Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 67

G.R. No.

96397 November 21, 1991

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
MELENCIO "BROC" MEN!O", defendant-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Punzalan and Associates Law Office for defendant-appellant.
G#TIERRE", $R., J.:p
On May 21, 1984, the accused-appellant Melencio Mendoza was charged efore the !egional "rial #ourt of
$alenzuela, Metro Manila, %ranch 1&2 with the cri'e of !oery with (o'icide and )erious *hysical
+n,uries in an +nfor'ation which reads-
"he undersigned .sst. *rovincial /iscal accuses Melencio 0%aroc0 Mendoza of the cri'e of roery
with ho'icide and physical in,uries, 0penalized under the provisions of .rt. 294, paragraph 1, of the
!evised *enal #ode, co''itted as follows-
"hat on or aout the 9th day of 1une, 1981, in the 'unicipality of $alenzuela, Metro Manila,
*hilippines, and within the ,urisdiction of this (onorale #ourt, the said accused Melencio 0%aroc0
Mendoza, with !o'eo 2s3uillo y #aacang, !oerto Mar3uez y 4ionisio, and 1ose !a'os y
.ustria who are already charged of the sa'e cri'e in #ri'. #ase 5o. 4169-$-81 and another
person who is still at large, ar'ed with unlicensed firear's, conspiring and confederating together
and 'utually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent
of gain and y 'eans of force, violence and inti'idation upon the spouses /elipe .l7uino and
2ufrocina "ra,ano-.l7uino, %&'e, rob &() *&rr+ &,&+ ,-%. %.em & /&)+01 .&()b&2 containing
cash a'ounting to *86,949.66 and chec7s with total face value of *18,1:&.89 or a grand total of
*48,&12.89, elonging to the said spouses /elipe .l7uino and 2ufrocina "ra,ano-.l7uino, to the
da'age and pre,udice of the said owners in the total a'ount of *48,&12.89;
"hat y reason or on the occasion of the said roery and for the purposes of enaling the' to
ta7e, ro and carry away the said a'ount of *48,&12.89 in cash and in chec7s, the herein accused
Melencio 0%aroc0 Mendoza, together with his co-accused and another person still at large, in
pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident
pre'editation and treachery and ta7ing advantage of their superior strength, attac7, assault and
shoot with firear's they were then provided the said spouses /elipe .l7uino and 2ufrocina
"ra,ano-.l7uino, therey inflicting fatal physical in,uries on said /elipe .l7uino which directly
caused his death and serious physical in,uries on said 2ufrocina "ra,ano-.l7uino which re3uired
'edical attendance for a period of one <1= to two <2= 'onths and incapacitated her fro' perfor'ing
her custo'ary laor for the sa'e period of ti'e.
#ontrary to law. <Original !ecords, pp. 1-2=
>pon arraign'ent on March 9, 1989, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the cri'e charged. "rial
proceeded and a decision convicting the accused was rendered y the trial court. "he dispositive portion of
the decision reads-
?(2!2/O!2, in view of the foregoing, the #ourt finds the accused Melencio 0%aroc0 Mendoza
guilty of the cri'e of roery with ho'icide and physical in,uries and herey sentences hi' to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to suffer all the accessory penalties provided y law; to
inde'nify the heirs of /elipe .l7uino in the su' of *86,666.66 without susidiary i'prison'ent in
case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. <Rollo, p. 8:=
"he antecedent facts as stated in the .ppellee@s %rief are as follows-
+n the 'orning of 1une 9, 1981, !o'eo 2s3uillo, a painter, was in his house at %arangay )an
Aariel, Malolos, %ulacan when he decided to go to a store neary. .t the store, he was
approached y a certain !oerto Mar3uez, who convinced hi' to go to latter@s house. ?hile in the
house of Mar3uez, a person y the na'e of !o'eo Magtoto arrived and he was introduced to
2s3uillo <")5, May 81, 1989, pp. 8-12=
Mar3uez, 2s3uillo and Magtoto on oard a 'otorcycle driven y Mar3uez, went to Malanday. ?hen
they reached Malanday, a person, who was riding in a car approached the'. Mar3uez told 2s3uillo
that the 'an was %aro7 Mendoza <")5, Ibid., pp. 1:-1&=.
"he group thereafter wen to the house of a friend of %aro7 Mendoza where they too7 so'e drin7s.
.fter the drin7ing session, they proceeded to *olo where they ,ust stood y the street purportedly
waiting for a friend to pass y <")5, Id., pp. 2:-2&=
?hen a red ,eep <+suzu pic7-up B%= suddenly appeared, the group scra'led, oarded their
vehicles and chased the vehicle which turned out to e that of the .l7uinos. .ppellant rode in the
car together with !a'os and Magtoto while 2s3uillo rode at the ac7 of the 'otorcycle driven y
Mar3uez <")5, Id. pp. 88-84=
?hen the 'otorcycle was already very close to the pic7-up vehicle of the .l7uinos, appellant gave
2s3uillo a gun and told hi' that the occupants of the ,eep have 'oney and if he will not get the
'oney he will 7ill hi' <2s3uillo= <")5, Id., pp. 46-41=
2s3uillo did what was co''anded of hi'. ?hen he ,u'ped into the red ,eep as ordered y
Mar3uez, 2s3uillo po7ed the gun at the occupants of the vehicle and announced the holdup <")5,
Id., p. 46=
2s3uillo graed the ag containing 'oney and chec7s worth *48,&12.89. 2ufrocina .l7uino and
2s3uillo grappled for possession of the ag when suddenly the gun went off. 2ufrocina .l7uino felt
that her 'iddle finger was in,ured. .t this point, /elipe .l7uino, the husand of 2ufrocina, ,oined in
the grapple until it went off again hitting hi' in the chest <)ee !"# 4ecision, p. 4=.
2s3uillo ran with the ag ut the contents thereof spilled out. 2s3uillo, Mar3uez and !a'os helped
each other pic7 up the 'oney and placed the' inside the ag <Ibid.=
2ufrocina su''oned for help and the people arrived i''ediately and rought /elipe to the
hospital where the later eCpired. "he cause of death, as found y 4r. %ienvenido MuDoz,
supervising 'edico-legal officer of the 5%+, is he''orrhage, acute, severe secondary to gunshot
wound. "he victi' suffered only one gunshot wound. 2ufrocina later identified the 'an who po7ed
the gun at the' as !o'eo 2s3uillo and the two others she saw in front of their vehicle when it
suddenly stopped as !oerto Mar3uez and 1ose !a'os. <Id.=
+n the 'eanti'e, 2s3uillo ran with the ag. (e loo7ed for his co'panions ut they already left hi'.
(e was chased y the arrio people and was later arrested y a certain )gt. .velino /rancisco
<")5, May 81, 1989, p. 48=
2s3uillo was rought to the $alenzuela Municipal %uilding where he was investigated. +n the
investigation conducted on hi', after the regained consciousness, he na'ed his co'panions in the
roery holdup as !oerto Mar3uez, !o'eo Magtoto and 1ose !a'os <")5, 1uly &, 198:, p. :=.
2s3uillo then acco'panied the $alenzuela police headed y then Et. #arlos "i3uia and proceeded
to #at'on, Malolos, %ulacan where Mar3uez and !a'os were arrested. Magtoto was ale to elude
the police and fled <")5, )epte'er 19, 198:, p. 9=
.n investigation was conducted on Mar3uez and !a'os. "his ti'e Mar3uez 'entioned Melencio
Mendoza as the Master'ined of the roery holdup allegedly seconded y 2s3uillo. . tea' of
$alenzuela police was for'ed and headed for #at'on, Malolos, %ulacan to trac7 down Mendoza.
"he tea' waited for Mendoza as he was not ho'e yet at that ti'e. .t around 16-66 p.'., Mendoza
alighted fro' a passenger ,eepney and he was infor'ed aout his alleged involve'ent in the
roery holdup to which accusation he vehe'ently denied. "he police rought hi' to their
head3uarters for 3uestioning.
On 1une 16, 1981, a day after that roery incident, 2ufrocina .l7uino arrived at the $alenzuela
Municipal %uilding as she was infor'ed that the suspects in the roery holdup were already
apprehended and arrested. +n the police line-up, 2ufrocina .l7uino pointed to Mendoza ecause,
according to her, she heard Mar3uez and 2s3uillo telling the police that Mendoza was the
'aster'ined of the holdup <see 4ecision, p. &=
I( %.e 3re/-m-(&r+ -(ve1%-2&%-o( %.&% ,&1 )4/+ *o()4*%e) b+ %.e M4(-*-3&/ Co4r% o5
6&/e(74e/& 3re1-)e) b+ $4)2e Ser&3-o, Me()o7& ,&1 )ro33e) 5rom %.e *.&r2e &1 (o
3rob&b/e *&41e ,&1 5o4() %.e( %o -()-*% .-m %o %.e *r-me o5 robber+ ,-%. .om-*-)e &()
3.+1-*&/ -(84r-e1 9See E:.. ;<.
"hree separate +nfor'ations were duly filed with the !egional "rial #ourt of $alenzuela, %ranch
1&1; the first one doc7eted as #ri'inal #ase 5o. 4169-$-81 against 2s3uillo, Mar3uez and !a'os
for !oery with (o'icide and )erious *hysical +n,uries, and the second doc7eted as #ri'inal
#ase 5o. 4116-$-81 for illegal possession firear' against 2s3uillo, and the third doc7eted as
#ri'inal #ase 5o. 4111-$-81 for illegal possession of firear's against Mar3uez.
+n the course of the trial of #ri'inal #ase 5o. 4169-$-81 and #ri'inal #ase 5o. 4116-$-81,
2s3uillo i'plicated Melencio Mendoza in the co''ission of the cri'e of !oery. .ll the accused
in the three cri'inal cases were convicted of the cri'es charged against the'.
)use3uently, the *rovincial /iscal of %ulacan filed a separate +nfor'ation charging Mendoza with
the cri'e of !oery with (o'icide and *hysical +n,uries, which was doc7eted as #ri'inal #ase
5o. :292-$-84.
+n an order dated Octoer 28, 1989 <")5, Octoer 28, 1989, pp. 8-4= in #ri'inal #ase 5o. :292-$-
84, the trial court, acting on the 'otion of the prosecution and with the confor'ity of appellant and
his counsel, allowed the testi'onies of the following witnesses in #ri'inal #ase 5o. 4169-$-81 and
in #ri'inal #ase 5o. 4116-$-81, to e adopted and 'ade part of the evidence of the prosecution
su,ect to further cross-eCa'ination y counsel for the appellant- <1= 4r. %ienvenido MuDoz,
)upervising Medico Eegal Officer, 5%+, Manila; <2= Marlene Merdegia-)alangad, /orensic #he'ist,
*# #ri'e Eaoratory, #a'p #ra'e, Fuezon #ity; <8= $icente de $era, %allistician, *# #ri'e
Eaoratory, #a'p #ra'e, Fuezon #ity; <4= "echnical )gt. /lordelito ). %asul, #hief #ler7, /irear's
%ranch and 2Cplosives >nit, #a'p #ra'e, Fuezon #ity; <9= 2ufrocina "ra,ano-.l7uino; and <:=
1ose Martin <see 4ecision, pp. 8-:= <.ppellee@s %rief, pp. 4-16=
T.e )e5e(1e o5 %.e &33e//&(% -1 3rem-1e) o( .-1 &//e2e)/+ .&v-(2 bee( 1ome,.ere e/1e ,.e( %.e
*r-me ,&1 *omm-%%e). He */&-me) %.&% .e ,&1 ,or'-(2 -(1-)e %.e b&(' o( %.&% )&+ &() 3re1e(%e) %.e
/o2boo' o5 %.e 1e*4r-%+ 24&r) ,.-*. 1.o,e) .-1 e(%er-(2 %.e 3/&*e &% =>33 &.m. &() /e&v-(2 -% &% ;>32
3.m. T.e robber+ .&33e(e) &% &ro4() 1>?? 3.m. T.e &33e//&(% 1%&%e) %.&% .e %oo' .-1 /4(*. &% .-1
3/&*e o5 ,or'.
"he accused-appellant now interposes this appeal, assigning the following as errors allegedly co''itted y
the court a quo-
"(2 "!+.E #O>!" 2!!24 +5 /+54+5A "(2 .##>)24-.**2EE.5" A>+E"G O/ "(2 #!+M2
#(.!A24 O5 "(2 %.)+) O/ M2!2 .))>M*"+O5) .54 #O512#">!2).
"(2 "!+.E #O>!" 2!!24 +5 (.$+5A ".B25 1>4+#+.E 5O"+#2 O/ "(2 "2)"+MO5+2) +5
#!+M+5.E #.)2) 5O). 4169-$-81 .54 4116-$-81.
"(2 "!+.E #O>!" 2!!24 +5 25"2!+5A . 1>4AM25" O/ #O5$+#"+O5 ?+"(O>" "(2
!2F>+!24 F>.5">M O/ 2$+425#2 %2GO54 !2.)O5.%E2 4O>%"; .54 +5 5O"
25"2!+5A . 1>4AM25" O/ .#F>+"".E. <.ppellant@s %rief, p. 86=
Melencio Mendoza contends that the trial court erred in asing its ,udg'ent of conviction on 'ere
assu'ptions and con,ectures.
"he contention of the appellant is ereft of 'erit.
"he records show that the witness, Mrs. .l7uino and the accused-appellant 7new each other well. "he latter
was a oo77eper in the an7 where the .l7uinos 'aintained an account. Mendoza 7new the details of their
an7 account so 'uch so that he would 'a7e ad,ust'ents li7e transferring of funds fro' the .l7uino@s
savings account to current account whenever re3uested y said clients in order to properly fund chec7s
issued y the'.
.s stated in the facts of the case, on the day prior to the incident <1une 8, 1981=, Mrs. .l7uino in3uired fro'
the appellant if the chec7s she issued to .las7a in the a'ount of *26,666.66 and *86,666.66 were already
presented for collection. ?hen the accused answered in the negative, Mrs. .l7uino infor'ed Mendoza that
she will deposit the necessary a'ount the following day.
/ro' this, it can e concluded that Mendoza 7new that the .l7uino couple would e depositing a ig a'ount
the following in ti'e efore the chec7s are presented for collection.
.s to Mendoza@s relationship with Mar3uez, it was shown that the possiility of conspiracy is not re'ote.
"hey were town'ates and oth elong to e sa'e arangay. "hus, it can e said that they 7new each other
?e see no reason why Mar3uez i'plicate a good friend in a serious cri'e if there was no truth to it.
"he close relationship etween the two and the access of Mendoza to an7 record and his relationship with
regular an7 clients li7e the .l7uinos logically estalish the connection etween Mendoza and the cri'e.
"he records do not show that 2s3uillo previously 7new Mendoza. +t was Mar3uez who' 2s3uillo 7new.
Mar3uez in turn 7new Mendoza. *ieced together, the facts rings out a logical conclusion which is further
estalished y the testi'onies of other witnesses.
T.e &**41e)@&33e//&(% 54r%.er &11&-/1 %.e *o4r%01 .&v-(2 %&'e( 84)-*-&/ (o%-*e o5 E1A4-//o01 %e1%-mo(+
-( &(o%.er *&1e )e13-%e -%1 (o% .&v-(2 bee( o55ere) (or &)m-%%e) be*&41e Me()o7& ,&1 (o% &(
&**41e) %.ere-( &() .e )-) (o% *o(5orm %o %.e &)o3%-o( o5 1&-) %e1%-mo(-e1 -( %.-1 *&1e. He 54r%.er
*o(%e()1 %.&% 2r&(%-(2 -% ,ere &)m-%%e) &1 3&r% o5 %.e 3ro1e*4%-o(01 ev-)e(*e -( %.-1 *&1e, -% *&((o%
be *o(1-)ere) -% ,&1 re34)-&%e) b+ E1A4-//o .-m1e/5.
"his contention 'ust li7ewise fail.
+t is noted that when a 'otion to adopt the said testi'onies of witnesses was 'ade y the prosecution, the
appellant and his counsel did not o,ect ut instead gave their consent.
Moreover, 2s3uillo was confronted with portions of his testi'onies in the previous cases which he 'erely
denied or refused to eCplain. )aid portions, thus, eca'e part of his testi'ony which were duly su,ected to
cross-eCa'ination y the defense counsel.
?hen confronted with state'ents given in his previous testi'ony, it eca'e apparent that 2s3uillo was
trying to hide so'ething ut which he was not ale to do when cornered y the ,udge. "hus, the appellant
F .re you telling this court that you never testified in the sala of 1udge #onstantino or you
testified ut you were not as7ed those 3uestions, so you did not give those answerH
. + testified, your (onor.
F )ince you have testified, are you trying to tell this #ourt that you were not as7ed those
3uestions and those were not your answers, is that what you want this #ourt to elieveH
. "hose were the 3uestions as7ed of 'e, your (onor.
F (ow aout the answers, were those your answersH
. Ges, your (onor. <")5., May 81, 1989, p. 42=
.nent the third assigned error where the appellant clai's he was convicted without the re3uired 3uantu' of
evidence ecause Mrs. .l7uino did not specify his role in the cri'e, we find the sa'e wanting of any asis.
*ortions of 2s3uillo@s testi'ony descried in detail how appellant and his group hatched their plan. "he
sa'e was corroorated y the testi'onies of Mrs. .l7uino and other prosecution witnesses who had no
7nown grudge against hi'. "hus, it has repeatedly een held that the testi'ony of witnesses not actuated
y i'proper 'otives is entitled to full faith and credit <*eople v. *atog, 144 )#!. 429 I198:J; *eople v.
#ruz, 191 )#!. 12& I1996J; *eople v. !aang, 18& )#!. :82 I1996J=.
"he accused-appellant li7ewise contends that conspiracy was not proven.
#onspiracy has een estalished y the facts on record. "he concerted action of each 'e'er pieced
together and ta7en as a whole conclusively shows the eCistence of conspiracy.
+t need not e shown y direct evidence. +t 'ay e inferred fro' the acts of all the accused <*eople v.
.ueg, 149 )#!. :22 I198:J= and where each perfor's specific acts in the co''ission of the cri'e with
such closeness and coordination that would indicate a co''on purpose or design, conspiracy is considered
estalished eyond reasonale dout. <*eople v. *etenia, 148 )#!. 8:1 I198:J=.
"he accused-appellant assails the ad'ission of the testi'ony of 2s3uillo.
.s stated in the case of People . Ponce! et al. A.!. 5o. 88:94, May 81, 1991;
+t is true that there are doctrines to the effect that the testi'ony of a co-conspirator is not sufficient
for conviction, unless supported y other evidence. "he reason is that it co'es fro' a polluted
source. +t 'ust e received with caution ecause, as is usual with hu'an nature, a culprit,
confessing a cri'e, is li7ely to put the la'e as far as possile on others rather than hi'self. %ut
the aforesaid rule is not without eCceptions. "he testi'ony of a co-conspirator 'ay, even if
uncorroorated, e sufficient as when it is shown to e sincere in itself, ecause it was given
unhesitatingly and in a straightforward 'anner and full of details which y their nature could not
have een the result of delierate afterthought <*eople v. #uya, 1r., 141 )#!. 891 I198:J=.
+n an effort to eCculpate hi'self, Mendoza clai's that he could not have een at the scene of the cri'e
since he was at his place of wor7 fro' 8-86-11-49 and 11-99-9-86 on that day. (e presented as proof a CeroC
copy of his ti'e records, the logoo7 as prepared y the security guard on duty and a certification fro' a
an7 officer that he was present that day.
"he defense of the accused is 'ainly ased on alii which this #ourt has consistently considered the
wea7est of all defenses.
"o estalished alii, the accused 'ust show that it was i'possile for hi' to have een at the place where
the cri'e was co''itted at the ti'e of its co''ission <*eople v. .igan, 144 )#!. 186; *eople v.
#oronado, 149 )#!. 296 I198:J=.
"he appellant has failed to estalish the i'possiility of his presence at the scene of the cri'e considering
that the distance etween the an7 and place of the cri'e was only a few 7ilo'eters away. .lso, the cri'e
happened during lunch rea7 where asence of the e'ployees is not noticeale.
+n view of the foregoing, we find no reversile error in the trial court@s finding of conviction. (owever, as in
People . "una#! A.!. 5o. 929&6, .pril 22, 1991, we find the designation of the cri'e erroneous.
"hus, the case states-
. . . there is no special co'pleC cri'e as roery with ho'icide and less serious physical in,uries.
"he offense is deno'inated as roery with ho'icide regardless of the nu'er of ho'icides or
in,uries co''itted. "hese other circu'stances 'erely serve as generic aggravating circu'stances
which can e offset y other 'itigating circu'stances <*eople v. *edroso, 119 )#!. 999 I1982J=.
?(2!2/O!2, the appealed decision is herey .//+!M24 ut MO4+/+24. "he appellant is found guilty of
the special co'pleC cri'e of roery with ho'icide ut inde'nity is increased fro' "(+!"G "(O>).54
*2)O) <*86,666.66= to /+/"G "(O>).54 *2)O) <*96,666.66= in accordance with recent rulings.
)O O!42!24.
$ernan! %.&.! 'idin! (aide! &r. and Ro)ero! &&.! concur.
G.R. No. 113779@=? Febr4&r+ 23, 199;
L6IN T#SON + OCHO, petitioner,
P#NO, J.:
"he first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the cri'e ut to prove the identity
of the cri'inal. /or even if the co''ission of the cri'e can e estalished,
without proof of identity of the cri'inal eyond reasonale dout there can e no
conviction. +n the case at ench, the identification of the petitioner cannot rest on
an assured conscience. ?e rule that petitioner is entitled to a 'andatory
*etitioner .lvin "uason y Ochoa, 1ohn 4oe, *eter 4oe, and !ichard 4oe were
charged efore the !egional "rial #ourt of Fuezon #ity
with !oery
<.rticle 294,
paragraph 9 of the !evised penal #ode= and #arnapping
<repulic .ct 5o. :989=.
Of the four <4= accused, only petitioner was apprehended. "he other three <8= are still at-large.
>pon arraign'ent, petitioner pleaded not guilty to oth charges and was tried.
?e co'e to the facts.
#o'plainant #+*!+.5. /. "O!!2) is a pulic school teacher of Baligayahan 2le'entary
)chool, 5ovaliches. (er wor7 re3uires her to leave her 'aid, 1O$+5. M.4.!.OA "O!!2),
alone in her house at %loc7 49, Eot 28, Eagro )udivision, 5ovaliches, Fuezon #ity. (er husand
is in .ustralia while her children go to school.
"he incident transpired at around 8-49 in the 'orning of 1uly 19, 1988. )o'eody 7noc7ed at the
gate of the "orres residence pretending to uy ice. .s the 'aid Madaraog handed the ice to the
uyer, one of the roers ,u'ped over the fence, po7ed a gun at her, covered her 'outh, and
opened the gate of their house.
"he ice uyer and his co'panions arged in. 5u'ering four
<4=, they pushed her inside "orres@ house and de'anded the 7eys to the car and the safety vault.
)he told the' she did not 7now where the 7eys were hidden.
"hey tied up her hands and
dragged her to the second floor of the house. *etitioner was allegedly left downstairs as their
On order of the accused, Madaraog sat on "orres@ ed, her ody facing the edroo' door with
her ac7 on the vault. "hey also gagged her 'outh and ransac7ed "orres@ roo'. One of the
accused stu'led upon a oC containing 7eys. "hey used the 7eys to open drawers and in the
process found the car 7ey. *etitioner was then su''oned upstairs and given the car 7ey. (e tried
it on the car and succeeded in starting its engine.
+n twenty <26= 'inutes, accused were ale to loot the vault and other valuale ite's in the house.
"hey then tied Madaraog@s hands and feet to the ed@s headoard and escaped using "orres@ car.
)till gripped with fear, Madaraog loosened her ties with her fingers, hopped to the stairs and cried
for help.
(er neighor )e'ia Fuintal responded and untied her. "hey also sought the help of
.ngelina Aarcia, another neighor. +t was Aarcia who infor'ed "orres that her house was
"orres reported the roery to the police authorities at /airview, Fuezon #ity and the 5ational
%ureau of +nvestigation <5%+=. On 1uly 29, 1988, Madaraog and Fuintal descried the physical
features of the four <4= roers efore the 5%+ cartographer. One of those drawn y the artist was
a person with a large 'ole etween his eyerows.
On .ugust 86, 1988, petitioner was arrested
y the 5%+ agents. "he neCt day, at the 5%+ head3uarters, he was pointed to y Madaraog and
the other prosecution witnesses as one of the perpetrators of the cri'es at ench.
)2M+. F>+5".E
averred that she saw petitioner allegedly a'ong the three <8= 'en whiling
away their ti'e in front of .laang@s store so'e ti'e efore the cri'es were co''itted. Fuintal is
a neighoring 'aid.
M.!G %.!%+2"O
li7ewise declared that she saw petitioner allegedly with several co'panions
standing-y at "orres@ house that 'orning of 1uly 19, 1988. )he is a teacher and lives within the
loc7 where the cri'es were co''itted.
*etitioner .E$+5 ">.)O5,
on the other hand, anchored his defense on alii and insufficient
identification y the prosecution. he has lived within the neighorhood of the "orres fa'ily since
19&8. (e averred that on 1uly 19, 1988, he was 'iCing dough and rushing ca7e orders fro' &-66
o@cloc7 in the 'orning till 1-66 o@cloc7 in the afternoon at his sisters@ "ip"op a7eshop in .ntipolo
)treet, "ondo, Manila. +t ta7es hi' two <2= hours to co''ute daily fro' Eagro, 5ovaliches to
(e was arrested 'ore than one <1= 'onth after the roery. On .ugust 86, 1988 at aout 8-66
o@cloc7 in the evening, he was in their house watching a as7etall ga'e on ".$. and went out to
uy a cigarette. On his way ac7, a person accosted hi' and as7ed his na'e. .fter he identified
a gun was po7ed at his right side, a shot was fired upward, and five <9= 'en swooped
on hi' without any warrant of arrest. (e as7ed the' if he could wear t-shirt as he was na7ed
fro' waist up. "hey refused. "hey turned out to e 5%+ agents of one of who' a certain .tty.
(arwin who lived in Eagro, 5ovaliches. (e was shoved into the car and rought to the 5%+
(e was surprised when an 5%+ agent, whose identity was un7nown to hi',
pointed to hi' as one of the suspects in the roery in the presence of Madaraog and the other
prosecution witnesses.
*etitioner@s sister .5A2E+ ">.)O5,
part-owner of "ip"op %a7eshop corroorated his story.
)he testified that on 1uly 1&, 1988 she as7ed her sister Mary .nn to re'ind petitioner to wor7
early on 1uly 19, 1988 since Mondays, "uesdays, and ?ednesdays are usy days as she caters
to schools.
"he trial court in a 1oint 4ecision convicted petitioner of the cri'es charged and sentenced hi'
as follows-
+n F-88-89: <carnapping= or an indeter'inate ter' of )2$25"225 <1&= G2.!) and
/O>! <4= MO5"() as 'ini'u' and "?25"G <26= G2.!) as 'aCi'u'; and in F-88-
89& <roery= for a ter' of O52 <1= G2.!, )2$25 <&= MO5"() and 2E2$25 <11=
4.G) as 'ini'u' and "?O <2= G2.!), "25 <16= MO5"() and "?25"G <26= 4.G)
as 'aCi'u'.
On the civil aspect, the court herey orders .lvin "uason y Ochoa as follows-
1. +n F-88-89: <carnapping= to return to Mrs. #ipriana "orres and her husand the
carnapped "oyota #orona )edan, Model 1986 with *late 5o. 5*K 199 or to pay its value
of *186,666.66 which the court finds to e the reasonale value of the said car; and
2. +n F-88-89& <roery= to return to Mrs. #ipriana "orres and her husand the stolen
ite's 'entioned in the infor'ation filed in said case and hereinaove stated or pay the
corresponding values thereon or a total of *286,996.66 which the court finds to e the
reasonale values.
"he civil liaility is ,oint and solidary with the co-conspirators of accused .lvin "uason.
+n case of appeal, the ail onds are fiCed at "?O (>54!24 2+A("G "(O>).54
*2)O) <*286,666.66= fro cri'inal case 5o. F-88-89: and O52 (>54!24 "(O>).54
*2)O) <*166,666.66= for cri'inal case 5o. F-88-89&.
#osts against the accused.
)O O!42!24.
*etitioner appealed to respondent #ourt of .ppeals. On 4ece'er 1:, 1998, the 2leventh
4ivision of the appellate court gave no credence to
the eCculpatory allegations of petitioner and affir'ed in toto the assailed 4ecisions.
/eruary 4, 1994, petitioner@s Motion for !econsideration was denied for lac7 of 'erit.
+n this petition for certiorari, petitioner contends that respondent appellate court erred-
I+J5 ?!O5AEG .**EG+5A "O "(2 #.)2 ." %.! "(2 *!+5#+*E2 "(." /+54+5A)
O/ "!+.E #O>!") .!2 A252!.EEG 5O" 4+)">!%24 O5 .**2.E,
*.!"+#>E.!EG #O5)+42!+5A "(." "(2 /+54+5A) O/ "(2 "!+.E #O>!" +5 "(+)
#.)2 .!2 %.)24 O5 #2!".+5 !2/>".%E2 !2.)O5) 2L*!2))EG )"."24 +5 +")
I+J5 ?!O5AEG .**EG+5A "O "(2 "2)"+MO5G O/ (2!2+5 *2"+"+O52! "(2
#O5#2*" .54 .""254+5A +5/+!M+"G O/ 0)2E/-)2!$+5A 2$+425#2.0
I+J5 ?!O5AEG .**EG+5A "O "(2 "2)"+MO5G O/ (2!2+5 *2"+"+O52! "(2
#O5#2*" .54 .""254+5A +5/+!M+"G O/ 052A."+$2 2$+425#2.0
I/JO! +A5O!+5A O! 4+)!2A.!4+5A "(2 AE.!+5A .54 /.".E +5/+!M+"+2) O/
"(2 "2)"+MO5+2) O/ *!O)2#>"+O5 ?+"52))2), )*2#+.EEG .)
+425"+/+#."+O5, .) ?2EE .) "O "(2 *.E*.%E2 +M*!O%.%+E+"G O/ (2!2+5
*2"+"+O52! (.$+5A %225 . )>**O)24 *.!"+#+*.5" +5 "(2 O//25)2)
#(.!A24, "(2 2!!O! %2+5A ".5".MO>5" "O A!O)) M+).**!2(25)+O5 O/
"(2 !2#O!4.
I+J5 .//+!M+5A "(2 #E2.!EG !2$2!)+%E2 42#+)+O5 O/ "(2 "!+.E #O>!".
?e reverse.
"i'e and again, this #ourt has held that evidence to e elieved, 'ust proceed not only fro' the
'outh of a credile witness ut the sa'e 'ust e credile in itself.
"he trial court and
respondent appellate court relied 'ainly on the testi'ony of prosecution witness Madaraog that
fro' her vantage position near the door of the edroo' she clearly saw how petitioner allegedly
participated in the roery. .fter a careful review of the evidence, we find that the identification of
petitioner 'ade y Madaraog and Fuintal is open to dout and cannot serve as a asis for
conviction of petitioner.
/irstly, it 'ust e e'phasized that of the four <4= prosecution witnesses, only the 'aid Madaraog
actually saw petitioner in the act of co''itting the cri'es at ench. ?itnesses Fuintal and
%arieto testified they only saw petitioner at the vicinity of the cri'es efore they happened.
"here is, however, a serious dout whether Madaraog and Fuintal have correctly identified
petitioner. .t the 5%+ head3uarters, Madaraog descried petitioner as 9@80 tall and with a ig 'ole
etween his eyerows.
?hile Fuintal also descried petitioner as 9@80 and with a lac7 'ole
etween his eyerows.
On the asis of their description, the 5%+ cartographer 'ade a drawing
of petitioner showing a do'inant 'ole etween his eyes.
.s it turned out, petitioner has no
'ole ut only a scar etween his eyes. Moreover, he is 9@8 1M20 and not 9@80 tall. "here is a ig
difference etween a 'ole and a scar. . scar is a 'ar7 left in the s7in y a new connective tissue
that replaces tissue in,ured.
On the other hand, a 'ole is a s'all often pig'ented spot or
protuerance on the s7in.
+f indeed Madaraog and Fuintal had a good loo7 at petitioner during
the roery, they could not have erroneously descried petitioner. ?orthy to note, petitioner was
not wearing any 'as7 in the occasion. Madaraog@s atte'pt to eCplain her erroneous description
does not at all convince, iz.-
F ?e co'e now to the third person 0i*on# na)an# isa a* )#a +, o +- an#
edad! )#a ./+0 o ./10 an# taas! pa*at! )ed*o 2ulot an# buho2 at )ai2si at
)a*roon# )ala2in# bilo# na nunal sa pa#itan n# 2ila* sa noo. 3ahaba at
)alanti2 an# pili2)ata!0 who is that4
+nterpreter- ?itness referring to 56hibit 0&-1.0
F Mada' witness where is that round 'ole that appears in the two eyerows of
the personH
. +t is proaly the cartographer that 'ade a 'ista7e.
F + a' referring to you now 56hibit 0&0. + call your attention to that lac7 rounded
figure at the 'iddle of the ridge of the nose etween the two eyerows, what
was that representH
. . 'ole, sir.
F .'ong the four drawings prepared y the cartographer section of the 5%+, you
will agree ith 'e Mada' ?itness that it is only on 56hibit 0&0 when that rounded
'ole appearH
. 5o sir, it is the third one.
F Gou did not call the attention of the 5%+ that the third one who' you ,ust
identified as 56hibit 0&-10 did not ear that rounded 'ole as 'entioned y you,
did youH
. + did not re'e'er.
F ?hy did you not re'e'er having called the attention of the 5%+ to that
deficiency in the drawingH
. + was not ale to call the attention of the 5%+ <sic= ecause there were four of
us who 'ade the description.
)econdly, the trial court and the respondent appellate court unduly 'ini'ized the i'portance of
this glaring discrepancy in the identification of the petitioner. "he trial court resorted to wild
guesswor7. +t ruled-
I"Jhe court has oserved that .lvin has a pro'inent scar in etween his two <2=
eyerows. +t is not within the real' of i'proaility that .lvin covered up that scar with a
lac7 coloring to 'a7e it appear that he has a 0nunal0 which was therefore the one
descried y 1ovina and, which reinforces her testi'ony that she had a good eye view of
.lvin fro' the start of the roery to its conclusion.
"his is a grave error. "he trial court cannot convict petitioner on the asis of a deduction that
is irrational ecause it is not derived fro' an estalished fact. "he records do not show any
fact fro' which the trial court can logically deduce the conclusion that petitioner covered up
his scar with lac7 coloring to 'a7e it appear as a 'ole. )uch an illogical reasoning cannot
constitute evidence of guilt eyond reasonale dout. "his palpale error was perpetrated y
respondent appellate court when it relied on the theory that this 0fact0 should not e distured
on appeal ecause the trial court had a etter opportunity to oserve the ehavior of the
prosecution witnesses during the hearing. "his is a 'isapplication of the rule in calirating the
crediility of witnesses. "he su,ect finding of the trial court was not ased on the de'eanor
of any witnesses which it had a etter opportunity to oserve. !ather, it was a 'ere sur'ise,
an illogical one at that. %y no 'eans can it e categorized as a fact properly estalished y
.nd thirdly, corroorating witness %arieto has serious lapses in her testi'ony that diluted her
crediility, thus-
F + a' showing to you 2Chiit 0M0 and please point to this (onorale #ourt that
portion where the accused <.lvin "uason= allegedly as7ed fro' you the price of
that plastic pac7 of ice.
. + did not state it in 'y state'ent.
F ?hy did you say a 'o'ent ago that you place it there <)inu'paang
. %ut that is the truth, sir.
F + a' not as7ing you the truth or falsehood . . . + a' only as7ing you why you
said a 'o'ent ago that the portion of your testi'ony now is incorporated in
2Chiit 0M0.
. I%Jecause they as7ed the price of the ice.
F .fter reading 2Chiit 0M0, did you or did you not call the attention of the
investigator that so'e of your narrations were not incorporated thereinH
. 5o, + did not ecause he did not as7 'e.
F IGJou did not co'e forward to volunteer that so'e portions of your narration
were not incorporated thereinH
. I"Jhe investigator 7new it.
F Gou 'ean to tell the (onorale #ourt that after reading 2Chiit 0M0, the 5%+
investigator 7new that there were so'e lapses or o'issions in your state'entH
. +t@s up to the investigator.
%arieto is a school teacher and the 7ind of eCcuses she proffered does not enhance her
crediility. (owever, she and Fuintal 'erely testified they saw petitioner within the vicinity where
the cri'es were co''itted. %y itself, this circu'stance cannot lead to the conclusion that
petitioner truly co''itted the cri'es at ench. *etitioner, we note, lives in the sa'e vicinity as
the victi'. "o use his words, he lives so'e siC <:= posts fro' the house of "orres. (is presence in
the said vicinity is thus not unnatural.
"he doutful identification of petitioner was not at all cured y the process followed y the 5%+
agents when petitioner was pointed to y Madaraog and the other prosecution witnesses in their
head3uarters. Madaraog@s identification of petitioner fro' a line-up at the 5%+ was not
spontaneous and independent. .n 5%+ agent i'properly suggested to the' petitioner@s person.
*etitioner thus testified-
F Mr. ?itness <.lvin "uason= do you 7now of any reason why these two
witnesses in the persons of 1ovina Madaraog "orres and Mary %arieto would e
testifying in the 'anner that they did against youH
. .t the 5%+, + saw the' with the 5%+ agent. After the a#ent pointed at )e! later
on the* also pointed at )e.
On cross-eCa'ination, he declared-
F 4o you 7now the reason why they testified and pointed to you as one of the
roers of 1uly 19, 1988H
. %ecause when + was at the 5%+, the "'I a#ent pointed at )e.
F 4id you see the' at the 5%+ when they pointed at youH
. "hey were outside a roo' where there was a glass window.
F )o you can see those persons outside the roo'H
. Ges, sir.
F ?hen they pointed you and identified you where there other person with you
when you were lined up during that ti'eH
. +n the second line + was in the line-up.
F ?hen was the first ti'e they pointed you as one of the suspectsH
. +n the Office of the #hief >nit there, to the third floor of the 5%+ uilding.
"his da'aging testi'ony of the petitioner was not reutted y the prosecution. "he 5%+ agent
present during the identification of petitioner was not presented to elie petitioner@s testi'ony.
#onse3uently, the identification of the petitioner in the 5%+ head3uarters is seriously flawed.
.ccording to writer ?all, the 'ode of identification other than an identification parade is a
show-up, the presentation of a single suspect to a witness for purposes of identification.
"ogether with its aggravated for's, it constitutes the 'ost grossly suggestive identification
procedure now or ever used y the police.
"he respondent appellate court, however, dis'issed this clai' of petitioner as self-serving. .gain,
the ruling 'isconstrues the 'eaning of self-serin# eidence. Self-serin# eidence is not to e
literally ta7en as evidence that serves one@s selfish interest. >nder our law of evidence, self-
serin# eidence is one 'ade y a party out of court at one ti'e; it does not include a party@s
testi'ony as a witness in court. +t is eCcluded on the sa'e ground as any hearsay evidence, that
is the lac7 of opportunity for cross-eCa'ination y the adverse party, and on the consideration
that its ad'ission would open the door to fraud and to farication of testi'ony. On the other hand,
a party@s testi'ony in court is sworn and affords the other party the opportunity for cross-
#learly, petitioner@s testi'ony in court on how he was identified y the prosecution
witnesses in the 5%+ head3uarters is not self-serving.
*etitioner@s 'ain defense is alii. (e professed that on 1uly 19, 1988 he was 'iCing dough at
"ip"op %a7eshop fro' &-66 o@cloc7 in the 'orning till 1-66 o@cloc7 in the afternoon. ?ith the usual
traffic ,a', it ta7es hi' two <2= hours to co''ute fro' Eagro to "ondo. +t was thus physically
i'possile for hi' to e at the locus cri)inis. (e said he learned aout the roery thru his
neighor three <8= days thereafter. (e did not flee. (e was arrested y the 5%+ agents 'ore than
one <1= 'onth after the cri'es were perpetrated.
.ngeli "uason@s corroorative testi'ony estalished that her rother had an eye eCa'ination on
1uly 1&, 1988
and she re'inded hi' to wor7 early on 1uly 19, 1988 which he did.
1udges should not at once loo7 with disfavor at the defense of alii. .lii should e considered in
light of all the evidence on record for it can tilt the scales of ,ustice in favor of the accused.
People s. O)e#a,
we held-
.lthough alii is 7nown to e the wea7est of all defenses for it is easy to concoct and
difficult to disprove, nevertheless, where the evidence for the prosecution is wea7 and
etrays lac7 of concreteness on the 3uestion of whether or not the accused co''itted
the cri'e charged, the defense of alii assu'es i'portance.
"he case at ench re'inds us of the warning that ,udges see' disposed 'ore readily to credit
the veracity and reliaility of eyewitnesses than any a'ount of contrary evidence y or on ehalf
of the accused , whether y way of alii, insufficient identification, or other testi'ony.
"hey are
un'indful that in so'e cases the e'otional alance of the eyewitness is distured y her
eCperience that her powers of perception eco'es distorted and her identification is fre3uently
'ore untrustworthy. +nto the identification, enter other 'otives, not necessarily sti'ulated
originally y the accused
personally N the desire to re3uite a cri'e, to find a scapegoat, or to support, consciously or
unconsciously, an identification already 'ade y another.
+5 $+2? "(2!2O/, the 4ecision of 4ece'er 1:, 1998 is !2$2!)24 and )2" .)+42 and
petitioner .lvin "uason is .#F>+""24.
)O O!42!24.
"arasa! %.&.! 'idin! Re#alado and 3endoza! &&.! concur.
G.R. No. 79?9B $4(e 22, 19==
MNOLO P. F#LE, petitioner,
'ala#tas P. Ila#an for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
"his is a *etition for !eview on certiorari of the 4ecision of respondent .ppellate #ourt, which affir'ed the
,udg'ent of the !egional "rial #ourt, Eucena #ity, %ranch E+$, convicting petitioner <the accused-appellant=
of $iolation of %atas *a'ansa %lg. 22 <"he %ouncing #hec7s Eaw= on the asis of the )tipulation of /acts
entered into etween the prosecution and the defense during the pre-trial conference in the "rial #ourt. "he
facts stipulated upon read-
a= "hat this #ourt has ,urisdiction over the person and su,ect 'atter of this case;
= "hat the accused was an agent of the "owers .ssurance #orporation on or efore 1anuary 21,
c= "hat on 1anuary 21, 1981, the accused issued and 'ade out chec7 5o. 2:&41, dated 1anuary
24, 1981 in the su' of *2,941.69;
d= "hat the said chec7 was drawn in favor of the co'plaining witness, !oy 5adera;
e= "hat the chec7 was drawn in favor of the co'plaining witness in re'ittance of collection;
f= "hat the said chec7 was presented for pay'ent on 1anuary 24, 1981 ut the sa'e was
dishonored for the reason that the said chec7ing account was already closed;
g= "hat the accused Manolo /ule has een properly +dentified as the accused party in this case.
.t the hearing of .ugust 28, 1989, only the prosecution presented its evidence consisting of 2Chiits 0.,0 0%0
and 0#.0 .t the suse3uent hearing on )epte'er 1&, 1989, petitioner-appellant waived the right to present
evidence and, in lieu thereof, su'itted a Me'orandu' confir'ing the )tipulation of /acts. "he "rial #ourt
convicted petitioner-appellant.
On appeal, respondent .ppellate #ourt upheld the )tipulation of /acts and affir'ed the ,udg'ent of

(ence, this recourse, with petitioner-appellant contending that-
"he (onorale !espondent #ourt of .ppeals erred in the decision of the !egional "rial
#ourt convicting the petitioner of the offense charged, despite the cold fact that the asis
of the conviction was ased solely on the stipulation of facts 'ade during the pre-trial on
.ugust 8, 1989, which was not signed y the petitioner, nor y his counsel.
/inding the petition 'eritorious, we resolved to give due course.
"he 1989 !ules on #ri'inal *rocedure, which eca'e effective on 1anuary 1, 1989, applicale
to this case since the pre-trial was held on .ugust 8, 1989, provides-
)2#. 4. Pre-trial a#ree)ents )ust be si#ned. N 5o agree'ent or ad'ission 'ade or
entered during the pre-trial conference shall e used in evidence against the accused
unless reduced to writing and signed y hi' and his counsel. <!ule 118= I2'phasis
%y its very language, the !ule is 'andatory. >nder the rule of statutory construction, negative
words and phrases are to e regarded as 'andatory while those in the affir'ative are 'erely
directory <McAee vs. !epulic, 94 *hil. 826 I1994J=. "he use of the ter' 0shall0 further
e'phasizes its 'andatory character and 'eans that it is i'perative, operating to i'pose a duty
which 'ay e enforced <%ersaal vs. )alvador, 5o. E-89916, 1uly 21, 19&8, 84 )#!. 1&:=. .nd
'ore i'portantly, penal statutes whether sustantive and re'edial or procedural are, y
consecrated rule, to e strictly applied against the govern'ent and lierally in favor of the
accused <*eople vs. "errado 5o. E-28:29, 5ove'er 29, 1988, 129 )#!. :48=.
"he conclusion is inevitale, therefore, that the o'ission of the signature of the accused and his
counsel, as 'andatorily re3uired y the !ules, renders the )tipulation of /acts inad'issile in
evidence. "he fact that the lawyer of the accused, in his 'e'orandu', confir'ed the )tipulation
of /acts does not cure the defect ecause !ule 118 re3uires oth the accused and his counsel to
sign the )tipulation of /acts. ?hat the prosecution should have done, upon discovering that the
accused did not sign the )tipulation of /acts, as re3uired y !ule 118, was to su'it evidence to
estalish the ele'ents of the cri'e, instead of relying solely on the supposed ad'ission of the
accused in the )tipulation of /acts. ?ithout said evidence independent of the ad'ission, the guilt
of the accused cannot e dee'ed estalished eyond reasonale dout.
#onse3uently, under the circu'stances otaining in this case, the ends of ,ustice re3uire that
evidence e presented to deter'ine the culpaility of the accused. ?hen a ,udg'ent has een
entered y consent of an attorney without special authority, it will so'eti'es e set aside or
reopened <5atividad vs. 5atividad, 91 *hil. :18 I1928J=.
?(2!2/O!2, the ,udg'ent of respondent .ppellate #ourt is !2$2!)24 and this case is
herey ordered !2-O*2524 and !2M.5424 to the appropriate %ranch of the !egional "rial
#ourt of Eucena #ity, for further reception of evidence.
)O O!42!24.
7ap! %.&.! $ernan! "arasa! %ruz! $eliciano! Ganca*co! Padilla! 'idin! Sar)iento! %ortes! Gri8o-
Aquino and 3edialdea! &&.! concur.
Paras! &.! too2 no part.
Accused-appellant C!st!na Henande" #as c$a%ed #!t$ t$e c!&e '( !lle%al ecu!t&ent
c'&&!tted !n la%e scale !n )!'lat!'n '( At!cle *+ ,a- and ,.- !n elat!'n t' At!cle /* ,.-
and ,c- '( t$e Ne# La.' C'de,0/1 c'&&!tted as ('ll'#s:
2T$at !n ' a.'ut and du!n% t$e pe!'d c'&p!sed .et#een Dece&.e /3, /4++ t'
Dece&.e 53, /4++, !nclus!)e !n t$e C!t6 '( Man!la, P$!l!pp!nes, t$e sa!d accused
representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino
workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully for a fee,
recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad t' t$e ('ll'#!n% pes'ns t' #!t:
PALAD and RO:ERT P. ;ELAS=8EZ ,$ee!na(te >n'#n as p!)ate c'&pla!nants-
without first having secured the required license or authority from the !"#.2051
,undesc'!n% suppl!ed.-
8p'n aa!%n&ent, appellant pleaded n't %u!lt6 and t!al 'n t$e &e!ts ensued. O( t$e
('uteen ,/3- p!)ate c'&pla!nants, ('u ,3- #ee pesented as #!tnesses (' t$e
p'secut!'n, na&el6: :en!t' L. :ena.e, R'.et P. ;elas?ue", 7e%'!' P. Mend'"a and
Anel Mend'"a. T$e6 test!(!ed t' t$e ('ll'#!n% essent!al (acts: P!)ate c'&pla!nants@ (!st
enc'unte #!t$ t$e appellant #as 'n Dece&.e /5, /4++ #$en 'ne <'se(a C!nc'
acc'&pan!ed t$e& t' t$e '((!ce '( t$e P$!l!pp!ne T$a! Ass'c!at!'n, Inc. ,P$!l!pp!ne-T$a!-
!n E&!ta, Man!la t' &eet t$e appellant. Int'duc!n% $esel( as t$e %eneal &ana%e '(
P$!l!pp!ne-T$a!, appellant asseted t$at $e c'&pan6 ecu!ted #'>es (' place&ent
a.'ad and as>ed p!)ate c'&pla!nants !( t$e6 #anted t' #'> as (act'6 #'>es !n
Ta!pe$. Ent!ced .6 t$e assuance '( !&&ed!ate e&pl'6&ent and an A+BB pe &'nt$
sala6, p!)ate c'&pla!nants appl!ed. Appellant e?u!ed p!)ate c'&pla!nants t' pa6
place&ent and passp't (ees !n t$e t'tal a&'unt '( P55,CBB.BB pe appl!cant, t' .e pa!d !n
t$ee !nstall&ents, t' #!t: P/,CBB 'n Dece&.e /3, /4++, P/B,BBB.BB 'n Dece&.e /D,
/4++, and P//,BBB.BB 'n Dece&.e 55, /4++. E$en t$e c'&pla!nants-#!tnesses pa!d t$e
(!st t#' !nstall&ents, t$e6 #ee !ssued ece!pts .6 L!"a Mend'"a, t$e alle%ed teasue '(
P$!l!pp!ne-T$a! s!%ned .6 t$e latte !n t$e pesence '( t$e appellant. T$e ece!pts (' t$e
last !nstall&ent pa!d .6 t$e& #ee s!%ned .6 L!"a Mend'"a, and t$e appellant. A(te
$a)!n% ece!)ed t$e ent!e a&'unt0*1 ('& t$e #!tnesses, appellant assued t$e& t$at t$e6
#'uld .e a.le t' lea)e (' Ta!pe$ s'&et!&e .e('e t$e end '( Dece&.e, /4++. :ut
c'nta6 t' appellant@s p'&!se, c'&pla!nants-#!tnesses #ee una.le t' lea)e (' a.'ad.
T$e6 de&anded (' t$e etun '( t$e! &'ne6 .ut t' n' a)a!l. Appellant@s un(ul(!lled
p'&!se '( e&pl'6&ent and $e e(usal t' etun t$e &'ne6 t$at $ad .een pa!d .6 #a6 '(
place&ent and passp't (ees, t!%%eed t$e (!l!n% '( t$e c'&pla!nt.
F' !ts pat, t$e de(ense pesented as !ts l'ne #!tness, t$e appellant #$'se test!&'n6
c'ns!sted &a!nl6 !n den6!n% t$e c$a%es a%a!nst $e. Appellant cla!&ed t$at s$e ne)e &et
an6 '( t$e c'&pla!nants n' d!d s$e e)e ecu!t an6 '( t$e&. S$e l!>e#!se den!ed $a)!n%
ece!)ed &'ne6 ('& an6'ne and asseted t$at s$e d!d n't >n'# an6 L!"a Mend'"a #$'
!s t$e alle%ed teasue '( P$!l!pp!ne-T$a!. Appellant &a!nta!ned t$at alt$'u%$ s$e $ad an
'((!ce !n E&!ta :u!ld!n% l'cated at A?u!"a Steet, E&!ta, Man!la, t$e sa!d '((!ce
.el'n%ed t' :.C. Island E''d P'ducts C'p'at!'n #$!c$ #as en%a%ed !n t$e l'%%!n%
.us!ness. H'#e)e, #$en ?uest!'ned (ut$e, appellant ad&!tted .e!n% t$e pes!dent '(
P$!l!pp!ne-T$a! .ut 'nl6 !n a n'&!nal capac!t6, and cla!&ed t$at as n'&!nee-pes!dent,
s$e d!d n't pat!c!pate !n an6 '( !ts tansact!'ns. Appellant l!>e#!se !ns!sted t$at
P$!l!pp!ne-T$a! #as en%a%ed s'lel6 !n t$e .a'n% ta%al'% .us!ness.
A(te cae(ul cal!.at!'n '( t$e e)!dence pesented .6 t$e p'secut!'n and t$e de(ense, t$e
c'ut a quo endeed a dec!s!'n $'ld!n% t$at t$e de(ense '( 2den!al2 !ntep'sed .6 t$e
accused c'uld n't pe)a!l ')e t$e p's!t!)e and clea test!&'n!es '( t$e p'secut!'n
#!tnesses #$!c$ $ad esta.l!s$ed t$e %u!lt '( t$e accused .e6'nd eas'na.le d'u.t.031 T$e
d!sp's!t!)e p't!'n '( t$e dec!s!'n eads:
2EHEREFORE, pe&!ses c'ns!deed, t$!s C'ut $ee.6 (!nds t$at t$e accused
CRISTINA HERNANDEZ, ,s!c- %u!lt6 .e6'nd eas'na.le d'u.t '( t$e c!&e '( !lle%al
ecu!t&ent, c'&&!tted !n la%e scale, as de(!ned !n At!cle *+,a- F ,.- '( Pes!dent!al
Decee N'. /3/5, G G G !n elat!'n t' At!cle /* ,.- and ,c- G G G, acc'd!n%l6, sentences
t$e accused t' su((e t$e penalt6 '( l!(e !&p!s'n&ent ,RECL8SION PERPET8A- #!t$
t$e access'6 penalt!es p')!ded (' .6 la#H t' pa6 a (!ne '( ONE H8NDRED
THO8SAND ,P/BB,BBB.BB- PESOS #!t$'ut su.s!d!a6 !&p!s'n&ent !n case '(
!ns'l)enc6H t' etun and pa6 t' :ENITO L. :ERNA:E t$e a&'unt '( TEENT9
#!t$'ut su.s!d!a6 !&p!s'n&ent !n case '( !ns'l)enc6H and t' pa6 t$e c'sts.
Man!la, P$!l!pp!nes, N')e&.e 54, /44/.20C1
Appellant c'&es t' t$!s C'ut (' t$e e)esal '( t$e Iud%&ent '( c'n)!ct!'n ass!%n!n% t$e
('ll'#!n% e's a%a!nst t$e l'#e c'ut:
T$e (!st ass!%n&ent '( e' !s anc$'ed 'n t$e c'ntent!'n t$at t$e p'secut!'n (a!led t'
p')e 'ne '( t$e essent!al ele&ents '( t$e c!&e '( !lle%al ecu!t&ent -- t$at t$e '((ende
!s a n'n-l!censee ' n'n-$'lde '( aut$'!t6 t' la#(ull6 en%a%e !n t$e ecu!t&ent and
place&ent '( #'>es.0K1 T$e a('e&ent!'ned ele&ent, spec!(!call6 t$e (act t$at ne!t$e
appellant n' P$!l!pp!ne-T$a! #as l!censed ' aut$'!"ed t' ecu!t #'>es as s$'#n .6
t$e ec'ds '( t$e POEA, #as t$e su.Iect '( a st!pulat!'n p'p'sed .6 t$e p'secut!'n and
ad&!tted .6 t$e de(ense du!n% t!al. Appellant assa!ls as e'ne'us t$e el!ance placed .6
t$e p'secut!'n 'n t$e sa!d st!pulat!'n '( (acts !n d!spens!n% #!t$ t$e pesentat!'n '(
e)!dence t' p')e t$e sa!d ele&ent '( t$e c!&e '( !lle%al ecu!t&ent. Appellant a%ues
t$at: ,/- t$e st!pulat!'n '( (acts #as n't tanta&'unt t' an ad&!ss!'n .6 t$e appellant '(
t$e (act '( n'n-p'ssess!'n '( t$e e?u!s!te aut$'!t6 ' l!cense ('& t$e POEA, .ut #as
&eel6 an ad&!ss!'n t$at t$e C$!e( L!cens!n% O((!ce '( t$e POEA, !( pesented !n c'ut,
#'uld test!(6 t' t$!s (act, and ,5- t$e st!pulat!'n '( (acts !s null and )'!d (' .e!n%
c'nta6 t' la# and pu.l!c p'l!c6. Appellant p's!ts t$e ('e%'!n% a%u&ents t' .'lste $e
c'ntent!'n t$at t$e st!pulat!'n '( (acts d!d n't el!e)e t$e p'secut!'n '( !ts dut6 t'
pesent e)!dence t' p')e all t$e ele&ents '( t$e c!&e c$a%ed t' t$e end t$at t$e %u!lt '(
t$e accused &a6 .e p')en .e6'nd eas'na.le d'u.t.
At t$e 'utset, !t s$'uld .e sa!d t$at t$e a.')e c'ntent!'n and t$e a%u&ents ae
!ns!%n!(!cant !n )!e# '( t$e (act t$at ec'ds d!scl'se t$at t$e p'secut!'n $ad !n (act
pesented e)!dence t' p')e t$e sa!d ele&ent '( t$e c!&e '( !lle%al ecu!t&ent.
2ELHI:IT I2, a cet!(!cat!'n !ssued .6 t$e C$!e( L!cens!n% :anc$ '( t$e POEA, attest!n%
t' t$e (act t$at ne!t$e appellant n' P$!l!pp!ne-T$a! !s l!censedMaut$'!"ed t' ecu!t
#'>es (' e&pl'6&ent a.'ad, #as '((eed and ad&!tted !n e)!dence #!t$'ut t$e
'.Iect!'n '( t$e appellant.0+1
Alt$'u%$ appellant@s a%u&ents (!nd n' s!%n!(!cant .ea!n% !n t$e (ace '( t$e eG!stence '(
2ELHI:IT I2, t$e6 n'net$eless e?u!e deepe scut!n6 and a clea esp'nse (' (utue
appl!cat!'n. Hence, t$e ('ll'#!n% d!scuss!'n.
Appellant c'ectl6 d!st!n%u!s$es .et#een an ad&!ss!'n t$at a pat!cula #!tness !(
pesented !n c'ut #'uld test!(6 t' ceta!n (acts, and an ad&!ss!'n '( t$e (acts t$e&sel)es.
Acc'd!n% t' t$e appellant, #$at #as st!pulated 'n .et#een t$e p'secut!'n and de(ense
c'unsel at t$e $ea!n% 'n <une D, /44B #as 2&eel6 t$at t$e testimony '( t$e C$!e(
L!cens!n% O((!ce '( t$e POEA #'uld .e t' t$e e((ect t$at appellant !s n't l!censed n'
aut$'!"ed t' ecu!t #'>es2,041 T$us:
G G G :e('e #e call 'n 'u (!st #!tness, #e p'p'se s'&e st!pulat!'ns e%ad!n% t$e
test!&'n6 '( t$e C$!e( L!cens!n% :anc$ '( t$e POEA N t$at C!st!na Henande" !s n't a
,s!c- l!censed n' aut$'!"ed .6 t$e Depat&ent '( La.' t' ecu!t #'>es a.'ad.
E'uld 6'u a%eeO
Att6. 8lep ,C'unsel (' t$e Accused-: A%eed, 9'u H'n'.20/B1
S$e cla!&s t$at t$e ('e%'!n% cleal6 !nd!cate t$at t$ee #as n' Iud!c!al ad&!ss!'n '( t$e
(act '( n'n-p'ssess!'n '( a l!censeMaut$'!t6 .ut at$e a &ee ad&!ss!'n t$at t$e #!tness,
!( pesented, #'uld test!(6 t' suc$ (act. T$!s .e!n% t$e case, !t e&a!ned !ncu&.ent up'n
t$e p'secut!'n t' pesent e)!dence '( suc$ (act. T' .uttess $e p's!t!'n, t$e ('ll'#!n%
#as c!ted t' n'te t$e d!st!nct!'n:
2Supp'se a case !s set (' t!al and 'ne '( t$e pat!es &')es (' a c'nt!nuance .ecause '(
t$e a.sence '( E, an !&p'tant #!tness. H!s 'pp'nent, #$' !s anG!'us t' %' t' t!alH as>s
#$at ae t$e (acts t' #$!c$ E #'uld test!(6. T$e 't$e att'ne6 tells $!&, add!n%: @I( I
c'nsent t' t$e ')eul!n% '( &6 &'t!'n, #!ll 6'u st!pulate t$at t$'se ae t$e (actsO@ T$e
att'ne6 #$' !s pess!n% (' t!al sa6s: @N' .ut $ will stipulate that if % were called in this
case as a witness, he would so testify.@ E$at !s t$e d!((eence .et#een t$e t#'
In t$e (!st st!pulat!'n p'p'sed t$ee !s a Iud!c!al ad&!ss!'n '( t$e (acts, and t$e6 cann't
.e c'ntad!cted. :ut t$e sec'nd st!pulat!'n p'p'sed #!ll 'nl6 $a)e t$e sa&e e((ect as !(
t$e #!tness $ad test!(!ed t' t$e (acts. Suc$ test!&'n6 t$e pat6 !s (ee t' c'ntad!ct.20//1
T$e d!st!nct!'n, t$'u%$ c'%ent, !s un('tunatel6 !nappl!ca.le t' t$e case at .a.
C'n)en!entl6 '&!tted ('& t$e appellant@s epl6 .!e( !s t$e ensu!n% state&ent &ade .6
t$e c'ut a(te c'unsel (' t$e accused, Att6. 8lep a%eed t' t$e st!pulat!'n p'p'sed .6
t$e p'secut!'n, t' #!t:
Att6. 8lep ,c'unsel (' t$e accused-: A%eed, 9'u H'n'.
T$e p'secut!'n and t$e de(ense a%eed t' st!pulateMad&!t t$at ('& t$e ec'd '( t$e
POEA L!cens!n% and Re%ulat!'n O((!ce, Dept. '( La.' and E&pl'6&ent, accused
C!st!na Henande"MP$!l. etc., Ass. G G G !s ne!t$e l!censed n' aut$'!"ed .6 t$at '((!ce
t' ecu!t #'>es ')eseas a.'ad and t$at !( t$e dul6 aut$'!"ed epesentat!)e ('& t$e
POEA Ad&!n!stat!'n !s t' ta>e t$e #!tness stand, $e #!ll c'n(!& t' t$!s (act as .'ne .6
t$e ec'ds.0/51 ,8ndesc'!n% suppl!ed .-
F'& t$e ('e%'!n%, !t !s e)!dent t$at t$e p'secut!'n and t$e de(ense c'unsel st!pulated
'n t#' t$!n%s: t$at 2G G G ('& t$e ec'd '( t$e POEA, G G G accused C!st!na
Henande", P$!l. etc. Ass. G G G !s ne!t$e l!censed n' aut$'!"ed .6 t$at '((!ce t' ecu!t
#'>es (' ')eseas a.'ad and t$at !( t$e dul6 aut$'!"ed epesentat!)e ('& t$e POEA
Ad&!n!stat!n ,s!c- !s t' ta>e t$e #!tness stand, $e #!ll c'n(!& t' t$!s (act G G G.20/*1T$e
cla!& t$at t$e l'#e c'ut &!sta>enl6 !ntepeted de(ense c'unsel@s ac?u!escence t' t$e
p'secut!'n@s p'p'sed st!pulat!'n as an ad&!ss!'n '( n'n-p'ssess!'n '( t$e e?u!s!te
POEA l!cense ' aut$'!t6 !s .el!ed .6 t$e (act t$at a(te t$e a.')e enunc!at!'n .6 t$e
c'ut, n' '.Iect!'n #as !ntep'sed .6 de(ense c'unsel.
Appellant (ut$e c'ntends t$at %ant!n% arguendo t$at de(ense c'unsel $ad !n (act a%eed
t' t$e a.')e st!pulat!'n '( (acts, t$e sa&e !s null and )'!d (' .e!n% c'nta6 t' t$e #ell-
esta.l!s$ed ule t$at a st!pulat!'n '( (acts !s n't all'#ed !n c!&!nal cases. T' .'lste t$!s
c'ntent!'n, appellant c!ted t$e c'ns!stent ul!n% '( t$!s C'ut 'n t$e &atte. T$us, as $eld
!n t$e case '( &.'. vs. (onato:0/31
2A%ee&ents .et#een att'ne6s (' t$e p'secut!'n and (' t$e de(ense !n c!&!nal cases,
.6 #$!c$ !t !s st!pulated t$at ceta!n #!tnesses, !( pesent, #'uld test!(6 t' ceta!n (acts
pe)ent a e)!e# '( t$e e)!dence .6 t$e Supe&e C'ut and ae !n )!'lat!'n '( t$e
T$e a.')e ul!n% #as e!teated !n a su.se?uent case #$ee t$e accused #as c'n)!cted
s'lel6 'n t$e .as!s '( an a%ee&ent .et#een t$e (!scal and t$e c'unsel (' t$e accused
t$at ceta!n #!tnesses #'uld test!(6 c'n(!&!n% t$e c'&pla!nt !n all !ts pats. In e)es!n%
t$e Iud%&ent '( c'n)!ct!'n, t$!s C'ut $eld t$at:
2It !s ne!t$e p'pe n' pe&!ss!.le t' c'ns!de a case cl'sed, ' t' ende Iud%&ent
t$ee!n, .6 )!tue '( an a%ee&ent enteed !nt' .et#een t$e p')!nc!al (!scal and t$e
c'unsel (' t$e accused #!t$ e(eence t' (acts, s'&e '( #$!c$ ae (a)'a.le t' t$e
de(ense, and 't$es elated t' t$e p'secut!'n, #!t$'ut an6 e)!dence .e!n% adduced '
test!&'n6 ta>en ('& t$e #!tnesses &ent!'ned !n t$e a%ee&entH suc$ pact!ce !s n't
aut$'!"ed and de(eats t$e pup'ses '( c!&!nal la#H !t !s an 'pen )!'lat!'n '( t$e ules '(
c!&!nal p'cedue G G G.20/D1
T$e ule p'$!.!t!n% t$e st!pulat!'n '( (acts !n c!&!nal cases !s %'unded 'n t$e
(unda&ental !%$t '( t$e accused t' .e pesu&ed !nn'cent unt!l p')en %u!lt6, and t$e
c''lla6 dut6 '( t$e p'secut!'n t' p')e t$e %u!lt '( t$e accused .e6'nd eas'na.le
d'u.t. It !s t$ee('e ad)anced t$at t$e p'secut!'n .e!n% dut6-.'und t' p')e all t$e
ele&ents '( t$e c!&e, &a6 n't .e el!e)ed '( t$!s '.l!%at!'n .6 t$e &ee eGped!ent '(
st!pulat!n% #!t$ de(ense c'unsel 'n a &atte c'nst!tut!)e '( an essent!al ele&ent '( t$e
c!&e c$a%ed.
T$e at!'nale .e$!nd t$e p'sc!pt!'n a%a!nst t$!s class '( a%ee&ents .et#een
p'secut!'n and de(ense #as enunc!ated !n t$e case '( &.'. vs. )anlimos:0/K1
2It !s n't supp'sed t' .e #!t$!n t$e >n'#led%e ' c'&petence '( c'unsel t' ped!ct #$at
a p'p'sed #!tness s$all sa6 unde t$e sanct!'n '( $!s 'at$ and t$e test '( c'ss-
eGa&!nat!'n. A c'n)!ct!'n (' c!&e s$'uld n't est up'n &ee c'nIectue. N' !s !t
p'ss!.le (' a t!al c'ut t' #e!%$ #!t$ eGact n!cet6 t$e c'ntad!ct'6 declaat!'n '(
#!tnesses n't p'duced s' as t' .e su.Iected t' !ts '.se)at!'n and !ts Iud%&ent as t'
t$e! ced!.!l!t6.20/+1
H'#e)e, !n t$e l!%$t '( ecent c$an%es !n 'u ules 'n c!&!nal p'cedue, pat!culal6
t$e pe-t!al p')!s!'ns ('und !n Rule //+, t$e p'$!.!t!'n a%a!nst a st!pulat!'n '( (acts !n
c!&!nal cases n' l'n%e $'lds tue. Rule //+ p')!des t$e ('ll'#!n%:
2Sect!'n /. Pe-t!alH #$en p'pe N T' eGped!te t!al, #$ee t$e accused and c'unsel
a%ee, t$e c'ut s$all c'nduct a pe-t!al c'n(eence 'n t$e &attes enunc!ated !n Sect!'n
5 $ee'(, #!t$'ut !&pa!!n% t$e !%$ts '( t$e accused.
Sec. 5 Pe-t!al c'n(eenceH su.Iects G G G T$e pe-t!al c'n(eence s$all c'ns!de t$e
,a- Plea .a%a!n!n%H
,.- 'tipulation of factsH
G G G G G G G G G2,undesc'!n% suppl!ed-
:6 )!tue '( t$e ('e%'!n% ule, a st!pulat!'n '( (acts !n c!&!nal cases !s n'# eGpessl6
sanct!'ned .6 la#. In (ut$e pusu!t '( t$e '.Iect!)e '( eGped!t!n% t!al .6 d!spens!n%
#!t$ t$e pesentat!'n '( e)!dence 'n &attes t$at t$e accused !s #!ll!n% t' ad&!t, a
st!pulat!'n '( (acts s$'uld .e all'#ed n't 'nl6 du!n% pe-t!al .ut als' and #!t$ &'e
eas'n, du!n% t!al p'pe !tsel(. Paent$et!call6, alt$'u%$ n't eGpessl6 sanct!'ned unde
t$e 'ld ules '( c'ut, a st!pulat!'n '( (acts .6 t$e pat!es !n c!&!nal cases $as l'n% .een
all'#ed and ec'%n!"ed as declaat!'ns c'nst!tut!n% Iud!c!al ad&!ss!'ns, $ence, .!nd!n%
up'n t$e pat!es. In t$e case '( eople vs. )apa0/41 #$ee t$e accused #as c$a%ed #!t$
!lle%al p'ssess!'n '( (!ea&s, t$e p'secut!'n and t$e de(ense st!pulated 'n t$e (act t$at
t$e accused #as ('und !n p'ssess!'n '( a %un #!t$'ut t$e e?u!s!te pe&!t ' l!cense.
M'e at p'!nt !s t$e case '( eople vs. *ocar05B1 #$ee!n t$e (!scal p'p'sed t$e
ad&!ss!'n .6 t$e accused '( t$e a((!da)!ts and 't$e eG$!.!ts alead6 pesented .6 t$e
p'secut!'n t' d!spense #!t$ 'al test!&'n!es 'n t$e &atte. H'ld!n% t$at t$e ad&!ss!'ns
&ade .6 t$e pat!es #ee .!nd!n%, t$!s C'ut stated t$at:
2G G G 0T1$ee !s n't$!n% unla#(ul ' !e%ula a.'ut t$e a.')e p'cedue. +he
declarations constitute judicial admissions, which are binding on the parties, by virtue of
which the prosecution dispensed with the introduction of additional evidence and the
defense waived the right to contest or dispute the veracity of the statements contained in
the e,hibits.205/1 ,undesc'!n% suppl!ed .-
A&e!can Iu!spudence $as esta.l!s$ed t$e accepta.!l!t6 '( t$e pact!ce '( st!pulat!n%
du!n% t$e t!al '( c!&!nal cases, and cate%'!call6 stated !n eople vs. -are0551 t$at:
2T$at ec'd d!scl'ses t$at t$e de(ense c'unsel st!pulated t' #$at ceta!n #!tnesses #'uld
test!(6 !( t$e6 #ee pesent !n c'ut. G G G
G G G T$e de(endant c'ntends t$at !t #as e' (' $!s c'unsel t' &a>e t$ese st!pulat!'ns.
T$!s c'ut $as $eld t$at an accused &a6 .6 st!pulat!'n #a!)e t$e necess!t6 '( p''( '( all
' an6 pat '( t$e case #$!c$ t$e pe'ple $a)e alle%ed a%a!nst $!& and t$at $a)!n% d'ne
s', $e cann't c'&pla!n !n t$!s C'ut '( e)!dence #$!c$ $e $as st!pulated !nt' t$e ec'd.
T$e c''lla6 !ssue le(t (' t$e dete&!nat!'n '( t$!s C'ut !s #$et$e ' n't Sect!'n 3 '(
Rule //+ -- e?u!!n% an a%ee&ent ' ad&!ss!'n &ade ' enteed du!n% t$e pe-t!al
c'n(eence t' .e reduced in writing and signed by the accused and his counsel .e('e t$e
sa&e &a6 .e used !n e)!dence a%a!nst t$e accused -- e?uall6 appl!es t' a st!pulat!'n '(
(acts &ade du!n% t!al. Ee es'l)ed t$!s !ssue !n t$e ne%at!)e.
A st!pulat!'n '( (acts enteed !nt' .6 t$e p'secut!'n and de(ense c'unsel du!n% t!al !n
'pen c'ut !s aut'&at!call6 educed !nt' #!t!n% and c'nta!ned !n t$e '((!c!al tansc!pt '(
t$e p'ceed!n%s $ad !n c'ut. T$e c'n('&!t6 '( t$e accused !n t$e ('& '( $!s s!%natue
a((!Ged t$eet' !s unnecessa6 !n )!e# '( t$e (act t$at: 2G G G an att'ne6 #$' !s e&pl'6ed
t' &ana%e a pat6@s c'nduct '( a la#su!t G G G $as prima facie aut$'!t6 t' &a>e ele)ant
ad&!ss!'ns .6 plead!n%s, by oral ' #!tten stipulation, G G G #$!c$ unless all'#ed t' .e
#!t$da#n ae c'nclus!)e.20531 ,undesc'!n% suppl!ed.- In (act, 2Iud!c!al ad&!ss!'ns ae
(e?uentl6 t$'se '( c'unsel ' '( t$e att'ne6 '( ec'd, #$' !s, (' t$e pup'se '( t$e
t!al, t$e a%ent '( $!s cl!ent. E$en suc$ ad&!ss!'ns ae &ade G G G (' t$e pup'se '(
d!spens!n% #!t$ p''( '( s'&e (act, G G G t$e6 .!nd t$e cl!ent, #$et$e &ade du!n%, '
e)en a(te, t$e t!al.205C1
T$e ('e%'!n% (!nd .as!s !n t$e %eneal ule t$at a cl!ent !s .'und .6 t$e acts '( $!s
c'unsel #$' epesents $!&.05D1 F' all !ntents and pup'ses, t$e acts '( a la#6e !n t$e
de(ense '( a case ae t$e acts '( $!s cl!ent. T$e ule eGtends e)en t' t$e &!sta>es and
ne%l!%ence c'&&!tted .6 t$e la#6e eGcept 'nl6 #$en suc$ &!sta>es #'uld esult !n
se!'us !nIust!ce t' t$e cl!ent.05K1 N' c'%ent eas'n eG!sts t' &a>e suc$ eGcept!'n !n t$!s
case. It !s #'t$ n't!n% t$at Att6. 8lep, appellant@s c'unsel !n t$e l'#e c'ut, a%eed t'
t$e st!pulat!'n '( (acts p'p'sed .6 t$e p'secut!'n n't 'ut '( &!sta>e n' !nad)etence,
.ut '.)!'usl6 .ecause t$e sa!d st!pulat!'n '( (acts #as als' !n c'n('&!t6 t' de(ense@s
t$e'6 '( t$e case. It &a6 .e ecalled t$at t$'u%$'ut t$e ent!e duat!'n '( t$e t!al,
appellant staunc$l6 den!ed e)e $a)!n% en%a%ed !n t$e ecu!t&ent .us!ness e!t$e !n $e
pes'nal capac!t6 ' t$'u%$ P$!l!pp!ne-T$a!. T$ee('e, !t #as .ut l'%!cal t' ad&!t t$at
t$e POEA ec'ds s$'# t$at ne!t$e s$e n' P$!l!pp!ne-T$a! #as l!censed ' aut$'!"ed t'
ecu!t #'>es.
It !s tue t$at t$e !%$ts '( an accused du!n% t!al ae %!)en paa&'unt !&p'tance !n 'u
la#s 'n c!&!nal p'cedue. A&'n% t$e (unda&ental !%$ts '( t$e accused !s t$e !%$t t'
c'n('nt and c'ss-eGa&!ne t$e #!tnesses a%a!nst $!&.05+1 :ut t$e !%$t '( c'n('ntat!'n
%uaanteed and secued t' t$e accused !s a pes'nal p!)!le%e #$!c$ &a6 .e #a!)ed.0541
T$us, !n t$e case '( &.'. vs. #nastasio,0*B1 t$!s C'ut dee&ed as a #a!)e '( t$e !%$t '(
c'n('ntat!'n, t$e ad&!ss!'n .6 t$e accused t$at #!tnesses !( pesent #'uld test!(6 t'
ceta!n (acts stated !n t$e a((!da)!t '( t$e p'secut!'n.0*/1
In t$e sa&e )e!n, !t &a6 .e sa!d t$at suc$ an ad&!ss!'n !s a #a!)e '( t$e !%$t '( an
accused t' pesent e)!dence 'n $!s .e$al(. Alt$'u%$ t$e !%$t t' pesent e)!dence !s
%uaanteed .6 n' less t$an t$e C'nst!tut!'n !tsel( (' t$e p'tect!'n '( t$e accused, t$!s
!%$t &a6 .e #a!)ed eGpessl6 ' !&pl!edl6.0*51 T$!s !s !n c'ns'nance #!t$ t$e d'ct!ne
'( #a!)e #$!c$ ec'%n!"es t$at 2G G G e)e6'ne $as a !%$t t' #a!)e, and a%ee t' #a!)e,
t$e ad)anta%e '( a la# ' ule &ade s'lel6 (' t$e .ene(!t and p'tect!'n '( t$e !nd!)!dual
!n $!s p!)ate capac!t6, !( !t can .e d!spensed #!t$ and el!n?u!s$ed #!t$'ut !n(!n%!n% 'n
an6 pu.l!c !%$t, and #!t$'ut det!&ent t' t$e c'&&un!t6 at la%e.20**1
T$e a.')e&ent!'ned d'ct!ne !s s?uael6 appl!ca.le t' t$e case at .a. Appellant #as
ne)e pe)ented ('& pesent!n% e)!dence c'nta6 t' t$e st!pulat!'n '( (acts. I( appellant
.el!e)ed t$at t$e test!&'n6 '( t$e C$!e( L!cens!n% O((!ce '( t$e POEA #'uld .e
.ene(!c!al t' $e case, t$en !t !s t$e de(ense #$' s$'uld $a)e pesented $!&. He
c'nt!nu'us (a!lue t' d' s' du!n% t!al #as a #a!)e '( $e !%$t t' pesent t$e pet!nent
e)!dence t' c'ntad!ct t$e st!pulat!'n '( (acts and esta.l!s$ $e de(ense.
In )!e# '( t$e ('e%'!n%, t$e st!pulat!'n '( (acts p'p'sed du!n% t!al .6 p'secut!'n and
ad&!tted .6 de(ense c'unsel !s tanta&'unt t' a Iud!c!al ad&!ss!'n .6 t$e appellant '( t$e
(acts st!pulated 'n. C'nt'll!n%, t$ee('e, !s Sect!'n 3, Rule /54 '( t$e Rules '( C'ut
#$!c$ p')!des t$at:
2An ad&!ss!'n, )e.al ' #!tten, &ade .6 a pat6 !n t$e c'use '( t$e p'ceed!n%s !n t$e
sa&e case, d'es n't e?u!e p''(. T$e ad&!ss!'n &a6 .e c'ntad!cted 'nl6 .6 s$'#!n%
t$at !t #as &ade t$'u%$ palpa.le &!sta>e ' t$at n' suc$ ad&!ss!'n #as &ade.2
Ee n'# %' t' appellant@s sec'nd and t$!d ass!%n&ent '( e's. In $e sec'nd ass!%n&ent
'( e', appellant &a>es &uc$ ad' '( t$e 2Iud!c!al n't!ce2 ta>en .6 t$e l'#e c'ut '( t$e
(act t$at appellant $ad .een c$a%ed #!t$ an't$e !lle%al ecu!t&ent case,0*31 and !n
c'ns!de!n% t$e pendenc6 t$ee'( as e)!dence '( t$e sc$e&e and state%6 ad'pted .6 t$e
accused. Appellant c!tes a )!'lat!'n '( Sect!'n * '( Rule /54 '( t$e Rules '( C'ut #$!c$
p')!des t$at .e('e t$e c'ut &a6 ta>e Iud!c!al n't!ce '( an6 &atte, t$e pat!es s$all .e
$ead t$ee'n !( suc$ &atte !s dec!s!)e '( a &ate!al !ssue !n t$e case. It !s cla!&ed t$at
t$e l'#e c'ut ne)e ann'unced !ts !ntent!'n t' ta>e Iud!c!al n't!ce '( t$e pendenc6 '(
t$e 't$e !lle%al ecu!t&ent case n' d!d !t all'# t$e accused t' .e $ead t$ee'n.
It !s tue t$at as a %eneal ule, c'uts ae n't aut$'!"ed t' ta>e Iud!c!al n't!ce '( t$e
c'ntents '( t$e ec'ds '( 't$e cases, e)en #$en suc$ cases $a)e .een t!ed ' ae
pend!n% !n t$e sa&e c'ut, and n't#!t$stand!n% t$e (act t$at .'t$ cases &a6 $a)e .een
t!ed ' ae actuall6 pend!n% .e('e t$e sa&e Iud%e.0*C1 H'#e)e, t$!s ule !s su.Iect t'
t$e eGcept!'n t$at:
2G G G in the absence of objection and as a &atte '( c'n)en!ence t' all pat!es, a c'ut
&a6 p'pel6 teat all ' an6 pat '( t$e '!%!nal ec'd '( t$e case (!led !n !ts ac$!)es as
ead !nt' t$e ec'ds '( a case pend!n% .e('e !t, #$en with the knowledge '( t$e
'pp's!n% pat6, e(eence !s &ade t' !t, .6 na&e and nu&.e ' !n s'&e 't$e &anne .6
#$!c$ !t !s su((!c!entl6 des!%nated, G G G20*D1 ,undesc'!n% suppl!ed .-
T$e Iud!c!al n't!ce ta>en .6 t$e l'#e c'ut '( t$e pendenc6 '( an't$e !lle%al
ecu!t&ent case a%a!nst t$e appellant (alls s?uael6 unde t$e a.')e eGcept!'n !n )!e# '(
t$e (act t$at !t #as t$e appellant $esel( #$' !nt'duced e)!dence 'n t$e &atte #$en s$e
test!(!ed !n 'pen c'ut as ('ll'#s:
2=: 9'u &ean t' sa6 . . . .6 t$e #a6, #$ee ,s!c- #ee 6'u at t$e N:I #$en Ms. C!nc'
!n?u!ed ('& 6'u a.'ut place&ent a.'adO
A: I #as Iust !n)!ted .6 t$e pes'nnel '( t$e N:I and I #as n't all'#ed t' %' $'&e.
=: E$6 #ee 6'u !n)!ted .6 t$e N:IO
A: T$e6 t'ld &e t$at t$ee #as a c'&pla!nt a%a!nst &e.
=: C'&pla!nt a.'ut #$atO
A: T$e sa&e case.
=: 9'u &ean !lle%al ecu!t&ent als'O
A: 9es, s!.
=: 9'u &ade &ent!'n t$an an !lle%al ecu!t&ent case #$!c$ #as supp'sed t' .e t$e
cause '( 6'u detent!'n at t$e N:I. . . .
I a& n't e(e!n% t' t$!s case, Ms. Henande" -- #$at $appened t' t$at case, #$at !s t$e
status '( t$at caseO
A: It !s als' !n t$!s sala.
CO8RT: It !s alead6 su.&!tted (' dec!s!'n.0*K1
E)en assu&!n%, $'#e)e, t$at t$e l'#e c'ut !&p'pel6 t''> Iud!c!al n't!ce '( t$e
pendenc6 '( an't$e !lle%al ecu!t&ent case a%a!nst t$e appellant, t$e e' #'uld n't .e
(atal t' t$e p'secut!'n@s cause. T$e Iud%&ent '( c'n)!ct!'n #as n't .ased 'n t$e
eG!stence '( an't$e !lle%al ecu!t&ent case (!led a%a!nst appellant .6 a d!((eent %'up '(
c'&pla!nants, .ut 'n t$e ')e#$el&!n% e)!dence a%a!nst $e !n t$e !nstant case.
Anent t$e last ass!%n&ent '( e', su((!ce !t t' sa6 t$at #e d' n't (!nd an6 c'&pell!n%
eas'n t' e)ese t$e (!nd!n%s '( t$e l'#e c'ut t$at appellant@s .ae den!als cann't
')et$'# t$e p's!t!)e test!&'n!es '( t$e p'secut!'n #!tnesses a%a!nst $e.
Eell esta.l!s$ed !s t$e ule t$at den!als !( unsu.stant!ated .6 clea and c'n)!nc!n%
e)!dence ae ne%at!)e, sel(-se)!n% e)!dence #$!c$ dese)e n' #e!%$t !n la# and cann't
.e %!)en %eate e)!dent!a6 #e!%$t ')e t$e test!&'n6 '( ced!.le #!tnesses #$' test!(6
'n a((!&at!)e &attes.0*+1 T$at s$e d!d n't &eel6 den6, .ut l!>e#!se a!sed as an
a((!&at!)e de(ense $e app'!nt&ent as &ee n'&!nee-pes!dent '( P$!l!pp!ne-T$a! !s a
(ut!le atte&pt at eGculpat!n% $esel( and !s '( n' c'nse?uence #$ats'e)e #$en #e!%$ed
a%a!nst t$e p's!t!)e declaat!'ns '( #!tnesses t$at !t #as t$e appellant #$' eGecuted t$e
acts '( !lle%al ecu!t&ent as c'&pla!ned '(.
F!nall6, unde At!cle *4 '( t$e Ne# La.' C'de, t$e penalt6 (' !lle%al ecu!t&ent
c'&&!tted !n la%e scale !s l!(e !&p!s'n&ent and a (!ne '( ONE H8NDRED
THO8SAND PESOS ,P/BB,BBB.BB-. As pe)!'usl6 $eld .6 t$!s C'ut, l!(e !&p!s'n&ent
!s n't s6n'n6&'us #!t$ reclusion perpetua.0*41 T$e l'#e c'ut eed !n !&p's!n% 2t$e
penalt6 '( l!(e !&p!s'n&ent ,reclusion perpetua- with the accessory penalties provided
for by lawH G G G203B1 ,8ndesc'!n% suppl!ed-
WHEREFORE, appellant@s c'n)!ct!'n '( t$e c!&e '( !lle%al ecu!t&ent !n la%e scale
!s $ee.6 AFFIRMED, and t$e penalt6 !&p'sed MODIFIED as ('ll'#s: t$e c'ut
sentences t$e accused t' su((e t$e penalt6 '( l!(e !&p!s'n&ent and t' pa6 a (!ne '( ONE
H8NDRED THO8SAND ,P/BB,BBB.BB- PESOS #!t$'ut su.s!d!a6 !&p!s'n&ent !n
case '( !ns'l)enc6H t' etun and pa6 t' :ENITO L. :ERNA:E t$e a&'unt '( TEENT9
#!t$'ut su.s!d!a6 !&p!s'n&ent !n case '( !ns'l)enc6H and t' pa6 t$e c'sts.
Na)asa, C.<., ,C$a!&an-, Da)!de, <., Mel', and Pan%an!.an, <<., c'ncu.
G.R. No. L@2=297 M&r*. 3?, 197?
ELPI!IO $6ELLN, plaintiff-appellant,
!. O. PL" ENTERPRISES, INC., defendant-appellee.
Ra)on A. Gonzales for plaintiff-appellant.
9er)osisi)a! 3ara)ara and Sol for defendant-appellee.
RECES, $.B.L., J.:
4irect appeal, on points of law, fro' an order of the #ourt of /irst +nstance of
Manila, in its #ivil #ase 5o. 4:&:2, 'odifying an earlier decision for the plaintiff
y reducing the rate of interest on the su' ad,udged, and also the attorney@s
fees; and y ordering the plaintiff to pay da'ages to the defendant on account of
a preli'inary attach'ent otained y the for'er upon the latter@s counterclai'.
"he co'plaint in the aforesaid civil case was for collection of the su' of
*48,61&.82 representing alance due on purchases of wire ropes, tractors and
diesel parts 'ade y the defendant-appellee, 4. O. *laza 2nterprises, +nc., fro'
the plaintiff-appellant, 2lpidio 1avellana. "he co'plaint prayed that the defendant
e ordered to pay the said su' of *48,61&.82, with legal interest, plus attorney@s
fees in the su' of *9,666.66; it also prayed for a writ of preli'inary attach'ent.
>pon plaintiff@s putting up a ond, the trial court, on 19 .pril 19:1, issued a writ of
attach'ent. On 26 May 19:1, the defendant 'oved to discharge the attach'ent
on the ground that it was i'properly issued. "he 'otion was denied.
On & 5ove'er 19:1, the defendant filed its answer and counter-clai'ed for
da'ages arising fro' the attach'ent. "he plaintiff answered and interposed a
counterclai' to the counterclai'.
.fter so'e years, or on 2& .pril 19::, the defendant 'oved for the dissolution of
the preli'inary attach'ent. >pon its filing a counterond, the court, on & May
19::, dissolved the attach'ent.
On 8 5ove'er 19::, the plaintiff filed a 'otion to ad'it his a'ended co'plaint,
which the court granted on 12 5ove'er 19::. +n this a'ended co'plaint, the
plaintiff averred that of the su' of *48,61&.82 alleged in the original co'plaint,
the defendant has paid *8,966.66, therey leaving a alance of *89,11&.82
unpaid, ut that, as indicated y invoices, defendant@s purchases were payale
within thirty <86= days and were to ear interest of 12O per annu' plus 29O
attorney@s fees. "he a'ended co'plaint accordingly prayed for the increased
a'ounts. 4efendant did not answer this a'ended co'plaint.
.fter trial, the court, on 19 1une 19:&, rendered ,udg'ent. +t found the following
.... 4uring the period fro' 28 1uly 1999 to 86 1uly 19:6, defendant, in a
series of transactions, purchased fro' plaintiff wire ropes, tractors and
diesel spare parts, <in= pay'ent for which he issued several chec7s
a'ounting to *48,61&.82, which, when presented to the an7, were
dishonored for lac7 of funds. 4efendant sustituted these chec7s with
another set of chec7s for the sa'e a'ount, ut again, the sa'e were
dishonored for lac7 of funds, as evidenced y 2Chiits . to M, eCcept for
one chec7 in the a'ount of *8,966.66 as evidenced y 2Chiit #. "hus,
the principal oligation was reduced to *89,11&.82. .t the ti'e of the
issuance of the said chec7s, the defendant never infor'ed plaintiff that it
had funds to ac7 the' up. *laintiff 'ade de'ands to defendant for
pay'ent, ut defendant pleaded for ti'e and lieralization of pay'ent,
which was re,ected y the plaintiff. "he transactions in 3uestion were
covered y invoices listed in 2Chiit *, a sa'ple of which is evidenced y
2Chiit #, wherein said transactions were for 86-day ter', 12O interest
per annu' to e charged fro' date of invoice, and 29O attorney@s fees in
case of litigation.
"he defendant clai's that there were other transactions etween plaintiff
and defendant involving the a'ount of *19:,828.98; that it had no
intention not to pay the chec7s it issued upon present'ent; and that it
suffered da'ages in the a'ount of *14,866.66 y reason of the
"he counterclai' for da'ages arising fro' the attach'ent is without
'erit. "he defendant was 'anifestly in ad faith when it issued two sets of
ouncing chec7s. (ence, the attach'ent was not i'proper, contrary to
defendant@s clai'.
"he dispositive portion of the decision decreed-
?(2!2/O!2, ,udg'ent is herey rendered for the plaintiff and against
the defendant, ordering the latter to pay the for'er the su' of *89,11&.82
with interest at 12O per annu' fro' 14 .pril 19:1, the date of the filing of
the original co'plaint, until final pay'ent, plus 29O of the principal
indetedness as attorney@s fees and costs of suit.
"he counterclai' as well as the counterclai' to the counter clai' are
herey dis'issed for lac7 of 'erit.
On 28 1une 19:&, the defendant 'oved to reconsider. Over the o,ection of the
plaintiff, the court issued an order dated 16 .ugust 19:&, now the su,ect of the
present appeal, 'odifying the previous decision, in the 'anner following-
?(2!2/O!2, the dispositive part of the decision rendered in this case is
herey 'odified as follows-
<a= %y ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the su' of *89,11&.26 plus
the legal interest therein fro' the filing of the co'plaint until the a'ount is
fully paid.
<= Ordering the plaintiff to pay defendant the su' of *1:,196.66, the
a'ount of da'ages suffered y the defendant on account of the
preli'inary attach'ent of the defendant; and
<c= %y ordering the defendant to pay *9,666.66 as attorney@s fees.
?ithout pronounce'ent as to costs.
*laintiff-appellant assigns the following errors- the reduction of the attorney@s
fees, the reduction of the interest, and the grant to the defendant of da'ages
arising fro' the attach'ent.
"he first two assigned errors are well ta7en. "he court a quo reduced the interest
stated in its previous decision fro' 12O to 'ere legal interest and the attorney@s
fees fro' 29O to *9,666.66 on the asis of estoppel, the ground therefor eing
that the reduced a'ounts were those alleged, hence ad'itted, y the plaintiff in
his original co'plaint. "his was error. "he original co'plaint was not for'ally
offered in evidence. (aving een a'ended, the original co'plaint lost its
character as a ,udicial ad'ission, which would have re3uired no proof, and
eca'e 'erely an eCtra,udicial ad'ission, the ad'issiility of which, as
evidence, re3uires its for'al offer.
*leadings superseded or a'ended disappear fro' the record as ,udicial
ad'issions. (owever, any state'ent contained therein 'ay e considered
as an eCtra,udicial ad'ission, and as such, in order that the court 'ay
ta7e it into consideration, it should e offered for'ality in evidence. <9
Moran 98, citing Eucido v. #alupitan, 2& *hil. 148; %astida v. Menzi, 98
*hil. 188.=
?here a'ended pleadings have een filed, allegations in the original
pleadings can have no effect, unless for'ally offered in evidence. <1ones
on 2vidence, )ec. 2&8.=
)ince the record does not show that the co'plaint <'ar7ed as 2Chiit 119= was
ad'itted in evidence, there is no proof of estoppel on the part of the plaintiff on
his allegations in the co'plaint. 5ot only this, ut since the stipulation for 12O
interest on alance due and the 29O counsel fees appear on the invoices
the'selves, appellee *laza 2nterprises cannot fairly clai' that it was deceived
or 'isled y the pleadings of appellant. 2ven 'ore, the original plea for
*9,666.66 as attorney@s fees is only contained in the prayer of the original
co'plaint, and it is a well estalished rule that the prayer for relief, although part
of the co'plaint, is no part of the cause of action and does not give character,
the plaintiff eing entitled to as 'uch relief as the facts warrant <!osales vs.
!eyes, 29 *hil. 499; .guilar vs. !uiato, 46 *hil. 4&6=.
%ut the appellant@s last assigned error is without 'erit. .lthough the defendant
was found to e in ad faith in issuing two <2= sets of ouncing chec7s in
pay'ent for its indetedness, such ad faith was not related to his having
incurred the oligation in favor of the plaintiff ut to defendant@s failure to perfor'
said oligation. "here was, therefore, no ground for the plaintiff to attach the
defendant@s properties on the ground of fraud. "hat the plaintiff acted in good
faith in securing attach'ent does not relieve hi' fro' the da'ages that the
defendant sustained y reason of the attach'ent ecause he, the plaintiff, was,
in the first place, not entitled to attach'ents, the ele'ent of 'alice was
unnecessary <8 Moran, !ules of #ourt, 19=.
/O! "(2 /O!2AO+5A !2.)O5), the appealed order is herey reversed
insofar as it reduced the a'ount of attorney@s fees and the interest on the
principal su' ad,udged in the original decision dated 19 1une 19:&; ut the order
is affir'ed in all other respects. 5o costs.
%oncepcion! %.&.! (izon! 3a2alintal! :aldiar! %astro! $ernando! Teehan2ee!
'arredo and ;illa)or! &&.! concur.
[G.R. No. 80505 : December 4, 1990.]
19 S!R" 8
THE #EO#$E OF THE #HI$I##INES, Plaintiff-Appellee, %&. '"RIO T"NDO( )
$I', Defendant-Appellant.
D E ! I S I O N
!R*+, J.:
T$e dec!s!'n '( t$e Re%!'nal T!al C'ut '( Ma>at!, :anc$ /** dated Oct'.e /*, /4+K,
c'n)!ct!n% Ma!' Tand'6 '( t$e c!&e '( )!'lat!'n '( At. II, Sec. 3 '( Rep. Act N'. D35C
>n'#n as t$e Dan%e'us Du%s Act '( /4K5, !s .e('e us 'n appeal.
T$e !n('&at!'n a%a!nst t$e accused-appellant ead as ('ll'#s:
T$at 'n ' a.'ut t$e 5Kt$ da6 '( Ma6 /4+D, !n t$e Mun!c!pal!t6 '( Ma>at!, Met' Man!la,
P$!l!pp!nes, and #!t$!n t$e Iu!sd!ct!'n '( t$!s H'n'a.le C'ut, t$e a.')e-na&ed
accused #!t$'ut .e!n% aut$'!"ed .6 la#, d!d t$en and t$ee #!ll(ull6, unla#(ull6 and
(el'n!'usl6 sell e!%$t ,+- p!eces '( d!ed &a!Iuana (l'#e!n% t'ps, t#' ,5- p!eces '( d!ed
&a!Iuana (l'#e!n% t'ps and cus$ed d!ed &a!Iuana (l'#e!n% t'ps, #$!c$ ae
p'$!.!ted du%, (' and !n c'ns!deat!'n '( P5B.BB.
8p'n aa!%n&ent, Tand'6 enteed a plea '( n't %u!lt6. A(te t!al, <ud%e :uena)entua <.
7uee' endeed a dec!s!'n t$e d!sp's!t!)e p't!'n '( #$!c$ declaed:
EHEREFORE, t$e C'ut (!nds Ma!' Tand'6 6 L!& %u!lt6 .e6'nd eas'na.le d'u.t '(
)!'lat!'n '( Sec. 3, At. II, Rep. Act N'. D35C, as a&ended, and !s $ee.6 sentenced t'
l!(e !&p!s'n&ent and t' pa6 a (!ne '( P5B,BBB.BB and c'st.: nad
T$e &a!Iuana c'n(!scated !n t$!s case !s declaed c'n(!scated and ('(e!ted and 'deed
tuned ')e t' t$e Dan%e'us Du%s :'ad (' p'pe d!sp'sal.
T$e accused-appellant a!ses t$e ('ll'#!n% ass!%n&ent '( e's !n t$!s appeal:
/. T$e C'ut a ?u' eed !n (!nd!n% accused %u!lt6 .e6'nd eas'na.le d'u.t '( t$e c!&e
c$a%ed desp!te lac> '( e)!dence t' p')e t$at $e s'ld &a!Iuana t' t$e p'seu-.u6e.
5. T$e C'ut a ?u' eed !n ad&!tt!n% !n e)!dence a%a!nst t$e accused EG$. 2E-5-A2
#$!c$ !s &eel6 a Ge'G c'p6 '( t$e P/B.BB .!ll alle%edl6 used as .u6-.ust &'ne6.
T$e e)!dence '( t$e p'secut!'n &a6 .e su&&a!"ed as ('ll'#s:
On Ma6 5K, /4+D, at a.'ut *:*B p.&. Lt. Sal!d', <. '( t$e Ma>at! P'l!ce Stat!'n
d!spatc$ed P(c. He!n' de la Cu", and Detect!)es Pa.l' R. S!n%a6an, N!can'
Cand'lesas, Lu!s!t' de la Cu", Estan!sla' Dalu&p!nes, Ant'n!' Manalastas and ;!%!l!'
Padua t' c'nduct a .u6-.ust 'peat!'n at S'lc$ua%a St., :aan%a6 S!n%>a&as, Ma>at!.
T$e ta%et aea #as a st'e al'n% t$e sa!d steet, and S!n%a6an #as t' p'se as t$e .u6e.
He st''d al'ne nea t$e st'e #a!t!n% (' an6 pus$e t' app'ac$. T$e 't$e &e&.es '(
t$e tea& state%!call6 p's!t!'ned t$e&sel)es. S''n, t$ee &en app'ac$ed S!n%a6an. One
'( t$e& #as t$e accused-appellant, #$' sa!d #!t$'ut pea&.le: 2Pae, %ust' &' .an%
u&!s>'O2 S!n%a6an sa!d 6es. T$e eGc$an%e #as &ade t$en and t$ee N t#' 'llsMp!eces
'( &a!Iuana (' 'ne P/B.BB and t#' PC.BB .!lls &a>ed AN8 ,&ean!n% Ant!-Nac't!cs
T$e tea& t$en &')ed !n and aested Tand'6. Manalastas and Cand'lesas &ade a .'d6
seac$ '( t$e accused-appellant and t''> ('& $!& t$e &a>ed &'ne6, as #ell as e!%$t
&'e 'llsM('!ls '( &a!Iuana and cus$ed lea)es.: nad
T$e aest!n% '((!ces .'u%$t Tand'6 t' t$e O((!ce '( t$e Ant!-Nac't!cs 8n!t, Ma>at!
P'l!ce Stat!'n, (' !n)est!%at!'n .6 Detect!)e Ma)!n PaI!lan. T$e accused-appellant
c$'se t' e&a!n s!lent a(te $a)!n% .een !n('&ed '( $!s c'nst!tut!'nal !%$ts.
T$ese e)ents #ee naated unde 'at$ .6 De la Cu", S!n%a6an and PaI!lan. /
M!c'sc'p!c, c$e&!cal and c$'&'t'%ap$!c eGa&!nat!'n #as pe('&ed 'n t$e
c'n(!scated &a!Iuana .6 Ra?uel P. An%eles, ('ens!c c$e&!st '( t$e Nat!'nal :ueau '(
In)est!%at!'n, #$' late test!(!ed t$at t$e (!nd!n%s #ee p's!t!)e. T$e &a!Iuana #as
'((eed as an eG$!.!t. 5
As &!%$t .e eGpected, t$e accused-appellant $ad a d!((eent st'6. H!s test!&'n6 #as t$at
('& /:*B t' 3:BB p.&. '( t$e da6 !n ?uest!'n, $e #as pla6!n% 2caa 6 cu"2 #!t$ /C 't$e
pes'ns al'n% S'lc$ua%a St. #$en s'&e.'d6 suddenl6 sa!d t$at p'l!ce&en #ee &a>!n%
aests. T$e pla6es %a..ed t$e .et &'ne6 and sca&peed. H'#e)e, $e and a ceta!n
Dann6 ,an't$e 2caa 6 cu"2 pla6e- #ee cau%$t and ta>en t' t$e Nac't!cs C'&&and
$ead?uates !n Ma>at!. T$ee t$e6 #ee &auled and #aned t$at !( t$e6 d!d n't p'!nt t'
t$e! (ell'# pus$es, t$e6 #'uld 't !n Ia!l. T$e accused-appellant den!ed $e $ad s'ld
&a!Iuana t' S!n%a6an and !ns!sted t$e .!lls ta>en ('& $!& #ee t$e .et &'ne6 $e $ad
%a..ed at t$e 2caa 6 cu"2 %a&e. *
T$e t!al c'ut, #$!c$ $ad t$e 'pp'tun!t6 t' '.se)e t$e de&ean' '( t$e #!tnesses and
t' l!sten t' t$e! espect!)e test!&'n!es, %a)e &'e cedence t' t$e state&ents '( t$e
aest!n% '((!ces. Appl6!n% t$e pesu&pt!'n t$at t$e6 $ad pe('&ed t$e! dut!es !n a
e%ula &anne, !t eIected Tand'6@s unc''.'ated alle%at!'n t$at $e $ad .een
&an$andled and (a&ed. Tand'6 $ad n't su.&!tted su((!c!ent e)!dence '( $!s c$a%es, let
al'ne $!s ad&!ss!'n t$at $e $ad n' ?uael #!t$ t$e peace '((!ces #$'& $e $ad &et 'nl6
'n t$e da6 '( $!s aest.
In Pe'ple ). Pat'%, 3 t$!s C'ut $eld:
E$en t$ee !s n' e)!dence and n't$!n% t' !nd!cate t$e p!nc!pal #!tness (' t$e
p'secut!'n #as actuated .6 !&p'pe &'t!)es, t$e pesu&pt!'n !s t$at $e #as n't s'
actuated and $!s test!&'n6 !s ent!tled t' (ull (a!t$ and ced!t.
Tand'6 su.&!ts t$at 2'ne #!ll n't sell t$!s p'$!.!ted du% t' an't$e #$' !s a t'tal
stan%e unt!l t$e selle !s ceta!n '( t$e !dent!t6 '( t$e .u6e.2
T$e c'nIectue &ust .e eIected.: nad
In Pe'ple ). Pac', C t$!s C'ut '.se)ed:
Du%-pus$!n% #$en d'ne 'n a s&all le)el as !n t$!s case .el'n%s t' t$at class '( c!&es
t$at &a6 .e c'&&!tted at an6t!&e and at an6 place. A(te t$e '((e t' .u6 !s accepted and
t$e eGc$an%e !s &ade, t$e !lle%al tansact!'n !s c'&pleted !n a (e# &!nutes. T$e (act t$at
t$e pat!es ae !n a pu.l!c place and !n t$e pesence '( 't$e pe'ple &a6 n't al#a6s
d!sc'ua%e t$e& ('& pusu!n% t$e! !lle%al tade as t$ese (act's &a6 e)en se)e t'
ca&'u(la%e t$e sa&e. Hence, t$e C'ut $as susta!ned t$e c'n)!ct!'n '( du% pus$es
cau%$t sell!n% !lle%al du%s !n a .!ll!ad $all ,Pe'ple ). Ru.!', 7.R. N'. DD+KC, <une /4,
/4+D, /35 SCRA *54H Pe'ple ). Sa&!ent', 7.R. N'. K5/3/, <anua6 /5, /4+K, /3K
SCRA 5C5-, !n ('nt '( a st'e ,Pe'ple )s. J$an, supa- al'n% a steet at /:3C p.&.
,Pe'ple ). T'led', 7.R. N'. DKDB4, N')e&.e 55, /4+C, /3B SCRA 5C4-, and !n ('nt '(
a $'use ,Pe'ple ). P'l!cap!', 7.R. N'. D4+33, Fe.ua6 5*, /4++-.
As t$e C'ut $as als' $eld, 2E$at &attes !s n't an eG!st!n% (a&!l!a!t6 .et#een t$e .u6e
and t$e selle .ut t$e! a%ee&ent and t$e acts c'nst!tut!n% t$e sale and del!)e6 '( t$e
&a!Iuana lea)es.2 D
8nde t$e sec'nd ass!%ned e', t$e accused-appellant !n)'>es t$e .est e)!dence ule and
?uest!'ns t$e ad&!ss!'n .6 t$e t!al c'ut '( t$e Ge'G c'p6 'nl6 '( t$e &a>ed P/B.BB
T$e S'l!c!t' 7eneal, !n $!s C'&&ent, c'ectl6 e(uted t$at c'ntent!'n t$us:
T$!s ass!%ned e' centes 'n t$e t!al c'ut@s ad&!ss!'n '( t$e P/B.BB .!ll &a>ed &'ne6
,EG$. E-5-A- #$!c$, acc'd!n% t' t$e appellant, !s eGcluded unde t$e .est e)!dence ule
(' .e!n% a &ee Ge'G c'p6. Appaentl6, appellant e'ne'usl6 t$!n>s t$at sa!d &a>ed
&'ne6 !s an 'd!na6 d'cu&ent (all!n% unde Sec. 5, Rule /*B '( t$e Re)!sed Rules '(
C'ut #$!c$ eGcludes t$e !nt'duct!'n '( sec'nda6 e)!dence eGcept !n t$e (!)e ,C-
!nstances &ent!'ned t$ee!n.:-cala#
T$e .est e)!dence ule appl!es 'nl6 #$en t$e c'ntents '( t$e d'cu&ent ae t$e su.Iect '(
!n?u!6. E$ee t$e !ssue !s 'nl6 as t' #$et$e ' n't suc$ d'cu&ent #as actuall6
eGecuted, ' eG!sts, ' !n t$e c!cu&stances ele)ant t' ' su'und!n% !ts eGecut!'n, t$e
.est e)!dence ule d'es n't appl6 and test!&'n!al e)!dence !s ad&!ss!.le. ,C(. M'an, 'p.
c!t., pp. KD-KKH 3 Mat!n, 'p. c!t., p. K+.-
S!nce t$e a('esa!d &a>ed &'ne6 #as pesented .6 t$e p'secut!'n s'lel6 (' t$e
pup'se '( esta.l!s$!n% !ts eG!stence and n't !ts c'ntents, 't$e su.st!tut!'na6 e)!dence,
l!>e a Ge'G c'p6 t$ee'(, !s t$ee('e ad&!ss!.le #!t$'ut t$e need '( acc'unt!n% (' t$e
M'e')e, t$e pesentat!'n at t$e t!al '( t$e 2.u6-.ust &'ne62 #as n't !nd!spensa.le t'
t$e c'n)!ct!'n '( t$e accused-appellant .ecause t$e sale '( t$e &a!Iuana $ad .een
ade?uatel6 p')ed .6 t$e test!&'n6 '( t$e p'l!ce '((!ces. S' l'n% as t$e &a!Iuana
actuall6 s'ld .6 t$e accused-appellant $ad .een su.&!tted as an eG$!.!t, t$e (a!lue t'
p'duce t$e &a>ed &'ne6 !tsel( #'uld n't c'nst!tute a (atal '&!ss!'n.
Ee ae c'n)!nced ('& t$e e)!dence 'n ec'd t$at t$e p'secut!'n $as ')ec'&e t$e
c'nst!tut!'nal pesu&pt!'n '( !nn'cence !n (a)' '( t$e accused-appellant #!t$ p''(
.e6'nd eas'na.le d'u.t '( $!s %u!lt. He &ust t$ee('e su((e t$e penalt6 pesc!.ed .6
la# (' t$'se #$' #'uld )!s!t t$e sc'u%e '( du% add!ct!'n up'n 'u pe'ple.
EHEREFORE, t$e appeal !s DISMISSED and t$e c$allen%ed dec!s!'n AFFIRMED !n
t't', #!t$ c'sts a%a!nst t$e accused-appellant.: nad
N,r%,&, -!.,/rm,01, G,0c,)co, Gr/2o3"45/0o ,06 'e6/,76e,, 88., co0c5r.
G.R. No. $31498 Se:;ember 8, 19<<
"IR FR"N!E, pet!t!'ne,
R"F"E$ !"RR"S!OSO ,06 ;.e HONOR"=$E !O*RT OF "##E"$S,
.ichauco, ica/o and #gcaoili for petitioner.
*eng/on 0illegas and 1arraga for respondent 2. 3arrascoso.
S"N!HE+, J.:
T$e C'ut '( F!st Instance '( Man!la
sentenced pet!t!'ne t' pa6 esp'ndent Ra(ael
Caasc's' P5C,BBB.BB .6 #a6 '( &'al da&a%esH P/B,BBB.BB as eGe&pla6 da&a%esH
P*4*.5B epesent!n% t$e d!((eence !n (ae .et#een (!st class and t'u!st class (' t$e
p't!'n '( t$e t!p :an%>'>-R'&e, t$ese )a!'us a&'unts #!t$ !nteest at t$e le%al ate,
('& t$e date '( t$e (!l!n% '( t$e c'&pla!nt unt!l pa!dH plus P*,BBB.BB (' att'ne6s@ (eesH
and t$e c'sts '( su!t.
On appeal,
t$e C'ut '( Appeals sl!%$tl6 educed t$e a&'unt '( e(und 'n Caasc's'@s
plane t!c>et ('& P*4*.5B t' P*+*./B, and )'ted t' a((!& t$e appealed dec!s!'n 2!n all
't$e espects2, #!t$ c'sts a%a!nst pet!t!'ne.
T$e case !s n'# .e('e us (' e)!e# 'n certiorari.
T$e (acts declaed .6 t$e C'ut '( Appeals as 2 (ull6 supp'ted .6 t$e e)!dence '(
ec'd2, ae:
Pla!nt!((, a c!)!l en%!nee, #as a &e&.e '( a %'up '( 3+ F!l!p!n' p!l%!&s t$at le(t
Man!la (' L'udes 'n Mac$ *B, /4C+.
On Mac$ 5+, /4C+, t$e de(endant, A! Fance, t$'u%$ !ts aut$'!"ed a%ent,
P$!l!pp!ne A! L!nes, Inc., !ssued t' pla!nt!(( a 2(!st class2 'und t!p a!plane t!c>et
('& Man!la t' R'&e. F'& Man!la t' :an%>'>, pla!nt!(( ta)elled !n 2(!st class2, .ut
at :an%>'>, t$e Mana%e '( t$e de(endant a!l!ne ('ced pla!nt!(( t' )acate t$e 2(!st
class2 seat t$at $e #as 'ccup6!n% .ecause, !n t$e #'ds '( t$e #!tness Enest' 7.
Cuent', t$ee #as a 2#$!te &an2, #$', t$e Mana%e alle%ed, $ad a 2.ette !%$t2 t'
t$e seat. E$en as>ed t' )acate $!s 2(!st class2 seat, t$e pla!nt!((, as #as t' .e
eGpected, e(used, and t'ld de(endant@s Mana%e t$at $!s seat #'uld .e ta>en ')e $!s
dead .'d6H a c'&&'t!'n ensued, and, acc'd!n% t' sa!d Enest' 7. Cuent', 2&an6 '(
t$e F!l!p!n' passen%es %'t ne)'us !n t$e t'u!st classH #$en t$e6 ('und 'ut t$at M.
Caasc's' #as $a)!n% a $'t d!scuss!'n #!t$ t$e #$!te &an 0&ana%e1, t$e6 ca&e all
ac'ss t' M. Caasc's' and pac!(!ed M. Caasc's' t' %!)e $!s seat t' t$e #$!te
&an2 ,Tansc!pt, p. /5, Hea!n% '( Ma6 5D, /4C4-H and pla!nt!(( eluctantl6 %a)e $!s
2(!st class2 seat !n t$e plane.
/. T$e tust '( t$e el!e( pet!t!'ne n'# see>s !s t$at #e e)!e# 2all t$e (!nd!n%s2
esp'ndent C'ut '( Appeals. Pet!t!'ne c$a%es t$at esp'ndent c'ut (a!led t' &a>e
c'&plete (!nd!n%s '( (act 'n all t$e !ssues p'pel6 la!d .e('e !t. Ee ae as>ed t'
c'ns!de (acts (a)'a.le t' pet!t!'ne, and t$en, t' ')etun t$e appellate c'ut@s dec!s!'n.
C'&!n% !nt' ('cus !s t$e c'nst!tut!'nal &andate t$at 2N' dec!s!'n s$all .e endeed .6
an6 c'ut '( ec'd #!t$'ut eGpess!n% t$ee!n cleal6 and d!st!nctl6 t$e (acts and t$e la#
'n #$!c$ !t !s .ased2.
T$!s !s ec$'ed !n t$e statut'6 de&and t$at a Iud%&ent
dete&!n!n% t$e &e!ts '( t$e case s$all state 2cleal6 and d!st!nctl6 t$e (acts and t$e la#
'n #$!c$ !t !s .ased2H
and t$at 2E)e6 dec!s!'n '( t$e C'ut '( Appeals s$all c'nta!n
c'&plete (!nd!n%s '( (act 'n all !ssues p'pel6 a!sed .e('e !t2.
A dec!s!'n #!t$ a.s'lutel6 n't$!n% t' supp't !t !s a null!t6. It !s 'pen t' d!ect attac>.
T$e la#, $'#e)e, s'lel6 !ns!sts t$at a dec!s!'n state t$e 2essent!al ult!&ate (acts2 up'n
#$!c$ t$e c'ut@s c'nclus!'n !s da#n.
A c'ut '( Iust!ce !s n't $!de.'und t' #!te !n !ts
dec!s!'n e)e6 .!t and p!ece '( e)!dence
pesented .6 'ne pat6 and t$e 't$e up'n t$e
!ssues a!sed. Ne!t$e !s !t t' .e .udened #!t$ t$e '.l!%at!'n 2t' spec!(6 !n t$e sentence
t$e (acts2 which a party 4considered as proved4.
T$!s !s .ut a pat '( t$e &ental p'cess
('& #$!c$ t$e C'ut da#s t$e essent!al ult!&ate (acts. A dec!s!'n !s n't t' .e s'
cl'%%ed #!t$ deta!ls suc$ t$at p'l!G!t6, !( n't c'n(us!'n, &a6 esult. S' l'n% as t$e
dec!s!'n '( t$e C'ut '( Appeals c'nta!ns t$e necessa6 (acts t' #aant !ts c'nclus!'ns, !t
!s n' e' (' sa!d c'ut t' #!t$$'ld t$ee('& 2an6 spec!(!c (!nd!n% '( (acts #!t$ espect
t' t$e e)!dence (' t$e de(ense2. :ecause as t$!s C'ut #ell '.se)ed, 2T$ee !s n' la#
t$at s' e?u!es2.
Indeed, 2t$e &ee (a!lue t' spec!(6 ,!n t$e dec!s!'n- t$e c'ntent!'ns
'( t$e appellant and t$e eas'ns (' e(us!n% t' .el!e)e t$e& !s n't su((!c!ent t' $'ld t$e
sa&e c'nta6 t' t$e e?u!e&ents '( t$e p')!s!'ns '( la# and t$e C'nst!tut!'n2. It !s !n
t$!s sett!n% t$at !n )anigque, !t #as $eld t$at t$e &ee (act t$at t$e (!nd!n%s 2#ee .ased
ent!el6 'n t$e e)!dence (' t$e p'secut!'n #!t$'ut ta>!n% !nt' c'ns!deat!'n ' e)en
&ent!'n!n% t$e appellant@s s!de !n t$e c'nt')es6 as s$'#n .6 $!s '#n test!&'n62,
#'uld n't )!t!ate t$e Iud%&ent.
I( t$e c'ut d!d n't ec!te !n t$e dec!s!'n t$e test!&'n6
'( eac$ #!tness (', ' eac$ !te& '( e)!dence pesented .6, t$e de(eated pat6, !t d'es n't
&ean t$at t$e c'ut $as ')el''>ed suc$ test!&'n6 ' suc$ !te& '( e)!dence.
At an6
ate, t$e le%al pesu&pt!'ns ae t$at '((!c!al dut6 $as .een e%ulal6 pe('&ed, and t$at
all t$e &attes #!t$!n an !ssue !n a case #ee la!d .e('e t$e c'ut and passed up'n .6 !t.
F!nd!n%s '( (act, #$!c$ t$e C'ut '( Appeals !s e?u!ed t' &a>e, &a6.e de(!ned as 2t$e
#!tten state&ent '( t$e ult!&ate (acts as ('und .6 t$e c'ut ... and essent!al t' supp't t$e
dec!s!'n and Iud%&ent endeed t$ee'n2.
T$e6 c'ns!st '( t$e c'ut@s 4conclusions4
#!t$ respect to the determinative facts in issue2.
A ?uest!'n '( la#, up'n t$e 't$e $and,
$as .een declaed as 2'ne #$!c$ d'es n't call (' an eGa&!nat!'n '( t$e p'.at!)e )alue
'( t$e e)!dence pesented .6 t$e pat!es.2
5. :6 statute, 2'nl6 ?uest!'ns '( la# &a6 .e a!sed2 !n an appeal .6 cet!'a! ('& a
Iud%&ent '( t$e C'ut '( Appeals.
T$at Iud%&ent !s c'nclus!)e as t' t$e (acts. It !s n't
app'p!atel6 t$e .us!ness '( t$!s C'ut t' alte t$e (acts ' t' e)!e# t$e ?uest!'ns '(
E!t$ t$ese %u!dep'sts, #e n'# (ace t$e p'.le& '( #$et$e t$e (!nd!n%s '( (act '( t$e
C'ut '( Appeals supp't !ts Iud%&ent.
*. Eas Caasc's' ent!tled t' t$e (!st class seat $e cla!&sO
It !s c'nceded !n all ?uates t$at 'n Mac$ 5+, /4C+ $e pa!d t' and ece!)ed ('&
pet!t!'ne a (!st class t!c>et. :ut pet!t!'ne assets t$at sa!d t!c>et d!d n't epesent t$e
tue and c'&plete !ntent and a%ee&ent '( t$e pat!esH t$at sa!d esp'ndent >ne# t$at $e
d!d n't $a)e c'n(!&ed ese)at!'ns (' (!st class 'n an6 spec!(!c (l!%$t, alt$'u%$ $e $ad
t'u!st class p'tect!'nH t$at, acc'd!n%l6, t$e !ssuance '( a (!st class t!c>et #as n'
%uaantee t$at $e #'uld $a)e a (!st class !de, .ut t$at suc$ #'uld depend up'n t$e
a)a!la.!l!t6 '( (!st class seats.
T$ese ae &attes #$!c$ pet!t!'ne $as t$''u%$l6 pesented and d!scussed !n !ts .!e(
.e('e t$e C'ut '( Appeals unde !ts t$!d ass!%n&ent '( e', #$!c$ eads: 2T$e t!al
c'ut eed !n (!nd!n% t$at pla!nt!(( $ad c'n(!&ed ese)at!'ns (', and a !%$t t', (!st
class seats 'n t$e 2de(!n!te2 se%&ents '( $!s I'une6, pat!culal6 t$at ('& Sa!%'n t'
And, t$e C'ut '( Appeals d!sp'sed '( t$!s c'ntent!'n t$us:
De(endant see&s t' cap!tal!"e 'n t$e a%u&ent t$at t$e !ssuance '( a (!st-class t!c>et
#as n' %uaantee t$at t$e passen%e t' #$'& t$e sa&e $ad .een !ssued, #'uld .e
acc'&&'dated !n t$e (!st-class c'&pat&ent, (' as !n t$e case '( pla!nt!(( $e $ad 6et
t' &a>e aan%e&ents up'n a!)al at e)e6 stat!'n (' t$e necessa6 (!st-class
ese)at!'n. Ee ae n't !&pessed .6 suc$ a eas'n!n%. Ee cann't undestand $'# a
eputa.le (!& l!>e de(endant a!plane c'&pan6 c'uld $a)e t$e !nd!scet!'n t' %!)e
'ut t!c>ets !t ne)e &eant t' $'n' at all. It ece!)ed t$e c'esp'nd!n% a&'unt !n
pa6&ent '( (!st-class t!c>ets and 6et !t all'#ed t$e passen%e t' .e at t$e &ec6 '( !ts
e&pl'6ees. It !s &'e !n >eep!n% #!t$ t$e 'd!na6 c'use '( .us!ness t$at t$e
c'&pan6 s$'uld >n'# #$et$e ' !'t t$e t!c>ets !t !ssues ae t' .e $'n'ed ' n't.
N't t$at t$e C'ut '( Appeals !s al'ne. T$e t!al c'ut s!&!lal6 d!sp'sed '( pet!t!'ne@s
c'ntent!'n, t$us:
On t$e (act t$at pla!nt!(( pa!d (', and #as !ssued a 2F!st class2 t!c>et, t$ee can .e n'
?uest!'n. Apat ('& $!s test!&'n6, see pla!nt!((@s EG$!.!ts 2A2, 2A-/2, 2:2, 2:-/,2 2:-52,
2C2 and 2C-/2, and de(endant@s '#n #!tness, Ra(ael Alt'na%a, c'n(!&ed pla!nt!((@s
test!&'n6 and test!(!ed as ('ll'#s:
=. In t$ese t!c>ets t$ee ae &a>s 2O.J.2 F'& #$at 6'u >n'#, #$at d'es t$!s OJ
A. T$at t$e space !s c'n(!&ed.
=. C'n(!&ed (' (!st classO
A. 9es, 2(!st class2. ,Tansc!pt, p. /D4-
De(endant t!ed t' p')e .6 t$e test!&'n6 '( !ts #!tnesses Lu!s Zalda!a%a and Ra(ael
Alt'na%a t$at alt$'u%$ pla!nt!(( pa!d (', and #as !ssued a 2(!st class2 a!plane t!c>et, t$e
t!c>et #as su.Iect t' c'n(!&at!'n !n H'n%>'n%. T$e c'ut cann't %!)e ced!t t' t$e
test!&'n6 '( sa!d #!tnesses. Oal e)!dence cann't pe)a!l ')e #!tten e)!dence, and
pla!nt!((@s EG$!.!ts 2A2, 2A-l2, 2:2, 2:-l2, 2C2 and 2C-/2 .el!e t$e test!&'n6 '( sa!d
#!tnesses, and cleal6 s$'# t$at t$e pla!nt!(( #as !ssued, and pa!d (', a (!st class t!c>et
#!t$'ut an6 ese)at!'n #$ate)e.
Fut$e&'e, as $ee!na.')e s$'#n, de(endant@s '#n #!tness Ra(ael Alt'na%a test!(!ed
t$at t$e ese)at!'n (' a 2(!st class2 acc'&&'dat!'n (' t$e pla!nt!(( #as c'n(!&ed. T$e
c'ut cann't .el!e)e t$at a(te suc$ c'n(!&at!'n de(endant $ad a )e.al undestand!n%
#!t$ pla!nt!(( t$at t$e 2(!st class2 t!c>et !ssued t' $!& .6 de(endant #'uld .e su.Iect t'
c'n(!&at!'n !n H'n%>'n%.
Ee $a)e $eet'('e ad)eted t' t$e (act t$at eGcept (' a sl!%$t d!((eence '( a (e# pes's
!n t$e a&'unt e(unded 'n Caasc's'@s t!c>et, t$e dec!s!'n '( t$e C'ut '( F!st Instance
#as a((!&ed .6 t$e C'ut '( Appeals in all other respects. Ee $'ld t$e )!e# t$at suc$ a
Iud%&ent '( a((!&ance $as &e%ed t$e Iud%&ent '( t$e l'#e c'ut.
I&pl!c!t !n t$at
a((!&ance !s a dete&!nat!'n .6 t$e C'ut '( Appeals t$at t$e p'ceed!n% !n t$e C'ut '(
F!st Instance #as (ee ('& peIud!c!al e' and 2all ?uest!'ns a!sed .6 t$e ass!%n&ents
'( e' and all ?uest!'ns t$at &!%$t $a)e .een a!sed ae t' .e e%aded as (!nall6
adIud!cated a%a!nst t$e appellant2. S' als', t$e Iud%&ent a((!&ed 2&ust .e e%aded as
(ee ('& all e'2.
Ee eac$ed t$!s p'l!c6 c'nstuct!'n .ecause n't$!n% !n t$e
dec!s!'n '( t$e C'ut '( Appeals 'n t$!s p'!nt #'uld su%%est t$at !ts (!nd!n%s '( (act ae
!n an6 #a6 at #a #!t$ t$'se '( t$e t!al c'ut. N' #as sa!d a((!&ance .6 t$e C'ut '(
Appeals up'n a %'und ' %'unds d!((eent ('& t$'se #$!c$ #ee &ade t$e .as!s '( t$e
c'nclus!'ns '( t$e t!al c'ut.
I(, as pet!t!'ne undesc'es, a (!st-class-t!c>et $'lde !s n't ent!tled t' a (!st class seat,
n't#!t$stand!n% t$e (act t$at seat a)a!la.!l!t6 !n spec!(!c (l!%$ts !s t$ee!n c'n(!&ed, t$en
an a! passen%e !s placed !n t$e $'ll'# '( t$e $ands '( an a!l!ne. E$at secu!t6 t$en can
a passen%e $a)eO It #!ll al#a6s .e an eas6 &atte (' an a!l!ne a!ded .6 !ts e&pl'6ees,
t' st!>e 'ut t$e )e6 st!pulat!'ns !n t$e t!c>et, and sa6 t$at t$ee #as a )e.al a%ee&ent
t' t$e c'nta6. E$at !( t$e passen%e $ad a sc$edule t' (ul(!llO Ee $a)e l'n% leaned t$at,
as a ule, a #!tten d'cu&ent spea>s a un!('& lan%ua%eH t$at sp'>en #'d c'uld .e
n't'!'usl6 unel!a.le. I( 'nl6 t' ac$!e)e sta.!l!t6 !n t$e elat!'ns .et#een passen%e and
a! ca!e, ad$eence t' t$e t!c>et s' !ssued !s des!a.le. Suc$ !s t$e case $ee. T$e l'#e
c'uts e(used t' .el!e)e t$e 'al e)!dence !ntended t' de(eat t$e c')enants !n t$e t!c>et.
T$e ('e%'!n% ae t$e c'ns!deat!'ns #$!c$ p'!nt t' t$e c'nclus!'n t$at t$ee ae (acts
up'n #$!c$ t$e C'ut '( Appeals ped!cated t$e (!nd!n% t$at esp'ndent Caasc's' $ad a
(!st class t!c>et and #as ent!tled t' a (!st class seat at :an%>'>, #$!c$ !s a st'p')e !n
t$e Sa!%'n t' :e!ut le% '( t$e (l!%$t.
Ee pece!)e n' 2#elte '( d!st't!'ns .6 t$e C'ut
'( Appeals '( pet!t!'ne@s state&ent '( !ts p's!t!'n2, as c$a%ed .6 pet!t!'ne.
N' d' #e
su.sc!.e t' pet!t!'ne@s accusat!'n t$at esp'ndent Caasc's' 2suept!t!'usl6 t''> a
(!st class seat t' p')'>e an !ssue2.
And t$!s .ecause, as pet!t!'ne states, Caasc's'
#ent t' see t$e Mana%e at $!s '((!ce !n :an%>'> 2t' c'n(!& &6 seat and .ecause ('&
Sa!%'n I #as t'ld a%a!n t' see t$e Mana%e2.
E$6, t$en, #as $e all'#ed t' ta>e a (!st
class seat !n t$e plane at :an%>'>, !( $e $ad n' seatO O, !( an't$e $ad a .ette !%$t t'
t$e seatO
3. Pet!t!'ne assa!ls esp'ndent c'ut@s a#ad '( &'al da&a%es. Pet!t!'ne@s tenc$ant
cla!& !s t$at Caasc's'@s act!'n !s planted up'n .eac$ '( c'ntactH t$at t' aut$'!"e an
a#ad (' &'al da&a%es t$ee &ust .e an a)e&ent '( (aud ' .ad (a!t$H
and t$at t$e
dec!s!'n '( t$e C'ut '( Appeals (a!ls t' &a>e a (!nd!n% '( .ad (a!t$. T$e p!)'tal
alle%at!'ns !n t$e c'&pla!nt .ea!n% 'n t$!s !ssue ae:
*. T$at ... pla!nt!(( enteed !nt' a contract '( a! ca!a%e #!t$ t$e P$!l!pp!ne A! L!nes
(' a )alua.le c'ns!deat!'n, t$e latte act!n% as %eneal a%ents (' and !n .e$al( '( t$e
de(endant, unde #$!c$ sa!d c'ntact, pla!nt!(( #as ent!tled t', as de(endant a%eed t'
(un!s$ pla!nt!((, F!st Class passa%e 'n de(endant@s plane du!n% t$e ent!e duat!'n '(
pla!nt!((@s t'u '( Eu'pe #!t$ H'n%>'n% as stat!n% p'!nt up t' and unt!l pla!nt!((@s
etun t!p t' Man!la, ... .
3. T$at, du!n% t$e (!st t#' le%s '( t$e t!p ('& H'n%>'n% t' Sa!%'n and ('&
Sa!%'n t' :an%>'>, de(endant (un!s$ed t' t$e pla!nt!(( F!st Class acc'&&'dat!'n
.ut 'nl6 a(te p'testat!'ns, a%u&ents andM' !ns!stence #ee &ade .6 t$e pla!nt!((
#!t$ de(endant@s e&pl'6ees.
C. T$at (!nall6, de(endant failed to provide F!st Class passa%e, .ut !nstead (un!s$ed
pla!nt!(( 'nl6 +ourist Class acc'&&'dat!'ns ('& :an%>'> t' Te$ean andM'
Casa.lanca, ... t$e pla!nt!(( $as .een compelled .6 de(endant@s e&pl'6ees t' lea)e t$e
F!st Class acc'&&'dat!'n .et$s at :an%>'> after he was already seated.
D. T$at c'nse?uentl6, t$e pla!nt!((, des!!n% n' epet!t!'n '( t$e !nc'n)en!ence and
e&.aass&ents .'u%$t .6 de(endant@s .eac$ '( c'ntact #as ('ced t' ta>e a Pan
A&e!can E'ld A!#a6s plane 'n $!s etun t!p ('& Mad!d t' Man!la.
5. T$at l!>e#!se, as a esult '( de(endant@s (a!lue t' (un!s$ F!st Class acc'&&'dat!'ns
a('esa!d, pla!nt!(( su((eed !nc'n)en!ences, e&.aass&ents, and $u&!l!at!'ns, t$ee.6
caus!n% pla!nt!(( &ental an%u!s$, se!'us anG!et6, #'unded (eel!n%s, s'c!al $u&!l!at!'n,
and t$e l!>e !nIu6, esult!n% !n &'al da&a%es !n t$e a&'unt '( P*B,BBB.BB.
T$e ('e%'!n%, !n 'u 'p!n!'n, su.stant!all6 a)e: First, T$at t$ee #as a c'ntact t'
(un!s$ pla!nt!(( a (!st class passa%e c')e!n%, a&'n%st 't$es, t$e :an%>'>-Te$ean le%H
'econd, T$at sa!d c'ntact #as .eac$ed #$en pet!t!'ne (a!led t' (un!s$ (!st class
tansp'tat!'n at :an%>'>H and +hird, t$at t$ee #as .ad (a!t$ #$en pet!t!'ne@s e&pl'6ee
c'&pelled Caasc's' t' lea)e $!s (!st class acc'&&'dat!'n .et$ 4after he was already,
seated4 and t' ta>e a seat !n t$e t'u!st class, .6 eas'n '( #$!c$ $e su((eed
!nc'n)en!ence, e&.aass&ents and $u&!l!at!'ns, t$ee.6 caus!n% $!& &ental an%u!s$,
se!'us anG!et6, #'unded (eel!n%s and s'c!al $u&!l!at!'n, esult!n% !n &'al da&a%es. It
!s tue t$at t$ee !s n' spec!(!c &ent!'n '( t$e te& bad faith !n t$e c'&pla!nt. :ut, t$e
!n(eence '( .ad (a!t$ !s t$ee, !t &a6 .e da#n ('& t$e (acts and c!cu&stances set ('t$
T$e c'ntact #as a)eed t' esta.l!s$ t$e elat!'n .et#een t$e pat!es. :ut t$e
stess '( t$e act!'n !s put 'n #'n%(ul eGpuls!'n.
=u!te apat ('& t$e ('e%'!n% !s t$at ,a- !%$t t$e stat '( t$e t!al, esp'ndent@s c'unsel
placed pet!t!'ne 'n %uad 'n #$at Caasc's' !ntended t' p')e: T$at #$!le s!tt!n% !n t$e
plane !n :an%>'>, Caasc's' #as ousted .6 pet!t!'ne@s &ana%e #$' %a)e $!s seat t' a
#$!te &anH
and ,.- e)!dence '( .ad (a!t$ !n t$e (ul(!ll&ent '( t$e c'ntact #as
pesented #!t$'ut '.Iect!'n 'n t$e pat '( t$e pet!t!'ne. It !s, t$ee('e, unnecessa6 t'
!n?u!e as t' #$et$e ' n't t$ee !s su((!c!ent a)e&ent !n t$e c'&pla!nt t' Iust!(6 an
a#ad (' &'al da&a%es. De(!c!enc6 !n t$e c'&pla!nt, !( an6, #as cued .6 t$e e)!dence.
An a&end&ent t$ee'( t' c'n('& t' t$e e)!dence !s n't e)en e?u!ed.
On t$e
?uest!'n '( .ad (a!t$, t$e C'ut '( Appeals declaed:
T$at t$e pla!nt!(( #as ('ced 'ut '( $!s seat !n t$e (!st class c'&pat&ent '( t$e plane
.el'n%!n% t' t$e de(endant A! Fance #$!le at :an%>'>, and #as tans(eed t' t$e
t'u!st class n't 'nl6 #!t$'ut $!s c'nsent .ut a%a!nst $!s #!ll, $as .een su((!c!entl6
esta.l!s$ed .6 pla!nt!(( !n $!s test!&'n6 .e('e t$e c'ut, c''.'ated .6 t$e
c'esp'nd!n% ent6 &ade .6 t$e puse '( t$e plane !n $!s n'te.''> #$!c$ n'tat!'n
eads as ('ll'#s:
2F!st-class passen%e #as ('ced t' %' t' t$e t'u!st class a%a!nst $!s #!ll, and
t$at t$e capta!n e(used t' !nte)ene2,
and .6 t$e test!&'n6 '( an e6e-#!tness, Enest' 7. Cuent', #$' #as a c'-passen%e.
T$e capta!n '( t$e plane #$' #as as>ed .6 t$e &ana%e '( de(endant c'&pan6 at
:an%>'> t' !nte)ene e)en e(used t' d' s'. It !s n'te#'t$6 t$at n' 'ne 'n .e$al( '(
de(endant e)e c'ntad!cted ' den!ed t$!s e)!dence (' t$e pla!nt!((. It c'uld $a)e
.een eas6 (' de(endant t' pesent !ts &ana%e at :an%>'> t' test!(6 at t$e t!al '( t$e
case, ' 6et t' secue $!s d!sp's!t!'nH .ut de(endant d!d ne!t$e.
T$e C'ut '( appeals (ut$e stated N
Ne!t$e !s t$ee e)!dence as t' #$et$e ' n't a p!' ese)at!'n #as &ade .6 t$e
#$!te &an. Hence, !( t$e e&pl'6ees '( t$e de(endant at :an%>'> s'ld a (!st-class
t!c>et t' $!& #$en all t$e seats $ad alead6 .een ta>en, suel6 t$e pla!nt!(( s$'uld n't
$a)e .een p!c>ed 'ut as t$e 'ne t' su((e t$e c'nse?uences and t' .e su.Iected t' t$e
$u&!l!at!'n and !nd!%n!t6 '( .e!n% eIected ('& $!s seat !n t$e pesence '( 't$es.
Instead '( eGpla!n!n% t' t$e #$!te &an t$e !&p')!dence c'&&!tted .6 de(endant@s
e&pl'6ees, t$e &ana%e ad'pted t$e &'e dast!c step '( 'ust!n% t$e pla!nt!(( #$'
#as t$en sa(el6 ensc'nsced !n $!s !%$t(ul seat. Ee ae sten%t$ened !n 'u .el!e( t$at
t$!s p'.a.l6 #as #$at $appened t$ee, .6 t$e test!&'n6 '( de(endant@s #!tness
Ra(ael Alt'na%a #$', #$en as>ed t' eGpla!n t$e &ean!n% '( t$e lettes 2O.J.2
appea!n% 'n t$e t!c>ets '( pla!nt!((, sa!d 2t$at t$e space !s c'n(!&ed (' (!st class.
L!>e#!se, Zena!da Faust!n', an't$e #!tness (' de(endant, #$' #as t$e c$!e( '( t$e
Rese)at!'n O((!ce '( de(endant, test!(!ed as ('ll'#s:
2= H'# d'es t$e pes'n !n t$e t!c>et-!ssu!n% '((!ce >n'# #$at ese)at!'n t$e
passen%e $as aan%ed #!t$ 6'uO
A T$e6 call us up .6 p$'ne and as> (' t$e c'n(!&at!'n.2 ,t.s.n., p. 53K, <une /4,
In t$!s c'nnect!'n, #e ?u'te #!t$ app')al #$at t$e t!al <ud%e $as sa!d 'n t$!s p'!nt:
E$6 d!d t$e, us!n% t$e #'ds '( #!tness Enest' 7. Cuent', 2#$!te &an2 $a)e a
2.ette !%$t2 t' t$e seat 'ccup!ed .6 M. Caasc's'O T$e ec'd !s s!lent. T$e
de(endant a!l!ne d!d n't p')e 2an6 .ette2, na6, an6 !%$t 'n t$e pat '( t$e
2#$!te &an2 t' t$e 2F!st class2 seat t$at t$e pla!nt!(( #as 'ccup6!n% and ('
#$!c$ $e pa!d and #as !ssued a c'esp'nd!n% 2(!st class2 t!c>et.
I( t$ee #as a Iust!(!ed eas'n (' t$e act!'n '( t$e de(endant@s Mana%e !n
:an%>'>, t$e de(endant c'uld $a)e eas!l6 p')en !t .6 $a)!n% ta>en t$e test!&'n6
'( t$e sa!d Mana%e .6 dep's!t!'n, .ut de(endant d!d n't d' s'H t$e pesu&pt!'n !s
t$at e)!dence #!ll(ull6 suppessed #'uld .e ad)ese !( p'duced 0Sec. D4, pa ,e-,
Rules '( C'ut1H and, unde t$e c!cu&stances, t$e C'ut !s c'nsta!ned t' (!nd, as
!t d'es (!nd, t$at t$e Mana%e '( t$e de(endant a!l!ne !n :an%>'> n't &eel6
as>ed .ut t$eatened t$e pla!nt!(( t' t$'# $!& 'ut '( t$e plane !( $e d!d n't %!)e
up $!s 2(!st class2 seat .ecause t$e sa!d Mana%e #anted t' acc'&&'date, us!n%
t$e #'ds '( t$e #!tness Enest' 7. Cuent', t$e 2#$!te &an2.
It !s eall6 c'ect t' sa6 t$at t$e C'ut '( Appeals !n t$e ?u'ted p't!'n (!st
tansc!.ed d!d n't use t$e te& 2.ad (a!t$2. :ut can !t .e d'u.ted t$at t$e ec!tal '(
(acts t$ee!n p'!nts t' .ad (a!t$O T$e &ana%e n't 'nl6 pe)ented Caasc's' ('&
enI'6!n% $!s !%$t t' a (!st class seatH #'se, $e !&p'sed $!s a.!ta6 #!llH $e ('c!.l6
eIected $!& ('& $!s seat, &ade $!& su((e t$e $u&!l!at!'n '( $a)!n% t' %' t' t$e
t'u!st class c'&pat&ent - Iust t' %!)e #a6 t' an't$e passen%e #$'se !%$t t$eet'
$as n't .een esta.l!s$ed. Ceta!nl6, t$!s !s .ad (a!t$. 8nless, '( c'use, .ad (a!t$ $as
assu&ed a &ean!n% d!((eent ('& #$at !s undest''d !n la#. F', 2.ad (a!t$2
c'nte&plates a 2state '( &!nd a((!&at!)el6 'peat!n% #!t$ (ut!)e des!%n ' #!t$
s'&e &'t!)e '( sel(-!nteest ' #!ll ' (' ulte!' pup'se.2
And !( t$e ('e%'!n% #ee n't 6et su((!c!ent, t$ee !s t$e eGpess (!nd!n% '( bad faith
!n t$e Iud%&ent '( t$e C'ut '( F!st Instance, t$us:
T$e e)!dence s$'#s t$at t$e de(endant )!'lated !ts c'ntact '( tansp'tat!'n #!t$
pla!nt!(( !n .ad (a!t$, #!t$ t$e a%%a)at!n% c!cu&stances t$at de(endant@s Mana%e
!n :an%>'> #ent t' t$e eGtent '( t$eaten!n% t$e pla!nt!(( !n t$e pesence '( &an6
passen%es t' $a)e $!& t$'#n 'ut '( t$e a!plane t' %!)e t$e 2(!st class2 seat t$at
$e #as 'ccup6!n% t', a%a!n us!n% t$e #'ds '( t$e #!tness Enest' 7. Cuent', a
2#$!te &an2 #$'& $e ,de(endant@s Mana%e- #!s$ed t' acc'&&'date, and t$e
de(endant $as n't p')en t$at t$!s 2#$!te &an2 $ad an6 2.ette !%$t2 t' 'ccup6
t$e 2(!st class2 seat t$at t$e pla!nt!(( #as 'ccup6!n%, dul6 pa!d (', and (' #$!c$
t$e c'esp'nd!n% 2(!st class2 t!c>et #as !ssued .6 t$e de(endant t' $!&.
C. T$e esp'ns!.!l!t6 '( an e&pl'6e (' t$e t't!'us act '( !ts e&pl'6ees need n't .e
essa6ed. It !s #ell settled !n la#.
F' t$e #!ll(ul &ale)'lent act '( pet!t!'ne@s &ana%e,
pet!t!'ne, $!s e&pl'6e, &ust ans#e. At!cle 5/ '( t$e C!)!l C'de sa6s:
ART. 5/. An6 pes'n #$' #!ll(ull6 causes l'ss ' !nIu6 t' an't$e !n a &anne t$at !s
c'nta6 t' &'als, %''d cust'&s ' pu.l!c p'l!c6 s$all c'&pensate t$e latte (' t$e
In paallel c!cu&stances, #e appl!ed t$e ('e%'!n% le%al peceptH and, #e $eld t$at up'n
t$e p')!s!'ns '( At!cle 55/4 ,/B-, C!)!l C'de, &'al da&a%es ae ec')ea.le.
D. A c'ntact t' tansp't passen%es !s ?u!te d!((eent !n >!nd and de%ee ('& an6 't$e
c'ntactual elat!'n.
And t$!s, .ecause '( t$e elat!'n #$!c$ an a!-ca!e susta!ns #!t$
t$e pu.l!c. Its .us!ness !s &a!nl6 #!t$ t$e ta)ell!n% pu.l!c. It !n)!tes pe'ple t' a)a!l '(
t$e c'&('ts and ad)anta%es !t '((es. T$e c'ntact '( a! ca!a%e, t$ee('e, %eneates a
elat!'n attended #!t$ a pu.l!c dut6. Ne%lect ' &al(easance '( t$e ca!e@s e&pl'6ees,
natuall6, c'uld %!)e %'und (' an act!'n (' da&a%es.
Passen%es d' n't c'ntact &eel6 (' tansp'tat!'n. T$e6 $a)e a !%$t t' .e teated .6
t$e ca!e@s e&pl'6ees #!t$ >!ndness, espect, c'utes6 and due c'ns!deat!'n. T$e6 ae
ent!tled t' .e p'tected a%a!nst pes'nal &!sc'nduct, !nIu!'us lan%ua%e, !nd!%n!t!es and
a.uses ('& suc$ e&pl'6ees. S' !t !s, t$at an6 ule ' d!sc'ute'us c'nduct 'n t$e pat '(
e&pl'6ees t'#ads a passen%e %!)es t$e latte an act!'n (' da&a%es a%a!nst t$e ca!e.
T$us, 2E$ee a stea&s$!p c'&pan6
$ad accepted a passen%e@s c$ec>, !t #as a .eac$
'( c'ntact and a t't, %!)!n% a !%$t '( act!'n (' !ts a%ent !n t$e pesence '( t$!d pes'ns
t' (alsel6 n't!(6 $e t$at t$e c$ec> #as #'t$less and de&and pa6&ent unde t$eat '(
eIect!'n, t$'u%$ t$e lan%ua%e used #as n't !nsult!n% and s$e #as n't eIected.2
And t$!s,
.ecause, alt$'u%$ t$e elat!'n '( passen%e and ca!e !s 2c'ntactual .'t$ !n '!%!n and
natue2 ne)et$eless 2t$e act t$at .ea>s t$e c'ntact &a6 .e als' a t't2.
And !n an't$e
case, 2E$ee a passen%e 'n a a!l'ad ta!n, #$en t$e c'nduct' ca&e t' c'llect $!s (ae
tendeed $!& t$e cas$ (ae t' a p'!nt #$ee t$e ta!n #as sc$eduled n't t' st'p, and t'ld
$!& t$at as s''n as t$e ta!n eac$ed suc$ p'!nt $e #'uld pa6 t$e cas$ (ae ('& t$at
p'!nt t' dest!nat!'n, t$ee #as n't$!n% !n t$e c'nduct '( t$e passen%e #$!c$ Iust!(!ed t$e
c'nduct' !n us!n% !nsult!n% lan%ua%e t' $!&, as .6 call!n% $!& a lunat!c,2
and t$e
Supe&e C'ut '( S'ut$ Ca'l!na t$ee $eld t$e ca!e l!a.le (' t$e &ental su((e!n% '(
sa!d passen%e.5awph6l.n7t
Pet!t!'ne@s c'ntact #!t$ Caasc's' !s 'ne attended #!t$ pu.l!c dut6. T$e stess '(
Caasc's'@s act!'n as #e $a)e sa!d, !s placed up'n $!s #'n%(ul eGpuls!'n. T$!s !s a
)!'lat!'n '( pu.l!c dut6 .6 t$e pet!t!'ne a! ca!e N a case '( quasi-delict. Da&a%es
ae p'pe.
K. Pet!t!'ne da#s 'u attent!'n t' esp'ndent Caasc's'@s test!&'n6, t$us N
= 9'u &ent!'ned a.'ut an attendant. E$' !s t$at attendant and puseO
A E$en #e le(t alead6 N t$at #as alead6 !n t$e t!p N I c'uld n't $elp !t. S' 'ne
'( t$e (l!%$t attendants app'ac$ed &e and e?uested ('& &e &6 t!c>et and I sa!d,
E$at ('O and s$e sa!d, 2Ee #!ll n'te t$at 6'u tans(eed t' t$e t'u!st class2. I sa!d,
2N't$!n% '( t$at >!nd. T$at !s tanta&'unt t' accept!n% &6 tans(e.2 And I als' sa!d,
29'u ae n't %'!n% t' n'te an6t$!n% t$ee .ecause I a& p'test!n% t' t$!s tans(e2.
= Eas s$e a.le t' n'te !tO
A N', .ecause I d!d n't %!)e &6 t!c>et.
= A.'ut t$at puseO
A Eell, t$e seats t$ee ae s' cl'se t$at 6'u (eel unc'&('ta.le and 6'u d'n@t $a)e
en'u%$ le% ''&, I st''d up and I #ent t' t$e pant6 t$at #as neGt t' &e and t$e
puse #as t$ee. He t'ld &e, 2I $a)e ec'ded t$e !nc!dent !n &6 n'te.''>.2 He ead
!t and tanslated !t t' &e N .ecause !t #as ec'ded !n Fenc$ N 2F!st class
passen%e #as ('ced t' %' t' t$e t'u!st class a%a!nst $!s #!ll, and t$at t$e capta!n
e(used t' !nte)ene.2
I &')e t' st!>e 'ut t$e last pat '( t$e test!&'n6 '( t$e #!tness .ecause t$e .est
e)!dence #'uld .e t$e n'tes. 9'u H'n'.
I #!ll all'# t$at as pat '( $!s test!&'n6.
Pet!t!'ne c$a%es t$at t$e (!nd!n% '( t$e C'ut '( Appeals t$at t$e puse &ade an ent6
!n $!s n'te.''> ead!n% 2F!st class passen%e #as ('ced t' %' t' t$e t'u!st class a%a!nst
$!s #!ll, and t$at t$e capta!n e(used t' !nte)ene2 !s ped!cated up'n e)!dence
0Caasc's'@s test!&'n6 a.')e1 #$!c$ !s !nc'&petent. Ee d' n't t$!n> s'. T$e su.Iect '(
!n?u!6 !s n't t$e ent6, .ut t$e 'uste !nc!dent. Test!&'n6 'n t$e ent6 d'es n't c'&e
#!t$!n t$e p'sc!pt!'n '( t$e .est e)!dence ule. Suc$ test!&'n6 !s ad&!ss!.le.
:es!des, ('& a ead!n% '( t$e tansc!pt Iust ?u'ted, #$en t$e d!al'%ue $appened, t$e
!&pact '( t$e statl!n% 'ccuence #as st!ll (es$ and c'nt!nued t' .e (elt. T$e eGc!te&ent
$ad n't as 6et d!ed d'#n. State&ents t$en, !n t$!s en)!'n&ent, ae ad&!ss!.le as pat '(
t$e res gestae.
F', t$e6 %'# 2'ut '( t$e ne)'us eGc!te&ent and &ental and p$6s!cal
c'nd!t!'n '( t$e declaant2.
T$e utteance '( t$e puse e%ad!n% $!s ent6 !n t$e
n'te.''> #as sp'ntane'us, and elated t' t$e c!cu&stances '( t$e 'uste !nc!dent. Its
tust#'t$!ness $as .een %uaanteed.
It t$us escapes t$e 'peat!'n '( t$e $easa6 ule. It
('&s pat '( t$e res gestae.
At all e)ents, t$e ent6 #as &ade 'uts!de t$e P$!l!pp!nes. And, .6 an e&pl'6ee '(
pet!t!'ne. It #'uld $a)e .een an eas6 &atte (' pet!t!'ne t' $a)e c'ntad!cted
Caasc's'@s test!&'n6. I( !t #ee eall6 tue t$at n' suc$ ent6 #as &ade, t$e dep's!t!'n
'( t$e puse c'uld $a)e cleaed up t$e &atte.
Ee, t$ee('e, $'ld t$at t$e tansc!.ed test!&'n6 '( Caasc's' !s ad&!ss!.le !n
+. EGe&pla6 da&a%es ae #ell a#aded. T$e C!)!l C'de %!)es t$e c'ut a&ple p'#e t'
%ant eGe&pla6 da&a%es N !n c'ntacts and ?uas!- c'ntacts. T$e 'nl6 c'nd!t!'n !s t$at
de(endant s$'uld $a)e 2acted !n a #ant'n, (audulent, ec>less, 'ppess!)e, ' &ale)'lent
T$e &anne '( eIect&ent '( esp'ndent Caasc's' ('& $!s (!st class seat
(!ts !nt' t$!s le%al pecept. And t$!s, !n add!t!'n t' &'al da&a%es.
4. T$e !%$t t' att'ne6@s (ees !s (ull6 esta.l!s$ed. T$e %ant '( eGe&pla6 da&a%es
Iust!(!es a s!&!la Iud%&ent (' att'ne6s@ (ees. T$e least t$at can .e sa!d !s t$at t$e c'uts
.el'# (elt t$at !t !s .ut Iust and e?u!ta.le t$at att'ne6s@ (ees .e %!)en.
Ee d' n't !ntend
t' .ea> (a!t$ #!t$ t$e tad!t!'n t$at d!scet!'n #ell eGec!sed N as !t #as $ee N s$'uld
n't .e d!stu.ed.
/B. =uest!'ned as eGcess!)e ae t$e a&'unts deceed .6 .'t$ t$e t!al c'ut and t$e C'ut
'( Appeals, t$us: P5C,BBB.BB as &'al da&a%esH P/B,BBB.BB, .6 #a6 '( eGe&pla6
da&a%es, and P*,BBB.BB as att'ne6s@ (ees. T$e tas> '( (!G!n% t$ese a&'unts !s p!&a!l6
#!t$ t$e t!al c'ut.
T$e C'ut '( Appeals d!d n't !nte(ee #!t$ t$e sa&e. T$e d!ctates
'( %''d sense su%%est t$at #e %!)e 'u !&p!&atu t$eet'. :ecause, t$e (acts and
c!cu&stances p'!nt t' t$e eas'na.leness t$ee'(.
On .alance, #e sa6 t$at t$e Iud%&ent '( t$e C'ut '( Appeals d'es n't su((e ('&
e)es!.le e'. Ee acc'd!n%l6 )'te t' a((!& t$e sa&e. C'sts a%a!nst pet!t!'ne. S'
3oncepcion, 3.J., 2eyes, J.*..., *arrera, (i/on, 2egala, )akalintal, 1aldivar and
3astro, JJ., concur.
*eng/on, J.., J., took no part.
G.R. No. =3377 Febr4&r+ 9, 1993
e% &/., petitioners,
SPO#SES MRINO G#ILR &() LEON 6. G#ILR, respondents.
Pablo 3. Ganca*aco for petitioners.
(e 3esa! ;illarica < Associates for respondents.
CMPOS, $R., J.:
"his is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision E of the #ourt of .ppeals
dated 5ove'er 2&, 198& in #.-A! #$ 5o. 6&448 entitled, 0%asilio de $era,
Euis de $era, /elipe de $era, (eirs of 2usta3uia de $era-*apa, represented y
Aliceria *apa-/rancisco, and (eirs of Maria de $era-"orres, represented y Euis
$. "orres, plaintiffs-appellees versus )pouses Mariano .guilar and Eeona $.
.guilar, defendants-appellants0, which reversed the decision EE of the !egional
"rial #ourt of %ulacan, "hird 1udicial !egion, %ranch 14, for failure of petitioners
to prove the loss or destruction of the original deed of sale and of all its duplicate
original copies.
"he undisputed facts are as follows-
*etitioners %asilio, Euis, /elipe, 2usta3uia and Maria, all surna'ed de $era and
respondent Eeona, 'arried to respondent Mariano .guilar, are the children and
heirs of the late Marcosa %ernae who died on May 16, 19:6. +n her lifeti'e,
Marcosa %ernae owned the disputed parcel of land situated in #a'alig,
Meycauayan, %ulacan, with an area of 4,199 s3uare 'eters, designated as
#adastral Eot 5o. 8:21, #ad. 88&, #ase 5o. 4, Meycauayan #adastre.
"he disputed property was 'ortgaged y petitioners %asilio and /elipe de $era
to a certain .tty. Eeonardo %ordador. ?hen the 'ortgage had 'atured, the
respondents redee'ed the property fro' .tty. Eeonardo %ordador and in turn
Marcosa %ernae sold the sa'e to the' as evidenced y a deed of asolute
sale dated /eruary 11, 199:.
On /eruary 18, 199:, the respondents registered the deed with the !egistry of
4eeds of %ulacan resulting in the cancellation of the taC declaration in the na'e
of Marcosa %ernae and the issuance of another in the na'e of the .guilars.
)ince then and up to the present, the .guilars have een paying taCes on the
On 1uly 26, 19&&, respondent Mariano .guilar was issued a free patent to the
land on the asis of which Original #ertificate of "itle 5o. *-189:<M= was issued
in his na'e.
On )epte'er 1, 1986, the petitioners wrote to the respondents clai'ing that as
children of Marcosa %ernae, they were co-owners of the property and
de'anded partition thereof on threats that the respondents would e charged
with per,ury andMor falsification. "he petitioners also clai'ed that the respondents
had resold the property to Marcosa %ernae on .pril 28, 1999.
On )epte'er 2&, 1986, the respondents wrote in reply to the petitioners that
they were the sole owners of the disputed parcel of land and denied that the land
was resold to Marcosa %ernae.
"rue to petitioners@ threat, they filed a falsification case against the respondents.
(owever, on March 81, 1981, .ssistant *rovincial /iscal .rsenio 5. Mercado of
%ulacan reco''ended dis'issal of the charge of falsification of pulic docu'ent
against the respondents for lac7 of a pri)a facie case.
On March 2:, 1981, petitioners filed a suit for reconveyance of the lot covered y
Original #ertificate of "itle 5o. *-189:<M=.
On 1uly 81, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision EEE the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows-
?(2!2/O!2, ,udg'ent is herey rendered ordering defendants-
1. "o reconvey the property in 3uestion to the plaintiffs;
2. "o pay plaintiffs *16,666.66 as litigation eCpenses;
8. "o pay plaintiffs *9,666.66 as eCe'plary da'ages;
4. "o pay *16,666.66 as attorney@s fees.
)O O!42!24.
+n ruling in favor of the petitioners, the trial court ad'itted, over the o,ection of the respondents,
2Chiit . purporting to e a CeroCed copy of an alleged deed of sale eCecuted on .pril 28, 1999
y the respondents selling, transferring and conveying unto Marcosa %ernae the disputed parcel
of land for and in consideration of *1,966.66.
5ot contented with the decision, respondents appealed to the #ourt of .ppeals contending that
they never sold ac7 to Marcosa %ernae the disputed parcel of land. /urther'ore, respondents
contended that since the petitioners have failed to produce the original of the alleged deed of sale
dated .pril 28, 1999, the sa'e was not the est evidence of the alleged sale hence it should
have een eCcluded and should not have een accorded any evidentiary value. On the other
hand, the petitioners clai'ed that the eCistence of the docu'ent of sale dated .pril 28, 1999 had
een duly estalished y the testi'ony of the notary pulic efore who' it was ac7nowledged
and y Euis de $era who was present during its eCecution and that the loss of the original
docu'ent had een proven y the testi'ony of the representatives of the offices of the 5ational
.rchives and the *rovincial .ssessor of %ulacan.
On 5ove'er 29, 198&, the #ourt of .ppeals rendered its decision reversing the trial court@s
decision. +t found that the loss or destruction of the original deed of sale has not een duly proven
y the petitioners. (ence, secondary evidence, i.e., presentation of the CeroCed copy of the
alleged deed of sale is inad'issile.
(ence this petition.
"he cruC of this case is whether or not the petitioners have satisfactorily proven the loss of the
original deed of sale so as to allow the presentation of the CeroCed copy of the sa'e.
?e rule in the negative.
)ection 4 of !ule 186 <now )ection 9, !ule 186= of the !ules of #ourt on )econdary 2vidence
)ec. 4. )econdary evidence when original is lost or destroyed. N ?hen the original
writing has een lost or destroyed, or cannot e produced in court, upon proof of its
eCecution and loss or destruction, or unavailaility, its contents 'ay e proved y a copy,
or y a recital of its contents in so'e authentic docu'ent, or y the recollection of
)econdary evidence is ad'issile when the original docu'ents were actually lost or destroyed.
%ut prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent 'ust estalish the for'er
eCistence of the instru'ent. "he correct order of proof is as follows- 56istence; e6ecution; loss;
contents although this order 'ay e changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. "he
sufficiency of proof offered as a predicate for the ad'ission of an alleged lost deed lies within the
,udicial discretion of the trial court under all the circu'stances of the particular case.
. reading of the decision of the trial court shows that it 'erely ruled on the eCistence and due
eCecution of the alleged deed of sale dated .pril 28, 1999. +t failed to loo7 into the facts and
circu'stances surrounding the loss or destruction of the original copies of the alleged deed of
+n the case at ar, the e6istence of an alleged sale of a parcel of land was proved y the
presentation of a CeroCed copy of the alleged deed of asolute sale.
+n estalishing the e6ecution of a docu'ent the sa'e 'ay e estalished y the person or
persons who eCecuted it, y the person efore who' its eCecution was ac7nowledged, or y any
person who was present and saw it eCecuted or who, after its eCecution, saw it and recognized
the signatures; or y a person to who' the parties to the instru'ent had previously confessed the
eCecution thereof.
?e agree with the trial court@s findings that petitioners have sufficiently estalished the due
eCecution of the alleged deed of sale through the testi'ony of the notary pulic to wit-
*reponderance of evidence clearly disclosed the facts that .tty. +s'ael 2stela prepared
2Chiit .. .tty. 2'iliano +asco, 1r. positively identified the signatures appearing therein
to e that <sic= of the spouses and witnesses Euis de $era and +s'ael 2stela, in his
capacity as 5otary *ulic who ratified the docu'ent.
.fter the due eCecution of the docu'ent has een estalished, it 'ust neCt e proved that said
docu'ent has een lost or destroyed. "he destruction of the instru'ent 'ay e proved y any
person 7nowing the fact. "he loss 'ay e shown y any person who 7new the fact of its loss, or
y any one who had 'ade, in the ,udg'ent of the court, a sufficient eCa'ination in the place or
places where the docu'ent or papers of si'ilar character are usually 7ept y the person in
whose custody the docu'ent lost was, and has een unale to find it; or who has 'ade any other
investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instru'ent is indeed lost.
(owever, all duplicates or counterparts 'ust e accounted for efore using copies. /or, since all
the duplicates or 'ultiplicates are parts of the writing itself to e proved, no eCcuse for non-
production of the writing itself can e regarded as estalished until it appears that all of its parts
are unavailale <i.e. lost, retained y the opponent or y a third person or the li7e=.
+n the case at ar, .tty. 2'iliano +asco, 1r., notary pulic who notarized the docu'ent testified
that the alleged deed of sale has aout four or five original copies.
(ence, all originals 'ust e
accounted for efore secondary evidence can e given of any one. "his petitioners failed to do.
!ecords show that petitioners 'erely accounted for three out of four or five original copies.
+n reversing the trial court, the respondent #ourt of .ppeals considered the following points-
.s7ed on the witness stand where the original of the docu'ent <2Chiit .= was, plaintiff-
appellee Euis de $era answered that it was with the *rovincial .ssessor in Malolos,
%ulacan, whereupon the appellees reserved its <sic= right to present it in evidence <p. 11,
tsn., .ugust 11, 1981, )teno, "ecson=. "he sa'e 3uestion propounded to the sa'e
witness at the neCt hearing, he replied that in the early part of 19&: his sister Maria
orrowed fro' hi' the original docu'ent and a certified true copy thereof and rought
the' to the Office of the !egister of 4eeds in Malolos 0for the purpose of having it
registered;0 and that when she returned she told hi' that the original copy of the
docu'ent was su'itted to that office 0and it <the property= was transferred in the na'e
of Marcosa %ernae instead of Mariano .guilar0 <p. 8, tsn., 4ece'er 16, 1981, )teno,
#risosto'o; p. 9, tsn., Mar. 1:, 1982, )teno, $allarta=.
+ndeed, upon the appellees@ own evidence the original of the deed of sale in 3uestion, a
purported CeroC copy and certified true copy of which are 'ar7ed as 2Chiits . and %,
has not een lost or destroyed. +t was su'itted to the Office of the !egister of 4eeds of
Malolos for registration. "he appellees, therefore, should have as7ed the office to
produce it in court and if it could not e produced for one reason or another should have
called the !egister of 4eeds or his representative to eCplain why. "hat they failed to do.
"he loss or destruction of the original of the docu'ent in 3uestion has not, therefore,
een estalished. (ence, secondary evidence of it is inad'issile . . . .
5either did the testi'ony of notary pulic +asco, 1r. to the effect that he did not have a
copy of the deed of sale in 3uestion ecause his files were urned when his office at
!on3uillo )treet, Manila was gutted y fire in 19&1 and 19&2 <p. 4, tsn., 5ove'er 16,
1981, )teno, #risosto'o= estalish the loss or destruction of the original docu'ent in
3uestion. ?hat was lost or destroyed in the custody of .tty. +asco, 1r. was ut one of the
duplicate original copies on file with hi'. 5or did the testi'ony of (ipolito "i'oteo,
representative of the .ssessor@s Office of %ulacan, to the effect that he failed to see the
deed of asolute sale annotated on the si'ple copy of taC declaration 5o. 19412 <p. &,
tsn., .ug. 12, 1982, )teno, $allarta= and of 4avid Montenegro, 1r. of the 5ational .rchives
to the effect that his office had no copy of the docu'ent in 3uestion ecause the notary
pulic 'ight not have su'itted a copy thereof; or that it was lost or destroyed during the
trans'ittal; and that 'ost of the record efore 19:6 were destroyed y ter'ites <pp. 8-12,
tsn., Oct. 9, 1982, )teno, "ecson=, prove loss or destruction of the original and of all the
duplicate original copies of the docu'ent in 3uestion.
?e find no cogent reason to rule otherwise.
?(2!2/O!2, the decision of the #ourt of .ppeals dated 5ove'er 2&, 198& is herey
)O O!42!24.
"arasa! %.&.! $eliciano! Re#alado and "ocon! &&.! concur.
G.R. No. 77116 $&(4&r+ 31, 19=9
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
FER!INN! CMLOG &() NO6ELITO SOTTO, defendants-appellants.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
%oronel Law Office for defendant-appellants.
?hen is a confession legally sufficient in accordance with the syste' of cri'inal
,ustice in this countryH "he present case rought efore this #ourt on appeal
fro' a decision of the !egional "rial #ourt of #avite in #ri'inal #ase 5o. "M-
146 entitled People s. Ar)ando de los Re*es! et al., pro,ects this issue.
+n an +nfor'ation that was filed y the *rovincial /iscal of #avite, .r'ando de los
!eyes, /erdinand #a'alog and 5ovelito )otto were charged with the cri'e of
!oery with (o'icide efore the !egional "rial #ourt of #avite. +t reads as
"hat on or aout 1une 12, 1989, +n the 'unicipality of "anza, #avite,
*hilippines, and within the ,urisdiction of this (onorale #ourt, the aove
na'ed accused, conspiring together, acting ,ointly and assisting one
another, with violence against persons and with intent of gain and without
the consent of the owner did, then and there wilfully and feloniously ro,
ta7e and carry away cash 'oney a'ounting to *:66.66 and assorted
,ewelry valued at *86,:66.66 *hilippine #urrency and owned y 1ose M.
Malaanan, and y reason and on the occasion of the roery, the said
accused with intent to 7ill, did, then and there wilfully and feloniously stri7e
and sta 1ose M. Malaanan, with a pic7aC and a three-laded and
pointed weapon co''only 7nown as tres cantos on the different parts of
his ody causing the death of 1ose M. Malaanan, to the da'age and
pre,udice of his heirs.
"he aggravating circu'stances of dwelling, nightti'e, treachery and
ause of superior strength, were present at the ti'e of the co''ission of
the aforesaid offense.
#O5"!.!G "O E.?.
"he accused pleaded not guilty when arraigned. "he three accused were earlier arrested and
detained without ail.
"he facts of the case as presented y the prosecution are as follows-
+n the 'orning of 1une 12, 1989, the +ntegrated 5ational *olice <+5*= stationed at "anza, #avite
received a report that a 7illing was perpetrated inside a house at %arrio .'aya, "anza, #avite.
"wo +5* police officers, *atrol'en !uen %olante and .ugusta de la #ruz responded to the
report and conducted an investigation at the scene of the cri'e. "hey ca'e upon the lifeless
ody of 1ose M. Malaanan. "he deceased was found lying on the floor of the roo'. "hey noted
that the furniture was in disarray and that the cainet in the roo' was forcily opened with its
contents scattered around the victi'. "he investigators too7 note of the presence of several
loodstains in 'any parts of the roo'. "hey then found a pic7 ha''er lying near the victi'@s
ody. "hey also ca'e upon a triple laded 7nife, popularly called as tres cantos. >pon going
outside the house, they discovered hu'an lood spilled near an artesian well. . third police
officer, )gt. 2s'eraldo !o'ero, interrogated so'e of the residents of the %arrio. (e eventually
ca'e upon a arrio resident, %ayani %ocalan, who told the' that he saw .r'ando de los !eyes,
a resident of "anza, strolling near the house of the victi' in the early 'orning of 1une 12, 1989
and was in the co'pany of two other 'en, all of the' acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the
house of the victi'.
.cting on the infor'ation given y %ayani %ocalan, the police authorities invited .r'ando de los
!eyes to their office for 3uestioning. )gt. !o'ero infor'ed de los !eyes aout his constitutional
rights and then egan interrogating hi'. 4e los !eyes ad'itted his participation in the
co''ission of the cri'e and identified his two co'panions as a certain Mario fro' +locos and
one %en fro' Manila, oth of who', according to hi', could e found in the Euneta *ar7 of
Manila. "he eCtra-,udicial confession was reduced in writing and was signed y hi' efore 1udge
.urelio +casiano, Municipal "rial #ourt 1udge of "anza, #avite.
. tea' of "anza police'en acco'panied 4e los !eyes to the Euneta on the evening of 1une 18,
1989 to loo7 for the said Mario and %en. .t the Euneta, 4e los !eyes pointed out to the
police'en the accused /erdinand #a'alog and 5ovelito )otto who' he identified as his fellow
/erdinand #a'alog and 5ovelito )otto were interrogated and 'ade to sign eCtra-,udicial
confessions wherein they ad'itted their alleged participation in the co''ission of the cri'e
charged. "hese state'ents were suscried and sworn to also efore 1udge +casiano.
On the asis of these eCtra-,udicial confessions, the three were charged with the cri'e of
!oery with (o'icide.
"he appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge.
%oth oral and docu'entary evidence were presented in court y the prosecution. "hey
estalished the death of 1ose Malaanan, the da'age caused to his heirs, and the loss of
*86,:66.66 worth of cash and ,ewelries. "he eCtra-,udicial state'ents of the accused were
presented, identified and ad'itted in court as part of the testi'ony of the police investigators.
"he defense presented witnesses who testified on the good 'oral character of #a'alog and
)otto and their whereaouts in the early 'orning of 1une 12, 1989.
On the witness stand, 4e los !eyes ad'itted his participation in the co''ission of the cri'e
charged ut retracted his state'ent 'ade in the eCtra-,udicial confession regarding the
participation of his co-accused #a'alog and )otto. (e testified that he had een 'auled y the
police investigators during the interrogation. (e also testified that he was threatened with odily
har' if he refused to ad'it having co''itted the cri'e charged. (e li7ewise testified that e was
forced to pinpoint the two other accused as his co-conspirators on account of a threat against his
life 'ade y the police authorities. (e asserted that #a'alog and )otto were not involved in the
co''ission of the roerry and ho'icide, that two 'en na'ed %en and Mario were his
co'panions then, and that oth %en and Mario are still at large.
"he other two accused, #a'alog and )otto, testified that they were never near the scene of the
cri'e on the date and ti'e it was co''itted, and that they were in their residences in Manila and
Fuezon #ity, respectively. "wo witnesses, #oncepcion $illasis and !oert #aanan, e'ployer
and rother-in-law, respectively, of )otto and #a'alog, were presented to corroorate the alii
they gave.
"he accused further stressed the fact that they were forced to sign the eCtra-,udicial confessions
presented in court. "hey also testified that the police investigators heat, 'altreated and
threatened the' with death if they refused to sign the confessions. "hey li7ewise stated that they
were never infor'ed aout their constitutional rights and that the police investigators never
conducted an investigation as regards their alleged participation in the cri'e. "he two accused
further testified that during the period covering their custodial interrogation, they never had the
chance to confer with a lawyer.
On )epte'er 86, 198:, the trial court rendered a decision finding all the three accused guilty of
the cri'e charged, the dispositive portion of which reads-
?(2!2/O!2, the #ourt finds accused .!M.54O 42 EO) !2G2), /2!4+5.54
#.M.EOA, and 5O$2E+"O )O""O guilty eyond reasonale dout of the cri'e of
!oery with (o'icide punishale under .rticle 294 par. <1= of the !evised *enal #ode
and there eing no 'itigating or aggravating circu'stances present in the co''ission of
the cri'e herey sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
inde'nify the heirs of the victi' ,ointly and severally <1= in the a'ount of *86,666.66 for
the death of 1ose Malaanan; <2= *86,:66.66 for the ite's ta7en fro' the victi'@s house;
and <8= actual da'ages of *&6,666.66; <4= 'oral da'ages of *9,666.66 and to pay the
proportionate costs.
)O O!42!24.
"a7ing eCception to the finding that their guilt has een proved eyond reasonale dout, the
accused /erdinand #a'alog and 5ovelito )otto appealed their case to this #ourt on the ground
that the trial court erred as follows-
+. "(2 "!+.E #O>!" 2!!24 +5 .4M+""+5A "(2 2L"!.-1>4+#+.E #O5/2))+O5)
O/ "(2 .**2EE."2 %2#.>)2 "(2G ?2!2 O%".+524 "(!O>A( /O!#2,
"(!2." .54 +5"+M+4."+O5 .54 "(." "(2G ?2!2 O%".+524 +5 $+OE."+O5 O/
)2#"+O5 26, .!"+#E2 +$ O/ "(2 <19&8= *(+E+**+52 #O5)"+">"+O5.
++. "(2 "!+.E #O>!" 2!!24 +5 A+$+5A #!2425#2 "O "(2 "2)"+MO5G O/ 1O(5
E2O .E.%.4O.
+++. "(2 "!+.E #O>!" 2!!24 +5 4+)!2A.!4+5A "(2 42/25)2 O/ .E+%+.
+$. "(2 "!+.E #O>!" 2!!24 +5 4+)!2A.!4+5A "(2 "2)"+MO5G O/ .##>)24
.!M.54O 42 EO) !2G2).
$. "(2 "!+.E #O>!" 2!!24 +5 /+54+5A "(2 .**2EE."2 .**2EE.5"@) A>+E"G
%2GO54 !2.)O5.%E2 4O>%".
+n considering these interrelated errors assigned y appellants, ?e find 'erit in their contention
that there is no 'oral certainty to find the' guilty eyond reasonale dout of the cri'e charged.
"he records show that their confessions were not regularly otained. "here were enough
indications that the state'ents were not given voluntarily.
"he trial court gave credence to the clai' of the prosecution that the su,ect confessions were
signed voluntarily on the asis of the failure of appellants to co'plain to the Municipal "rial 1udge
that they were forced to sign the sa'e. "he trial court failed to ta7e note of the fact that when said
confessions were presented to 1udge +casiano, their tor'entors were present to hear and 7now
what the appellants would say and do. "hey re'ained in the custody of their tor'entors and not
with 1udge +casiano. .ppellants 'ust have een reasonaly apprehensive of further 'altreat'ent
if they 'anifested to 1udge +casiano that they were forced to sign the said confessions.
.n oservation was also 'ade y the court a quo that it was not shown that the police
investigators had ill 'otive in order to i'plicate the accused to such a heinous cri'e. "he police
investigators were fro' "anza, #avite, ,ust li7e the victi' and his heirs. .ppellant /erdinand
#a'alog is fro' +locos )ur while appellant 5ovelito )otto hails fro' Oriental Mindoro and oth
resided in Metro Manila. 4e los !eyes pointed the' out to the police investigators to e the 0%en0
and 0Mario0 who were his confederates. 5one of said nic7na'es ,ied with the true na'es of
appellants. "he police investigators did not care. "hey rought the two to their head3uarters in
"anza. "hey investigated the' under circu'stances that place into serious dout their i'partiality
and 'otive.
"he presence of details in the confessions of appellants were considered y the trial court as
evidence that the confessions were voluntarily 'ade. .n eCa'ination of the confession earlier
eCecuted y 4e los !eyes shows that the details in the 3uestioned confessions of appellants
were culled fro' the said confession of 4e los !eyes.
"he high point in deciding this case is the respect which 'ust e accorded the constitutional
rights of custodial prisoners at the ti'e they are su,ected to interrogation and their suse3uent
eCecution of an eCtra-,udicial confession, was there really a confession or ad'ission during the
custodial investigationH ?ere they infor'ed of their rightsH ?e find no affir'ative answers to
these 3uestions. +t appears that the appellants were not infor'ed of their constitutional rights and,
even assu'ing that they were so infor'ed, there is no indication that they understood those
?e gave e'phasis to these points in recent cases, to wit-
?hen the #onstitution re3uires a person under investigation to e infor'ed of his rights
to re'ain silent and to counsel, it 'ust e presu'ed to conte'plate the trans'ission of
'eaningful infor'ation rather than ,ust the cere'onial and perfunctory recitation of an
astract constitutional principle. .s a rule, therefore, it would not e sufficient for a police
officer ,ust to repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of )ection 26, .rticle
+$ of the #onstitution. (e is not only duty-ound to tell the person the rights to which the
latter is entitled- he 'ust also eCplain their effects in practical ter's, e.g., what the person
under interrogation 'ay or 'ay not do, and in a language the su,ect fairly understands.
In Re*es s. =uizo
?e too7 ti'e to elucidate on this viz.
+n other words, the right of a person under interrogation 0to e infor'ed@ i'plies a
correlative oligation on the part of the police investigator to eCplain, and conte'plates
an effective co''unication that results in understanding what is conveyed. )hort of this,
there is a denial of the right, as it cannot truly e said that the person has een @infor'ed@
of his rights. 5ow, since the right to e infor'ed@ i'plies co'prehension, the degree of
eCplanation re3uired will necessarily vary, depending upon the education, intelligence
and other relevant personal circu'stances of the person under investigation. )uffice it to
say that a si'pler and 'ore lucid eCplanation is needed where the su,ect is unlettered.
"he trial court relied on the testi'ony of the police investigators that the appellants have een
infor'ed of their funda'ental rights ut failed to ta7e note of the conspicuous asence of any
lawyer to assist the accused during the custodial investigation. 2ven assu'ing that the accused
waived their constitutional right to counsel, there is no indication that they did so with the
assistance of counsel. "he testi'ony of the accused during the trial of this case supports Our
oservation, to wit-
.tty. .aya-
F. 4o you 7now who conducted the investigationH
.. "he police.
F. ?hen you were investigated y the police were you assisted y counsel of your
.. 5o, sir.
F. 4id they infor' you that you have the right to counselH
.. 5o, sir.
F. .nd did they 'anifest to you that they will give you a lawyer to assist you in your
.. 5o, sir.
F. 4espite the asence of a lawyer, did you give a state'ent to the police investigatorH
.. 5o, sir. + did not give <a= state'ent.
.tty. .aya-
F. Gou did not give a state'ent to the police investigatorH
.. + was ,ust as7ed to sign the docu'ent.
F. ?hy did you sign the docu'entH
.. + signed it ecause + was eing threatened y the police.
F. ?hat 7ind of threat did the police eCert on your personH
.. "hey told 'e that if + will not sign the docu'ent, they are going to salvage 'e.

"he prosecution witness, )gt. 2s'eraldo A. !o'ero, testified-
.tty. %ince-
F. +n short, when you told hi' of his right to counsel, there was no lawyer present, is that correctH
.. Ges, sir.
F. ?hen you told hi' that the state'ent that he will give 'ight e used against hi', you told that without
the presence of the lawyer, is that correctH
.. Ges, sir.
F. ?hen he refused allegedly the assistance of counsel there was no counsel around, is that also correctH
.. Ges, sir.

.tty. %ince-
F. Gou said you investigated also 5ovelito )otto. 4uring your investigation of hi' there was no
lawyer present. +s that correctH
.. Ges, sir.
F. ?hen you told hi' he can avail <of= the services of a lawyer, there was no lawyer present. +s
that correctH
.. Ges, sir.
F. +n short in oth the custodial investigation of .r'ando de los !eyes and 5ovelito )otto there
was no lawyer present to assist the'H
.. Ges, sir.
$ery relevant to this case is the pronounce'ent of this #ourt in 3orales s. Ponce 5nrile,
reiterated in People s. Galit
and People s. Lu)a*o2!
where this #ourt categorically stated
that the waiver y the accused of his right to counsel 'ust e 'ade in the presence and with the
assistance of counsel.
?e stressed the inad'issiility of eCtra-,udicial confessions otained in violation of this principle-
.t the ti'e a person is arrested, it shall e the duty of the arresting officer to infor' hi' of
the reason for the arrest and he 'ust e shown the warrant of arrest, if any, (e shall e
infor'ed of his constitutional rights to re'ain silent and to counsel, and that any
state'ent he 'ight 'a7e could e used against hi'. "he person arrested shall have the
right to co''unicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses y the 'ost
eCpedient 'eans y telephone if possile or y letter or 'essenger. +t shall e the
responsiilityof the arresting officer to see to it that this is acco'plished. 5o custodial
investigation shall e conducted unless it e in the presence of counsel engaged y the
person arrested, y any person on his ehalf, or appointed y the court upon petition
either of the detainee hi'self of y anyone on his ehalf. "he right to counsel 'ay e
waived ut the waiver shall not e valid unless 'ade with the assistance of counsel. .ny
state'ent otained in violation of the procedure herein laid, whether eCculpatory or
inculpatory in whole or in part, shall e inad'issile in evidence. <2'phasis supplied.=
+n People s. Lu)a*o2!
this #ourt 'ade the following oservation N
5o custodial investigation shall e conducted unless it e in the presence of counsel
engaged y the person arrested y any person on his ehalf or appointed y the court
upon petition either of the detainee hi'self or y anyone on his ehalf. The ri#ht to
counsel )a* be waied but the waier shall not be alid unless )ade with the assistance
ofcounsel. .ny state'ent otained in violation of the procedure herein laid down whether
eCculpatory or inculpatory in whole or in part shall e inad'issile in evidence.
<2'phasis supplied=.
"he second error su'itted y the appellants is that the eCtra-,udicial confessions offered in
evidence were otained in violation of )ection 26, .rticle +$ of the 19&8 #onstitution, the
funda'ental law in force and effect at the ti'e of their arrest. 2ven assu'ing that the accused
were infor'ed of their right to re'ain silent, there is no showing that the appellants fully
understood the sa'e.
"he assertion 'ade y the police investigators to the effect that the appellants were infor'ed of
their funda'ental rights will not overthrow the fact that appellants were not assisted y counsel
during the custodial investigation even if they had waived the right. "he fact that the appellants
were never assisted y counsel during the custodial investigation is confir'ed in the testi'ony of
prosecution witness )gt. 2s'eraldo !o'ero.
/ro' the foregoing, it clearly appears that the "anza, #avite police investigators infor'ed the
accused-appellants /erdinand #a'alog and 5ovelito )otto aout their constitutional rights in a
rather sloopy 'anner. "he type of 3uestions and answers recited in their eCtra-,udicial
confessions is +dentical to that of their co-accused .r'ando de los !eyes. "here was not even a
se'lance of confor'ity with the funda'ental law.
Of course, the trial court put e'phasis on the testi'ony of prosecution reuttal witness 1ohn Eeo
.laado that at aout 9-66 o@cloc7 in the 'orning of 1une 1&, 1989 on his way to the residence of
%ayani %ocalan, he saw the three <8= persons co'ing out of the victi'@s house. (e identified the
appellants to e a'ong the three.

"his witness was presented y the prosecution when its witness %ayani %ocalan failed to appear
and accused 4e los !eyes denied the participation of the appellants in the co''ission of the
offense. +t too7 this witness over a year to report what he saw. .nd instead of reporting the sa'e
to the police authorities he conveniently allegedly reported what he supposedly saw to the victi'@s
father who was then loo7ing for witnesses. (e appeared in court without a supoena. "he sudden
e'ergence of this witness at the closing stages of the case is, to say the least, suspicious. .
reading of the transcript of his testi'ony, shows how incredile it can e. (e re'e'ers the
eCact day he saw appellants. (e did not notice any startling occurrence to re'e'er said date
and the identities of appellants so vividly. (e 'et /rancisco Malaanan, the father of the victi',
for the first ti'e in .pril 198: when he revealed what he 7new allegedly ecause his conscience
othered hi'. +t was Malaanan who rought hi' to court to testify.
%ayani %ocalan, who was the witness who identified 4e lo !eyes and saw his two co'panions,
was never presented y the prosecution. )uch wilful suppression of evidence gives rise to the
presu'ption that if presented the sa'e would prove to e adverse to the prosecution.

Moreover as argued y appellants, the testi'ony of .laado was i'proper for reuttal. +t should
have een presented at the ti'e the prosecution was presenting its evidence on direct
"he )olicitor Aeneral does not share the enthusias' of the trial court in accepting the testi'ony
of this witness. (e argues, however that the eCtra-,udicial confessions of appellants are sufficient
to estalish their guilt eyond reasonale dout. "he #ourt finds otherwise. ?ith the
inad'issiility of the eCtra-,udicial confessions of appellants, their conviction eco'es aseless.
"hey are entitled to an ac3uittal.
?(2!2/O!2, the decision of the !egional "rial #ourt of #avite in #ri'inal #ase 5o. "M-146
dated )epte'er 86, 198: is herey !2$2!)24 and )2" .)+42 as to the defendants-
appellants and another ,udg'ent is herey rendered .#F>+""+5A defendants-appellants
/2!4+5.54 #.M.EOA and 5O$2E+"O )O""O with costs de oficio. "his 4ecision is
i''ediately eCecutory.
)O O!42!24.
"arasa! %ruz! Gri8o-Aquino and 3edialdea! &&.! concur.
G.R. No. L@3=93? $4(e 2=, 19==
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
ISBELO TRINI!!, &/-&1 "Pe)ro !-3/&%," &() ROMEO CON!C, &/-&1
"Rom+," accused-appellants.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
(o)in#o ;. Pascua for accused-appellant Isabelo Trinidad.
5)iliano S. 3icu for accused-appellant Ro)eo %onda*a.
.ppellants were accused of the cri'e of 'urder on the asis of the following infor'ation-
"hat on or aout the 1:th day of .pril, 19&8, at night, in %arrio )an $icente, 'unicipality of
>'ingan, province of *angasinan, *hilippines, and within the ,urisdiction of this (onorale #ourt,
the aove-na'ed accused, +saelo "rinidad, alias 0*edro 4iplat and !o'eo #ondaya, alias
0!o'y,0 and %onifacio *alding, alias 0*acio,0 and ?ilfredo Mitrado, alias 02do,0 who were
discharged in the 'unicipal court for insufficiency of evidence, conspiring together and 'utually
helping one another, ar'ed with a shotgun and with intent to 7ill, with evident pre'editation and
treachery, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attac7, assault and shoot #ristita
%alancio $da. de .ngel inflicting upon her fatal gunshot wounds which caused her death as a
#ontrary to .rt. 248 of the !evised *enal #ode. I!ollo, p. 4J.
>pon arraign'ent, oth accused-appellants, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded 05ot Auilty.0
+n a decision dated May 2&, 19&4, the #ourt of /irst +nstance rendered ,udg'ent convicting accused-
appellants of 'urder and sentencing the' to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to ,ointly and severally
inde'nify the heirs of the deceased #ristita %alancio $da. de .ngel in the a'ount of *12,666.66 and to pay
the costs. "he shotgun and the cartridges used in the co''ission of the cri'e were ordered confiscated
and forfeited in favor of the govern'ent.
5ot agreeing with the decision of the trial court accused-appellants appealed to this #ourt.
+n his rief, accused-appellant "rinidad assigned the following errors-
+. "(." "(2 EO?2! #O>!" 2!!24 )2!+O>)EG ?(25 +" !2/>)24 "O #O5)+42! "(2 2$+425#2
/O! "(2 42/25)2
++. "(." "(2 EO?2! #O>!" 2!!24 A!.$2EG .54 )2!+O>)EG ?(25 +" #O5#E>424 ?+"(O>"
A!O>54) "(."-
1. +t is undeniale that the initial holder of the gun was +saelo "rinidad.
2. +saelo "rinidad 'ade sufficient steps in trying to escape suspicion y giving the gun for
safe7eeping to !o'eo #ondaya.
8. +t is inconceivale for the police authorities to eCactly 7now where the gun and the
cartridges were hidden if not for the infor'ation furnished the' y !o'eo #ondaya.
4. +saelo "rinidad@s presence at the scene of the cri'e was estalished y even the
evidence in his ehalf Ias= his house is a few 'eters away fro' the victi'@s house.
9. )uch startling occurrence could have roused +saelo "rinidad fro' his sleep. +n fine,
when +saelo "rinidad, after the urst of gunfire returned to the victi'@s house it was only
to shield hi'self fro' responsiility for the cri'e which he concocted.
:. that the evidence clearly estalish that +saelo "rinidad conveniently evaded direct
confrontation with the police authorities at the initial stage of the police investigation.
+++. "(." "(2 EO?2! #O>!" 2!!24 )O A!.$2EG ?(25 +" #O5$+#"24 "(2 .##>)24 <GO>!
.**2EE.5"= O/ "(2 #!+M2 #(.!A24 #O5"!.!G "O E.? .54 "(2 2$+425#2.
On his part, accused-appellant #ondaya assigned the following errors-
"(2 EO?2! #O>!" 2!!24 +5 (OE4+5A "(." "(2 2$+425#2 *!2)25"24 %G "(2 42/25)2 "O
*!O$2 "(2 +!!2A>E.!+"G !2)O!"24 "O %G "(2 *OE+#2 .>"(O!+"+2) "O 2L.#" .4M+))+O5
%G M2.5) O/ $+OE25#2, +5"+M+4."+O5 .54 42#2+" /!OM "(2 .##>)24 ?.) +!!2E2$.5"
42)*+"2 "(." +") M."2!+.E+"G .54 !2E2$.5#2 "O "(2 #.)2 +) $2!G #E2.!.
"(2 EO?2! #O>!" 2!!24 +5 (OE4+5A "(." "(2 +5+"+.E +5$2)"+A."+O5 !2$2.E24 "(."
+).%2EO "!+5+4.4, !OM2O #O54.G., %O5+/.#+O *.E4+5A .54 ?+E/!24O M+"!.4O
+MM24+."2EG ./"2! "(2, %>!)" O/ A>5/+!2 ?.) (2.!4, ?2!2 )225 . /2? M2"2!) /!OM
"(2 (O>)2 O/ "(2 $+#"+M #!+)"+". %.E.5#+O $4.. 42 .5A2E (>!!+24EG ?.EB+5A "O?.!4)
"(2 5O!"( .54 "(." !OM2O #O54.G. ?.) (OE4+5A . A>5, 42)*+"2 "(2 #E2.!EG
+M*!O%.%E2 .54 +5#O5)+)"25" "2)"+MO5+2) O/ "(2 ?+"52))2) ?(O "2)"+/+24 O5 "(+)
<)+#= *O+5").
"(2 EO?2! #O>!" 2!!24 +5 (OE4+5A "(." !OM2O #O54.G. E24 "(2 .>"(O!+"+2) "O "(2
#OE+%.5A%.5A0 "!22 .54 "(2 %.M%OO A!O$2) ?(2!2 "(2 )(O"A>5 <2L(. #= .54 "(2
#.!"!+4A2) <2L(). 4, 4-1, 4-2 .54 4-8= ?2!2 .EE2A24EG !2)*2#"+$2EG !2"!+2$24 42)*+"2
"(2 >5!2E+.%E2 .54 "(2 +5.4M+))+%+E+"G O/ "(2 2$+425#2 >*O5 ?(+#( +" ?.) %.)24.
"(2 EO?2! #O>!" 2!!24 +5 #O5#E>4+5A "(." !OM2O #O54.G. ?.) "(2 A>5 ?+2E42!
.54 "(." (2 4+4 )O >*O5 "(2 .#"+$2 +54>#2M25" O/ (+) #O-.##>)24 +).%2EO "!+5+4.4,
42)*+"2 "(2 "O".E E.#B O/ 2$+425#2 "O )>**O!" +".
.54, /+5.EEG, "(2 EO?2! #O>!" 2!!24 +5 #O5#E>4+5A "(." "(2 #!+M2 #(.!A24 +5 "(2
+5/O!M."+O5 ?.) *!O$24 .54 "(." %O"( "(2 .##>)24 .!2 A>+E"G "(2!2O/ 42)*+"2 "(2
"O".E E.#B O/ )>//+#+25" 2$+425#2 "O *!O$2 "(2+! A>+E" %2GO54 !2.)O5.%E2 4O>%".
>lti'ately, however, as pointed out y accused-appellant #ondaya, the issue oils down to whether or not
the prosecution has proven eyond reasonale dout that accused-appellants "rinidad and #ondaya were
the persons responsile for the death of the victi'.
"o support its ,udg'ent of conviction, the trial court relied on the following findings-
"he evidence for the prosecution tends to estalish that in the evening of .pril 1:, 19&8, one
#ristita %alancio $da. de .ngel was asleep y the alcony of her house situated at %arrio )an
$icente, >'ingan, *angasinan. ?ith her at that ti'e were her son, 1uan .ngel, her daughter-in-
law and two <2= grandchildren. )uddenly, there was a urst of gunfire, rousing 1uan .ngel and his
wife fro' their sleep. 1uan .ngel then peeped out fro' the window to find out what happened as
his caraao was tied ,ust elow the said window. .s 1uan .ngel peeped, he saw +saelo "rinidad,
!o'eo #ondaya, ?ilfredo Mitrado and %onifacio *alding, aout five <9= to siC <:= 'eters away
hurriedly wal7ing towards the 5orth.
)hortly, as 1uan .ngel@s wife shouted. !o'eo #ondaya who was then holding a gun, +saelo
"rinidad, %onifacio *alding, and ?ilfredo Mitrado ran farther towards the 5orth.
+t turned out that #ristita %alancio $da. de .ngel was hit y her nec7 which caused her death.
<2Chiits 0.0 and 0.-10=. )o, 1uan .ngel proceeded to call for help. (e as7ed so'eody to fetch
+gnacio 4opale, the %arrio #aptain of )an $icente, >'ingan, *angasinan, who i''ediately
responded to 1uan .ngel@s call for help. +nitial in3uiries fro' 1uan .ngel, revealed the infor'ation
that +''ediately after the urst of gunfire, !o'eo #ondaya, ?ilfredo Mitrado, +saelo "rinidad and
%onifacio *alding, were seen hurriedly wal7ing towards the 5orth. )o that, %arrio #aptain +gnacio
4opale proceeded to the >'ingan Municipal %uilding in Order to report the 'atter.
#orporal 4o'inador %arwel of the >'ingan *olice /orce to who' the case was referred first
fetched )ergeant #asio of the *hilippine #onstaulary at >'ingan, *angasinan. "hen, they
proceeded to the scene of the incident in order to investigate.
.rriving at the pre'ises, they saw #ristita %alancio $da. de .ngel, already dead as a result of
gunshot wounds suffered at the ac7 of her nec7. "his investigation again revealed the infor'ation
that +saelo "rinidad, !o'eo #ondaya, %onifacio *alding, and ?ilfredo Mitrado, were seen within
the vicinity i''ediately after the gunfire. .s +saelo "rinidad was then on the pre'ises, he was
apprehended and rought to the Municipal %uilding of >'ingan, *angasinan. On the way, +saelo
"rinidad revealed that he had caused the death of #ristita %alancio $da. de .ngel, as in fact he
offered to pay !o'eo #ondaya the a'ount of /ive (undred *esos <*966.66= to do the ,o.
(owever, the intended victi' was 1uan .ngel, ecause of +saelo "rinidad@s caraao.
.ccordingly, )gt. #asio and #pl. 4o'inador %arwel on .pril 1&, 19&8 too7 steps to apprehend
!o'eo #ondaya, ?ilfredo Mitrado and %onifacio *alding, at )ta. !osa, >'ingan, *angasinan.
?ilfredo Mitrado was apprehended on .pril 18,19&8 while !o'eo #ondaya was apprehended
so'eti'e on .pril 26, 19&8 at )to. "o'as, *angasinan, after eing turned over y the )to. "o'as
police authorities. On the way to >'ingan, *angasinan, !o'eo #ondaya was verally interrogated
inside the ,eep. (ere, #ondaya was as7ed if he had anything to do with the 7illing of #ristita
%alancio $da. de .ngel. !eadily, !o'eo #ondaya ad'itted the shooting as +saelo "rinidad
pro'ised to pay hi' <#ondaya= the a'ount of /ive (undred *esos <*966.66=. (owever, this
a'ount re'ained unpaid. On the sa'e occasion, !o'eo #ondaya infor'ed )gt. #asio and #pl.
%arwel that the gun used in the 7illing was hidden so'ewhere atop a 0#oliangang0 tree at )ta.
!osa, >'ingan, *angasinan.
.t )ta. !osa, >'ingan, *angasinan, and upon #ondaya@s instructions, the 12 gauge locally 'ade
uc7-shot was recovered. <2Chiit 0#0=. "hereafter, !o'eo #ondaya pointed to the a'oo grove
where he hid the cartridges. <2Chiits 040, 04-1@, 04-20 and 04-80=.
.fter their apprehension, !o'eo #ondaya, +saelo "rinidad, %onifacio *alding, and ?ilfredo
Mitrado were 'ade to eCecute sworn state'ents which, however, they refused to affir' efore the
Municipal 1udge of >'ingan, *angasinan. I#/+ 4ecision, pp. 2-4; !ollo, pp. 21-28J.
+n their testi'onies, accused-appellants "rinidad and #ondaya denied their participation in the cri'e and
asserted that after their apprehension they were tortured and 'altreated until they signed docu'ents which
they later found out to e their eCtra,udicial confessions. (ence, their refusal to affir' their written
confessions efore the 'unicipal ,udge.
"o prove his innocence, "rinidad e'phasized the undisputed facts that he was even a'ong those who went
to >'ingan to fetch )gt. #asio and #pl. %arwel and that he even re'ained at the scene of the cri'e while,
they were conducting their investigation and provided refresh'ents for the investigators.
"he trial court dis'issed accused-appellants defense with the following oservation-
%efore anything else, this #ourt notes with 'uffled a'use'ent the 'anner at which the accused
presented their side of the case. /or aware as they were that the alleged state'ents ta7en fro'
the' y the authorities of >'ingan, *angasinan when offered y the prosecution was denied
ad'ission, they persisted at presenting evidence along this line. "here really was no need for the
accused to do what they did. .s far as this #ourt is concerned, the supposed irregularity at
securing these ad'issions was irrelevant. /or so it is that these state'ents were not even
suscried and sworn to efore any co'petent authority. )o that, when the accused persistently
harped at this alleged violence upon their persons, this #ourt was furnished a sufficient asis at
attriuting a se'lance of 'eaning to these state'ents. %ut confor'aly with our settled
constitutional de'ands of due process, this #ourt considers these aver'ents of violence
eCtraneous to this case, although the Municipal (ealth Officer, 4r. 2ddie )oriano@s 'edical
certificates had shown a contrary finding. <2Chiits 0(0, 0(-10, 0(-20, 0+0, 0+-10, 0+-20 and 0+- 80=.
I!ollo, pp. 81-82J.
.t the outset, it 'ust e stated that the trial court correctly denied the ad'issiility as evidence of the written
eCtra,udicial confessions of the accused-appellants. )uch denial, however, should not have een for the
reason given, na'ely, that they were not suscried and sworn to efore the proper authorities, ut, rather,
ecause the re3uire'ents of the #onstitution were disregarded.
"he 19&8 #onstitution, then in force and effect when the confessions were ta7en, provided in words that left
no roo' for dout-
)ec. 26. 5o person shall e co'pelled to e a witness against hi'self. .ny person under
investigation for the co''ission of an offense shall have the right to re'ain silent and to counsel,
and to e infor'ed of such right. 5o force, violence, threat, inti'idation, or any other 'eans which
vitiates the free will shall e used against hi'. .ny confession otained in violation of this section
shall e inad'issile in evidence. I.rticle +$J.
"he rule is that when an accused testifies that he signed his confession ecause he was 'altreated, the
prosecution 'ust present evidence to reut this clai', otherwise the confession will e considered illegally
procured I*eople v. +nguito, E-9849&, Octoer 18, 1982, 11& )#!. :41.J "he presu'ption of regularity of
perfor'ance of official duty does not apply to incustody confessions. "he prosecution 'ust prove
co'pliance with the constitutional re3uire'ents I*eople v. "olentino, A.!. 5o. E-96168, 5ove'er 24, 198:,
149 )#!. 99&.J+n the instant case, accused-appellants@ allegations of torture and 'altreat'ent were refuted
y 4r. )oriano@s testi'ony and 'edical certificate.
(owever, since there is no proof that when they 'ade their confessions they were infor'ed of their right to
re'ain silent and to counsel and that they 7nowingly and intelligently waived these rights, such confessions
are inad'issile in evidence I*eople v. 4uero, A.!. 5o. E-9261:, May 18, 1981, 164 )#!. 8&9.J Ei7ewise,
the asence of counsel at the ti'e of custodial investigation when the eCtra,udicial confession was ta7en
renders it inad'issile I*eople v. %urgos, A.!. 5o. E-:8999, )epte'er 4, 198:, 144 )#!. 1.J +t is not
enough that the suspect is as7ed if he needs a lawyer, he 'ust e infor'ed that if he is an indigent a lawyer
will e appointed to represent hi' during custodial interrogation I*eople v. "olentino, supraJ.
+t is not only the oral confessions 'ade to the apprehending officers, )gt. #asio and #pl. %arwel, that are
tainted ut also the written confessions 'ade and signed a few days after their arrest. "hus, the testi'onies
of the police officers on the 'atters allegedly confessed to the' y accused-appellants and the written
eCtra,udicial confessions are inad'issile in evidence.
2. .s the eCtra,udicial confessions are inad'issile, the #ourt is tas7ed with deter'ining whether there
re'ains sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of guilt eyond reasonale dout.
+t 'ust e e'phasized that no direct evidence was adduced to prove accused-appellants@ co''ission of the
cri'e charged.
"o sustain a finding of guilt eyond reasonale dout, the trial court wove together several pieces of
circu'stantial evidence.
"he !ules of #ourt provides that circu'stantial evidence is sufficient for a conviction if-
<1= there is 'ore than one circu'stance;
<2= the facts fro' which the inferences are derived are proven; and
<8= the co'ination of all the circu'stances is such as to produce a conviction eyond a reasonale dout.
I)ec. 9, !ule 188J.
.lthough no general rule has een for'ulated as to the 3uantity of circu'stantial evidence sufficient for a
conviction, the estalished re3uire'ent is that the circu'stances proved 'ust e consistent with each other,
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the sa'e ti'e inconsistent with any other
hypothesis eCcept that of guilty I*eople v. Eudday, :1 *hil. 21:; *eople v. #ontante, A.!. 5o. E-14:89,
4ece'er 28,19:4,12 )#!. :98.J
"hus, using the re3uire'ents of the !ules of #ourt and estalished ,urisprudence as yardstic7s, this #ourt is
called upon, in this appeal, to ulti'ately deter'ine whether the circu'stantial evidence adduced during the
trial are sufficient for a conviction.
"he )olicitor Aeneral, in his rief Ipp. 18-19J, enu'erated several circu'stances in support of a finding that
accused-appellants were guilty eyond reasonale dout of the 'urder of #ristita %alancio $da. de .ngel,
which 'ay e su''arize as follows-
1. %efore .pril 1:, 19&8, accused-appellant, +saelo "rinidad, ore a grudge against 1uan .ngel.
"rinidad suspected 1uan .ngel of having urned the rope of his <"rinidad@s= caraao.
2. "rinidad had warned 1uan .ngel on .pril 19, 19&8, that he <"rinidad= could have 1uan .ngel
7illed at anyti'e, even inside the latter@s house.
8. +n the evening of .pril 1:, 19&8, %onifacio *alding, saw "rinidad and #ondaya <in the course of a
drin7ing session with *alding, and ?ilfredo Mitrado= converse secretly so'e siC <:= 'eters away
fro' *alding and Mitrado. .fter this conversation, "rinidad gave #ondaya a ho'e 'ade shotgun
and then "rinidad and #ondaya, followed y *alding, and Mitrado, proceeded to the house of 1uan
4. ?hile *alding, was so'e four <4= 'eters ehind "rinidad and #ondaya he <*alding= heard a
gunshot and saw a flash of light near the door of 1uan .ngel@s house.
9. . few seconds later, *alding, saw "rinidad and #ondaya running away fro' the house. *alding
and Mitrado also ran away in the direction ta7en y "rinidad and #ondaya.
:. 1uan .ngel saw "rinidad, #ondaya, *alding, and Mitrado running away fro' the house as he
peeped through a window after he heard the gunshot.
&. ?hen *alding, and Mitrado caught up with "rinidad and #ondaya in a certain field, *alding heard
"rinidad instruct #ondaya to ta7e the shotgun to )ta. !osa, >'ingan, *angasinan and hide it.
8. .fter the apprehension of #ondaya on .pril 26 or 21, 19&8, the ho'e-'ade shotgun was
recovered on top of a 0coliangang0 tree ehind the house of #ondaya@s parents, together with
three <8= live cartridges hidden in a a'oo grove neary.
"o this enu'eration 'ay e added three <8= 'ore circu'stances- <1= that the victi' was found dead near
the door inside her son 1uan .ngel@s house; <2= that the victi' died of he'orrhage caused y gunshot
wounds; and <8= that two pellets were recovered fro' her ody.
.ll of these circu'stances, eleven <11= in all, have een proven y direct evidence. "ogether, these
circu'stances lead to the conclusion that accused-appellants "rinidad and #ondaya were guilty eyond
reasonale dout for the shooting of #ristita %alancio $da. de .ngel.
2ven if the eighth circu'stance cited y the )olicitor Aeneral N that the shotgun and the a''unition were
recovered in the vicinity of the house of #ondaya@s parents N is disregarded on the ground that the recovery
was the fruit of the tainted confession, the result would e the sa'e ecause of the overwhel'ing
circu'stantial evidence.
"wo <2= of the circu'stances also 'anifest a co''unity of purpose indicative of a conspiracy etween
"rinidad and #ondaya, which would 'a7e oth of the' e3ually guilty of the cri'e I*eople v. Aarcia, A.!.
5os. E-2:169, /eruary 18, 198:, 141 )#!. 88:J, although only one of the' 'ay have pulled the trigger
and actually fired the fatal shot. ?here a conspiracy has een proven, a showing as to who inflicted the fatal
wound is not re3uired. I*eople v. "ala, A.!. 5os. E-:9198-94, 1anuary 86, 198:,141 )#!. 246J.
"he rule is that conspiracy 'ust e shown to eCist y direct or circu'stantial evidence, as clearly and
convincingly as the co''ission of the cri'e itself I*eople v. $icente, A.!. 5o. E-2:241, May 21, 19:9, 28
)#!. 24&J. +n the instant case, the third circu'stance cited y the )olicitor Aeneral <that "rinidad pulled
#ondaya away fro' *alding and Mitrado to converse secretly and then gave hi' the shotgun efore they all
went to 1uan .ngel@s house=, coupled with the seventh <that "rinidad told #ondaya to hide the shotgun as
they were running away fro' 1uan .ngel@s house=, sufficiently proves the conspiracy etween "rinidad and
#ondaya. "he conduct of accused-appellants efore, during and after the co''ission of the cri'e are
circu'stances showing the presence of conspiracy I*eople v. #ailtes, A.!. 5o. E-18616, )epte'er 29,
19:8, 29 )#!. 112J.
"he cri'e co''itted was 'urder with the 3ualifying circu'stance of treachery, as characterized y the fact
that the victi' was shot at close range while she was asleep, thus ensuring the co''ission of the cri'e
without ris7 to the assailants I*eople v. 4e3uina, :6 *hil. 2&9 <1984=J. "hat 1uan .ngel, and not his 'other,
was apparently the intended victi' is not inco'patile with the eCistence of treachery. "reachery 'ay e
ta7en into account even if the victi' of the attac7 was not the person who' the accused intended to 7ill.
(owever, evident pre'editation 'ay not e considered as a 3ualifying circu'stance as it cannot e said
that the assailants pre'editated on the 7illing of the actual victi' I*eople v. Maug-at, 91 *hil. 9:& <192:=;
*eople v. Auillen, 89 *hil. 86& <1996=J. "hus, evident pre'editation, although alleged in the infor'ation, 'ay
not e considered as a 3ualifying circu'stance.
?ith the aolition of the death penalty in the 198& #onstitution, 'urder is now penalized y reclusion
te)poral in its 'aCi'u' period to reclusion perpetua. .sent any 'odifying circu'stances, the penalty is
i'posale in its 'ediu' period, or fro' eighteen <18= years, eight <8= 'onths and one <1= day to twenty <26=
years. .pplying the +ndeter'inate )entence Eaw, the range of the penalty is lowered y one degree to
prision )a*or in its 'aCi'u' period to reclusion te)poral in its 'ediu' period, or fro' ten <16= years and
one <1= day to seventeen <1&= years and four <4= 'onths.
?(2!2/O!2, the decision of the court a quo is MO4+/+24 and the #ourt, in the eCercise of its discretion,
sentences accused-appellants to suffer the indeter'inate penalty of fro' fourteen <14= years and one <1=
day of reclusion te)poral, as 'ini'u', to twenty <26= years of reclusion te)poral, as 'aCi'u', and to
inde'nify the heirs of the victi' in the a'ount of *86,666.66.
)O O!42!24.
$ernan >%hair)an?! Gutierrez! &r.! $eliciano and 'idin! &&.! concur.
G.R. No. =;21; $4/+ 7, 19=9
HON. $#!GE R#BEN CSON, Pre1-)-(2 over Br&(*. 6, Re2-o(&/ Tr-&/
Co4r%, F-r1% $4)-*-&/ Re2-o(, B&24-o C-%+, &() FELIPE RMOS, respondents.
"elson Lidua for priate respondent.
NR6S, J.>
?hat has given rise to the controversy at ar is the e3uation y the respondent
1udge of the right of an individual not to 0be co)pelled to be a witness a#ainst
hi)self0 accorded y )ection 26, .rticle +++ of the #onstitution, with the right of
any person 0under inesti#ation for the co))ission of an offense . . . to re)ain
silent and to counsel! and to be infor)ed of such ri#ht!0 granted y the sa'e
provision. "he relevant facts are not disputed.
*rivate respondent /elipe !a'os was a tic7et freight cler7 of the *hilippine
.irlines <*.E=, assigned at its %aguio #ity station. +t having allegedly co'e to
light that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tic7ets,
the *.E
'anage'ent notified hi' of an investigation to e conducted into the 'atter of /eruary 9, 198:.
"hat investigation was scheduled in accordance with *.E@s #ode of #onduct and 4iscipline, and
the #ollective %argaining .gree'ent signed y it with the *hilippine .irlines 2'ployees@
.ssociation <*.E2.= to which !a'os pertained.
On the day efore the investigation, /eruary 8,198:, !a'os gave to his superiors a handwritten
reading as follows-
"O ?(OM +" M.G #O5#2!5-
"(2 >542!)+A524 ?O>E4 E+B2 "O )"."2 "(." (2 +) ?+EE+5A "O )2""E2
+!!2A>E.!+"+2) .EE2A24EG #(.!A24 $). (+M +5 "(2 .M". O/ * &:,666
<.**!OL.= )>%12#" "O #O54+"+O5) .) M.G %2 +M*O)24 %G *.E O5 O!
%2/O!2 1&66M9 /2% 8:.
<s= /elipe !a'os
<*rinted= /. !a'os
.t the investigation of /eruary 9, 198:, conducted y the *.E %ranch Manager in %aguio #ity,
2dgardo !. #ruz, in the presence of )tation .gent .ntonio Oca'po, "ic7et /reight #ler7 !odolfo
Fuitasol, and *.E2. )hop )teward #risteta 4o'ingo, /elipe !a'os was infor'ed 0of the finding
of the .udit "ea'.0 "hereafter, his answers in response to 3uestions y #ruz, were ta7en down in
writing. !a'os@ answers were to the effect inter alia that he had not indeed 'ade disclosure of
the tic7ets 'entioned in the .udit "ea'@s findings, that the proceeds had een 0'isused0 y hi',
that although he had planned on paying ac7 the 'oney, he had een prevented fro' doing so,
0perhaps <y= sha'e,0 that he was still willing to settle his oligation, and proferred a
0co'pro'ise C C to pay on staggered asis, <and= the a'ount would e 7nown in the neCt
investigation;0 that he desired the neCt investigation to e at the sa'e place, 0%aguio #"O,0 and
that he should e represented therein y 0)hop stewardees +"! 5ieves %lanco;0 and that he was
willing to sign his state'ent <as he in fact afterwards did=.
(ow the investigation turned out is not
dealt with the parties at all; ut it would see' that no co'pro'ise agree'ent was reached 'uch
less consu''ated.
.out two <2= 'onths later, an infor'ation was filed against /elipe !a'os charging hi' with the
cri'e of estafa allegedly co''itted in %aguio #ity during the period fro' March 12, 198: to
1anuary 29, 198&. +n that place and during that ti'e, according to the indict'ent,
he <!a'os= N
.. with unfaithfulness andMor ause of confidence, did then and there willfully ... defraud
the *hilippine .irlines, +nc., %aguio %ranch, ... in the following 'anner, to wit- said
accused ... having een entrusted with and received in trust fare tic7ets of passengers for
one-way trip and round-trip in the total a'ount of *&:,&66.:9, with the eCpress oligation
to re'it all the proceeds of the sale, account for it andMor to return those unsold, ... once
in possession thereof and instead of co'plying with his oligation, with intent to defraud,
did then and there ... 'isappropriate, 'isapply and convert the value of the tic7ets in the
su' of *&:,&66.:9 and in spite of repeated de'ands, ... failed and refused to 'a7e good
his oligation, to the da'age and pre,udice of the offended party .. .
On arraign'ent on this charge, /elipe !a'os entered a plea of 05ot Auilty,0 and trial thereafter
ensued. "he prosecution of the case was underta7en y lawyers of *.E under the direction and
supervision of the /iscal.
.t the close of the people@s case, the private prosecutors 'ade a written offer of evidence dated
1une 21, 1988,
which included 0the <aove 'entioned= state'ent of accused /elipe 1. !a'os
ta7en on /eruary 9, 198: at *.E %aguio #ity "ic7et Office,0 which had een 'ar7ed as 2Chiit
., as well as his 0handwritten ad'ission C C given on /eruary 8, 198:,0 also aove referred to,
which had een 'ar7ed as 2Chiit B.
"he defendant@s attorneys filed 0O,ectionsM#o''ents to *laintiff s 2vidence.0
*articularly as
regards the peoples@ 2Chiit ., the o,ection was that 0said docu'ent, which appears to e a
confession, was ta7en without the accused eing represented y a lawyer.0 2Chiit B was
o,ected to 0for the sa'e reasons interposed under 2Chiits @.@ and @1.@
%y Order dated .ugust 9, 1988,
the respondent ,udge ad'itted all the eChiits 0as part of the
testi'ony of the witnesses who testified in connection therewith and for whatever they are worth,0
eCcept 2Chiits . and B, which it re,ected. (is (onor declared 2Chiit . 0inad'issile in evidence,
it appearing that it is the state'ent of accused /elipe !a'os ta7en on /eruary 9, 198: at *.E
%aguio #ity "ic7et Office, in an investigation conducted y the %ranch Manager C C since it does
not appear that the accused was re'inded of this constitutional rights to re'ain silent and to
have counsel, and that when he waived the sa'e and gave his state'ent, it was with the
assistance actually of a counsel.0 (e also declared inad'issile 02Chiit B, the handwritten
ad'ission 'ade y accused /elipe 1. !a'os, given on /eruary 8, 198: C C for the sa'e reason
stated in the eCclusion of 2Chiit @.@ since it does not appear that the accused was assisted y
counsel when he 'ade said ad'ission.0
"he private prosecutors filed a 'otion for reconsideration.
+t was denied, y Order dated
)epte'er 14, 1988.
+n ,ustification of said Order, respondent 1udge invo7ed this #ourt@s
rulings in 3orales! &r. . &uan Ponce 5nrile! et al.! 121 )#!. 988, People . Galit! 189 )#!. 4:&,
People. . Sison! 142 )#!. 219, and People . (ecierdo! 149 )#!. 49:, a'ong others, to the
effect that 0in custodial investigations the right to counsel 'ay e waived ut the waiver shall not
e valid unless 'ade with the assistance of counsel,0 and the eCplicit precept in the present
#onstitution that the rights in custodial investigation 0cannot e waived eCcept in writing and in
the presence of counsel.0 (e pointed out that the investigation of /elipe !a'os at the *.E
%aguio )tation was one 0for the offense of allegedly 'isappropriating the proceeds of the tic7ets
issued to hi'@ and therefore clearly fell 0within the coverage of the constitutional provisions;0 and
the fact that !a'os was not detained at the ti'e, or the investigation was ad'inistrative in
character could not operate to eCcept the case 0fro' the a'it of the constitutional provision
"hese Orders, of .ugust 9, 1988 and )epte'er 14, 1988 are now assailed in the petition for
certiorari and prohiition at ar, filed in this #ourt y the private prosecutors in the na'e of the
*eople of the *hilippines. %y !esolution dated Octoer 2:, 1988, the #ourt re3uired 1udge .yson
and /elipe !a'os to co''ent on the petition, and directed issuance of a 0"2M*O!.!G
!2)"!.+5+5A O!42! . . . 251O+5+5A the respondents fro' proceeding further with the trial
andMor hearing of #ri'inal #ase 5o. 8488-! <*eople ... vs. /elipe !a'os=, including the issuance
of any order, decision or ,udg'ent in the aforesaid case or on any 'atter in relation to the sa'e
case, now pending efore the !egional "rial #ourt of %aguio #ity, %r. :, /irst 1udicial !egion.0
"he #ourt also suse3uently re3uired the )olicitor Aeneral to co''ent on the petition. "he
co''ents of 1udge .yson, /elipe !a'os, and the )olicitor Aeneral have all een filed. "he
)olicitor Aeneral has 'ade co''on cause with the petitioner and prays 0that the petition e
given due course and thereafter ,udg'ent e rendered setting aside respondent 1udge@s
Orders . . . and ordering hi' to ad'it 2Chiits @.@ and @B@ of the prosecution.0 "he )olicitor
Aeneral has therey re'oved whatever i'propriety 'ight have attended the institution of the
instant action in the na'e of the *eople of the *hilippines y lawyers de parte of the offended
party in the cri'inal action in 3uestion.
"he #ourt dee's that there has een full ventilation of the issue N of whether or not it was grave
ause of discretion for respondent 1udge to have eCcluded the *eople@s 2Chiits . and B. +t will
now proceed to resolve it.
.t the core of the controversy is )ection 26, .rticle +$ of the 19&8 #onstitution,
to which
respondent 1udge has given a construction that is disputed y the *eople. "he section reads as
)2#. 26. 5o person shall e co'pelled to e a witness against hi'self .ny person under
investigation for the co''ission of an offense shall have the right to re'ain silent and to
counsel, and to e infor'ed of such right. 5o force, violence, threat, inti'idation, or any
other 'eans which vitiates the free will shall e used against hi'. .ny confession
otained in violation of this section shall e inad'issile in evidence.
+t should at once e apparent that there are two <2= rights, or sets of rights, dealt with in the
section, na'ely-
1= the right against self-incri'ination N i.e., the right of a person not to e co'pelled to
e a witness against hi'self N set out in the first sentence, which is a verati'
reproduction of )ection 18, .rticle +++ of the 1989 #onstitution, and is si'ilar to that
accorded y the /ifth .'end'ent of the .'erican #onstitution,
2= the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e., the rights of every suspect 0under
investigation for the co''ission of an offense.0
*arenthetically, the 198& #onstitution indicates 'uch 'ore clearly the individuality and
disparateness of these rights. +t has placed the rights in separate sections. "he right against self-
incri'ination, 05o person shall e co'pelled to e a witness against hi'self,0 is now e'odied in
)ection 1&, .rticle +++ of the 198& #onstitution. "he lights of a person in custodial interrogation,
which have een 'ade 'ore eCplicit, are now contained in )ection 12 of the sa'e .rticle +++.

!ight .gainst )elf-+ncri'ination
"he first right, against self-incri'ination, 'entioned in )ection 26, .rticle +$ of the 19&8
#onstitution, is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under
co'pulsion of supoena, in any civil, cri'inal, or ad'inistrative proceeding.
"he right is 5O" to
0e co'pelled to e a witness against hi'self0
"he precept set out in that first sentence has a settled 'eaning.
+t prescries an 0option of
refusal to answer incri'inating 3uestions and not a prohiition of in3uiry.0
+t si'ply secures to a
witness, whether he e a party or not, the right to refue to answer any particular incri'inatory
3uestion, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to incri'inate hi' for so'e cri'e.
(owever, the right can e clai'ed only when the specific 3uestion, incri'inatory in character, is
actually put to the witness. +t cannot e clai'ed at any other ti'e. +t does not give a witness the
right to disregard a supoena, to decline to appear efore the court at the ti'e appointed, or to
refuse to testify altogether. "he witness receiving a supoena 'ust oey it, appear as re3uired,
ta7e the stand, e sworn and answer 3uestions. +t is only when a particular 3uestion is addressed
to hi', the answer to which 'ay incri'inate hi' for so'e offense, that he 'ay refuse to answer
on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.
"hat first sentence of )ection 26, .rticle +$ of the 19&8 #onstitution does not i'pose on the
,udge, or other officer presiding over a trial, hearing or investigation, any affir'ative oligation to
advise a witness of his right against self-incri'ination. +t is a right that a witness 7nows or should
7now, in accordance with the well 7nown aCio' that every one is presu'ed to 7now the law, that
ignorance of the law eCcuses no one. /urther'ore, in the very nature of things, neither the ,udge
nor the witness can e eCpected to 7now in advance the character or effect of a 3uestion to e
put to the latter.

"he right against self-incri'ination is not self- eCecuting or auto'atically operational. +t 'ust e
clai'ed. +f not clai'ed y or in ehalf of the witness, the protection does not co'e into play. +t
follows that the right 'ay e waived, eCpressly, or i'pliedly, as y a failure to clai' it at the
appropriate ti'e.

!ights in #ustodial +nterrogation
)ection 26, .rticle +$ of the 19&8 #onstitution also treats of a second right, or etter said, group
of rights. "hese rights apply to persons 0under investigation for the co''ission of an offense,0
i.e., 0suspects0 under investigation y police authorities; and this is what 'a7es these rights
different fro' that e'odied in the first sentence, that against self-incri'ination which, as
aforestated, indiscri'inately applies to any person testifying in any proceeding, civil, cri'inal, or
"his provision granting eCplicit rights to persons under investigation for an offense was not in the
1989 #onstitution. +t is avowedly derived fro' the decision of the >.). )upre'e #ourt in Miranda
v. .rizona,
a decision descried as an 0earth3ua7e in the world of law enforce'ent.0

)ection 26 states that whenever any person is 0under investigation for the co''ission of an
1= he shall have the right to re'ain silent and to counsel, and to e infor'ed of such

2= nor force, violence, threat, inti'idation, or any other 'eans which vitiates the free will
shall e used against hi';
8= any confession otained in violation of C C <these rights shall e inad'issile in

+n Miranda, #hief 1ustice ?arren su''arized the procedural safeguards laid down for a person
in police custody, 0in-custody interrogation0 eing regarded as the co''ence'ent of an
adversary proceeding against the suspect.

(e 'ust e warned prior to any 3uestioning that he has the right to re'ain silent, that anything he
says can e used against hi' in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an
attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will e appointed for hi' prior to any
3uestioning if he so desires. Opportunity to eCercise those rights 'ust e afforded to hi'
throughout the interrogation. .fter such warnings have een given, such opportunity afforded hi',
the individual 'ay 7nowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or 'a7e a
state'ent. %ut unless and until such warnings and waivers are de'onstrated y the prosecution
at the trial, no evidence otained as a result of interrogation can e used against hi'.
"he o,ective is to prohiit 0inco''unicado interrogation of individuals in a police-do'inated
at'osphere, resulting in self-incri'inating state'ent without full warnings of constitutional rights.0

"he rights aove specified, to repeat, eCist only in 0custodial interrogations,0 or 0in-custody
interrogation of accused persons.0
.nd, as this #ourt has already stated, y custodial
interrogation is 'eant 03uestioning initiated y law enforce'ent officers after a person has een
ta7en into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedo' of action in any significant way.0
situation conte'plated has also een 'ore precisely descried y this #ourt.0
.. . .fter a person is arrested and his custodial investigation egins a confrontation arises
which at est 'ay e tanned une3ual. "he detainee is rought to an ar'y ca'p or police
head3uarters and there 3uestioned and 0cross-eCa'ined0 not only y one ut as 'any
investigators as 'ay e necessary to rea7 down his 'orale. (e finds hi'self in strange
and unfa'iliar surroundings, and every person he 'eets he considers hostile to hi'. "he
investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their wor7. "hey e'ploy all the 'ethods
and 'eans that eCperience and study have taught the' to eCtract the truth, or what 'ay
pass for it, out of the detainee. Most detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their
constitutional rights. .nd even if they were, the inti'idating and coercive presence of the
officers of the law in such an at'osphere overwhel's the' into silence. )ection 26 of the
%ill of !ights see7s to re'edy this i'alance.
5ot every state'ent 'ade to the police y a person involved in so'e cri'e is within the scope of
the constitutional protection. +f not 'ade 0under custodial interrogation,0 or 0under investigation
for the co''ission of an offense,0 the state'ent is not protected. "hus, in one case,
where a
person went to a police precinct and efore any sort of investigation could e initiated, declared
that he was giving hi'self up for the 7illing of an old wo'an ecause she was threatening to 7ill
hi' y arang, or witchcraft, this #ourt ruled that such a state'ent was ad'issile, co'pliance
with the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation not eing eCigile under the
!ights of 4efendant in #ri'inal #ase
.s !egards Aiving of "esti'ony
+t is pertinent at this point to in3uire whether the rights ,ust discussed, i.e., <1= that against self-
incri'ination and <2= those during custodial interrogation apply to persons under preli'inary
investigation or already charged in court for a cri'e.
+t see's 3uite evident that a defendant on trial or under preli'inary investigation is not under
custodial interrogation. (is interrogation y the police, if any there had een would already have
een ended at the ti'e of the filing of the cri'inal case in court <or the pulic prosecutors@ office=.
(ence, with respect to a defendant in a cri'inal case already pending in court <or the pulic
prosecutor@s office=, there is no occasion to spea7 of his right while under 0custodial interrogation0
laid down y the second and suse3uent sentences of )ection 26, .rticle +$ of the 19&8
#onstitution, for the ovious reason that he is no longer under 0custodial interrogation.0
%ut un3uestionaly, the accused in court <or undergoing preli'inary investigation efore the
pulic prosecutor=, in co''on with all other persons, possesses the right against self-
incri'ination set out in the first sentence of )ection 26 .rticle +$ of the 19&8 #onstitution, i.e., the
right to refuse to answer a specific incri'inatory 3uestion at the ti'e that it is put to hi'.

.dditionally, the accused in a cri'inal case in court has other rights in the 'atter of giving
testi'ony or refusing to do so. .n accused 0occupies a different tier of protection fro' an ordinary
witness.0 >nder the !ules of #ourt, in all cri'inal prosecutions the defendant is entitled a'ong
1= to e eCe'pt fro' eing a witness against hi'self,
and 2= to testify as witness in his own
ehalf; ut if he offers hi'self as a witness he 'ay e cross-eCa'ined as any other witness;
however, his neglect or refusal to e a witness shall not in any 'anner pre,udice or e used
against hi'.

"he right of the defendant in a cri'inal case 0to e eCe'pt fro' eing a witness against hi'self@
signifies that he cannot e co'pelled to testify or produce evidence in the cri'inal case in which
he is the accused, or one of the accused. (e cannot e co'pelled to do so even y supoena or
other process or order of the #ourt. (e cannot e re3uired to e a witness either for the
prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for hi'self.
+n other words N unli7e an ordinary
witness <or a party in a civil action= who 'ay e co'pelled to testify y supoena, having only the
right to refuse to answer a particular incri'inatory 3uestion at the ti'e it is put to hi'-the
defendant in a cri'inal action can refuse to testify altogether. (e can refuse to ta7e the witness
stand, e sworn, answer any 3uestion.
.nd, as the law categorically states, 0his neglect or
refusal to e a witness shall not in any 'anner pre,udice or e used against hi'.0

+f he should wish to testify in his own ehalf, however, he 'ay do so. "his is his right. %ut if he
does testify, then he 0'ay e cross- eCa'ined as any other witness.0 (e 'ay e cross-eCa'ined
as to any 'atters stated in his direct eCa'ination, or connected therewith .
(e 'ay not on
cross-eCa'ination refuse to answer any 3uestion on the ground that the answer that he will give,
or the evidence he will produce, would have a tendency to incri'inate hi' for the cri'e with
which he is charged.
+t 'ust however e 'ade clear that if the defendant in a cri'inal action e as7ed a 3uestion
which 'ight incri'inate hi', not for the cri'e with which he is charged, ut for so'e other cri'e,
distinct fro' that of which he is accused, he 'ay decline to answer that specific 3uestion, on the
strength of the right against self-incri'ination granted y the first sentence of )ection 26, .rticle
+$ of the 19&8 #onstitution <now )ection 1& of the 198& #onstitution=. "hus, assu'ing that in a
prosecution for 'urder, the accused should testify in his ehalf, he 'ay not on cross-eCa'ination
refuse to answer any 3uestion on the ground that he 'ight e i'plicated in that cri'e of 'urder;
ut he 'ay decline to answer any particular 3uestion which 'ight i'plicate hi' for a different and
distinct offense, say, estafa.
+n fine, a person suspected of having co''itted a cri'e and suse3uently charged with its
co''ission in court, has the following rights in the 'atter of his testifying or producing evidence,
to wit-
1= %2/O!2 "(2 #.)2 +) /+E24 +5 #O>!" <or with the pulic prosecutor, for
preli'inary investigation=, ut after having een ta7en into custody or otherwise deprived
of his lierty in so'e significant way, and on eing interrogated y the police- the
continuing right to re'ain silent and to counsel, and to e infor'ed thereof, not to e
su,ected to force, violence, threat, inti'idation or any other 'eans which vitiates the
free will; and to have evidence otained in violation of these rights re,ected; and
2= ./"2! "(2 #.)2 +) /+E24 +5 #O>!" N
a= to refuse to e a witness;
= not to have any pre,udice whatsoever result to hi' y such refusal;
c= to testify in his own ehalf, su,ect to cross-eCa'ination y the prosecution;
d= ?(+E2 "2)"+/G+5A, to refuse to answer a specific 3uestion which tends to
incri'inate hi' for so'e cri'e other than that for which he is then prosecuted.
+t should y now e aundantly apparent that respondent 1udge has 'isapprehended the nature
and i'port of the disparate rights set forth in )ection 26, .rticle +$ of the 19&8 #onstitution. (e
has ta7en the' as applying to the sa'e ,uridical situation, e3uating one with the other. +n so
doing, he has grossly erred. "o e sure, (is (onor sought to sustantiate his thesis y argu'ents
he too7 to e cogent and logical. "he thesis was however so far divorced fro' the actual and
correct state of the constitutional and legal principles involved as to 'a7e application of said
thesis to the case efore hi' tanta'ount to totally unfounded, whi'sical or capricious eCercise of
power. (is Orders were thus rendered with grave ause of discretion. "hey should e as they are
herey, annulled and set aside.
+t is clear fro' the undisputed facts of this case that /elipe !a'os was not in any sense under
custodial interrogation, as the ter' should e properly understood, prior to and during the
ad'inistrative in3uiry into the discovered irregularities in tic7et sales in which he appeared to
have had a hand. "he constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation under )ection
26, .rticle +$ of the 19&8 #onstitution did not therefore co'e into play, were of no relevance to
the in3uiry. +t is also clear, too, that !a'os had voluntarily answered 3uestions posed to hi' on
the first day of the ad'inistrative investigation, /eruary 9, 198: and agreed that the proceedings
should e recorded, the record having thereafter een 'ar7ed during the trial of the cri'inal
action suse3uently filed against hi' as 2Chiit ., ,ust as it is ovious that the note <later 'ar7ed
as 2Chiit B= that he sent to his superiors on /eruary 8,198:, the day efore the investigation,
offering to co'pro'ise his liaility in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even spontaneous
act on his part. "hey 'ay not e eCcluded on the ground that the so-called 0Miranda rights0 had
not een accorded to !a'os.
(is (onor adverts to what he perceives to e the 0greater danger C C <of= the violation of the right
of any person against self-incri'ination when the investigation is conducted y the co'plaining
parties, co'plaining co'panies, or co'plaining e'ployers ecause eing interested parties,
unli7e the police agencies who have no propriety or pecuniary interest to protect, they 'ay in
their over-eagerness or zealousness ear heavily on their hapless suspects, whether e'ployees
or not, to give state'ents under an at'osphere of 'oral coercion, undue ascendancy and undue
influence.0 +t suffices to draw attention to the specific and pere'ptory re3uire'ent of the law that
disciplinary sanctions 'ay not e i'posed on any e'ployee y his e'ployer until and unless the
e'ployee has een accorded due process, y which is 'eant that the latter 'ust e infor'ed of
the offenses ascried to hi' and afforded ade3uate ti'e and opportunity to eCplain his side. "he
re3uire'ent entails the 'a7ing of state'ents, oral or written, y the e'ployee under such
ad'inistrative investigation in his defense, with opportunity to solicit the assistance of counsel, or
his colleagues and friends. "he e'ployee 'ay, of course, refuse to su'it any state'ent at the
investigation, that is his privilege. %ut if he should opt to do so, in his defense to the accusation
against hi', it would e asurd to re,ect his state'ents, whether at the ad'inistrative
investigation, or at a suse3uent cri'inal action rought against hi', ecause he had not een
accorded, prior to his 'a7ing and presenting the', his 0Miranda rights0 <to silence and to counsel
and to e infor'ed thereof, etc.= which, to repeat, are relevant only in custodial investigations.
+ndeed, it is self-evident that the e'ployee@s state'ents, whether called 0position paper,0
0answer,0 etc., are su'itted y hi' precisely so that they 'ay e ad'itted and duly considered
y the investigating officer or co''ittee, in negation or 'itigation of his liaility.
Of course the possiility cannot e discounted that in certain instances the ,udge@s eCpressed
apprehensions 'ay e realized, that violence or inti'idation, undue pressure or influence e
rought to ear on an e'ployee under investigation N or for that 'atter, on a person eing
interrogated y another who' he has supposedly offended. +n such an event, any ad'ission or
confession wrung fro' the person under interrogation would e inad'issile in evidence, on
proof of the vice or defect vitiating consent, not ecause of a violation of )ection 26, .rticle +$ of
the 19&8 #onstitution, ut si'ply on the general, incontestale proposition that involuntary or
coerced state'ents 'ay not in ,ustice e received against the 'a7ers thereof, and really should
not e accorded any evidentiary value at all.
?(2!2/O!2, the writ of certiorari is granted annulling and setting aside the Orders of the
respondent 1udge in #ri'inal #ase 5o. 8488-!, dated .ugust 9, 1988 and )epte'er 14, 1988,
and he is herey ordered to ad'it in evidence 2Chiits 0.0 and 0B0 of the prosecution in said
#ri'inal #ase 5o. 8488-!, and thereafter proceed with the trial and ad,udg'ent thereof. "he
te'porary restraining order of Octoer 2:, 1988 having eco'e functus officio, is now declared
of no further force and effect.
%ruz! Ganca*co! Gri8o-Aquino and 3edialdea! &&.! concur.
G.R. No. 966?2 November 19, 1991
E!#R!O RROCO, $R., petitioner,
G.R. No. 9671; November 19, 1991
R#BC 6ER@NERI, petitioner,
PPELS, respondents.
5fren %. %ara# for 5duardo %. Arro*o! &r.
Sin#son! ;aldes < Associates for Rub* ;era "eri.
! 2 ) O E > " + O 5
+n A.!. 5o. 9::62, the #ourt su''arized the facts of the case in this 'anner-
4r. 1orge %. 5eri filed a cri'inal co'plaint for adultery efore the !egional "rial #ourt <!"#=,
%ranch 4, of %enguet against his wife, !uy $era 5eri, and 2duardo .rroyo co''itted on 2
5ove'er 1982 in the #ity of %aguio.
%oth defendants pleaded not guilty and after trial, the !"# convicted petitioner and Mrs. !uy $era
5eri of adultery as defined under .rticle 888 of the !evised *enal #ode.
"he essential facts of the case, as found y the trial court and the #ourt of .ppeals, are as follows-
... On 5ove'er 2, 1982, accused, Mrs. !uy $era 5eri in the co'pany of Mrs. Einda
)are and witness 1aunan, too7 the 'orning plane to %aguio. .rriving at around 11-66
a.'., they dropped first at the house of Mrs. $era, 'other of !uy $era at #rystal #ave,
%aguio #ity then proceeded to the Mines $iew *ar7 #ondo'iniu' of the 5eri spouses. .t
around &-66 o@ cloc7 in the evening, accused 2duardo .rroyo arrived at the 5eris@
condo'iniu'. ?itness opened the door for .rroyo who entered, he went down to and
7noc7ed at the 'aster@s edroo' where accused !uy $era 5eri and her co'panion
Einda )are were. On accused !uy $era 5eri@s re3uest, Einda )are left the 'aster@s
edroo' and went upstairs to the sala leaving the two accused. .out forty-five 'inutes
later, .rroyo 1r. ca'e up and told Einda )are that she could already co'e down. "hree of
the', thereafter, went up to the sala then left the condo'iniu'. <#ourt of .ppeals
4ecision, p. 4= 1
*etitioner .rroyo filed a Motion for !econsideration of the #ourt of .ppeals@ 4ecision. *etitioner !uy $era
5eri also 'oved for reconsideration or a new trial, contending that a pardon had een eCtended y her
husand, private co'plain ant 4r. 1orge %. 5eri, and that her husand had later con traded 'arriage with
another wo'an with who' he is presently co-haiting. %oth 'otions were denied y the #ourt of .ppeals.
*etitioner .rroyo filed a *etition for !eview <A.!. 5o. 9::62= dated 8 /eruary 1991 which this court denied
in a !esolution dated 24 .pril 1991.
+n the 'eanti'e, petitioner 5eri filed a separate *etition for !eview <A.!. 5o. 9:&19= dated 19 /eruary
*etitioner .rroyo filed a 'otion for reconsideration dated 1 May 1991 and a 'otion dated 28 May 1991 for
consolidation o A.!. 5o. 9::62 with A.!. 5o. 9:&19.
On 8 1une 1991, A.!. 5o. 9:&19 was consolidated with A.! 5o. 9::62 in the "hird 4ivision in accordance
with long-stand ing practice of the #ourt.
On 29 1uly 1991, the "hird 4ivision delierated upon the case which was then assigned to the ponente for
the writing of the #ourt@s !esolution. 2
On 2: .ugust 1991, 4r. 5eri filed a 'anifestation, dated 14 May 1991, 3 praying that the case against
petitioners e dis'issed as he had 0tacitly consented0 to his wife@s infidelity. B
*etitioners then filed their respective 'otions praying for the dis'issal or for the granting of new trial of the
case clai'ing a asis for their 'otions 4r. 5eri@s 'anifestation. "he )olicitor Aeneral was then as7ed to
co''ent on the 'anifestation; hi co''ent was filed with this #ourt on 18 Octoer 1991. ;
+n Octoer 1991, the consolidated cases were, again in accordance with long-standing practice of the #ourt,
assigned to the /irst 4ivision upon the assign'ent of the ponente to that division. On 4 5ove'er 1991, the
consolidated cases were re delierated upon y the 'e'ers of the /irst 4ivision who reached the sa'e
conclusion as the 'e'ers of the "hird 4ivision of the #ourt.
+n his Motion for !econsideration in A.!. 5o. 9::62, petitioner .rroyo 'ade the following contentions-
1. 4r. 5eri@s affidavit of desistance which states that the case was filed out of 0pure
'isunderstanding@ raises 3uestions as to the truth of the alleged ad'ission 'ade y Mrs. 5eri;
2. "he other prosecution witnesses@ corroorative testi'onies 'erely proved the eCistence of an
illicit affair ut not that adultery was co''itted on the date and place in 3uestion;
8. Mrs. 5eri@s separate petition for review raised the issue of 4r. 5eri@s alleged suse3uent
'arriage to another wo'an which, if proven would preclude either of the spouses fro' filing
charges of adultery or concuinage against each other.
+n A.!. 5o. 9:&19, petitioner 5eri i'putes the following errors to the #ourt of .ppeals-
1. "he (onorale #ourt of .ppeals gravely erred in not granting the 'otion for reconsideration
andMor new trial of the petitioner;
2. "he (onorale #ourt of .ppeals gravely erred y violating the constitutional rights of petitioner
against self-incri'ination;
8. "he (onorale #ourt of .ppeals erred in failing to ta7e into consideration the 'aterial
inconsistencies of the testi'ony of the co'plaining witness; and
4. "he (onorale #ourt of .ppeals gravely erred in discarding 'edical testi'ony as to the physical
i'possiility of the petitioner to have co''itted the cri'e charged. 6
"he issues in the consolidated cases 'ay e su''arized as follows-
1. ?hether or not 4r. 5eri@s affidavit of desistance is sufficient to cast reasonale douts on his
2. ?hether or not Mrs. 5eri@s constitutional right against self-incri'ination had een violated;
8. ?hether or not 4r. 5eri@s alleged eCtra-'arital affair precludes hi' fro' filing the cri'inal
co'plaint on the ground of pari delicto@ and
4. ?hether or not 4r. 5eri@s 'anifestation is sufficient asis for the granting of a new trial.
4elierating on the-
1. Motion for !econsideration in A.!. 5o. 9::62, the #ourt elieves that petitioner .rroyo has failed to show
any ground that would warrant the #ourt reversing its !esolution dated 24 .pril 1991; and on the
2. *etition for !eview doc7eted as A.!. 5o. 9:&19, the #ourt considers that petitioner !uy $era 5eri has
failed to show reversile error on the part of the #ourt of .ppeals in issuing its 4ecision dated 21 May 1996
and its !esolution, dated 18 4ece'er 1996.
*etitioner .rroyo did not convince this #ourt in A.!. 5o. 9::62 to dis'iss the cri'inal case on the asis of
4r. 5eri@s pardon. (e, together with petitioner 5eri, now cites the sa'e affidavit in the effort to cast douts
on the crediility of 4r. 5eri@s testi'ony given efore the trial court. (owever, in the #ourt@s !esolution,
dated 24 .pril 1991, dis'issing the *etition for certiorari in A.!. 5o. 9::62, the #ourt held that-
+t has een our constant holding that-
+n certiorari proceedings under !ule 49, the findings of fact of the lower court as well its
conclusions on credibilit* of witnesses are #enerall* not disturbed! the 3uestion efore the
court eing li'ited to 3uestions of law <!ule 49, )ec. 2=. )pecifically, the conclusions of
the trial court on the credibilit* of witnesses are #ien considerable wei#ht! since said
court is in the est position to oserve the de'eanor, conduct and attitude of witnesses at
the trial. <.guirre v. *eople, 199 )#!. 88& I198&J; e'phasis supplied=
"hus, the clai) that (r. "eri/s testi)on* is incredible is unaailin# at this stage. 'esides! the %ourt
does not beliee that such an ad)ission b* an unfaithful wife was inherentl* i)probable or
i)possible. 7 <2'phasis supplied=
"he #ourt, in the said !esolution of 24 .pril 1991, had li7ewise ruled on the clai' that Mrs. 5eri@s
constitutional right against self-incri'ination had een disregarded when her ad'ission to her husand in
the privacy of their con,ugal ho'e that she had indeed lain with petitioner .rroyo was ta7en into account y
the trial court, to wit-
4r. 1orge 5eri was also presented as a witness and he testified that so'eti'e in 4ece'er of
1982, he surprised his wife while she was loo7ing at so'e photographs in their edroo' in their
house in 4as'ariDas $illage, Ma7ati. .ccused !uy $era 5eri then turned pale and started for the
door. )truc7 y this unusual ehavior, 4r. 5eri started loo7ing around the dressing roo' and he
ca'e upon a Boda7 envelope with fil' negatives inside. (e too7 the negatives for printing and a
few days later, ar'ed with the photographs which showed his wife in inti'ate edroo' poses with
another 'an, confronted !uy $era 5eri. +t was at this point that !uy $era 5eri ad'itted to her
husand that 2duardo .rroyo was her lover and that they went to ed in %aguio on 2 and 8
5ove'er 1982.
.s to the constitutional issue, we held in Aa'oa v. #ruz <1:2 )#!. :42 I1988J= that-
"he right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e., when the
inesti#atin# officer starts to as7 3uestions to elicit infor'ation andMor confession or
ad'issions fro' respondent-accused.<e'phasis supplied=
+n the present case, 4r. 5eri was not a peace officer nor an investigating officer conducting a
custodial interrogation, hence, petitioner cannot now clai' that Mrs. 5eri@s ad'ission should have
een re,ected.
+n the case of Aballe . People <188 )#!. 19: I1996J=, the #ourt held-
"he declaration of an accused eCpressly ac7nowledging his guilt of the offense 'ay e
given in evidence against hi'.
"he rule is that any person, otherwise co'petent as witness, who heard the confession, is
co'petent to testify as to sustance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it.
.n oral confession need not e repeated verati', ut in such case it 'ust e given in its
#o'pliance with the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation is not applicale
to a spontaneous state'ent, not elicited through 3uestioning, ut given in an ordinary
'anner, wherey the accused orally ad'itted having slain the victi'.
?e also note that the husand is not precluded under the !ules of #ourt fro' testifying against his
wife in cri'inal cases for a cri'e co''itted y one against the other <)ection 22, !ule 129,
!evised !ules of #ourt=.
+n short, the trial court and the #ourt of .ppeals did not err in ad'itting 4r. 5eri@s testi'ony as he
was a co'petent witness. 5either was said testi'ony rendered inad'issile y the constitutional
provision on the right to re'ain silent and the right to counsel of a 0person under investigation for
the co''ission of an offense.0
*etitioner neCt clai's that the trial court erred in convicting hi' on the asis of the failure of !uy
$era 5eri to ta7e the witness stand. +n People . Gar#oles <88 )#!. 282 I19&8J=, it was held that-
?e have held that an accused has the right to decline to testify at the trial without having
any inference of guilt drawn fro' his failure to go on the witness stand. "hus, a erdict of
coniction on the basis! solel* or )ainl*! of the failure or refusal of the accused to ta2e the
witness stand to den* the char#es a#ainst hi) is a Audicial heres* which cannot be
countenanced. +nvarialy, any such verdict deserves to e reserved.
)uch situation does not otain, however, in the case at ar. /or while the trial court too2
note of the failure of defendant to ta2e the witness stand to deny the charge against hi',
the sa)e was not the )ain reason! )uch less the sole basis! of the trial court in holdin#!
as credible the testi)on* of co)plainant! and in ulti)atel* concluding that the cri'e of
rape had een co''itted y the accused-appellant. <2'phasis supplied=
2Ca'ination of the trial court decision here shows that said failure to testify was not the sole nor the
'ain asis of the conviction. Aside fro) accused/s failure to den* (r. "eri/s testi)on*! the trial
court also considered the testi)onies of (r. "eri and other prosecution witnesses and the
photo#raphs of the two accused in inti)ate poses >and three of which showed the) half na2ed in
bed?. = <2'phasis supplied=
?e turn to the contention that pari-delicto 0is a valid defense to a prosecution for adultery and concuinage
and that in such a case 0it would e only a hypocritical pretense for such spouse to appear in court as the
offended spouse.0 9
+n the first place, the case cited does not support petitioner 5eri@s position. +n the Guinucud case, the #ourt
found that the co'plaining husand, y entering into an agree'ent with his wife that each of the' were to
live separately and could 'arry other persons and y filing co'plaint only aout a year after discovering his
wife@s infidelity, had 0consented to, and ac3uiesced in, the adulterous relations eCisting etween the
accused, and he is, therefore, not authorized y law to institute the cri'inal proceedings.0 +n fine, the
Guinucud case refers not to the notion of pari delicto ut to consent as a ar to the institution of the cri'inal
proceedings. +n the present case, no such ac3uiescence can e i'plied- the accused did not enter into any
agree'ent with 4r. 5eri allowing each other to 'arry or cohait with other persons; and 4r. 5eri pro'ptly
filed his co'plaint after discovering the illicit affair.
Moreover, the concept of pari delicto is not found in the !evised *enal #ode, ut only in .rticle 1411 of the
#ivil #ode. "he #ourt notes that .rticle 1411 of the #ivil #ode relates only to contracts with illegal
consideration.1? "he case at ar does not involve any illegal contract which either of the contracting parties
is now see7ing to enforce.
*etitioners also contend that 4r. 5eri@s 'anifestation which reads-
2. 2ven efore + filed the co'plaint in court and efore the pardon that + had eCtended to 'y wife
and her co-accused, + was in reality aware of what was going on etween and therefore, tacitly
consented to 'y wife@s infidelity, ...
should result in the dis'issal of the case or, at the very least, in the re'and of the case for new trial clai'ing
that in People . %a)ara 11 it was held that 0the consent of the spouse is valid defense to a prosecution for
adultery andMor concuinage.0 12
4r. 5eri@s 'anifestation a'ounts in effect to an atte'pted recantation of testi'ony given y hi' efore the
trial court. +t is settled that not all recantations y witnesses should result in the granting of a new trial. 13 +n
People . $ollantes and &acinto! 1B it was held that-
... BRCecantation b* witnesses called on behalf of the prosecution does not necessaril* entitle
defendant to a new trial. "he 3uestion whether a new trial shall e granted on this ground depends
on all the circu'stances of the case, including the testi'ony of the witnesses su'itted on the
'otion for the new trial. Moreover, recantin# testi)on* is e6ceedin#l* unreliable! and it is the dut*
of the court to den* a new trial where it is not satisfied that such testi)on* is true. ... 1; <2'phasis
)uccinctly put, the #ourt douts the truthfulness and reliaility of 4r. 5eri@s elated recantation. 4r. 5eri had
two <2= previous occasions to 'a7e the clai' contained in his 'anifestation- first, in the co'pro'ise
agree'ent 16 dated 1: /eruary 1989 su'itted efore the !egional "rial #ourt of Ma7ati, %ranch 149 in
relation to #ivil #ase 5o. M-661; and second, his affidavit 17 dated 28 5ove'er 1988 su'itted to the
#ourt of .ppeals. +nstead, however, these two <2= docu'ents 'erely stated that 4r. 5eri had pardoned
petitioners 1= and the co'plaint was filed out of 0pure 'isunderstanding0 19 without hinting that 4r. 5eri
7new of the adulterous relations. +t appears to the #ourt that 4r. 5eri@s 'anifestation was so worded as to
atte'pt to cure the deficiency noted y the #ourt in the two <2= previous docu'ents in the disposition of the
petition in A.!. 5o. 9::62-
*etitioner will find no solace in the cases he cites, in support of his prayer to dis'iss the case
ased on 4r. 5eri@s pardon. People . %a)ara <166 *hil. 1698 <199&= is inapplicale as the affidavit
there eCpressly stated that the wife had consented to the illicit relationship. +n Go)ez .
Inter)ediate Appellate %ourt <189 )#!. :26 I1989J= a case involving estafa, the cri'inal case was
dis'issed as the affidavit of desistance specifically stated that the accused had nothing to do
whatsoever with the cri'e charged. +n the present case, the pardon did not state that 4r. 5eri had
consented to the illicit relationship petitioner and Mrs. 5eri. 5either did it state that the case was
filed against the wrong parties. 2?
Moreover, while the 'anifestation is dated 14 May 1991, which incidentally is also the date of petitioner
.rroyo@s 'otion for reconsideration, it was suscried to only on 28 .ugust 1991.
*etitioner 5eri also contends that 4r. 5eri@s affidavit of desistance and the co'pro'ise agree'ent operate
as a pardon 'eriting a new trial. "he #ourt notes that the cases of People . %a)ara >supra? and Go)ez .
Inter)ediate Appellate %ourt >supra? were the very sa'e cases which petitioner .rroyo cited in A.!. 5o.
9::62 which the #ourt has already held to e inapplicale in the present case.
"he rule on pardon is found in .rticle 844 of the !evised *enal #ode which provides-
.!". 844. ... N "he cri'e of adultery and concuinage shall not e prosecuted eCcept upon a
co'plaint filed y the offended spouse.
The offended part* cannot institute cri)inal prosecution without including oth parties, if they are
oth alive, nor in any case, if he shall hae consented or pardoned the offenders.
?hile there is a conceptual difference etween consent and pardon in the sense that consent is granted
prior to the adulterous act while pardon is given after the illicit affair, 21 nevertheless, for either consent or
pardon to enefit the accused, it 'ust e given prior to the filin# of a cri)inal co)plaint. 22 +n the present
case, the affidavit of desistance was eCecuted only on 28 5ove'er 1988 while the co'pro'ise agree'ent
was eCecuted only on 1: /eruary 1989, after the trial court had alread* rendered its decision dated DE
(ece)ber D-,E findin# petitioners #uilt* eyond reasonale dout. 4r. 5eri@s 'anifestation is oth dated
and signed after issuance of our !esolution in A.!. 5o. 9::62 on 24 .pril 1991.
+t should also e noted that while .rticle 844 of the !evise *enal #ode provides that the cri'e of adultery
cannot e prosecuted without the offended spouse@s co'plaint, once the co'plaint has een filed, the
control of the case passes to the pulic prosecutor. 23 2nforce'ent of our law on adultery is not eCclusively,
nor even principally, a 'atter of vindication of the private honor of the offended spouse; 'uch less is it a
'atter 'erely of personal or social hypocrisy. )uch enforce'ent relates, 'ore i'portantly, to protection of
the asic social institutions of 'arriage and the fa'ily in the preservation of which the )tate has the
strongest interest; the pulic policy here involved is of the 'ost funda'ental 7ind. +n .rticle ++, )ection 12 of
the #onstitution there is set forth the following asic state policy-
"he )tate recognizes the sanctity of fa'ily life and shall protect find strengthen the fa'ily as a
asic autono'ous social institution ...
"he sa'e senti'ent has een eCpressed in the /a'ily #ode o the *hilippines in .rticle 149-
"he fa'ily, eing the foundation of the ration, is a asic social institution which pulic policy
cherishes and protects. #onse3uently, fa'ily relations are governed y law and no custo',
practice or agree'ent destructive of the fa'ily shall e recognized or given effect.
+n F.S. . Topi8o! 2B the #ourt held that-
... "he husand eing the head of the fa'ily and the only person who could institute the
prosecution and control its effects, it is 3uite clear that the principal o,ect in penalizing the offense
y the state was to protect the purity of the fa'ily and the honor of the husand, ut now the
conduct of the prosecution, after it is once co))enced b* the husband! and the enforce)ent of the
penalties i)posed is also a )atter of public polic* in which the Goern)ent is itall* interested to
the e6tent of preserin# the public peace and providing for the #eneral welfare of the co))unit*. ...
2; <2'phasis supplied=
.s to the clai' that it was i'possile for petitioner 5eri to engage in seCual intercourse a 'onth after her
ceasarian operation, the #ourt agrees with the )olicitor Aeneral that this is a 3uestion of fact which cannot
e raised at this stage. +n any case, we find no reason to overturn the #ourt of .ppeals@ finding that 0a
wo'an who has the staying power to volley tennis ags for fifteen 'inutes at the I1ohn (ayJ tennis court
would not e incapale of doing the seCual act0 which all play was followed, as noted y the #ourt of
.ppeals 0y a picture ta7ing of oth accused in different inti'ate poses.0 26
.##O!4+5AEG, the Motion for !econsideration in A.!. 5o. 9::62 is herey 425+24 for lac7 of 'erit and
this denial is /+5.E. "he *etition for !eview in A.!. 5o. 9:&19 is herey si'ilarly 425+24 for lac7 of 'erit.
#osts against petitioners.
Eet a copy of this !esolution and of 4r. 5eri@s Manifestation and Motion suscried on 28 .ugust 1991 e
forwarded to the 4epart'ent of 1ustice for in3uiry into the possile liaility of 4r. 5eri for per,ury.
"arasa >%hair)an?! %ruz! Gri8o-Aquino and 3edialdea! &&.! concur.
have you stopped yelling at your wife?- leading
O:e03E06e6 $e,6/0> '/667e3Gro506
E$at d!d 6'u seeO 9'u sa# t$e pla!nt!(( stand!n%
.6 t$e ca, d!dnPt 6'uO
D!d 6'u see t$e pla!nt!((
stand!n% .6 t$e caO
E$en d!d 6'u a!)e at t$e
9'u a!)ed t' t$e '((!ce at
C:*B PM.
D!d 6'u a!)e at t$e '((!ce at
E$at, !( an6t$!n%, #as s$e
D!dnPt s$e $a)e a %un !n $e
D!d s$e $a)e a %unO
H'# 'ld ae 6'uO 9'uPe 3C. Ae 6'u 3CO
E$ee d' 6'u #'>O 9'u #'> at t$e 7a.-N-7'
'n Ma%a"!ne St., d'nPt 6'uO
D' 6'u #'> at t$e 7a.-N-
7' 'n Ma%a"!ne St.O
Hee ae s'&e t6p!cal ('& '.Iect!'ns:
2;a%ue.2 T$e ?uest!'n !s unclea. T$e ?uest!'n &!%$t .e t'' l'n%, s'&e '( t$e >e6
#'ds !n t$e ?uest!'n &!%$t $a)e &'e t$an 'ne &ean!n%, ' t$e pe!'d '( t!&e t'
#$!c$ t$e ?uest!'ne !s e(e!n% &!%$t .e unclea. ,S!&!la '.Iect!'ns:
2a&.!%u'us2 and 2c'n(us!n%.2-
2C'&p'und.2 T$e ?uest!'n !s actuall6 t#' ?uest!'ns.
EGa&ple: 2D!d 6'u (!nd t$e cancelled c$ec> 'n t$e %'und and ta>e !t #!t$
2A%u&entat!)e.2 T$'u%$ !t &!%$t .e a ?uest!'n %a&&at!call6, t$e ?uest!'ne !s
as>!n% !t n't t' %et an ans#e, .ut t' &a>e c'&&un!cate s'&e 't$e &essa%e t'
t$e #!tness.
EGa&ple:2E$en 6'u a!)ed at t$e dep's!t!'n t$!s &'n!n%, $ad 6'u
alead6 dec!ded n't t' %!)e &e 6'u (ull attent!'nO2
2As>ed and ans#eed.2 T$e ?uest!'n!n% la#6e !s c')e!n% t$e sa&e %'und a
sec'nd t!&e, as>!n% a ?uest!'n t' #$!c$ $e $as alead6 ece!)ed an ans#e.
2Assu&es (acts n't !n e)!dence.2 T$e ?uest!'n c'nta!ns a (actual state&ent t$at
$as n't 6et .een esta.l!s$ed.
EGa&ple: 2D!d 6'u !nte)!e# t$e e&pl'6ee .e('e (!!n% $!&O2 ,as>ed
#$en t$ee !s n' test!&'n6 t$at t$e e&pl'6ee #as (!ed.-
2M!sstates t$e e)!dence2 ' 2&!sstates t$e #!tness@s test!&'n6.2 T$e ?uest!'n
c'nta!ns a (actual assu&pt!'n (' #$!c$ t$ee !s n' e)!dence !n t$e case, ' t$e
?uest!'n !nc'ectl6 ?u'tes ' paap$ases #$at t$e #!tness $as test!(!ed t' !n t$e
2Lead!n%.2 T$e la#6e !s as>!n% a lead!n% ?uest!'n t' a #!tness t' #$!c$ $e !s n't
pe&!tted t' as> lead!n% ?uest!'ns.
EGa&ple: 2E$en 6'u p'ceeded !nt' t$e !ntesect!'n, t$e l!%$t #as %een,
2Lac>s a ?uest!'n.2 S'&et!&es a la#6e #!ll &a>e a state&ent at$e t$an as> a
?uest!'n. T$e de(end!n% la#6e can '.Iect .6 sa6!n% s'&et$!n% l!>e, 2O.Iect!'n,
t$at@s n't a ?uest!'n,2 ' 2O.Iect!'n, t$e ?uest!'n #as peceded .6 a state&ent
t$at #asn@t a ?uest!'n.2 ,H'#e)e, !t@s l!>el6 t$at 6'u c'uld %et t$e '((end!n%
c'&&ents e&')ed ('& t$e tansc!pt .e('e t!al e)en #!t$'ut a t!&el6
'.Iect!'n at t$e dep's!t!'n.-
2Lac>s ('undat!'n.2 T$e ?uest!'n!n% la#6e !s as>!n% t$e #!tness c'ncen!n% a
(act ' t'p!c a.'ut #$!c$ t$e #!tness lac>s pes'nal >n'#led%e.
EGa&ple: 2E$at #an!n%s #ee c'nta!ned 'n t$e pac>a%e !nsetO2
,#!t$'ut esta.l!s$!n% t$at t$e #!tness ece!)ed and ead t$e pac>a%e
S'&e c'&&'n '.Iect!'ns t$at ae not t' t$e ('& '( t$e ?uest!'n !nclude !ele)ance and
I( 6'u@d l!>e t' add 't$e '.Iect!'ns t' t$e l!st, please lea)e a c'&&ent. F' &'e
!n('&at!'n 'n dep's!t!'n '.Iect!'ns, see &6 .''>, (eposition 3hecklists and 'trategies
,<a&es Pu.l!s$!n%-
vague- when do you leave your house in the morning? - does not specify the day of the
week to which it refers.
F' eGa&ple, !(, !n a case e%ad!n% an !nd!)!dual $a)!n% c'&&!tted a pa>!n% )!'lat!n%,
e)!dence !s .'u%$t t' .ea #$!c$ #'uld !nstead p')e t$at t$e de(endant c$eated 'n $!s
' $e sp'use, t$en t$at e)!dence &!%$t .e '.Iected t' as !&&ate!al ' !ele)ant, unless
t$e e)!dence p')!n% t$e a((a! #'uld als' s'&e$'# p')e t$e pa>!n% )!'lat!'n. T$us,
!&&ate!al ' !ele)ant e)!dence can 'nl6 .e dete&!ned .ased 'n t$e undel6!n% la# !n
t$e case !n ?uest!'n. - See &'e at:
Rel!)ent e)!dence &eans e)!dence t$at !s pet!nent t' t$e case.
EGa&ple: A &an !s &udeed. He !s >!lled .6 %uns$'t t' t$e $ead ('& a .3B sF#. T$e
&a!n suspect !n t$e case #as cau%$t nea t$e scene '( t$e c!&e #!t$ a $and%un '( t$e
sa&e cal!.e !n $!s p'ssess!'n.
T$e (act t$at t$e #eap'n !s '( t$e sa&e cal!.e !s pet!nent .ecause !t s$'#s t$at t$e
suspect $ad t$e p'pe #eap'n t' c'&&!t t$e c!&e.
Rele)ant e)!dence need n't, 'n !tPs '#n, .e capa.le '( p')!n% t$e p'!nt !t !s '((eed !n
supp't '(. It need 'nl6 .e a l!n> !n a c$a!n t$at ult!&atel6 p')es ' d!sp')es a (act
&ate!al t' t$e case at $and. T$ee('e ele)ance anal6s!s !s '(ten t$e anal6s!s '( a c$a!n
'( e(eences. F' eGa&ple: De(endant !s c$a%ed #!t$ &ude!n% $!s #!(e.
T$e (act t$at $us.and $ad a %a&.l!n% p'.le& c'uld .e ele)ant. T$e c$a!n '( !n(eence
c'uld ead: Hus.and $as &'ne6 t'u.les RS E!(e $as l!(e !nsuance p'l!c6 RS Hus.and !s
.ene(!c!a6 RS Hus.and >!lled #!(e.
T$e (act t$at $us.and $ad a %a&.l!n% p'.le& al'ne !snPt en'u%$ t' supp't an !n(eence
'( &ude, .ut as a l!n> !n t$e c$a!n '( e)!dence t$e !n('&at!'n &a>es !t &'e l!>el6 t$at
$e d!d, t$ee.6 &a>!n% !t ele)ant.
E)!dence &ust .e at!'nall6 ele)ant $'#e)e. I( s'&e'ne sued a p'l!ce '((!ce ('
.utal!t6 !t #'uldnPt .e ele)ant (' t$e Pla!nt!((Ps att'ne6 t' as> t$e O((!ce !( $e !s
&a!ed. H!s &a!tal status $as n't$!n% t' d' #!t$ e)aluat!n% $!s c'nduct as a p'l!ce
'((!ce. In 't$e #'ds, >n'#!n% t$at t$e pla!nt!(( !s &a!ed d'es n't $elp t$e t!e '( (act
dec!de #$et$e t$e '((!ce used t' &uc$ ('ce a%a!nst t$e Pla!nt!(( s' t$e ules '(
e)!dence >eep t$at !n('&at!'n 'ut '( t$e t!al.
Fo506,;/o0 ?or ,6m/&&/b/7/;) o? :.)&/c,7 e%/6e0ce or e@:er; o:/0/o0&
E@,m:7e: P'secut!'n calls eGpet #!tness t' t$e stand t' p')e .ullet ('und at
t$e c!&e scene #as (!ed ('& t$e #eap'n d!sc')eed !n t$e de(endant@s $'&e.
T$e e)!dence !s c'nd!t!'nall6 ele)ant .ased 'n #$et$e t$e eGpet 'p!n!'n !s
.ased 'n el!a.le &et$'ds.
#ro%/0> :er&o0,7 A0oB7e6>e ?or B/;0e&&e&
E@,m:7e: P'secut!'n calls #!tness t' sa6 de(endant (!ed a #eap'n !nt' a
c'#ded .us. T$e e)!dence !s 'nl6 ele)ant !( t$e #!tness $as (!st $and
#roo? o? 6e?e06,0;C& :r/or b,6 ,c;
E@,m:7e: P'secut!'n #ants t' !nt'duce e)!dence t$at de(endant '..ed st'e !n
t$e past and $ad >n'#led%e '( $'# t' d' !t. T$e e)!dence !s 'nl6 ele)ant !( t$e
de(endant actuall6 c'&&!tted t$e c!&e !n t$e past.