SECOND DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
125938
April 4, 2003
-versus-
JOEL JANSON AND
RICKY
PINANTAO ALIAS "OGCO",
Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On appeal is the decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XVII, Kidapawan, Cotabato
promulgated
on September 15, 1995, declaring appellants guilty of the crime of
robbery
with rape, and sentencing each of them to the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua,
and ordering them to pay P30,000.00 and P10,000.00 in favor of Marites
Alcantara and Cesario Alcantara, respectively.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The information filed
on August 31, 1987 alleged:
That on or about the
24th day of March 1986, at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening at
Barangay
Mateo, Municipality of Kidapawan, Province of Cotabato, Philippines,
and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused
JOEL JANSON, RICKY PINANTAO alias OGCO in company with alias ABDUL,
alias
PUTO, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, who are still at large and whose names
are
still unknown, constituting a band and armed with long and short
firearms,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent
to gain, with force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously take and carry away, at gun point, cash money in the
amount
of P1,400.00, three (3) pieces of wrist watches, one (1) can coffee
beans
and one (1) chicken and if converted into cash it amounted to P1,845.00
or a total amount of Three Thousand Two Hundred Fourty (sic) Five Pesos
(P3,245.00), Philippine Currency, owned by Mr. & Mrs. CESARIO
ALCANTARA;
and on the same occasion, the above-named accused, with the use of
force,
violence and intimidation and armed with firearms, did then and there
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take turns in having carnal knowledge with
one
MARITESS ALCANTARA, a girl about 13 years old, daughter of Mr. &
Mrs.
CESARIO ALCANTARA, against her will and consent, to the damage and
prejudice
of the aforesaid persons in the aforesaid amount.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All contrary to law
with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime and the use
of
unlicensed firearms.cralaw:red
Kidapawan, Cotabato,
August 31, 1987.[2]
On December 9, 1987,
both accused pleaded not guilty.[3]
Trial then ensued.cralaw:red
For the prosecution,
the following witnesses were presented: Teresa Alcantara, Marites
Alcantara,
Dante Alcantara, Cesario Alcantara, Dr. Cesar Manuel, Atty. Jorge
Zerrudo,
and police officers Pedro Idpan, Jr. and Ortello Achas.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
TERESA ALCANTARA
testified
that on March 24, 1986 at about 10:00 in the evening, the accused with
six (6) other companions asked for food. She asked them to come
back
the following day but they threatened to strafe and burn the house if
they
are not let in. The accused then entered the house and once
inside,
made all occupants lie down before covering them with a blanket.
The accused demanded money from Teresa and she gave them P1,000. She
was
brought to the kitchen and someone guarded her. For a while, there was
complete silence. Then she went inside the room of her daughter
Marites,
and saw her totally naked. Her daughter told her that she was
raped.
She gave an additional P1,000 to the accused who also got two (2)
wristwatches
worth P690.00, two (2) Seiko watches worth P443.00, a chicken worth
approximately
P20.00, and one can of coffee beans. The appellants were speaking
among themselves in the Manobo dialect.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Teresa identified
appellants
Janson and Pinantao as two of the men who robbed their house and raped
her
daughter that night. She testified that she knew appellants since
they were their neighbors at Mateo. She also claimed that while Janson
and Pinantao were masked during the incident, she recognized them
through
their body built, physical appearance, and their voices while speaking
in Manobo.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
MARITES[5]
ALCANTARA testified that she was thirteen (13) years old at the time of
the incident. She corroborated the testimony of her mother and
added
that after the group entered their house and hogtied her father, the
appellants
entered her room and turned off the lights inside. Someone poked a gun
at her. Then Ricky Pinantao, who had an amputated right hand;
Joel
Janson, and Abdul Jona raped her. In open court she identified
appellants
Pinantao and Janson as two of her abusers, claiming that they were
previously
known to her. She claimed that she knew Ricky because he was
their
neighbor and that he often went to their house to buy bananas, while
she
knew Joel because he often went to their barangay to visit his
relatives.
She likewise claimed that while the appellants turned off the lights in
their house, there was a full moon that night which gave her enough
light
to see her abusers. She immediately told her parents that she was
raped,
and she underwent medical examination the following day.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
DANTE ALCANTARA testified
that on the day of the robbery he was only nine (9) years old. He
said he recognized appellants Janson and Pinantao because they were
their
neighbors. On cross-examination, he admitted that the four
robbers
were masked, but the witness insisted that he was able to recognize
Pinantao
with his cut wrist and mustache, and also Janson because of his built.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CESARIO ALCANTARA testified
that on March 24, 1986, their house was robbed and his daughter was
raped.
He admitted that during the incident, he was not able to identify the
perpetrators
since he was hogtied face downwards, and he was covered with a blanket.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution also
presented DR. CESAR MANUEL. He testified that the physical
examination
he conducted on Marites Alcantara a day after the incident revealed
that
there were lacerations between the labia majora, labia minora, and the
prepuce caused by a sharp instrument. There was also the presence
of seminal fluid in the vagina of the victim indicating that there was
actual sexual contact.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. JORGE ZERRUDO
testified that he only assisted appellant Janson in waiving his right
to
counsel, and that the sworn statement was already prepared when he
signed
it. Nevertheless, he asked appellant Janson if the contents of
the
statement were true, and whether he wished to be assisted by counsel.[10]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
P/SGT. PEDRO IDPAN,
JR. testified that he was a member of the Integrated National Police
(INP),
Kidapawan, Cotabato, assigned in the investigation of the crime of
robbery
with rape involving appellant Joel Janson. He identified Janson’s
sworn statement saying it was signed by him without being forced.
He admitted that during the investigation, there was no lawyer present
and that Atty. Zerrudo signed the affidavit only after the
investigation
was conducted. He claimed, however, that prior to the custodial
investigation,
he informed Janson of his constitutional rights and that despite being
a Manobo, Janson fully understood Cebuano,[11]
which was the language used during the custodial investigation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, P/SGT. ORTELLO
ACHAS testified that he was at the police station when Teresa Alcantara
appeared on June 24, 1986, and requested that she be accompanied to the
jail to identify the person who was earlier apprehended and
detained.
She identified the person as appellant Joel Janson. On
cross-examination,
P/Sgt. Achas admitted that he was not the one who conducted the
investigation
on the person of Joel Janson and that he could not remember whether
appellant
Janson who was then sixteen (16) years old and a Manobo was assisted by
a lawyer. Neither could he remember whether a mental or physical
examination was made upon Janson.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For the defense, the
following witnesses were presented: Datu Amado Pinantao, Atty. Francis
Palmones, Jr., and the two appellants: Joel Janson and Ricky Pinantao.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
DATU AMADO PINANTAO
testified that he is an uncle of Ricky Pinantao, and that they belong
to
a cultural minority group, the Manobos. He admitted that they lived
near
the house of Cesario Alcantara. He said that on March 24, 1986,
appellant
Pinantao was in their house and that it was impossible for him to be
elsewhere
because earlier, in 1985, Pinantao was hacked by one Bernardo Agio
resulting
in the amputation of Pinantao’s hand. He averred that Pinantao
could
not go out of their house because at the time of the incident, the
wound
he sustained was not yet completely healed.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. FRANCIS PALMONES,
JR., testified that he notarized the sworn statement[14]
of the appellant Janson on April 3, 1987, marked as Exh. 4 and that
Janson
affirmed and understood the contents of said affidavit because it was
translated
to him in the Visayan vernacular.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant JOEL JANSON,
for his own defense, declared that he was assisted by a lawyer when he
was investigated and made to sign a sworn statement before the police
on
June 26, 1986. But he denied the accusation against him and claimed
that
he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial
investigation.
He claimed that he did not know how to read or write, and that he was
made
to execute a sworn statement before a certain policeman named Ulep.
Only
after the investigation did Atty. Zerrudo sign the document. On
cross-examination,
he said that he was put in jail for another crime, robbery.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant RICKY PINANTAO
also denied the accusation against him, saying that he did not know
Marites
and Cesario Alcantara. He claimed that he was arrested in March
1987
because he was implicated by appellant Janson as one of the
perpetrators
of the crime, per instruction of one Cristina Agio.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 15, 1995,
the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment thus:
WHEREFORE, prescinding
from all of the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby pronounces
the
accused Ricky Pinantao alias Ogco and Joel Janson guilty of the crime
of
Robbery with Rape beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, sentences
Ricky
Pinantao and Joel Janson each to undergo a prison term of Reclusion
Perpetua
and to indemnify Marites Alcantara the sum of P30,000.00; to indemnify
Cesario Alcantara the sum of P10,000,00. No award of other
damages
in the absence of proof thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[18]
Both appellants filed
their notices of appeal and submitted separate appellant’s
briefs.
Appellant Ricky Pinantao averred that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN ADMITTING THE ALLEGED EXTRA-JUDICIAL ‘CONFESSION’ OF APPELLANT JOEL
JANSON, SAID EVIDENCE BEING INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS OBTAINED IN
VIOLATION
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN
AGAINST
HIS CO-ACCUSED RICKY PINANTAO, UNDER THE INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE AS
AGAINST
HIS CO-ACCUSED RICKY PINANTAO EITHER FOR PROBABLE CAUSE AND THE
RESULTANT
CONVICTION OF RICKY PINANTAO;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES OF THE
ALCANTARA
FAMILY WHICH WERE SHOT THROUGH WITH MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS,
INCONSISTENCIES
AND UNNATURAL TESTIMONIES; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION MISERABLY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE
GUILT
OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, AND THAT IN FACT THERE WAS A
REASONABLE
DOUBT IN THE IDENTITIES AND GUILT OF BOTH ACCUSED.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Joel
Janson,
for his part, averred that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT JOEL JANSON WAS POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED
BY THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES; and
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT JOEL JANSON GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY
WITH RAPE DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT
BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Simply put, the issues
in this case are as follows: (1) Was the guilt of appellants Janson and
Pinantao proved beyond reasonable doubt? (2) Is the extrajudicial
confession
of Janson admissible as evidence for the prosecution? and (3) May said
confession be used against co-accused Pinantao?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find the appeal impressed
with merit. Appellants should be acquitted.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Generally, the findings
of the trial court concerning credibility of witnesses are accorded
great
weight and respect because it had the opportunity to observe closely in
the first instance the demeanor of the witnesses presented before it.[21]
However, when the trial court overlooked or misunderstood significant
contrarieties
in the testimony of witnesses which if considered would materially
affect
the result of the conviction, such findings will not bind this Court.[22]
Such is the case at hand.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consistent with the
testimonies of Teresa, Marites, Cesario, and Dante Alcantara, we can
gather
that what transpired that fateful night is as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the evening of March
24, 1986, six (6) men came to the house of Cesario Alcantara
threatening
to strafe and burn it should they not be let in. Once inside, the
masked
group of men turned off the lights, hogtied Cesario, pushed him
facedown
and covered him with blankets. They asked for money and Teresa gave
them
P400.[23]
Teresa was then led to the kitchen. During this time, her
daughter
Marites was raped[24]
by four men. Then Marites was led to the kitchen where the
culprits
threatened to abduct her if her mother would not give them money.
Teresa then gave them an additional P1,000 while the group took three
wristwatches,
one can of coffee, and one chicken. Then they left the house, all
the while speaking in the Manobo dialect.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While the testimonies
of the witnesses up to this point are credible and undisputed, it is
unfortunate
that the certainty ends here.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Marites testified in
open court that she was raped by Ricky alias Ogco Pinantao, Joel
Janson,
and Abdul Jona.[26]
She said that she came to know Ricky Pinantao because he is a neighbor
and that he often goes to their house to buy bananas. She also
said
that she came to know Joel Janson because he is always going to Mateo
since
he has a relative there.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon cross-examination,
however, Marites admitted that she was not certain of the identity of
her
perpetrators at the time of the incident or immediately thereafter.
According
to her, it was only after Joel Janson was apprehended for another
crime,
and after he ‘confessed’ to the police, that she was able to confirm
her
suspicion. When asked in open court, she was not able to satisfactorily
explain the discrepancy in her initial sworn statement before the
police
and her testimony later.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Pertinent portions
of her testimony in court are instructive:
Q: Was this Ricky Pinantao
armed when he entered your room?
A: No sir, he wasn’t.cralaw:red
Q: Where (sic) you afraid
of him?
A: No, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Knowing that, according
to you, you know him, did you not question him, Ricky, why are you
doing
this to me?
A: I did not because
I was only suspecting.[28]
x x x
Q: Is it not Marites,
to refresh your memory, is it not that when a sworn statement was taken
from your (sic), you stated in your affidavit that you did not
recognize
anybody?
A: That was what I stated
in my statement.[29]
x x x
Q: Miss Marites, in
this sworn statement of yours, which was already marked as Exhibit "E"
for the prosecution and Exhibit "1" for the defense, there is a
question
here: "Can you recognized (sic) any of the four men or any of the six
men
that robbed and raped you?" you answered, "I do not know anyone
sir.
Now in your testimony here, you said that you know the two accused, how
will you reconcile this one?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: It is like
this, what I am telling now in Court is the one true, during that time,
when the statement was taken on me (sic), I have already suspect in my
mind and I could not tell their names but there were some evidence that
dovetailed in my mind, like, the cut wrist of the one perpetrator,
Ricky
Pinantao and the mustache. And these are the things that I
recall.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Now, how come that
you did not tell the police of the perpetrators during that time of
investigation?
A: Sir, it is very hard
to name names during that time when a statement was taken on me.
But when this Joel Janson was first apprehended, it was confirmed by
his
statement to the policeman. (sic)[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
Q: So, when Joel Janson
was apprehended, that was the time you confirmed that he was the
perpetrator?
A: xxx Yes, sir.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: Therefore, you failed
to recognize Joel Janson during said time of the incident?
A: I knew him
through his body built.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: So, you merely assumed
that Joel Janson is one of those persons who robbed you, because of the
aforesaid statement, that his alleged statement in the police?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: According to you,
you have confirmed your suspicion of this Joel Janson after he was
apprehended?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: In the same manner
you confirmed your suspicion of Ricky Pinantao after he was apprehended?
A: He himself revealed.
Aside from that I already suspected because of his cut wrist and his
mustache.[31]
(emphasis
ours)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While courts generally
brush aside inconsequential contradictions between declarations of the
affiant in her sworn statements and those in court, the rule is
otherwise
where the discrepancies touch on substantial and irreconcilable facts
such
as those omissions in the affidavit concerning important details which
the affiant would not have failed to mention and which omission could
well
affect the credibility of the affiant.[32]
If indeed, the victim recognized one of her assailants as Ricky
Pinantao
because of his amputated hand, she should have mentioned such glaring
trait
the first time she gave her statement to the investigating
officers.
But she never mentioned anything. On the contrary, she admitted
that
she did not recognize any of her assailants. She also admitted
that
it was only after Joel Janson was apprehended and ‘confessed’ to the
crime,
implicating Ricky Pinantao, that she confirmed her suspicion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The testimony of Teresa
Alcantara is also riddled with uncertainties:
Q: How many day had
lapsed (sic) before you reported the incident to the police?
A: Three months after
the incident.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: Will you please explain
why you reported the incident after three months?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: It was only
upon hearing through radio DXND the name of this person Joel Janson who
was reported to have robbed the corn of a certain Atty. Jalipa, that I
reported to the police.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: That was the only
reason why you reported to the police after three months already?
A: It is like this:
After hearing that, I went to the police right then and there. I
saw this Joel Janson who was the person among those who raped my
daughter
and entered our house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: If you knew already
that Joel Janson was among those persons who robbed you, why did you
not
report to the police immediately?
A: The following
morning, I immediately reported, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And you gave sworn
statement before the police on the following morning?
A: Not yet, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Of course, this Joel
Janson was unmasked when those six men came to your house?
A: This Joel Janson
and Ricky Pinantao were the one (sic) wearing mask.cralaw:red
Q: In other words, during
the incident you failed to recognize outright who were those persons
masked?
A: I identified them
through their body built and voice because they were speaking Manobo.cralaw:red
Q: But you identified
them because of their voice?
A: Voice and bodybuilt.cralaw:red
Q: But of course, you
did not actually see the face of Joel Janson?
A: How can I see
when he is masked.cralaw:red
x x x
Q: You only mentioned
his (Joel Janson’s) name (to the police) after you heard his name over
the DXND?
A: Yes.[33]
(emphasis
ours)
What stands out in the
testimonies of the victims is that they were uncertain of the
identities
of the masked men who committed the robbery and rape that night and
anchored
their suspicion on the alleged confession of Joel Janson. This
confession,
however, is itself inadmissible for failing to meet the constitutional
requirements for admissibility.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The lawyer who allegedly
assisted Joel Janson in the waiver of his right to counsel, Atty.
Zerrudo,
testified:
Q: In other words, this
sworn statement marked Exhibit "B" was already typewritten and prepared
when it was brought to you by the police?
A: Yes, sir, that is
correct.[34]
x x x
Q: But before he was
brought to your office allegedly to assist him in his waiving of his
right,
he was already subjected to investigation as this sworn statement was
already
prepared?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: That is true, but
not signed.cralaw:red
Q: Of course he was
not assisted because he was already subjected to police investigation
in
his waiving of his constitutional rights?
A: May be, I am
not sure about that. That was may be, that was already prepared
when
they came to my office but only unsigned.cralaw:red
Q: What was prepared,
the whole investigation or this entire part or that part of waiving his
rights?
A: As far as I can remember,
it was already prepared, Your Honor.[35]
x x x
Q: Atty. Zerrudo, we
are clear to the fact that this document was already prepared before
when
it was brought to your office?
A: Yes, sir.[36]
(emphasis
ours)
The investigating police
officer, P/Sgt. Pedro Idpan, also admitted in open court that the sworn
statement of appellant Joel Janson was taken without the presence of
counsel
and that this statement together with the waiver of his right to
counsel,
was already prepared when it was presented to Atty. Zerrudo for signing.cralaw:red
As shown by the transcript:
Q: But the accused during
the investigation was not assisted by counsel, is that right?
A: At the time when
I conducted the investigation, the counsel is not yet present.cralaw:red
Q: In other words, during
the conduct of the investigation there was no counsel being present
assisting
the accused Joel Janson?
A: None, sir.cralaw:red
Q: So in all the sworn
statement of the accused Joel Janson made earlier was made without the
assistance of counsel? (sic)
A: When I prepared the
investigation I advised him to get a counsel of his own choice but the
counsel was not yet present.cralaw:red
Q: He was not assisted
by counsel during the conduct of the investigation?
A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Court : What do
you mean, Sergeant, Atty. Zerrudo was not yet present?
A: When I conducted
the investigation, Atty. Zerrudo was not present.cralaw:red
x x x
Court: He signed it
after the investigation?
A: The prepared
testimony.cralaw:red
Court: After the investigation?
A: After the investigation.[37]
(emphasis
ours)
Clearly, the alleged
extrajudicial confession of appellant Joel Janson cannot be admitted in
evidence. The manner by which it was obtained violated accused’s
constitutional right to counsel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is well-settled that
the Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and
whatever
information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible in
evidence
against the confessant.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As provided for in Article
III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution,
(1) Any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford
the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
(3) Any confession or
admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible against him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In People v. Javar,[39]
this Court was clear in pronouncing that any statement obtained in
violation
of the Constitution, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in
part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. Even if the confession
contains
a grain of truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it
becomes inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of coercion
or even if it had been voluntarily given.[40]
In People v. Gomez,[41]
citing People v. Rodrigueza,[42]
this Court held that Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution
requires
the assistance of counsel to a person under custody even when he waives
the right to counsel.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under the Constitution
and existing law as well as jurisprudence, a confession to be
admissible
must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary; (2)
it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent
counsel;
(3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.[43]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The purpose of providing
counsel to a person under custodial investigation is to curb the
uncivilized
practice of extracting confession by coercion no matter how slight, as
would lead the accused to admit something false. What is sought
to
be avoided is the evil of extorting from the very mouth of the person
undergoing
interrogation for the commission of an offense, the very evidence with
which to prosecute and thereafter convict him. These
constitutional
guarantees have been made available to protect him from the inherently
coercive psychological, if not physical, atmosphere of such
investigation.[44]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While the Constitution
sanctions the waiver of the right to counsel, it must, however, be
voluntary,
knowing, and intelligent, made in the presence and with the assistance
of counsel,[45]
and it must be in writing. Indeed, any waiver of the right to counsel
without
the assistance of counsel has no evidentiary value.[46]
In this case, it cannot
be said that the waiver of the right to counsel was made knowingly and
intelligently. Appellant Joel Janson was illiterate, and a minor of
sixteen
(16) years at the time of the offense. As held in the case of People v.
Bonola,[47]
where the accused was unschooled and only nineteen (19) years old when
arrested, it is difficult to believe that considering the
circumstances,
the accused made an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. In such
instances, the need for counsel is more pronounced.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is also important
to mention that the investigating officers already had a prepared
statement
when they went to the lawyer who is supposed to assist appellant Janson
in waiving his right to counsel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is not what is
contemplated by law. In People v. Quidato, Jr.,[48]
where the police officers already prepared the affidavits of the
accused
when they were brought to the CLAO (now PAO) lawyer, and the latter
explained
the contents of the affidavits in Visayan to the accused who affirmed
the
veracity and voluntary execution of the same, the court held that the
affidavits
are inadmissible in evidence even if they were voluntarily given.
As also ruled in People v. Compil,[49]
the belated arrival of the CLAO lawyer the following day, even if prior
to the actual signing of the uncounseled confession, does not cure the
defect of lack of counsel for the investigators were already able to
extract
incriminatory statements from the accused therein. Thus, in
People
v. De Jesus,[50]
we said that admissions obtained during custodial interrogations
without
the benefit of counsel, although later reduced to writing and signed in
the presence of counsel, are still flawed under the Constitution.cralaw:red
As pointed out in People
v. Deniega,[51]
if the lawyer’s role is reduced to being that of a mere witness to the
signing of a priorly prepared document albeit indicating therein
compliance
with the accused’s constitutional rights, the constitutional standard
is
not met.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, the invalid
extrajudicial confession of Joel Janson cannot be used against Ricky
Pinantao.
An extrajudicial confession by an accused implicating another may not
be
utilized unless repeated in open court or when there is an opportunity
for the co-accused to cross-examine the confessant on his extrajudicial
statements. It is considered hearsay as against said co-accused under
the
res inter alios acta rule, which ordains that the rights of a party
cannot
be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.[52]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For all the foregoing
considerations, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court finding Janson
and Pinantao guilty of the crime of robbery with rape fails to persuade
us that appellants have been adequately identified as the perpetrators
of the heinous offense. In our view, to affirm that judgment of
conviction
on the basis of contradictory testimony of prosecution witnesses and
the
flawed extrajudicial confession of appellant Joel Janson is to sanction
a possible miscarriage of justice.cralaw:red
What befell the Alcantara
family, particularly to Marites, is abhorrent and should be condemned.
But after due reflection and deliberation, we still find difficulty in
sustaining the trial court’s conclusion regarding appellants’ guilt
because
of inconclusive identification. Doubts persist in our mind as to
who are the real malefactors. Yes, a complex offense has been
perpetrated,
but who are the perpetrators? How we wish we had DNA or other
scientific
evidence to still our doubts! But we have only uncertain
testimonies
to rely on. It is only when the conscience is satisfied that the
persons on trial are the ones who committed the offense that the
judgment
should be for conviction. Only when there is proof beyond
reasonable
doubt can we be certain that, after trial, only those responsible
should
be made answerable.[53]
The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit
and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence
for
the defense.[54]
In this exacting standard, the prosecution failed. It follows
that
the judgment of the lower court convicting appellants ought to be set
aside
for failure to meet the quantum of evidence constitutionally required.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan, Cotabato, Branch XVII, in
Criminal
Case No. 2016 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants Joel
Janson
and Ricky Pinantao are ACQUITTED, on grounds of reasonable doubt, and
ordered
released from prison unless they are being held for some other lawful
cause.
The Director of Prisons is DIRECTED to implement this Decision and to
report
to this Court immediately the action taken hereon within five (5) days
from receipt hereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 17-24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Records, pp. 21-22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 18-19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Spelled as "Maritess" in some parts of the Records.
[6]
Supra, note 1 at 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Supra, note 2 at 171.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Supra, note 1 at 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. at 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id. at 57.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id. at 87.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People v. Vidal, G.R. No. 90419, 1 June 1999, 308 SCRA 1, 10.
[22]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Although Teresa testified that she initially gave P1,000, the trial
court
found that it was really just P400.
[24]
Exhibit "A," Records, p. 4 (Medical Certificate of Dr. Cesar Manuel).
[25]
Id. at 281-287.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
TSN, July 16, 1992, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id. at 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id. at 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id. at 17-18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Id. at 18-21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Supra, note 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
TSN, October 1, 1991, pp. 11-14.
[34]
TSN, October 16, 1989, p. 18.
[35]
Id. at 19-20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Id. at 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
TSN, October 3, 1990, pp. 7-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
People v. Tan, G.R. No. 117321, 11 February 1998, 286 SCRA 207, 213.
[39]
G.R. No. 82769, 6 September 1993, 226 SCRA 103.
[40]
Supra, note 38 at 214-215.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
G.R. No 101817, 26 March 1997, 270 SCRA 432, 444.
[42]
G.R. No. 95902, 4 February 1992, 205 SCRA 791.
[43]
Supra, note 38 at 214.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
People v. Olivarez, Jr., G.R. No. 77865, 4 December 1998, 299 SCRA 635,
650.
[45]
Supra, note 38 at 214.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
People v. Vidal, supra at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
G.R. No. 116394, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 238, 254.
[48]
G.R. No. 117401, 1 October 1998, 297 SCRA 1.
[49]
G.R. No. 95028, 15 March 1995, 244 SCRA 135, 142.
[50]
G.R. No. 91535, 2 September 1992, 213 SCRA 345.
[51]
People v. Binamira, G.R. No. 110397, 14 August 1997, 277 SCRA 232, 248.
[52]
People v. Olivarez, Jr., supra at 650-651.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
People v. Vidal, supra at 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
Id. at 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|