SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-78852 June 5, 1989

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- appellee, vs. GUILLERMO EGLIPA, Accused-Appellant.

PARAS, J.:

This is a review of the decision ¹ of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIX in Bacoor, Cavite convicting appellant Guillermo Eglipa of Murder, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Court finds accused Guillermo Eglipa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances present in the commission of the crime hereby sentences said accused to suffer a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P30,000.00, to pay actual damages of P37,827.30 as funeral expenses and moral damages of P10,000.00 and exemplary damages of P10,000.00 and to pay the cost. Accused is credited with his preventive imprisonment during his confinement in jail. (p. 337, Rollo)

The records disclose that appellant Eglipa and Rudy Valiente were jointly charged with Murder in an information filed in December, 1982 by the 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cavite with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite at Bacoor for the killing of Ricardo Gardeleza, a Minister of the Iglesia ni Kristo, that occurred in Barrio Talaba, Bacoor, Cavite, on August 16, 1982. Rudy Valiente was later released in due course after his acquittal by the Decision of the trial court dated January 21, 1987. (p. 343, Rollo) chanrobles virtual law library

The prosecution relied on Gerson Samson to prove the involvement of appellant but the trial court did not give credence to him due to inconsistencies in his testimony. However, the trial court convicted appellant on the basis of his two separate extra-judicial confessions made on April 17, 1982 at the Bacoor Police Station and on September 10, 1982 at the Criminal Investigation Service, Camp Crame, Quezon City. Hence, this recourse where the sole issue raised by appellant is the admissibility of his two extra-judicial confessions.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The trial court noted that the extra-judicial confessions of Eglipa were taken without the presence of counsel. But despite the doctrine laid down in Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, 121 SCRA 538 and People vs. Galit, G.R. No. L-51770, March 20, 1985 viz: "No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf the right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence." Such requirements were merely considered as "governing guidelines" in future cases. (p. 328, Rollo) Also, it considered the confessions executed on August 17, 1982 and September 9, 1982 admissible in view of the fact that they were made before April 26, 1983, the date Morales vs. Ponce Enrile was promulgated. In other cases, however, where this court was confronted with the same issue of the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions executed earlier than April 26, 1983, this Court declared the extra-judicial confessions inadmissible.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In addition, appellant was able to prove that he was compelled under duress and force to execute the extra-judicial confession on August 17, 1982, to wit:

Atty. Martin: chanrobles virtual law library

Q After nine and ten o'clock in the morning of August 18, after you were brought back to the cell was there anything else that happened? chanrobles virtual law library

A No more.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q The whole day, the rest of the day on August 18 nothing happened? chanrobles virtual law library

A At about seven o'clock in the evening I was brought out of my cell by Chief Dimaranan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Was it the same day August 18 in the evening when you were brought by Chief Dimaranan? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where were you brought? chanrobles virtual law library

A In his office.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q And what happened in his office? chanrobles virtual law library

A He was requesting us to sign that paper, they told me to sign.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Was that paper which Chief Dimaranan requested you to sign the same paper that you were being forced to sign by Oscar? chanrobles virtual law library

Atty. Aguinaldo: chanrobles virtual law library

No basis.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

COURT:chanrobles virtual law library

Sustained, chanrobles virtual law library

Atty. Martin: chanrobles virtual law library

Q What did you say to the request of Chief Dimaranan? chanrobles virtual law library

A I told him that I would sign the document but they should give me first a copy so that I could have it read by my lawyer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Was there anybody else present in the room when Capt. Dimaranan made the request on you to sign the document? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Do you know who were those other persons? chanrobles virtual law library

A I recognized Jerson Samson.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Are you referring to the Jerson Samson the Minister of the Iglesia ni Kristo who testified against you in Court? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q were there other persons besides Chief Dimaranan and Jerson Samson who were present? chanrobles virtual law library

A Only the two of them.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q And did Chief Dimaranan give you a copy of the document he was requesting you to sign? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What happened after he did not give you a copy of the document? chanrobles virtual law library

A They told me that I sign it first before they will give me a copy.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Who said that? chanrobles virtual law library

A Chief Dimaranan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you then sign after he told you that you should sign first the document before they give you a copy? chanrobles virtual law library

A On that very moment I did not sign.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q So what did Chief Dimaranan do after you did not sign? chanrobles virtual law library

A They were forcing me to sign and they were making promises to me.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What were those promises made? chanrobles virtual law library

A They are going to release me if I sign the document.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Who made you that specific promise to have you released ifyou sign the document? chanrobles virtual law library

A The two.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Referring to Chief Dimaranan and Minister Jerson Samson? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you read the document that you signed before signing it? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir, because I could not read.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(9 to 10, ibid).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Likewise, appellant testified on how he was forced to give his extra-judicial confession on September 10, 1982 as follows:chanrobles virtual law library

Q What happened when Lt. Tabayag asked you whether you killed a Minister of the Iglesia ni Kristo I have nothing to do with it? chanrobles virtual law library

A He brought me to the comfort room.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What did he do in the comfort room? chanrobles virtual law library

A He was forcing me to admit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What was he forcing you to admit? chanrobles virtual law library

A About the death of the Minister of the Iglesia ni Kristo.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q How many times did he ask you to admit the killing of the Iglesia ni Kristo Minister? chanrobles virtual law library

A Three times.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you admit to him that you killed the Minister? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What happened after denying or refusing his request that you admit the killing of the Iglesia ni Kristo Minister? chanrobles virtual law library

A He boxed me twice on the side.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you admit what he was asking you to admit after he struck you twice? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q So what happened after you adamantly refused what he was forcing you? chanrobles virtual law library

A He brought me back to his room.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What time was it when he brought you back to his room? chanrobles virtual law library

A More or less one o'clock in the afternoon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q That was what day ? chanrobles virtual law library

A More or less Monday.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What happened? What did he tell you at one o'clock the following Monday after be brought you back to his room and he could not force you to admit? chanrobles virtual law library

A He was handing me a piece of paper he wanted me to sign.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Atty. Martin: chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you finally sign what he was asking you to sign after he promised to help you by having you detained in Camp Crame? chanrobles virtual law library

A Because of his insistence that I sign the paper, and his promise to have me detained in Camp Crame I finally signed the document (pp. 11 to 13, tsn., June 11, 1985; Exh. 'J'). (pp. 454-457, Rollo)

PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding no other evidence to sustain appellant's conviction, appellant Eglipa is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

1 Penned by Judge Mariano M. Umali.