SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. Nos. L-36436-38 October 23, 1981

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAURO VERGES, et al., defendants, ALFREDO LARCADA, appellant.

DE CASTRO, J.:

Automatic review of three death sentences imposed on Alfredo Larcada, appellant herein, in three separate cases for murder, the dispositive portion of the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Rizal reading as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds the accused Alfredo Larcada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three separate crimes of murder and hereby sentences him (1) in Criminal Case No. 2008, to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Alberto Rubiso in the amount of P12,000.00; (2) in Criminal Case No. 2009, to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Pedro Trijo in the amount of P12,000.00; and (3) in Criminal Case No. 2011, to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jaime Caballero in the amount of P12,000.00 chanrobles virtual law library

With proportionate costs against the accused in each of these cases. ¹

The version of the prosecution is given in the People's brief as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

At about 8:00 in the morning of May 4, 1969, some sixty-five prisoners, all members of the Sigue-Sigue (Sputnik) gang, were being escorted by Prison Guard Pedro Palparan and twenty other guards to a new place of confinement at Dormitory No. 4-D, New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa, Rizal. While passing in front of their cell, Alfredo Larcada and seventeen other cellmates at Dormitory Cell No. 4-C suddenly rushed out of their cell (the door of the cell was then opened) and attacked the passing prisoners with improvised stabbing instruments. (Tsn., p. 3, Nov. 9, 1972). During the assault accused Larcada stabbed two members of the Sigue- Sigue (Sputnik) gang. Returning to their cells afterwards, Larcada, threw his weapon out of the window. (Exh. E, pp. 10-12, Folder of Exhs.).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As a result of the incident, three members of the Sigue-Sigue (Sputnik) gang, namely, Alberto Rubiso, Pedro Trejo and Jaime Caballero sustained multiple stab wounds and died. (Tsn., pp. 4- 16, Oct. 12, 1972; Exhs. A, C, D, Folder of Exhibits).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

All eighteen inmates of Cell No. 4-C, including appellant Larcada, were brought to the Investigation Section of the prison for investigation. (Tsn., pp. 24-25, Nov. 2, 1972). Police Investigator Felimon Olivera, Jr. interrogated appellant and reduced his statements in writing, after which it was signed by the latter, and later on sworn to by him before the administrative officer of the Bureau of Prisons, Julio Alcantara (tsn., pp. 28-29, Nov. 2, 1972; pp. 2-4, Nov. 2, 1972). ²

For its importance, the verdict of guilt having been based solely on the appellant's statement which was admitted as an extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "E"), same is reproduced in full as follows:

TANONG - Matapos kong maipabatid sa iyo ang iyong karapatan tungkol sa pagbibigay ng malayang salaysay sang-ayon sa ating Saligang batas, ikaw ba'y nakahandang magbigay ng kusang loob na salaysay at wala kang ibang isasagot sa mga tanong ko sa iyo, kundi pawang katotohanan lamang? chanrobles virtual law library

SAGOT - Opo.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

1. T - Sabihin ang iyong tunay na pangalan,taong gulang at iba pang mahalagang bagay tungkol sa iyong sarili? chanrobles virtual law library

S - ALFREDO LARCADA, may 21 na taong gulang, binata, kasalukuyang napipiit sa pambansang bilangguan ng Muntinlupa sa salang 'Robbery Snatching.' chanrobles virtual law library

2. T - Saan brigada ka ngayon nakahimpil? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Sa dormitoryo 4-C-1 po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

3. T - Anong pangkat ang iyong kinaaaniban sa loob?chanrobles virtual law library

S - Commando po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

4. T - Nalalaman mo ba ang dahilan kung bakit ka sinisiyasat sa tanggapan ng Inteiligence at Investigation Section? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Opo sir. Tungkol po sa pag-saksak ko at ng aking mga kasama sa pangkat ng Sputnik.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

5. T - Kailan nangyari ito,anong oras at saan lugar? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Kanina po ika 4 ng Mayo 1969, humigit-kumulang sa ika 8:30 ng umaga, sa harap ng dormitoryo 4-C-1, po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

6. T - Ilan ang iyong nasaksak at sino-sino kung nakikilala mo'? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Dalawa po. Hindi ko po nakikilala pero namumukhaan ko . po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

7. T - Ilan saksak ang ginawa mo sa bawat isa sa kanila chanrobles virtual law library

S - Bawat isa po sa kanila ay anim.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

8. T - Mayroon ka bang kasama noong saksakin mo ang dalawang taong iyong sinabi'? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Mayroon po, si Taba po (Pablo Reyes po).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

9. T - Ano ang ayos ng din'! ito, noong saksakin ninyo ni Reyes? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Noon po una ay nakatayo, at noon pong nadapa ay sinaksak din namin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

10. T - Bukod sa iyo at kay Pablo Reyes, mayroon bang ibang kasamahan mong nanaksak din'! chanrobles virtual law library

S - Mayroon po. Pero hindi ko po kilala kung sino ang kanilang sinaksak.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

11. T - Anong pangkat ang kinaaaniban ng mga sinaksak ninyo'? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Sigue-Sigue Sputnik po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

12. T - Iyon matalas na panaksak na iyong ginamit, saan galing iyon? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Ginawa ko po sa brigade. Matagal na pong gawa iyon, at nakatago sa dormitoryo namin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

13. T - Iyon bang pananaksak ninyo ay inyo bang binalak? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Opo sir. Binalak po namin noong biernes ng gabi sa brigada namin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

14. T - Ano ang dahilan kayo ang nanaksak ng Sputnik?chanrobles virtual law library

S - Gusto po namin gumanti dahil sa sinaksak din po nila ang kasamahan namin noong biernes.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

15. T - Iyon matalas na ginamit mo, matapos mong gamitin ano ang iyong ginawa doon? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Pagpasok ko po sa selda kuatro ay tinapon sa likod ng bintana.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

16. T - Makikilala mo ba kung sakaling makita mo ang nasabing matalas? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Opo sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

17. T - Ipinakikita ko sa iyo ang mga matalas na ito, na nakumpiska matapos ng gulo, naririto ba ang matalas na ginamit mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Wala po dito sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

18. T - Isalaysay mo kung papano mo nasaksak ang dalawang tao na iyong binanggit, ganoon din ang ginawa ng iyong kasamahan? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Iyon pong pinto ng aming brigade ay binuksan ni Taba sa oras na iyon - pero hindi ko lang malaman kung papaano ang kanyang pagkakabukas. Noon pong makita namin ang pangkat ng Sputnik na dumaan sa tapat namin papunta 4-D ay bigla kaming naglabasan sa brigada at pinagsusugod namin ang nasabing grupo. Ang ginawa ko ay bigla kong sinaksak iyong isa at noon bumagsak ang aking pinagsasaksak. Matapos ay mayroon naman tumatakbong pasalubong sa akin. At noon bumagsak ay sinaksak ko ng sinaksak rin. Ngayon po ay dumating si Pablo Reyes, at sinaksak niya ang pangalawa kong nasaksak. Iyon pong ibang mga kasamahan ko ang nanaksak na rin. Pagkatapos noon ay bumalik na kami sa brigade. At iyon mga matalas ng aking kasamahan ay sinurender kay Inspector Borja.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

19. T - Noong papalabas sa brigade upang manaksak sino ang nangunguna?chanrobles virtual law library

S - Ako po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

20. T - Sino ang pinakapuno ninyo? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Wala po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

21. T - Sino-sino ang mga kasamahan mo lumabas sa brigada at nanaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Iyon iba ay hindi ko nakikilala sa pangalan, ngunit sa mukha ay maituturo ko sila. Ang nakikilala ko lang sa pangalan ay sina Rodolf Fangera alyas Taga, Virgilio Quintana, Gavino Lucas, Villaruel Ocampo at Pablo Reyes.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

22. T - Matagal mo na bang kasama sa brigada ang mga kasama mong nanaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Opo sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

23. T - Ilan kayong lahat ang lumabas ng brigade? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Labing walo po kami.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

24. T - Noon lumabas kayo ng brigade, iyon keeper ninyo saan naroroon kung alam mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Nasa malaking pinto po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

25. T - Tapos na akong magtanong, mayroon ka bang gustong bawasin o Idagdag sa salaysay mong ito? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Wala na po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

26. T - Inaamin mo ba ang pagkakasala mong ito? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Opo sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

27. T - Ikaw ba'y pinilit, sinaktan, tinakot kaya pinangakuan ng pabuya upang ibigay mo ang salaysay na ito? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Hindi po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

28. T - Handa mo bang lagdaan at panumpaan ang salaysay mong ito, na nagpapatunay na totoong lahat ang iyong sinabi? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Opo. ³

The statement was taken down by Felimon Olivera, Jr. of the Custodial Force of the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa, on May 4, 1969 but signed and sworn to only on May13, 1962 before Julio M. Alcantara, Administrative Officer of the New Bilibid Prisons.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant testified in his behalf, and his testimony is set forth in the decision appealed from as follows:chanrobles virtual law library

1. ACCUSED ALFREDO LARCADA - He testified that on May 4, 1969, he was serving sentence for the crime of robbery at the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa, Rizal; that he was confined inside Dormitory Cell No. 4-C-1 together with all his co-accused; that there were around twenty prisoners inside that cell; that he was awakened on the morning of that date by the sound of whistles and gunshots because of a commotion in front of their cell; that when he woke up he saw the door of the cell opened so that he tried to get out of it; that he was unable to get out because his cellmates came rushing in and closed the door; that he does not know the names of his cellmates who came inside the cell but he can recognize their faces; that he does not know why his cellmates closed the door; that after the commotion, the custodian arrived and he, as well as seventeen (17) of his cellmates, was brought to the Investigation Section of the New Bilibid Prisons; that he does not know why he was brought out for investigation; that he saw some of his companions being maltreated and then confessed to the killings; that he does not know whether the persons who maltreated his companions were prisoners or prison guards as they were in civilian clothes; that he gave a sworn statement admitting his participation in the commission of the crime because he was afraid of being maltreated; that while being investigated inside the investigation room he was maltreated by somebody who was standing behind him; that the investigator was propounding questions when he was boxed; that he gave the answers to the questions propounded because he was afraid that the person behind him would hit him again; that the signatures appearing on the left hand margins of pages one and two of the document. Exhibit "E-Larcada", as well as the signature on top of the typewritten words Alfredo Lacarda on page three thereof are his; that the contents of the document, Exhibit "E- Larcada", were read to him before he signed it; that he did not give any answer to Question No. 18 of the said document; that he gave the answer to Question No. 19 of the same document because he was maltreated in order to give it; that he did not conspire with his companions to kill Alberto Rubiso, Pedro Trijo and Jaime Caballero and neither did he kill anyone of them as he was then sleeping inside his cell; that he was once charged with the killing of a co-prisoner sometime in 1968 but was acquitted; that he escaped from confinement on January 6, 1971, because he wanted to visit his mother whom he had not seen for fourteen years; and that he surrendered later to Major Cabrera at Precinct No. 4 of the Manila Police Department.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On cross-examination, he testified that he was originally a member of the "Bahala Na" gang, that he transferred to the "Sigue-Sigue Commando" gang in 1967 and was still a member thereof on May 3, 1969; that his companions in Dormitory Cell No. 4-C-1 were also members of the "Sigue-Sigue Commando" gang; that he did not know that a member of his gang was killed on May 3, 1969, because he was then under the influence of a drug (seconal); that he did not talk with any of his companions on that date because he was asleep due to the drug; that he met the investigator for the first time when the latter investigated him; that he can read and write Tagalog very well; that he gave the answer to Question No. 19 of the document, Exhibit "E-Larcada" because he was boxed; that he was not touched by anybody before he gave the answers to the other questions propounded to him; that he informed his aunt who went to visit him in 1970, that he was forced to admit his participation in the killings but nothing was done by her because they had no money; that he did not tell Mr. Alcantara before whom he was brought to swear to his statement that he was forced to give the statement because as prisoners they were not allowed to complain, besides the fact that nobody would believe them that when he signed the document. Exhibit "E-Larcada", in 1969, he knew then that he was being charged with the killing of Alberto Rubiso, Perdo Trijo and Jaime Caballero but did not know that the probable penalty that might be imposed on him would be death; that he escaped from prison on January 6, 1971, and surrendered to Major Cabrera of the Manila Police Department at Precinct No. 4, Sampaloc, Manila, on May 22, 1971; and that he pleaded guilty to the charge of evasion of service of sentence which was filed against him and was sentenced to suffer a penalty of one year and one day of prision correccional. ⁴chanrobles virtual law library

The issues raised in this appeal are: (1) whether the statement of appellant (Exhibit E) was properly admitted as an extrajudicial confession, and (2) whether his claim of not having participated in the prison riot of May 4, 1969 was correctly rejected by the trial court. The two issues indicated are how appellant's seven assignments of error may be reduced, which further resolve themselves to the single question of credibility. Thus, with respect to his supposed extrajudicial confession, is appellant's claim of involuntariness in its execution credible? chanrobles virtual law library

One circumstance that immediately excites suspicion against the voluntariness of the execution of appellant's confession is the long and ill-explained delay in the swearing of the statement only on May 13, 1969 when it was taken down on the same day of the incident on May 4, 1969. If the confession was voluntarily made, as is the claim of the prosecution, there should be no reason for not immediately bringing the appellant to the administering officer for the necessary oath, if only to help dispel all doubts as to the voluntariness of the confession, considering the ever-present probability, as is a well known and frequent practice of accused repudiating their confessions during the trial upon a claim of force and intimidation having been used to extract them. Appellant herein made such a claim, and We are not disposed to dismiss it as a mere afterthought as the trial court, in effect, found.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

To begin with, We are quite impressed by the testimony of defense witnesses, Gavino Lucas and Mariano Guevarra, self-confessed participants in the riot, that appellant did not take part therein. These witnesses have not been shown to have any motive in testifying in exculpation of appellant except, to all appearances, upon the promptings of truth and justice. If appellant had taken part in the rioting specially in the stabbing of any of the victims, these two witnesses who have been indicted for the same offense of triple murder and who admitted participating in the riot that resulted in the multiple killing would, in the natural course of human behavior, feel no urge to volunteer to free one who they know participated in the same way as they did in the incident. Their most natural reaction is to leave their co-accused to fend for himself, not to take the witness stand and testify positively and on their own volition, to save him from a heavy penalty which could be death, to which they themselves remained exposed, their cases then being still pending trial when they testified. But let Us look into the testimony of these two defense witnesses.

Q. Now, do you know if Alfredo Larcada was one of your group that attacked the Sigue-Sigue Sputnik?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I do not know if he was the one.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Why do you say that you do not know whether Alfredo Larcada was among those who attacked the other group? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Because I saw him sleeping inside our cell, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. You saw him sleeping? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Now, before you and your companion went out of the cell, did you make any observation regarding the fact that Alfredo Larcada was sleeping at the time?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, I saw him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Where was Larcada at the time insofar as the cell is concerned, if you know? chanrobles virtual law library

A. At the floor. (t.s.n., pp. 40-41, Nov. 9, 1972)

Q. Now, in the incident of May 4, 1969, do you know the incident?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Will you kindly tell us what was that all about? chanrobles virtual law library

A. We came out of our cell and we attacked some of the Sputnik gang.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. When you said we, with whom were you? chanrobles virtual law library

A. I remember that we were about ten.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Do you know their names? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Gavino Lucas, Rodolfo Manguerra, Quintana, Castro, Reyes, Abad, dela Pena, Pariente, Lambino, Simplicio Ocampo. (t.s.n., p. 45, Nov. 9, 1972).

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Do you know Alfredo Larcada? chanrobles virtual law library

A. I only came to know him while the case was being tried.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Do you know him as a prisoner, like you? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes sir,chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Have you seen him in your cell? chanrobles virtual law library

A. I saw him in our cell only when we came again in our cell.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. When you saw him what was Larcada doing? chanrobles virtual law library

A. He was lying.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Was Larcada among the group who attacked the other group with you? chanrobles virtual law library

A. No, sir, he was not with us.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q . Why do you say so? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Because I know my companions. (tsn, pp. 45-46, Nov. 9, 1972).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Even a prosecution witness, prison guard Juanito Acosta, on cross-examination, testified not having seen appellant participate in the attack (p. 7, t.s.n., Nov. 9, 1972). There were twenty prison guards who escorted the prisoners. With how appellant allegedly attacked his alleged victim dealing several stabs on the latter, attention of the guards should have been drawn to and focused on appellant while thus engaged. Is it not surprising that not one of the guards took the stand to identify appellant as one of the participants in the rumble? No eye-witness having been prsented to affirm appellant's participation in the prison riot, his defense gains strength and credence. Had thre been such witness who identified appellant having taken part in the riot, his alibi, as his defense amounts to, would have been unavailing. ⁵Conversely, without such eye-wintess despite the number of prison guards prsent, appellant's defense should, unceremoniously, not be waived off as futile.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

With credible testimonies strongly supporting appellant's own disclaimer of any participation in the riot of May 4, 1969 because he was in his cell all the time the riot of was in progress and was only taken along with his cell mates who did take part when they rushed back inside their dormitory cell, appellant meeting them at the door which they closed as they enterd, the extra-judicial confession would easily emerge as merly extracted, if not by actual violence, by intense fear of being similarly maltreated as those he saw were so subjected in the course of their being interrogated. He knew such violence could have had no other purpose than to extract confession. His unrebutted testimony on this point is as follows:

Q. Now, on May 4, 1969, (what time did you wake up)chanrobles virtual law library

A. May be around 6:00 o'clock, sir:chanrobles virtual law library

Q. In the morning?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Where did you sleep that night?chanrobles virtual law library

A. In the cell where the other prisoners were confined who are now being charged before this court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Will you kindly clarify your answer, where did you sleep that night?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I sleep in dormitory 4-C-1.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Who were with you at the time that you slept that night, if anychanrobles virtual law library

A. We were many, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Now, those companion of yours that night, were they also prisoners?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And about how many of them were your companions that night?chanrobles virtual law library

A. We were in different cells. In our particular cell, we were more or less twenty, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Now, after you woke up that morning, what happened, if any?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I was awakened by the blowing of whistles and gunshots because there was a commotion in front of our cell.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Now, when you were awakened because of those blow o whitles and gunshots, what did you do?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I stood up from the place where I was sleeping.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And where did you proceed if you go somewhere?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I was not able to get out of my cell because when I was attempting to get out immediately then and there some of my companions from the cell came inside the cell..chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. You made mention of companions, do you know some of their names?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I do not know their names but I know their faceschanrobles virtual law library

Q. But are they your cellmates?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Sometimes there are different prisoners who slept in that cell.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. As far as your cell is concerned, was the door of the cell open when you woke up?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And then you made mention that when you were about to go out you noticed your companion or cellmates coming in the cell what happened next?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I saw them closing the door and so I was not able to get out because the door was already closed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. You made mention of them to whom do you refer who closed the door? chanrobles virtual law library

A. My companion inside the cell, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Did you discover the reason why they closed the door? chanrobles virtual law library

A. No, sir. (t.s.n., pp. 18-19, Nov. 9, 1972) ⁶

Equally unrebutted is appellant's testimony on how actual force and fear worked on him to make him give the statement that served as the sole basis of his conviction. Thus -

Q. Were you and your other companions able to give your respective affidavits during that investigation? chanrobles virtual law library

A. I gave a sworn statement because I was afraid that I might be maltreated and the truth of the matter I was already maltreated.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Will you tell this Honorable Court how you were maltreated? chanrobles virtual law library

A. I was boxed here (Witness pointing to his right lower armpit, at the right side of his middle body below the ribs).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Who boxed you?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I do not know who he was because I have lust waken up. I did not recognize them. (tsn, pp. 20-2 1, Nov. 9, 1972)

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

Q. Now, how many persons investigated you? chanrobles virtual law library

A. One only, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And was that the very person who maltreated you?chanrobles virtual law library

A. No, sir. It was somebody behind me so I did not see who he was.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. But was there anybody infront of you when you were boxed? chanrobles virtual law library

A. The person investigating me.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. And that person investigating you was in front of a typewriter in the office? chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And all the while you were giving him answers? chanrobles virtual law library

A. I was answering to the questions propounded to me because I was afraid that the person at my back would hit me again. (tsn, pp. 21-22, Nov. 9, 1972)

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

Q. And likewise in this question and answer number 19: "Isalaysay mo kung papaano mo nasaksak ang din'! tao na iyong binanggit ganoon din ang ginawa ng yong kasamahan? ...chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, sir. I was asked this question and I gave that answer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q. Will you kindly tell us why you answered that way?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Because when I was being asked this question, I was hit at my side as I have previously stated.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Was that answer of yours voluntary? chanrobles virtual law library

A. I was then being forced, sir (t.s.n., pp. 23-24, Nov. 9, 1972) ⁷

On being cross-examined, his testimony as quoted above, remained unshaken. With no rebuttal testimony given by the prosecution as could have easily been offered by the investigator and the administering officer, dismissing appellant's claim of involuntariness of his confession would, by no means, be justly warranted. His own testimony with the strong corroboration of not only his two witnesses, but to some extent, by a prosecution witness as earlier shown, regarding his non-participation in the prison riot in the morning of May 4, 1969, suffice to discredit the supposed confession, or to caution the court against its admissibility. The trial court clearly failed to appreciate the effect of the defense witnesses' testimony on whether appellant's extra-judicial confession was voluntary or not, when it said that "standing alone, the bare testimony of the accused cannot destroy the presumption of the voluntariness of his confession." It can hardly be said that the testimony of appellant is "bare," and it certainly did not stand "alone" with the testimonies of his two witnesses.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The trial court also cites the ruling that "a confession which is rich in details as to which the police could not be interested and which could have been known only to the person making it some of which could shift a large responsibility to others, bears the earmarks of voluntariness." (People vs. Sy Pio, G. R. No. L-5848, April 30, 1954). The confession does not shift any responsibility to others. The trial court also forgot that other suspects preceded appellant in being interrogated. The investigator, therefore, had acquired knowledge as to the details of the incident when appellant's turn came to give his tatement.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Appellant brought into question the admissibility of his extra-judicial confession taken without assistance of counsel as the New Constitution requires, although said confession was executed before the said Constitution took effect. ⁸ This is a settled matter. The constitutional provision was given only a prospective operation. ⁹ Be that as it may, the imposition in the New Constitution of an additional safeguard against extraction of confessions is a recognition of an already prevalent practice in custodial interrogations that has tarnished the image of police investigators and which is sought to be erased by the aforesaid constitutional safeguard. In rcognition of the same evil, courts should, therefore, have to be extremely circumspect and cautious in choosing between the conflicting claims of the prosecution and the defense on the voluntariness of extra-judicial confessions. ¹⁰chanrobles virtual law library

This case came to Us for a review of three death sentences. This Court is naturally lothe to send one to death by execution except upon the clearest evidence of guilt. The same reason is behind the rule relative to improvident plea of guilt in capital offenses to satisfy the Court's mind beyond the slightest vestige of doube before it imposes or affirms a death sencence. The evidence in this case fails to bring the mind at rest on the certainty of appellant' guilt beyond the possibility of error. If at all We could have erred, We would prefer to do so to save a life rather than to declare it forfeit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, We reverse the judgment appealed from and acquit appellant on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Cost de oficio

SO ORDERED.