SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION.

G.R. No. L-35598 May 29, 1987

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEONARDO DE LOS SANTOS, Accused-Appellant.chanrobles virtual law library

BIDIN, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

This is an appeal from a judgment of the former Court of First Instance of Basilan City, which convicted Leonardo de los Santos of the crime of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay proportionate costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant Leonardo de los Santos and Alfredo Lacastesantos were charged with the crime of Murder in an Information which reads:

That on or about the 29th day of November 1971, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, viz., at Tairan, Isabela, City of Basilan, Philippines, the above named accused, armed with a bolo and a knife, conspiring and confederating together, aiding and assisting one another, and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, assault, attack and hack one Gregorio Dotado, thereby inflicting hack wounds upon the body of said Gregorio Dotado, which caused his death.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Contrary to law. (p. 5, Rollo)

On January 31, 1972, only appellant was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the charge (p. 13, Original Records). Trials were conducted and on May 24, 1972, appellant, as already stated, was convicted. It was only on August 16, 1972 that the other accused, Alfredo Lacastesantos was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty (p. 68, Original Records). On even date, Prosecuting Fiscal Laurencio E. Saavedra orally moved for the dismissal of the case against Lacastesantos for the reason that the prosecution is bereft of evidence sufficient to convict Lacastesantos The trial court dismissed the case against Lacastesantos for the reason that although appellant Leonardo de los Santos was convicted, his conviction was due to his extrajudicial confession and that Lacastesantos was merely implicated by the appellant as one of the participants of the crime (p. 69, Original Records).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The pertinent facts that gave rise to the instant prosecution are as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

In the early morning of November 30, 1971, a certain Gregorio Dotado, was found dead by his sister at the junction of a trail leading to his house at Tairan, Isabela, Basilan City. Francisco Dotado, the father of the deceased, upon being informed, reported the matter to the manager of Tairan, Plantation who notified the police authorities. There was no eyewitness to the commission of the crime. The police authorities immediately began the investigation of the case. Patrolman Conrado D. Francisco of the Basilan Police Department learned that prior to his death, the victim Gregorio Dotado, was courting a certain Herminia Garcia and he had a rival by the name of Leonardo de los Santos, appellant herein. On December 6, 1971, at around 5:30 p.m., appellant was picked up for questioning by the police authorities of Basilan City. The following day, appellant voluntarily executed an affidavit wherein he confessed to his participation in the killing of the deceased. The said affidavit was sworn to by appellant before Clerk of Court Ruben Ramos of the City Court of Basilan. The affidavit which was marked as Exhibit "D" reads:

A F F I D A V I T chanrobles virtual law library

STATEMENT OF LEONARDO DE LOS SANTOS y SAGDI taken by Pat. Conrado Francisco, in the Office of the Secret Service Division, Isabela, Basilan City, on December 7, 1971, at about 7:00 a.m., in the presence of Police Lieutenant Marciano Alberto.

1. QUESTION:. Are you willing to tell the truth nothing but the whole truth in answer .to all questions that I may ask you in this investigation? chanrobles virtual law library

ANSWER: Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

2. Q Please state your name, age, civil status and other personal circumstances? chanrobles virtual law library

A Lonardo delos Santos y Sagdi 23 years, single, farmer and resident of Subaan, Tairan, Isabela, this City.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

3. Q Do you personally know Gregorio Dotado, a resident dent of Tairan, I Isabela, this City? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

4. Q Can you tell me now where is Gregorio Dotado.? chanrobles virtual law library

A He is already dead sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

5. Q Why do you know he is already dead? chanrobles virtual law library

A Alfredo Lacastesantos and myself were the one who killed Gregorio Dotado, chanrobles virtual law library

6. Q When did this killing incident happen? chanrobles virtual law library

A Last November 29, 197 1, at about 9:00 p. m.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

7. Q Where did the killing of Gregorio Dotado, take place? chanrobles virtual law library

A On trail leading to his house, that is outside of the boundary of Alano's Plantation, at Tairan, Isabela, this City.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

8. Q With what kind of weapon did Alfredo Lacastesantos and yourself use in killing Gregorio Dotado?chanrobles virtual law library

A Alfredo Lacastesantos used a knife, while myself with a bolo.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

9. Q Where is the bolo now that you used in killing Gregorio Dotado?chanrobles virtual law library

A I left it in the possession of Felipe Sagdi at Subaan, Tairan, Isabela, this City.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

10. Q Who owns the bolo that you used in killing Gregorio Dotado, chanrobles virtual law library

A Felipe Sagdi sir, but of course without his knowledge.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

11 Q How about the knife of Alfredo Lacastesantos can you tell me where is it now? chanrobles virtual law library

A The knife of Alfredo Lacastesantos was turned over to me immediately after the killing of Gregorio Dotado, but I left in the possession of Abtu Sahdi, at Tairan, I Isabela, this City.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

12. Q Was Gregorio Dotado, with a companion when you and Alfredo Lacastesantos waylaid him on a trail leading to his house, on the night of November 29, 1971, at about 9:00 o'clock? chanrobles virtual law library

A No sir, he was alone.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

13. Q What prompted you and Alfredo Lacastesantos to kill Gregorio Dotado? chanrobles virtual law library

A Sometimes two years ago Gregorio Dotado, and my self had had a misunderstanding, relative to our work in the Alano Plantation at Tairan, and that recently we're courting on one girl by the name of Herminia Garcia, and because of that, I harbor grudge on him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

14. Q Can you tell me how did this incident happen?chanrobles virtual law library

A On November 29, 1971, at about 7:00 p.m., Alfredo Lacastesantos and myself went to the house of Manuel Martinez, at Tairan, Camp, Isabela, this City purportedly to drink tuba. Thereat, I saw Sebastian Ambrosia Romeo Martinez, Pablito Santos, Alberto Meneng and the late Gregorio Dotado, The five were drinking tuba, right in the balcony of the said house. There, we stayed by the staircase. And not long after, Alberto Meneng and the late Gregorio Dotado, went downstairs and they headed toward the house of said Meneng at a nearby distance. Immediately then Alfredo Lacastesantos and myself went after Gregorio Dotado, who was on his way home outside of the boundary of the Tairan, Plantation. We were able then to catch up Gregorio Dotado, who was almost to reach his house, There and then I asked him in chavacano dialect, in this manner:'VOLVE YA BOS?' and with a bolo hacked the said Dotado, on the throat, once. And when he fell on the ground I again hacked him on the forementioned head, once. After that I turned his body to a prostrated position, because he was facing upward when he fell and there and then too, Alfredo Lacastesantos with a knife slashed the neck of said Gregorio Dotado, Thereafter, sensing that Gregorio Dotado, was already dead, we ran away home to Subaan Tairan, Isabela, this City; and yesterday afternoon (December 6, 1971) I was picked up by the Police for investigation in connection with the said killing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

15. Q Are all what you have stated here true and corrects chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

16. Q Were you forced, intimidated or promised of any reward in giving this statement of yours? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

17. Q Are you willing to swear and sign this statement of yours? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(Sgd) LEONARDO DELOS SANTOS y SAGDI chanrobles virtual law library

(Affiant) chanrobles virtual law library

Wit. & Int.: chanrobles virtual law library

(Sgd) Illegible chanrobles virtual law library

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 7th day of December, 1971, Isabela, Basilan City, Philippines.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(Sgd) RUBEN M. RAMOS chanrobles virtual law library

City Clerk of Court" chanrobles virtual law library

(pp. 13-16, Reno) chanrobles virtual law library

On December 9, 1971, appellant executed an affidavit repudiating his extrajudicial confession. The lower court, however, ruled that the extrajudicial confession of appellant was freely and voluntarily executed and appellant was found guilty of the crime charged.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In seeking the reversal of the decision rendered against him, appellant herein raised the sole issue that:

The lower court erred in having convicted defendant-appellant solely on the strength of Exhibit 'D,' the alleged confession when the same was obtained thru violence, threat and intimidation and when the contents thereof were belied by the very evidence of the prosecution. (Brief of Defendant- Appellant, p. 47, Rollo)

Appellant maintains that his confession Exhibit "D" is inadmissible for having been obtained thru violence, threat and intimidation. He avers that in the evening of December 6, 1971, after Pat. Conrado Francisco had brought him to the police station for questioning, two men from the Detective Department investigated him; that when he denied any participation in the killing of the deceased, the two men boxed him, hitting him in the left eyebrow and in the mouth and they also kicked the left side of his body while he was in a squatting position; that when he was brought before the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Basilan on December 7, 1971 to subscribe under oath his confession, he signed Exhibit "D" because of threat made by the policeman who escorted him that he will again be maltreated if he refuses to do so.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is significant to consider that Exhibit "D" was taken on December 7, 1971 by Pat. Conrado Francisco while the alleged maltreatment was done in the evening of December 6, 197 1. It is unbelievable that the alleged maltreatment made by the two policemen was what induced appellant to admitted crime the following day. Ordinarily, confessions executed through intimidation or maltreatment are obtained during or immediately after the supposed maltreatment. In the instant case, appellant alleges that in spite of the alleged manhandling, he never admitted anything that evening and the two policemen desisted from further harming him. However, when investigated the following day (December 7, 1971) by police detective Conrado Francisco, appellant readily confessed his participation in the killing of Gregorio Dotado, In fact, during the cross-examination, appellant expressly acknowledged that Pat. Francisco neither maltreated nor intimidated him during the investigation. Appellant testified thus:

Q When Conrado Francisco investigated you did he maltreat you? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did Conrado Francisco intimidate you while he was investigating you? "chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did he tie you? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q In other words Conrado Francisco simply conducted a very regular investigation without touching your body? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. (pp. 308-309, tsn).

Even Ruben Ramos, the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Basilan, testified that when the confession was sworn to before him by the appellant on December 7, 1971, the latter did not complain that he was maltreated and instead admitted that the statements in Exhibit "D" were voluntarily given and signed by appellant. Ramos testified thus:

Q After the contents of Exhibit 'D' was interpreted to the affiant Leonardo de los Santos y Sagdi did he inform you that he refused to sign this statement?

A No, as a matter of fact I asked him a question whether he was willing to sign it and I investigated him whether he was coerced or intimidated and he said, no, he was willing to sign. (p. 120, tsn).

xxx xxx xxx

Q Did you ask Leonardo de los Santos whether the statement that he gave appearing on Exhibit 'D' was only forced or vexed from him?

A I asked that question, he said he gave that voluntarily.

Q Did he complain to you that he was maltreated to give this statement? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir. (pp. 121-122, tsn).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

A confession is deemed to have been made voluntarily if the accused did not complain to the proper authorities regarding the alleged maltreatment despite the opportunity to do so (People vs. Page, 77 SCRA 348). If appellant's confession as contained in Exhibit "D" was voluntary, we have to conclude that Dotado, was slain in the manner and for the reason set out in that document. It is needless to say that no one in his right mind would convict himself without compulsion by fabricating a highly self-damaging story and suppressing the truth which would absolve film (People vs. Carillo, 77 Phil. 572).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Another factor that militates against the claim of appellant of involuntariness in the execution of Exhibit "D" is the fact that the confession is replete with details that only the confessant could have known. Appellant narrated in his confession that at about 7:00 p.m. on November 29, 1971, the victim was then drinking tuba at the house of Manuel Martinez together with Sebastian Ambrosia Romeo Martinez, Pablito Santos and Alberto Meneng that when the victim left the house of Martinez, he and Alfredo Lacastesantos followed the former; that before the victim reached his house, they overtook him; whereupon appellant hacked him with a bolo, first on the throat and when the victim fell on the ground, he again hacked him on the forehead and realizing that the victim was already dead, they ran away. the post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased conducted by Sanitary Inspector Hilario Guerrero showed that the wounds sustained by the victim were located exactly in the places where appellant in his affidavit stated that he inflicted them upon the victim, thus:

1. Hacked wound,extensive,multiple,neck,almost severed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

2. Hacked wound, eyebrow, bilateral.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Cause of Death.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Due to multiple hacked wounds."chanrobles virtual law library

(Exhibit A, p. 1, Original Exhibit)

Indeed, the confession at bar being complete with details that only the appellant could have known, therefore, show that the confession was executed voluntarily (People vs. Jimenez, 105 SCRA 721).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Considering the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the view that appellant's admission voluntarily made and confirmed by him in open court during his trial, renders worthless the challenge now interposed by him to the admissibility of his sworn statement, Exhibit "D." It is significant to note that the extrajudicial confession, Exhibit "D," was obtained and offered in evidence before the 1973 Constitution took effect. In fact, the decision appealed from was rendered by the trial court on May 24, 1972. Consequently, appellant's extrajudicial confession, Exhibit "D," is admissible in evidence although the requisites in Section 20 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which declares inadmissible a confession obtained from a person under investigation for an offense who has not been informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel were not observed, since that portion of the 1973 constitutional mandate should be given prospective and not retrospective effect and no law gave the accused the right to be so informed before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution (Magtoto vs. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4). Furthermore, the declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, may be given in evidence against him (See. 29, Rule 130). It has been held that a confession constitutes evidence of high order and the presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess the commission of a crime unless prompted to do so by truth and conscience. (U.S. vs. De los Santos, 24 Phil. 329).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant likewise impugns the truth of the confessions as regards the house where the deceased was last seen. Appellant alleges that according to the affidavit of Alberto (Roberto) Meneng which was attached to the information filed by the prosecuting fiscal, Meneng was the companion of the deceased in the evening of November 29, 1971 when they went to the house of Salvador Martinez to drink tuba (p. 4, Original Record). While in the confession, it was stated that the deceased just before his death was in the house of one Manuel Martinez. This argument deserves scant consideration not only because of its immateriality but also because the supposed witness Alberto (Roberto) Meneng was never presented during the trial as witness either for the prosecution or the defense and his affidavit was also not submitted as evidence.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant's extrajudicial confession was corroborated by the evidence on the corpus delicti, the post-mortem examination (Exhibit A) which suffices for conviction (Section 3, Rule 133).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED with the sole modification that appellant is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Gregorio Dotado, in the amount of P30,000.00.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.