Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > December 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 91015 December 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAQUILLO L. MIANA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 91015. December 23, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAQUILLO MIANA y LINAZA, Defendant-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edgar Q. Balansag, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION; RULE; EFFECT ON CONFESSION OBTAINED IN VIOLATION THEREOF. — The fact that accused-appellant had verbally confessed to the crime is immaterial. He was under custodial investigation at the time he made his alleged confession, and therefore the police officers should have complied with this Court’s ruling in People v. Galit (L-51770, 135 SCRA 465 [1985]) to the effect that — 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 (135 SCRA at 554). Since the confession was obtained in violation of the aforestated constitutional provision, the same is inadmissible in evidence against him (1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12 [3]).

2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; HEARSAY RULE; EFFECT IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATING TESTIMONIES. — Without the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant, his conviction cannot stand. The items used in the commission of the crime, such as the hammer, the flashlight, the fishing spear and the bolo, were not recovered from accused-appellant nor was there evidence linking him to these items. In fact, it was Dapitanon who revealed to the investigators where they could find the bolo used in killing Juanito Palsagingin. The information which led to the recovery of the chainsaw was provided by Dapitanon, as testified to by Dapitanon himself, Sgt. Plaza, and Pat. Lagura. It was Dapitanon who led the police team to the spot on Buhangin Island where the chainsaw was actually hidden. The trial court took into consideration the testimonies of Sgt. Plaza and Barangay Captain Batungan regarding the information provided by Guadalupe Garay that accused-appellant and Dapitanon borrowed her flashlight during the night of the crime and probable used it to commit the same. This is in error as their testimonies are hearsay, in the light of the prosecution’s failure to present Guadalupe Garay to corroborate the same.

3. ID.; ID.; ALIBI; MUST SATISFACTORILY BE PROVEN. — While it is true that alibi is an inherently weak defense, the same assumes importance when faced with the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the prosecution’s evidence (People v. Viray, G.R. No. 87184-85, 202 SCRA 320, 331 [1991]). Conviction of the accused cannot be justified even if the defense of alibi was not satisfactorily proven, since conviction must be based not on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


Appeal by accused Daquillo Miana from the decision 1 dated August 18, 1991, of the Regional Trial Court of Bislig, Surigao del Sur, in Criminal Case No. 564, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, finding accused Daquillo Miana guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons where Juanito Palsagingin was hacked several times to death, the court impose [sic] upon him the penalty or reclusion perpetua to be served by him in the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, with costs against him.

"The accused is hereby ordered to pay as indemnity t the heirs of the victim the amount of P30,000.00, P10,000.00 for moral damages, and P5,000.00 for exemplary damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

"SO ORDERED." 2

Based on the evidence adduced before the court a quo, the facts of the case are as follows: On November 1, 1988, prosecution witness Eduardo Lim, a supervisor of Anchorage Wood Industries, Inc. (AWII for brevity), received a report from an employee of said company that one of the guards at the company logpond had been killed, the company bodega forcibly opened and a chainsaw stolen. Lim immediately proceeded to the company logpond at Pasadera, Palo Alto, Lingig, Surigao del Sur, and discovered the body of Juanito Palsagingin, on e of the company’s guards, lying outside the office with several hack and stab wounds.

Lim inspected the bodega and found that a portion of a wall thereof was forcibly detached. Near the bodega, Lim found a claw hammer with a small handle about 8 inches and with the handle made of Bahi, 3 which was later turned over to the police. An inventory of the bodega was then made, which revealed that a Stihi chainsaw belonging to the company, as evidenced by Invoice No. 11666, 4 was missing.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

A police team led by P/Sgt. Felix Plaza, Jr., Station Commander of Lingig, Surigao del Sur, arrived at the scene later and immediately conducted an investigation. Shortly thereafter, Sgt. Plaza received information from Romulo Bantayan, barangay captain of Palo Alto, Lingig, Surigao del Sur, that a certain Guadalupe Garay of their barangay had knowledge of facts relative to the case.

Sgt. Plaza and his team proceeded to Palo Alto and interviewed Guadalupe Garay. She revealed that accused-appellant Daquillo Miana and Israel Dapitanon borrowed a flashlight from her on the night of October 31, 1988, and returned the same the following day. She further suggested to the investigators that they pick up accused-appellant and Dapitanon, since she believed that the two had committed the crime. Sgt. Plaza obtained the flashlight from Guadalupe Garay and which was offered in evidence as Exhibit "G."

Upon returning to the AWII logpond, Sgt. Plaza and his companions discovered a fishing spear or "pana." The "pana" and the flashlight taken from Guadalupe Garay are usually used by so-called "night divers" for fishing.

On the basis of the information he had, Sgt. Plaza ordered the arrest of accused-appellant and Dapitanon. Accused-appellant was arrested by Pat. Antonio Lagura, Jr. on the afternoon of November 3, 1988 at Sabang, Lingig, Surigao del Sur, and was brought to the Lingig Police Station for questioning where he was asked by Pat. Lagura to confess to the crime charged. Accused-appellant allegedly admitted his participation in the killing of the AWII guard and in the taking of the company’s chainsaw. He likewise told Pat. Lagura that his companion in the crime was Israel Dapitanon and that they hid the chainsaw on Buhangin Island, also in Palo Alto. Pat. Lagura thereafter brought accused-appellant before Sgt. Plaza and told the latter about accused-appellant’s confession.

Thereafter, a police team led by Sgt. Plaza proceeded to Nag-as, Lingag, Surigao del Sur accompanied by accused-appellant to look for Israel Dapitanon. They found Dapitanon at around 11 o`clock in the evening of November 3, 1988, at the house of a certain Normina Lauron.

Sgt. Plaza interviewed Dapitanon, who confessed that he and accused-appellant killed the guard, took the chainsaw, and hid the same on Buhangin Island. That the bolo used in killing the guard belonged to Victoriano Garay, which he took without Garay’s knowledge that same night.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The police team then proceeded by pumpboat to Buhangin Island to recover the chainsaw, bringing the two suspects with them. Upon reaching Buhangin Island, Dapitanon accompanied several policemen to the spot where the chainsaw was kept, while accused-appellant remained on the pumpboat guarded by the remaining policemen. 5

Upon the group’s return to the Lingig police station, the two suspects reenacted the commission of the crime. The chainsaw was returned to AWII.

An information for robbery with homicide was subsequently filed against the two suspects. During their arraignment on January 24, 1989, Dapitanon pleaded guilty to the crime charged while accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Israel Dapitanon was correspondingly sentenced on February 8, 1989. 6

During the trial, the prosecution presented as its witnesses, Sgt. Plaza, Pat. Lagur, barangay captain Bantayan, and Eduard Lim.

Accused-appellant’s defense was based on alibi. He claimed that from October 28, 1988 to November 2, 1988, he was at the Davao Savory House in Davao City where he works as a waiter. On the morning of November 3, 1988, Accused-appellant was asked by his brother to go to Lingig to get some fish. Upon arriving at Lingig sometime in the afternoon of the same day, he met Pat. Lagura who invited him to the police station where he was detained for twenty minutes. He was later asked where they could find Israel Dapitanon. Accused-appellant told the officers that Dapitanon could be found at Nag-as, Palo Alto. A police team brought him to Palo Alto, where they eventually found Israel Dapitanon. Accused-appellant claims that it was Dapitanon who told the officers where the chainsaw could be found on Buhangin Island and who actually pointed out the exact hiding place thereof.

In support of his defense, Accused-appellant presented Israel Dapitanon, who affirmed his (Dapitanon) participation in the commission of the crime, but that his companions were one Bobong Cero and one Rey Padilla. Accused-appellant was not with them at the time they committed the crime and at the time they hid the chainsaw on Buhangin Island.

The trial court brushed aside the defense, holding that the same could not prevail in view of the positive statement of the witnesses. Hence this appeal.

We reverse.

None of the prosecution’s witnesses testified that they saw accused-appellant committing the crime. Sgt. Plaza and Pat. Lagura’s testimony were to the effect that accused-appellant confessed to the crime upon his arrest. However, Accused-appellant points out that his alleged confession was taken while he was being interrogated without the assistance of counsel, in violation of his constitutional rights which provide:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

[a]ny 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 service of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. 7

The fact that accused-appellant had verbally confessed to the crime is immaterial. He was under custodial investigation at the time he made his alleged confession, and therefore the police officers should have complied with this Court’s ruling in People v. Galit 8 to the effect that —

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. 9

Since the confession was obtained in violation of the aforestated constitutional provision, the same is inadmissible in evidence against him. 10

Without the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant, his conviction cannot stand. The items used in the commission of the crime, such as the hammer, the flashlight, the fishing spear and the bolo, were not recovered from accused-appellant nor was there evidence linking him to these items. In fact, it was Dapitanon who revealed to the investigators where they could find the bolo used in killing Juanito Palsagingin.

The information which led to the recovery of the chainsaw was provided by Dapitanon, as testified to by Dapitanon himself, Sgt. Plaza, and Pat. Lagura. It was Dapitanon who led the police team to the spot on Buhangin Island where the chainsaw was actually hidden.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The trial court took into consideration the testimonies of Sgt. Plaza and Barangay Captain Batungan regarding the information provided by Guadalupe Garay that accused-appellant and Dapitanon borrowed her flashlight during the night of the crime and probable used it to commit the same. This is in error as their testimonies are hearsay, 11 in the light of the prosecution’s failure to present Guadalupe Garay to corroborate the same.

While it is true that alibi is an inherently weak defense, the same assumes importance when faced with the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the prosecution’s evidence. 12 Conviction of the accused cannot be justified even if the defense of alibi was not satisfactorily proven, since conviction must be based not on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. 13

In view of the foregoing, the acquittal of accused-appellant is in order.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accused-appellant Daquillo Miana ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Regalado and Campos, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Judge Martin V. Vera Cruz.

2. Decision, pp. 7-8.

3. Exhibit "F."

4. Exhibit "D."

5. Testimony of Pat. Lagura, T.S.N., March 8, 1989, pp. 45-55.

6. Records, 62-64.

7. 1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12 (1).

8. L-51770, 135 SCRA 465 (1985).

9. 135 SCRA at 554.

10. 1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12 (3).

11. People v. Tiozon, G.R. No. 89823, 198 SCRA 368, 381 (1991).

12. People v. Viray, G.R. No. 87184-85, 202 SCRA 320, 331 (1991).

13. Id.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 75032-33 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TIU

  • G.R. No. 85186 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO D. ABARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 94214 December 1, 1992 - CONSUELO REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100724 December 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO J. EVARDO

  • G.R. No. 101345 December 1, 1992 - NONITO J. BERNARDO v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC.

  • G.R. No. 84398 December 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SUGURAN

  • G.R. Nos. 9627782 December 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO C. AVENDAÑO

  • G.R. No. 100416 December 2, 1992 - SAMUEL M. SALAS v. PURIFICACION CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 100878 December 2, 1992 - ESTRELLITA AGUILAR v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 69696 December 7, 1992 - AVELYN B. ANTONIO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 101680 December 7, 1992 - ENRIQUETA H. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102881 December 7, 1992 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 74886 December 8, 1992 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 97492 December 8, 1992 - CANLUBANG SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92248 December 9, 1992 - VICENCIO T. TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100486 December 9, 1992 - FELIX ZEPEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 101122-23 December 9, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCIANO T. ALBORES

  • A.C. No. 3727 December 11, 1992 - NELSON BUENSUCESO v. JOELITO T. BARRERA

  • G.R. No. 65706 December 11, 1992 - TOP FORM MFG. CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 70113 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL ELIGINO

  • G.R. No. 70481 December 11, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 76656 December 11, 1992 - EUTIQUIANO CLUTARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82514 December 11, 1992 - PAZ A. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 86491 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO M. RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 87781 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOYET L. POMENTEL

  • G.R. No. 90297 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PAMA

  • G.R. No. 92540 December 11, 1992 - ANIANO TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93664 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEMISTOCLES T. CASTOR

  • G.R. No. 93783 December 11, 1992 - EVANGELINE C. BUCAD v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 93828 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO EVARISTO

  • G.R. No. 95509 December 11, 1992 - JOHANNESBURG PACKAGING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96389 December 11, 1992 - REYNALDO ABAYA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 98185 December 11, 1992 - SIBAGAT TIMBER CORP. v. ADOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 100386 December 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO C. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 101883 December 11, 1992 - LYDIA MELITON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 103982 December 11, 1992 - ANTONIO A. MECANO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 105088 December 11, 1992 - BIENVENIDO OCIER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 107435-36 December 11, 1992 - SAIDAMEN B. PANGARUNGAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80161 December 14, 1992 - CANDIDA MARIANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 83030 December 14, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO MINDAC

  • G.R. No. 88915 December 14, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO IRAN

  • G.R. No. 89980 December 14, 1992 - B.H. BERKENKOTTER & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 97339 December 14, 1992 - NOSTRAM LABORATORIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 98046 December 14, 1992 - CEBU CONTRACTORS CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101431 December 14, 1992 - ARABESQUE INDUSTRIAL PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101682 December 14, 1992 - SALVADOR D. BRIBONERIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 3806 December 16, 1992 - ARACELI S. DE JESUS v. CONSUELO COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 84731 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR BIENDO

  • G.R. No. 94470 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRED JACOLO

  • G.R. No. 95441 December 16, 1992 - CARLOS O. ELIDO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100880 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO CLAUDIO

  • G.R. No. 102004 December 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE DABON

  • G.R. Nos. 94188-89 December 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BATIS

  • G.R. No. 73535 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CAMAHALAN

  • G.R. No. 82606 December 18, 1992 - PRIMA PARTOSA-JO v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 92144-49 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 92387 December 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON L. MENDOZA

  • A.M. No. 91-6-007 December 21, 1992 - REQUEST OF JUDGE ALEX Z. REYES

  • Adm. Matter No. 92-5-009-CTA December 21, 1992 - IN RE: ALEX Z. REYES

  • G.R. No. 93073 December 21, 1992 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100294 December 21, 1992 - BENITO A. TIATCO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 102409-10 December 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 93986 December 22, 1992 - BENJAMIN T. LOONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98120 December 22, 1992 - FILOMENA R. MANCITA v. CEFERINO P. BARCINAS

  • G.R. No. 104139 December 22, 1992 - LYDIA M. PROFETA v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • A.M. No. R-668-P December 21, 1992 - HORACIO M. PASCUAL v. GERRY C. DUNCAN

  • G.R. No. 65230 December 23, 1992 - PROVINCE OF TARLAC v. FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 91015 December 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAQUILLO L. MIANA

  • G.R. No. 105717 December 23, 1992 - JOSE L. ONG, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50837 December 28, 1992 - NARCISO BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 106094 December 28, 1992 - PSCFC FINANCIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 91115 December 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACALSO K. MAT-AN