradictory testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses; and
The claim of the defense that the confessions of 2. The court failed to acquit the accused-appellant
appellants Puesca, Gustilo, and Montaño were extracted on the ground of insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt to
through force and violence was not supported by evidence. warrant his conviction.
On the third issue, it was ruled that the appellants can no
longer raise in issue the denial of their motion for new trial RULING:
because they have previously challenged before the court by On the first issue, the court ruled that the prosecution
certiorari the correctness of the order of the trial court denying failed to prove any overt act on the part of the appellant,
their motion for new trial. showing that he joined Bulan’s gang to perpetrate the criminal
act. Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to
The court found the petition devoid of merit, hence it cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a
was dismissed. The decision appealed from was affirmed. conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission
of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common
G.R. No. 101117 June 15, 1994
design and purpose. Time and again the Court has held that
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
vs.MARCELINO CEDON, defendant-appellant.
On the second issue, the court ruled that the quantum of
FACTS:
proof required in criminal prosecution to support a conviction
has not been satisfied with regard to appellant’s participation

15
 16

in the kidnapping for ransom of Gerona, Sr. The conviction of 2. No. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. prescribes that
the accused must rest on the weakness of the defense but on any declaration made by a conspirator relating to the conspiracy is
the strength of the prosecution. admissible against him alone but not against his co-conspirators
The decision of the court a quo was reversed and set unless the conspiracy is first shown by other independent
aside and accused-appellant was acquitted. evidence. The res inter alios acta rule refers only to extrajudicial
declarations or admissions and not to testimony given on the
G.R. No. 140405             March 4, 2004
witness stand where the party adversely affected has the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, 
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.8 In the present case,
vs. MAJOR EMILIO COMILING
Naty's admission implicating appellant Comiling was made in open
court and therefore may be taken in evidence against him.
Facts:
On September 2, 1995, Ysiong Chua, the owner of Masterline
Grocery and his helper Mario were about to close the store RULE 130 SECTION 32 - Admissions by Silence
when someone knocked on the door to buy some cigarettes. G.R. No. L-9341             August 14, 1914
As soon as Mario opened the door, three masked, armed men THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, 
suddenly barged into the store and announced a hold-up. vs. BAY
SPO1 Rolando Torio, PO3 Erwil Pastor and SPO4
Emilio Nagui of the Tayug Police Station rushed to the crime
Facts:
scene. SPO1 Torio was standing outside the store's door, he
heard three gunshots coming from inside the store, all directed About 7 o'clock in the evening of June 7, 1913, when
towards Bonifacio Street. PO3 Pastor was then on the street turning from her rice field Florentina was joined by the
while Nagui was some 50 meters away. PO3 Pastor ran and accused, and that a short distance from the mouth of Subaan
hid behind a concrete marker, then moved westward as if to River, he caught hold of her, picked her up, and carried her to
return to the police headquarters. Unfortunately, in his attempt the edge of some thickets, where he threw her on the ground
to flee, PO3 Pastor was shot in the face. and attempted to have carnal intercourse with her. Angered by
her resistance he drew his dagger, and force her under threat
Meanwhile, Ysiong discovered that he lost three gold
of her life to accede to his desires.
necklaces worth P26,000 and cash amounting to P81,000.
A party who was passing near the place where the
On September 26, 1995, bothered by her conscience, crime was committed heard the victim’s cries and thereafter
prosecution witness NatyPanimbaan decided to reveal to police stepped ashore. Upon seeing the accused get up from the
authorities what she knew about the case. During the trial, she place where the woman claims the crime was committed,
testified that she was present in all the four meetings in which asked "What's this?" The accused made no explanation of his
the plan to rob the Masterline Grocery was hatched. conduct or his presence there, and left the place forthwith.
On the other hand, all the accused denied culpability
for the felony. Each of them claimed to be somewhere else at Immediately thereafter, the woman, accompanied by
the time the crime happened on September 2, 1995. The some of the party from the boat, went to the councilman of
witnesses for the defense also tried to impugn the credibility of the barrio and filed a complaint. The accused, having been
the lead witness for the prosecution, NatyPanimbaan. brought before the councilman and asked had he committed
the crime of which he was charged, admitted that he had.
Issues: Consequently, the accused was sent to the justice of the
1. Whether or not the trial court erred in considering peace, who held him for trial.
NatyPanimbaan as a credible witness for the prosecution. Issues:
2. Whether or not Naty's testimony was inadmissible to
prove conspiracy because of the res inter alios acta rule 1. Whether or not the trial court erred in accepting as true
under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court the testimony of the complaining witness and of the
witnesses called by the prosecution.
Ruling: 2. Whether the accused, when the complaint was made to
1. No. In the case at bar, there is nothing to suggest that the the councilman of the barrio, did or did not admit his
trial court was whimsical or capricious in the performance of guilt.
its tasks. Thus, the court have no recourse but to uphold its
findings on the credibility of NatyPanimbaan and of the other Held:
prosecution witnesses. In any event, as correctly stated by the
Solicitor General, NatyPanimbaan was examined three times 1. No. It is true that there are some apparent contradictions and
not only under the close scrutiny of two defense counsels but inconsistencies in the testimony of some of the ignorant witnesses
also, in some instances, under the abrasive tirades of the trial called for the prosecution, and that it is somewhat difficult to
judge who called her a "whore." Yet, despite the trial court's understand how the accused, a young married man, could have
apparent misgivings about her character, it still gave full been so lost to all sense of right and decency as to assault a
credence to her testimony. Naty's tenacious insistence on the woman so much older than himself, a neighbor, and an old friend
minute details of what happened suggested nothing else of his family. But Florentina’s evidence, supported by that of other
except that she was telling the truth. The court does not doubt witnesses for the prosecution, is so convincing and conclusive that
her credibility.The time-tested rule is that, between the we are forced to believe that he did it in fact commit the atrocious
positive assertions of prosecution witnesses and the mere crime with which he is charged.
denials of the accused, the former undisputedly deserve more
credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary value.
16
 17

2. The evidence leaves no room for doubt that neither at the Solely on the basis of the extra-judicial confessions of
moment when the party in the boat came upon him in company both defendants- the trial court rendered the appealed
with his victim nor when he appeared before the councilman upon judgment of conviction.
her complaint did he claim, as he does now, that her charge that
he had assaulted her was a pure fabrication, invented for the Issue:
purpose of wreaking vengeance upon him. Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting both
defendants based on their extrajudicial confessions.
There can be no possible doubt that he was present when the
party on board the boat were attracted to the place where the Ruling:
victim raised her outcry charging him with the assault, and that he Yes. The main thrust of the defendants-appellants'
was present later or when he presented her complaint to the arguments on appeal is that they were not afforded the
councilman of the barrio. opportunity to avail of their rights under Section 20, Article IV
of the 1973 Constitution; that there was no intelligent waiver
Under such circumstances, the court is convinced that an of their rights, and as such, their extra-judicial confessions are
innocent man would instantly and indignantly repudiate such a inadmissible against them.
charge, and attempt there and then to establish his innocence,
explaining how he came to be there present with the woman, and This Court had already ruled that to be valid, a
the conditions under which she had made the false charge. confession must be shown to have proceeded from the  free
will of the person confessing. Thus, in People v. Bagasala (39
G.R. No. L-59551 August 19, 1986 SCRA 236), we stated that where the confession is involuntary,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,  being due to maltreatment, or induced by fear or intimidation,
vs. MANUEL NAVOA y MARTINEZ and BERNARDO LIM y there is a violation of this constitutional provision. Any form of
RAMIREZ alias "Jack Robertson," alias "Lim Ming Tak," coercion, whether physical, mental or emotional thus stamps it
alias "Christopher Kelly," with inadmissibility. What is essential for its validity is that it
proceeds from the free will of the person confessing."

Facts:
A defendant may waive effectuation of his right to
On July 9, 1978, at about 2:30 and 3:30 o'clock in the remain silent and to be assisted by counsel at a custodial
afternoon, the Manila Cinema Building housing the Manila police interrogation provided the waiver is made voluntarily,
Cinema 1 and 2 theaters located at the corner of ß M. Recto knowingly, and intelligently. In the case at bar, there was no
Avenue and Nicanor Reyes, Sr., Streets, Manila was burned, such voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver. Evidence
causing damage and destruction to the said building. In presenyted " is so pat and aptly worded, so contrived as to be
addition, fourteen (14) persons died in the fire, eleven of exactly suited to meet legal objections that it could have been
whom were Identified. All died because of asphyxia due to prepared only by a veteran police investigator and not by an
suffocation. ordinary layman like appellant Manuel Navoa.”

On June 29, 1979, defendant-appellant Bernardo Lim Furthermore, the trial court stated that no results of
alias "Jack Robertson," alias Christopher Kelly," alias "Lim Ming medical examinations indicating torture were presented in
Tak," acting as an alleged informer of Police Corporal Vicente evidence by the accused. No eyewitness who saw defendants
Palmon and his fellow arson operatives, informed the latter at the vicinity of the scene of the crime was ever presented.
that it was Manuel Navoa who was responsible for the fire that The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused
destroyed Manila Cinema 1 and 2. beyond reasonable doubt.

Relying solely on the credibility of Bernardo Lim and G.R. No. L-69971 July 3, 1992
without first securing a warrant of arrest, Corporals Palmon PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERNESTO LUVENDINO y
and Harrison Tolosa arrested appellant Manuel Navoa. At the
police headquarters, appellant Navoa allegedly executed Facts:
statements waiving his constitutional rights to silence and to On the morning of 17 January 1983, 18-year old Rowena Capcap
counsel and giving an extra-judicial confession. Both waiver left her home at Deva Village, Tambak, Taguig, Metro Manila to
and extra-judicial confession were subscribed and sworn to attend classes at the University of Manila where she was a
before Inquest Fiscal Zeus Abrogas. sophomore commerce student. She would usually be home by
7:30 to 8:00 on school evenings, 1 but on that tragic day, she
Earlier, on that same day, appellant Bernardo Lim would not reach home alive. On that particular evening, her father
likewise executed a waiver of his constitutional rights to silence Panfilo Capcap arriving home from work at around 7:30 p.m.,
and to counsel and also gave an extra-judicial confession. noted her absence and was told by his wife and other children
that Rowena was not yet home from school. Later, a younger
brother of Rowena, sent on an errand, arrived home carrying
Both defendants-appellants pleaded not guilty upon Rowena's bag which he had found dropped in the middle of a
arraignment. They further testified during trial that they were street in the village.
tortured to sign the waiver of their constitutional rights and
intimidated into signing the extrajudicial confessions.
Panfilo Capcap lost no time in seeking the help of
their barangay captain and the police officers. He returned home

17
 18

and, with the help of some neighbors, launched a search party for At past 7:30 p.m. of 6 September 1986 in Baguio City, Dr.
the missing Rowena. The search ended in a grassy vacant lot Napoleon Bayquen, a dentist, together with his son, Anthony;
within the Deva Village Subdivision, only about 70 to 80 meters Anthony's girlfriend, Anna Theresa Francisco; his daughter,
from the Capcap residence, where lay the apparently lifeless body Dominic; and Danny Ancheta, a family friend, were on their way
of Rowena, her pants pulled down to her knees and her blouse aboard their Brasilia to the doctor's residence at Trancoville at 21-
rolled up to her breasts. Her underwear was blood-stained and D Malvar Street, Baguio City, from his driving the car. While they
there were bloody fingerprint marks on her neck. Rowena, her were cruising along Malvar Street and nearing the Baptist church,
body still warm, was rushed to a hospital in Taguig, where on a man came out from the right side of a car parked about two
arrival she was pronounced dead. meters to the church. The man approached the Brasilia, aimed his
armalite rifle through its window, and fired at the passengers. The
By 5 March 1984, an information had been filed in the Brasilia swerved and hit a fence. The gunman immediately
trial court charging Ernesto C. Luvendino, Cesar Borca alias "Cesar returned to the parked car which then sped away.All those in the
Putol" and Ricardo de Guzman alias "Ric" with the crime of rape car were hit and Dr. Bayquen and Anna Theresa died on the spot.
with murder. Warrants of arrest were issued against all the above
accused but only accused-appellant Ernesto Luvendino was On 30 January 1987, accused Wilfredo "Sonny" Quiaño,
actually apprehended; the other two (2) have remained at large. an alleged former military agent or "asset", confessed during
the investigation conducted by Baguio City Fiscal
It appears that Luvendino re-enacted the events that transpired in ErdolfoBalajadia in his office that he was the triggerman in the
the evening of January 17 at the crime scene, where pictures fatal shooting. He implicated Manuel "Jun" Abenoja, Jr.,
were taken by a photographer brought by the police officers. In allegedly a fellow military agent and the "bagman" who
the course of the demonstration, Luvendino allegedly remarked: engaged him to kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee, Freddie "Boy"
“Inaamin ko po nakasama ko si Cesar Borcasapagre-rape kay Cartel, who provided the armalite, and a certain "Jimmy."
Rowena.” During the investigation, Wilfredo Quiaño was assisted by Atty.
Reynaldo Cajucom. Stenographic notes of the proceedings
during the investigation as transcribed with the sworn
At the arraignment, Luvendino pleaded not guilty. On 12
statement of Quiaño was assigned, with the assistance of Atty.
December 1984, the trial court rendered a decision finding
Cajucom.
Luvendino guilty, sentencing him to death, requiring him to
indemnify the heirs of the victim Rowena in the amount of
P50,000.00 for the damages suffered as a result of her death. The following day, Agustin was apprehended, and was
investigated and was afforded the privileges like that of
Issue: Quiaño. Agustin’s defense interpose that he was forced to
 Whether or not the trial court erred in not holding that his admit involvement in the said crime. He further declared that
"demonstration" or re-enactment of the crime as well as his although he was given a lawyer, Atty. Cajucom, he
subsequent written admission of guilt as inadmissible for having nevertheless, asked for his uncle Atty. Oliver Tabin, and that
been made without the benefit of counsel Atty. Cajucom interviewed him for only two minutes in English
and Tagalog, but not in Ilocano, the dialect he understands.
Ruling: The promise that he would be discharged as a witness did not
push through since Quiaño escaped. However, the RTC
Yes.The trial court took into account the testimony given by convicted him since conspiracy was established.
Panfilo Capcap on what had occurred during the re-enactment of
the crime by Luvendino. We note that the re-enactment was Issue:
apparently staged promptly upon apprehension of Luvendino and Whether or not accused-appellant’s extrajudicial admissions
even prior to his formal investigation at the police station . The are admissible as evidence to warrant conviction
decision of the trial court found that the accused was informed of
his constitutional rights "before he was investigated by Sgt. Held:
Galang in the police headquarters" and cited the "Salaysay" of No. The rule provides that any confession or
appellant Luvendino. The decision itself, however, states that the admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 of Article
re-enactment took place before Luvendino was brought to the III of the Constitution shall be inadmissible in evidence. The
police station. Thus, it is not clear from the record that before the extrajudicial admission of the appellant, contained in twenty-
re-enactment was staged by Luvendino, he had been informed of two pages appear to be signed by him and Atty. Cajucom but
his constitutional rights including, specifically, his right to counsel for reasons not explained in the records, the transcript of the
and that he had waived such right before proceeding with the notes which consists of twelve pages was not signed by the
demonstration. Under these circumstances, we must decline to appellant. Since the court cannot even read or decipher the
uphold the admissibility of evidence relating to that re-enactment.  stenographic notes, it cannot be expected that appellant, who
is a farmer and who reached only the fourth grade, to read
and decipher its contents.
RULE 130 SECTION 33 - Confession
G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 Despite asking for his uncle to represent him, he was
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES provided with an impartial counsel who is an associate of the
vs. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN et al private prosecutor. It also appears that some of the transcripts
of the notes of the proceeding that show the extrajudicial
Facts: statement made by the accused were not signed by him. By

18
 19

making his statements, the accused voluntarily waived his right knocking was their EutropioTiozon. Leonardo invited the
to remain silent but that was not put in writing either. accused inside their home. After a few minutes the accused
and Leonardo had left the house and five minutes later and/or
People vs Salazar after Rosalina had heard two successive gunshots, she heard
accused knocking at their door and at the same time informing
Facts: On August 23, 1988, the accused Nena Salazar was her that he accidentally shot her husband. Rosalina told the
caught selling 5 sticks of marijuana to a poseur buyer and court about what happened and the admission of the accused
possession of 6 more sticks and 5 grams. On arraignment, of shooting Leonardo.
appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. In her own
defense, the accused stated that the NARCOM agents brought The Trial Court found the accused guilty of the crime of Illegal
her to their headquarters to force her into divulging the possession of Firearms with Murder.
identity of other drugs pushers in the area and that the case Appellant contends that the trial court had erred in convicting
against her was only a "trumped-up charge". The Trial court the appellant of the crime, stating further that the testimony of
found her guilty of selling a prohibited drug without being the wife of the victim that after hearing two successive
authorized by law. gunshots accused, the appellant went back to her house and
Issue: Whether or not the court erred in convicting her of the informed her that he accidentally shot her husband, should not
crime charged despite the unreasonable and unlawful search have been considered by the trial court as part of the res
and seizure conducted by the NARCOM agents and there has gestae.
been a violation of Appellant's Right to Counsel Issues:
Held: (a) No. The Trial Court was correct in convicting the a. Whether or not Rosalina’s testimony is hearsay;
accused of the crime charged. Indispensable in every
prosecution for illegal sale of marijuana, a prohibited drug, is b. Whether or not the court had erred in the conviction of the
the submission of proof that the sale of the illicit drug took accused for Illegal possession of Firearms with Murder
place between the poseur-buyer and the seller thereof, Held: a. The questioned testimony of the wife of the victim is
coupled with the presentation of the corpusdelicti as evidence not hearsay. She testified on what the accused-appellant told
in court. The element of sale must be unequivocally her, not what any other party, who cannot be cross-examined,
established in order to sustain a conviction. told her. The accused-appellant's statement was an "oral
Because the drug pusher had been caught in flagrante delicto, confession", not a part of res gestae, which he can easily deny
the arresting officers were duty-bound to apprehend the culprit if it were not true, which he did in this case.
immediately and to search her for anything which may be used In the similar case of People vs. Tulagan, the Court declared
as proof of the commission of the crime. The search, being an that a statement allegedly made by one of the accused to
incident of a lawful arrest, needed no warrant for its validity. Natalia Macaraeg that "we killed him" (referring to himself and
(b) The Court finds appellant's claim that she was not informed his co-accused) and which Natalia repeated in her testimony in
of her right to counsel during custodial investigation to be open court was merely an "oral confession" and not part of the
correct. Moreover, the NARCOM agent's admission that they res gestae.
made her sign and thumbmark the bond paper which they Moreover, even assuming that the testimony of the wife of the
used to wrap the marijuana found in her possession was victim on the alleged statement of the accused-appellant is
violative of her constitutional right to counsel. hearsay, the latter is barred from questioning its admission
While the bond paper does not appear to have been due to his failure to object thereto at the time the testimony
considered as a pivotal piece of evidence against appellant, was given.
such act of the NARCOM agents is worth noting if only to b. It cannot be denied that the lack or absence of a license is
provide guidance to law enforcement operatives. In People vs. an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of a
Simon: firearm.However, it was the prosecution's duty not merely to
. . . Appellant's conformance to these documents are allege that negative fact that the accused had no license but to
declarations against interest and tacit admissions of the crime prove it.There being no proof that accused-appellant had no
charged. They were obtained in violation of his right as a license to possess the firearm in question, he could not be
person under custodial investigation for the commission of an convicted for illegal possession of a firearm. The trial court
offense, there being nothing in the records to show that he then committed an error in holding the accused-appellant
was assisted by counsel. Although appellant manifested during guilty thereof.
the custodial investigation that he waived his right to counsel, In order for murder to be established, there must be treachery
the waiver was not made in writing and in the presence of on the part of the accused. In the instant case, no witness who
counsel, hence whatever incriminatory admission or confession could have seen how the deceased was shot was presented.
may be extracted from him, either verbally or in writing, is not Absent the quantum of evidence required to prove it, treachery
allowable in evidence. Besides, the arrest report is self-serving cannot be considered against the accused-appellant.
and hearsay and can easily be concocted to implicate a
suspect. People vs Tujon
People vs Tiozon Facts: On November 3, 1977, taxiRolando Abellana was found
dead at Doña Faustina Village, Quezon City by stab wounds.
Facts: On February 24, 1989, Rosalina and Leonardo Bolima On November 23, 1977, accused JovitoTujon and Ernesto
were awakened by the loud knocks on their door; Leonardo Parola were arrested by the police. The extrajudicial confession
opened the door and they saw that the person who was
19
 20

shows that they mugged and killed Abellana. During the (a). Whether or not the identification of the uncounseled used
pendency of this case, Parola escaped from the Quezon City is inadmissible.
Jail; consequently the defense presented only accused Tujon
(b). That the appellants guilt were not proved beyond
as its lone witness, denying the accusation against him. The
reasonable doubt
Trial Court found Tujon guilty with Robbery with Homicide.
Appellant contends that the court a quo gravely erred in Held: (a). The identification is valid. The general rule is that
convicting the accused of the crime charged by relying heavily after the start of the custodial investigation, any identification
on their respective extra-judicial confessions. of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is
inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bench
Issue: Whether or not the court can rely solely on
where the police officers first talked to the victims before the
extrajudicial evidence.
confrontation was held. The circumstances were such as to
Held: The Court agrees with counsel for appellant that the impart improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that
evidence presented is not sufficient to sustain conviction.He may lead to a mistaken identification.
correctly observed that it was not even shown by the evidence
However, the prosecution did not present evidence regarding
how appellant came to be suspected of the robbery and killing
appellant's identification at the police line-up. Hence, the
and subsequently arrested. The evidence against the accused
exclusionary sanctions against the admission in evidence of
consists solely of their extra-judicial confessions. There is no
custodial identification of an uncounseled accused cannot be
eyewitness and not even a single circumstantial evidence
applied. On the other hand, appellants did not object to the in-
pointing to the accused as the perpetrators of the crime.
court identification made by the prosecution witnesses. The
People vs Macam, Cawilan Jr., Cedro, Roque, Roque prosecution witnesses, who made the identification of
appellants at the police line-up at the hospital, again identified
Facts: On August 18, 1987, Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro,
appellants in open court. Appellants did not object to the in-
Eugenio Cawilan, Jr., Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque went to
court identification as being tainted by the illegal line-up. In
the house of Benito Macam, the victim, in Quezon City. The
the absence of such objection, the prosecution need not show
maid, SalvacionEnrera, testified that only Antonio Cedro,
that said identifications were of independent origin.
Eugenio Cawilan, Jr. and Danilo Roque entered the house and
that Ernesto Roque remained in the tricycle. (b). The presence of conspiracy between appellants and the
other accused can be shown through their conduct before,
The accused then announced a hold-up, and started
during and after the commission of the crime. It is undeniable
ransacking the place and looking for valuables. Tying up the
that appellant Danilo Roque was the only a tricycle driver, who
members of Benito's household, namely, Leticia Macam,
brought the 4 to the house of Benito.
NiloAlcantara, SalvacionEnrera, and the children of Benito
Macam, the accused brought them to a room upstairs. After a Upon arriving at the residence of Benito Macam, appellant
while, Leticia was killed and Benito, Nilo, and Salvacion were Danilo Roque, together with his co-accused, went inside the
stabbed. house to eat. He even admitted that after eating, he washed
the dishes, swept the floor and sat on the sofa in the sala
Accused Danilo Roque stated that he being a tricycle driver
instead of going out of the house. This conduct is not in
drove the 4 accused to Benito’s house for a fee of PHP 50.00.
keeping with his being merely the tricycle driver hired by the
Instead of paying him, he was given a calling card by Eduardo
accused to transport them to their destination.
Macam so that he can be paid the following day. Upon
arriving, he went with the accused inside the house to have While the appellant Roque claimed that he was merely
lunch. Thereafter Danilo washed the dishes and swept the intimidated by the accused to gather the stolen articles, his
floor. When Eugenio Cawilan pulled a gun and announced the subsequent conduct belied this claim. According to him, he
hold-up, he was asked to gather some things and which he escaped after hearing accused Eduardo Macam tell his co-
abided out of fear. While putting the said thins inside the car accused to kill all the possible witnesses who may be asked to
of Benito, he heard the accused saying identify them. Yet he continued to ply his route as if nothing
“kailanganpatayinangmgataongyandahilkilalaako ng mgayan”. unusual happened. He did not report the incident to the police.
Upon hearing such phrase he escaped and went home using
Appellant Danilo Roque's denial of his participation in the
his tricycle. He also testified that his brother Ernesto Roque
commission of the crime is not sufficient to overcome the
has just arrived from the province and in no way can be
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who positively
involved in the case at bar. On the following day, together with
identified the former as one of the persons who entered the
his brother, they went to the factory of the Zesto Juice for him
Macam's residence, robbed and stabbed the occupants therein.
to get his payment PHP 50.00. He and his brother was
suddenly apprehended by the security guards and brought to People vs Olivares
the police headquarters in Q.C. They were also forced to admit
certain things. Facts: PurisimoMacaoili testified that he found the dead body
of Mr. Sy (Tiu Hui) in the morning of December 26, 1981
After which, he together with all the accused, in handcuffs and inside Cardinal Plastic Industries. Appellant Danilo Arellano
bore contusions on their faces caused by blows inflicted in failed to report for work since the commission of the crime.
their faces during investigation, was brought to the QC General Appellant Olivares accompanied the police officers to
Hospital before each surviving victims and made to line-up for Broadway, Barangay Kristong Hari, Quezon City, where they
identification. The Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond found appellant Arellano. After being ask about the incident
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. that took place at the Cardinal Plastic Industries, appellant
Arellano admitted to the police authorities his participation in
Issues:

20
 21

the commission of the crime. Upon investigation, appellant

Olivares told the truth about the incident.
The trial court charged and convicted the appellants with the
complex crime of Robbery with Double Homicide. On direct
appeal to the Court, appellants, who are imprisoned, seek their
acquittal on the ground that their guilt was not proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue: Whether or not the court had erred in convicting the
appellants by reason of extrajudicial confession of Olivares
Held: Yes, the trial court had erred in convicting the
appellants. The prosecution's principal evidence against them
is based solely on the testimony of the police officers who
arrested, investigated and subsequently took their confession.
Such evidence when put together with appellants'
constitutional rights concerning arrests and the taking of
confessions leads to a conclusion that they cannot he held
liable for the offense charged despite the inherent weakness of
their defenses of denial and alibi, not because they are not
guilty but because the evidence adduced against them are
inadmissible to sustain a criminal conviction.
Under the present laws, a confession to be admissible must
be:
1.) express and categorical;
2.) given voluntarily, and intelligently where the accused
realizes 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 how to read and
write thumbmarked by him.
The extrajudicial confession of appellant Olivares, Jr. on which
the prosecution relies, is likewise inadmissible in evidence.
Under the Constitution, any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right, among other 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.

21