11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J.

Panganiban : Third Division

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.98252.February7,1997]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. RENE JANUARIO y

ROLDAN, EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT, ELISEO SARITA @ TOTO, EDUARDO
SARINOS and SANTIAGO CID, accused, and RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN
andEFRENCANAPEyBAYOT,accusedappellants.

DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:

The 1987 Constitution was crafted and ordained at a historic time when our nation was reeling
from ghastly memories of atrocities, excesses and outright violations of our peoples rights to life,
libertyandproperty.Hence,ourbillofrightswaswordedtoemphasizethesanctityofhumanliberty
and specifically to protect persons undergoing custodial investigations from ignorant, overzealous
and/orincompetentpeaceofficers.TheConstitutionsodearlyvaluesfreedomandvoluntarinessthat,
inter alia, it unequivocally guarantees a person undergoing investigation for the commission of an
offense not only the services of counsel, but a lawyer who is not merely (a) competent but also (b)
independentand(c)preferablyofhisownchoiceaswell.
In the case before us, the main evidence relied upon for the conviction of appellants were their
own extrajudicial confessions which admittedly were extracted and signed in the presence and with
theassistanceofalawyerwhowasapplyingforworkintheNBI.Suchcounselcannotinanywisebe
considered independent because he cannot be expected to work against the interest of a police
agencyhewashopingtojoin,asafewmonthslater,heinfactwasadmittedintoitsworkforce.For
thisviolationoftheirconstitutionalrighttoindependentcounsel,appellantsdeserveacquittal.Afterthe
exclusion of their tainted confessions, no sufficient and credible evidence remains in the Courts
recordstooverturnanotherconstitutionalright:therighttobepresumedinnocentofanycrimeuntil
thecontraryisprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
This is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch XVIII in
TagaytayCity,disposingofCriminalCaseNo.TG139289,viz.:

WHEREFORE, and premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered nding accused:

(1) RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN

and-
(2) EFREN CANAPE Y BAYOT

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 14 last sentence of R.A. No. 6539, otherwise known
as the Anti-Carnapping Law and as charged against them in the Information and pursuant to the said law, this Court
hereby imposes upon the said accused, the supreme penalty of Reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment.

Further, they are ordered to pay jointly and severally, but separately, the heirs of their victims, namely, Geronimo
Malibago and Andrew Patriarca, Jr., the sums of:

(a) P50,000.00 for moral damages;

(b) P50,000.00 for exemplary damages;
(c) P25,000.00 for actual damages, and to pay the costs of this proceeding.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 1/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
There being no evidence to warrant a nding of conviction beyond reasonable doubt, judgment is hereby rendered
ACQUITTING Accused SANTIAGO CID of the crime charged. Being a detention prisoner, the City Warden of
Tagaytay City is hereby ordered to immediately release said person from his prison cell, unless he is therein detained for
any other cause. is

SO ORDERED.

TheAntecedents

OnNovember7,1988,anInformationsignedbyAssistantProvincialFiscalJoseM.Velasco,Jr.,
was filed against accusedappellants Rene Januario and Efren Canape, and their coaccused
Santiago Cid, Eliseo Sarita @ Toto and Eduardo Sarinos @ Digo charging them with violation of
RepublicActNo.6539(AntiCarnappingLaw)[2]allegedlycommitedasfollows:

"That on or about September 4, 1987, at Barangay Bulihan, Municipality of Silang, Province of Cavite, the above-
named accused, together with Eliseo Sarita @ Toto and Eduardo Sarinos who (sic) still at-large, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, by means of force, violence and
intimidation, did, then and there, willfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously, after stabbing to death the driver Gernonimo
(sic) Malibago and conductor Andrew Patriarca, take, steal and carry away and carnap, one Isuzu passenger type
jeepney, with plate No. DFB-550, owned by Doris and Victor Wolf, to their damage and prejudice in the total amount of
P124,000.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW."[3]

Arraigned on February 7, 1989, appellants Januario and Canape, assisted by counsel de oficio,
pleadednotguilty.[4]OnMay30,1989,Cid,assistedbycounseldeparte,likewiseenteredaplea of
notguilty.[5]SaritaandSarinosremainedatlarge.Atthetrial,theprosecutionpresentedthefollowing
witnesses:Myrna Temporas, NBI Agent Arlis S. Vela, Vicente Dilanco Pons, Andrew Patriarca, Sr.,
Juliana Malibago, Atty. Magno Toribio, and Atty. Carlos Saunar, documentary and other evidence
tendingtoprovethefollowing:
SometimeinMarch1988,SantiagoCidwenttothehouseofprosecutionwitnessVicenteDilanco
Pons, a farmer engaged in the buy and sell business, in Camarines Sur. Cid, Pons' cousin, asked
Ponsifhewantedtobuyajeepney.Ponsrepliedthathehadnomoneybutthathecouldhelphimfind
abuyerforthejeepneyforthepriceofP50,000.00.WithAmadorAlayan,oneofthedriversofhisson
whowasaround,PonsofferedtolookforabuyerofthejeepneyprovidedthatCidwouldentrustthe
vehicletothem.Cidagreedtotheproposal.Atthattime,Ponsdidnotknowwhoownedthejeepney,
but he eventually offered it for sale to Myrna Temporas who agreed to the purchase price of
P65,000.00.However,TemporaspaidPonsonlytheamountofP48,500.00.[6]
MyrnaTemporashadaslightlydifferentstory.Accordingtoher,Ponssaidthatthejeepney was
owned by his niece, Doris Wolf. Pons, purportedly acting upon the instructions of Doris Wolf,
borrowedfromMyrnaTemporastheamountofP48,500.00andusedthejeepneyasacollateral.The
amountwasgiventoPonsinP10,000.00cashandthebalanceinacheckpayabletoDorisWolf.The
checkwasencashedasitwasclearedfromMyrnaTemporas'account.Itboreasignaturesupposedly
ofDorisWolfatitsbackportionandasecondendorsementbyPonswhosubsequentlydepositeditin
hisaccount.
OnSeptember11,TemporasaskedPonstosecureaspecialpowerofattorneyfromDorisWolf.
Ponspromisedtocomplyinoneortwoweeks.ButPonsfailedtopaytheindebtedness.So,Myrna
Temporasrepeatedlywenttohis house in Digmaan, Camarines Sur to collect the amount borrowed
butPonsalwayspromisedthathehimselfwouldgotoherhousetopay.[7]
InasmuchasPonsalsofailedtoproduceadeedofsalecoveringthejeepney,Temporaslodgeda
complaint against him for estafa before the NBI.[8] Acting on the complaint, the NBI contacted the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 2/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

relativesoftheownerofthejeepneywhowenttoCamarinesSur,identifiedthejeepneyandinformed
theNBIthatitsdriver(deceasedGeronimoMalibago)andconductor(deceasedAndrewPatriarca,Jr.)
hadbeenkilledbycarnappers.[9]
Patriarca's widow also filed a complaint with the NBI. Upon investigation, an NBI team led by
Supervising Agent Magno Toribio found out that the carnapping of the jeepney and the killing of
Patriarca and Malibago were the "handiwork" of a group of four (4) persons named Rene Januario,
Efren Canape, Eliseo Sarita alias Toto, and Eduardo Sarinos alias Digo.The team also discovered
thatthejeepneywasdisposedofthroughCid.[10]
AppellantsJanuarioandCanape,aswellasCid,werearrestedinCamarinesSur.TheNBIthen
invitedPonsandTemporastoshedlightonthecarnappingincident.Thejeepneywasrecoveredinan
auto shop with its engine partly dismantled. Upon being informed by the NBI that the jeepney had
beenfound,aninsurancecompanybroughtitbacktoManila.
Fromthe"oralinvestigation"theyconductedattheNagaCityNBIofficeonMarch27,1988,the
team learned that Sarita and Sarinos took Patriarca and Malibago inside a sugar plantation where
presumably they were killed. Because appellants volunteered that their companions were their
neighborsinPaliparan,Dasmarias,CavitewhocouldbeinManilaalready,theNBIteamdecidedto
take down their statements at the NBI head office in Manila. The team traveled with appellants to
Manila,arrivingthereataround1:00o'clockintheafternoonofMarch28,1988.
At the Taft Avenue head office of the NBI, the team took the statements of appellants one at a
time.TheyaskedAtty.CarlosSaunar,whowas"justaroundsomewhere,"toassistappellantsduring
theinvestigation.AgentArlisVelatookthestatementofappellantJanuariowhileSupervisingAgent
Toribio took that of Canape. The first portion of the statement, Exhibit C, taken from appellant
Januarioreads:
"SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NA IBINIGAY NI RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN SA HARAP NI NBI AGENT
ARLIS E. VELA NGAYONG IKA-28 NG MARSO 1988 SA NBI, NCR, MANILA.

xxx
xxxxxx
1.TANONGMr.RENEJANUARIOipinaaalamnaminsaiyonaikawayaminginuusigsasalang
pagnakaw ng isang jeepney at pagkapatay sa driver at conductor nito. Gusto naming malaman
monaikawayhindimaaringpilitinnamagbigayngsalaysayatkong(sic)sakalingmagbibigayka
ngsalaysay,anomangsasabihinmoritoaypueding(sic)gamitinlabansaiyosaanomangcaso.
Nauunawaanmobaito?
SAGOTNaiintiendihan(sic)ko.
2.TKailanganmobaangtulongngabogadosapagtatanongnaito?
SMagsalaysay(sic)langakopagmayabogadoako.
3.TMayabogadokabasangayon?
SMayroonposiAtty.CARLOSSAUNARaynanditoparatulongan(sic)ako.
4.TNanunumpakanamagsasabingkatotohanan,buongkatotohananatwalangibakungdi
katotohananlamangsapagtatanongnaito?
SOpo.
5.TSabihinmoangiyongpangalanatibaibangbagaytungkolsaiyongpagkatao?
S RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN, 26 taong gulang, binata, isang (sic) buy and sell
hanapbuhayatnaninirahansaPuroBatya,Libmanan,CamarinesSur.
xxx
xxxxxx."[11]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 3/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

AccordingtoappellantJanuario,twoweeksbeforeSeptember1987,hewasalreadyinthehouse
of appellant Canape in Bgy. Palapala, Dasmarias, Cavite to procure chicken and "kalawit" for his
business.HealsowenttherebecausehisnewfriendsnamedTotoSaritaandDigoSamera(sic),as
wellasappellantCanape,wantedhimtolookforabuyerofajeep.AppellantJanuarioaskedfora
photographofthejeeptoassisthiminmakingacanvassofbuyersinBicolbuthewastoldthathe
wouldhaveitlateratnightbecausetheywerethenhavingdrinksinthehouseofToto.
After that drinking spree, the group agreed to fetch appellants Januario and Canape at 4:00
o'clock the following morning. It was Digo Samera who fetched appellants before they went to the
houseofTotoSarita.Together,theywenttoGMAtowninCavite.Itwasaround5:00o'clockin the
morningwhentheyhailedajeepfromthe"looban."Thereafter,thefollowingallegedlytranspired:
"18.TAnonaangnangyarinoongkayoaysumakaysajeep?
S Ako ang naunang sumakay pagtigil noong jeep. Bago makaalis ang jeep nagsalita si
TOTO SARITA na nasa baba pa kasama sina EFREN CANAPE at DIGO na `HINTAY ka muna
may naiwanan pa ako.' Sumakay si Digo sa tapat ng conductor na nasa loob ng jeep
samantalang si TOTO ay pumuesto sa bandang kanan sa unahan ng jeep at si EFREN ay sa
bandangkaliwarinngjeeptapatngdriveratsabaysiEFRENatTOTOnasumakaysaunahanng
jeep at mabilis na tinulak ni EFREN ang driver patungo kay TOTO na siyang tumutok, (sic) sa
driver ng isang sandata balisong 29. Habang nangyayari iyon ay tinutukan naman ni DIGO na
nasa loob ng jeep ang conductor na pinasubsub ang ulo habang tinutukan ng 29. Ang sabi sa
akin ni DIGO ay REN igapos mo ito' at inabutan niya ako ng isang panyong panali. Sa aking
kabiglaananakoaynapasunodattinalikoiyongconductor.
19.TAnonaangsumunodnanangyarimataposmatalianmoangconductor?
S Napansin ko na lang na maneho na ni TOTO Sarita ang jeep na kanyang pinasibad
habang ang driver ay nakatali na rin at ako naman ay sinabihan ni DIGO na hawakan iyong
conductorsabalikathabangtinutukanngpatalimniDIGO.Angconductoraynagsasalitanasiya
aynasasaktandahilnakatusoknaangpatalimsakanyangleegobatok.
20.TAnoangnangyarimataposnamatutukanangconductoratdriverathabangnagmamaneho
siTOTO?
S Mula sa lugar na iyon pagkaraan ng ilang minuto ay biglang iniliko sa isang maliit na
lupangkalsadananapapaligiranngtuboattalahibatdoonayhinintoangsasakyan.
21.TAnonaangsumonod(sic)nanangyarisalugarnaiyonmataposnamaihintoangjeep?
SUnangbumabapoaysiTOTOnahawakangdriverpababaatitinulakangdriversamay
tobohan(sic).SiEFRENaysumonod(sic)hanggangsamaygilidngkarsadahabangsiTOTOay
tuloysatobohan(sic)nadalaangdriver.SiDIGOnamanaytinulakangconductorhawakhawak
sabuhokatangsabinamansaakinayhawakankoangbalikat.Kinuhasaakinangconductorni
DIGOatdinalasamaytubuhan(sic)atakinnalangnarinignaangpagungolngconductordahil
malapitlangiyonsasasakyan.
22.TNakikitamobasilaDIGOatangconductorhabangsiyaayumuungol?
SHindikonaponakitakasinasatubohanna.
23.TSilaTOTOatangdrivernasaansilahabangnaririnigmongumuungolangconductor?
SPumasokposatubohanhindikonasilamakita.
24. T Ano na ang nangyari matapos na dalhin ni TOTO ang driver at ni DIGO naman ang
conductorsatobohan(sic)?
SMgailangminutolangpoaybumaliknasilasasasakyanatkamisumakaynaatsiTOTO
angnagmanehongsasakyanattuloytuloynakamisaBikol,saLibmanan,CamarinesSur.
25.TNoongkayoayumalissatubohannaiyon,nasaannanoonangdriveratangconductor?
SWalanapo.
26.TMaynapansinkabakinaDIGOatTOTOnoongsilaaysumakaysajeepgalingsatubuhan
(sic)?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 4/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
SHumihingalsilaponaparangpagodatnapansinkonamaydugoangkamayniDIGOat
angdamitatpantalonnamanniTOTOaymaytilamsik(sic)ngdugo.
xxx
xxxxxx."[12]
Appellant Januario described the driver as more than fifty years old, of medium build, and with
gray hair and a fine nose.Upon reaching Libmanan, they went directly to Santiago Cid with whom
appellant Januario had earlier conferred regarding the sale of the jeep. Appellant Januario did not
know to whom the jeep was sold but he knew that Cid approached Vicente Pons. The latter gave
appellantJanuarioP1,000cashandriceandeggswortharoundP600.Asecondjeepwasbroughtby
TotoandDigotoRogerAbajero.CidbroughtbothappellantstothehouseofRoger.Later,thejeep
wasimpoundedattheNBINagaCityoffice.
Appellant Januario signed and thumbmarked his statement which was sworn before NBI
ExecutiveDirectorSalvadorR.Ranin.ItwasalsosignedbyAtty.CarlosSaunar"ascounsel."
AppellantCanape'sswornstatement,ExhibitI,wastakenbyAtty.MagnoV.Toribio,asupervising
NBIAgent.Quotedinfull,thestatementreads:
"SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NI IBINIGAY NI EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT KAY AGENTS MAGNO V.
TORIBIO AND TOMAS C. ENRILE, MGA AHENTE NG NBI DITO SA NCR, NBI, MANILA, NGAYONG
IKA 27 NG MARSO 1988.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1.TANONGGinoongEFRENCANAPEyBAYOT,ikawayaminginiimbistigahanngayontungkol
sapagkanakawngisangIzuzu(sic)typejitneysaSilang,Caviteatsapagkamatayngconductor
nito noong buwan ng Septembyre (sic) 1988. Bago ka namin tanungin aming ipinaalam sa iyo
ang iyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas. Una, ikaw ay may karapatan na huwag
magbigay ng salaysay sa imbistigasyon na ito, at manahimik. Ano mang sabihin mo dito ay
puweding gamitin laban sa iyo sa asunto kriminal o civil. Ikalawa, ikaw ay may karapatan na
kumuhang iyong abogado upang tulungan ka sa imbistigasyon na ito. At kung gusto mo pero
wala kang pambayad sa sirbesyon (sic) nito, ikaw ay bibigyan ng NBI ng libre. Matapos mong
malaman ang iyong mga karapatan, ikaw ba ay nakahandang magbigay ng kusang loob na
salaysay?
ANSWEROpo,sir.
2.TKungganoonsabihinmoangiyongbuongpangalan,tirahanatibapangmgabagaybagay
napwedingpagkakakilalanansaiyongpagkatao?
S Ako si EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT, 31 anyos ang idad (sic), kasal kay AIDA ROLDAN,
isang magsasaka (sic), nakatapos ng ikalimang baitang sa elemantarya, at sa kasalukuyan ay
naninirahansaBgy.Sibuho,Libmanan,CamarinesSur.
3.TIkawbaaymaynalalamansapagkanakawngisangMalagueatypejeepneysaBulihan,
Silang,CavitenoongbuwanngSeptyembre1988?
SOpo,sir.
4.TKungganoonsabihinmosamgaimbistigadornaitokungpaanoangbuongpangyayari?
SKasinuong(sic)minsanakoaymapasyalsaBgy.Crossing,sakopngDasmarias,Cavite
noongmgabuwanngAgosto1987,kamiaynagkitangakingkaibigan na si TOTO' SARETA at
ang kanyang kasama na si DIGO (complete name unknown) at ako ay kanyang sinabihan na
humanapngbuyerngisangjeep.Kaya,ng(sic)akoayumuwinangLibmanan,CamarinesSur
ako ay humananp (sic) ng taong interesado na bumili ng nasabing jeep, katulung si RENE
JANUARIO na taga bayan ng Libmanan. Ang aming nakitang interesado sa jeep ay si
SANTIAGO CID. Kaya ang aming ginawa ni RENE ay bumalik sa Bgy. Crossing, Dasmarias,
CaviteparaipaalamkinaTOTOSARETAnakamiaynakakuhanangbuyer.Nggabingyaonna
kami ay dumating kami ay niyaya nina TOTO na mag inuman at habang kami ay nagiinuman
sinabi ni TOTO na may makukuha na kami na jeep. Mga bandang alas kuwatro ng madaling
araw, kami ay niyaya na nina TOTO na kunin na ang jeep. Kami ay lumakad na papuntang
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 5/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
Bulihan,Silang,Cavite.Pagdatingnamindoon,kamiaynaghintayngmgailangminuto.Ng(sic)
dumaanangisangjeepnawalapnag(sic)pasahero,itoaypinaraniDIGOatkamiaysumakay.
Mgailangminutonamananglumipas,habangangdiyep(sic)aytumatakbopapuntangAlabang
aynaglabasngpatalimsinaTOTOatDIGOattinutukanangdriveratangkundoktor.Taposkami
ni RENE ay sinabihan (sic) din nila na maglabas ng patalim at tutukan din ang driver at ang
kundoktor(sic).PagdatingnaminsaBgy.Maguyam,sakopdinngSilang,sapilitana(sic)ibinaba
ninaTOTO,DIGOatRENEangdriveratangkundoktor(sic)atdinalasaloobngtubuhan.Akoay
naiwan sa loob ng jeep. Hindi naman natagalan ay lumabas na ang tatlo galing sa loob ng
tubuhan, hindi na kasama ang driver at and kundoktor (sic). Tapos, narining ko kay TOTO na
`ayosnadaw'.AngsunodnamingginawaaypinatakbonanaminangjeeppapuntangLibmanan.
PagdatingnaminsaLibmanankamiaydumerretso(sic)kaySANTIAGOCIDatibinigaynanamin
sa kanya ang jeep. Ang sabi naman ni SANTIAGO ay dadalhin niya ang jeep kay VICENTE
PONSnatagaLibmanandin.
5.TAlammobaangnangyarisadriveratkonduktor(sic)ngjeepnainagawniyo?
SAngpagkaalamkohosasabiniTOTOnaayosna'angibigsabihinaypataynasila.
6.TSinonamanangVICENTEPONSnaito?
SAngsabisaaminniSANTIAGOsiVICENTEPONSayangkanyangnakuhangbuyerng
jeep.
7.QSapagkaalammobaaytalagangbiniliniVICENTEPONSandjeep?
AOpo,sir.
8.TMagkanonamanangpagkabiliniVICENTEPONS?
A Hindi ko po alam kung magkano ang iksaktong halaga, pero ang presyo sa amin ni
SANTIAGOayP25,000.00.
9.TNangdalhinbaninyoangjeepkaySANTIAGOayagadninyongdinalaatpinagbilirinkay
VICENTEPONS?
SOpo,ngarawdinnaiyon.
10.TMagkanobaangpaunangbayad,kungmayroonman,naibinigayniVICENTEPONSsa
inyo?
AAngalamkohoayP4,000.00angibinigayniVICENTEPONSkaySANTIAGOdahilsiya
angkausapnito.
11.TMagkanonamananghalagangnapartemo?
SAkohoaybinigyanniSANTIAGOngP1,000.00?
12.TItobangpagpabilininyongjeepkayVICENTEPONSaymaykasulatan?
SWalapo.
13.TKailanpaangmgasumunodnabayadnaibinigaysainyoniVICENTEPONS?
SHindikonahomasyadongmatandaanangmgaiksaktongorasnakanyangpagbayadat
kungmagkano,bastaangpagkaalamkoaymgatatlongbeseslangsiyangnaghulogatiyonay
kanyangibinibigaykaySANTIAGO.SiSANTIAGOnamanangsiyangnagbibigay(sic)saamin.
14. T Ito bang si SANTIAGO CID at si VICENTE PONS ay alam kung saan at paano ninyo
nakuhaangjeep?
SOpo,sir.
15.TNasaannangayonsinaTOTOSARETAatDIGO?
SSaDasmarias,Caviteho.
16.THindinabasilanapupuntangLibmanan?
SBihiranahosir.Pumupuntalanghosilakungkukuhangpera.
17.TSapagkaalammo,mayroonpabasilangibangjeepnadinalasaLibmanan?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 6/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
SMayroonpahoakongnalamankaySANTIAGOCIDnamayisapangjeepnadinaladaw
sinaTOTOatDIGOsakanyaatkanyanamangibenentakayMr.ROGELIOABAJERO, na taga
Libmanandin.
18.TAnopaangibangalammotungkul(sic)ditosapangalawangjeepnaibenenta(sic)nila
kayMr.ABAJERO?
SWalanahosir.
19. T Iyung tungkol sa unang jeep na ibenenta kay Mr. VICENTE PONS, alam mo ba kung
nasaannaiyonngayon?
SHindikorinpoalamkungsaandinalaniMr.PONS.
20.TItobangsinaTOTOSARETAatDIGOaymatagalmonangkakilala?
S Matagal na ho sir, dahil sa ako ay ipinanganak din sa Dasmarias, Cavite at doon din
lumaki.Silahoayakingmgakababayanatmatalikkungmgakaibigan.
21.TNungikawbaaysabihanninaTOTOnahumanapngbuyerngjeepalammobanaang
jeepnaiyonaynanakawinlamang?
SOpo,sir.
22. T Pansamantala ay wala na muna akong itatanong sa iyo, ikaw ba ay mayroon pa ibig
sabihin?
SWalanapo,sir.KATAPUSANNGSALAYSAY.
(Signed and thumbmarked)
EFREN B. CANAPE
Nagsasalaysay

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

(Illegible signature) (Illegible signature)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 27th day of March 1988 at NBI, National Capital
Region, Manila. I likewise certify that I have carefully examined the herein afant and that I am satised that he
voluntarily executed his statement and understood the same.

(Signed)
Atty. ARLIS E. VELA
(By Authority of Rep. Act 157)"[13]
Aftertheinvestigation,appellantswentwiththeNBIagentsinsearchingfortheircompanions.[14]
Meanwhile,AndrewPatriarca,Sr.reportedthedisappearanceofhisson,Andrew,Jr.,thejeepney
anditsdrivertothepolicedetachmentinBulihan,Silang,CaviteandthepolicestationsinSilangand
Imus,Cavite.TwoweeksafterSeptember4,1987,thebodyof23yearoldAndrewPatriarca,Jr.was
foundinasugarcaneplantationinMaguyam.Hisheadwasseveredfromhisbody.[15]Thebodyofthe
driver,GeronimoMalibago,stepfatherofDorisWolf,theownerofthejeepney,[16]wasrecoveredafter
theharvestofsugarcaneintheplantation[17]inMaguyam.[18]Malibagoswidowidentifiedhisbodyfrom
itsclothing.[19]
On September 12, 1989, the prosecution formally offered its evidence,[20] which the court duly
admitted.[21] For its part, the defense, through counsel, manifested its intention to file a demurrer to
evidence.However,becausethedefensehadnotyetpresentedaccusedCid,thecourtonNovember
21,1989,orderedthecancellationofhisbailbondandgavehissuretythirtydayswithinwhichtoshow
causewhyjudgmentagainstthebondshouldnotberendered.Thedefensecounsel,Atty.JoseClaro,
waslikewiserequiredtoexplainwhyheshouldnotbeheldincontemptofcourtforhisfailuretofilea
demurrertoevidence.[22]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 7/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

For failure of the defense counsel to appear at the scheduled hearing dates and to file the
promised demurrer to evidence, the court on December 22, 1989, issued an order stating that the
"accusedmaynolongeratthistimebeallowedtopresenttheirDemurrertoEvidence."Itscheduled
datesforthepresentationofdefenseevidenceandappointedAtty.OscarZaldivarascounseldeoficio
forthedefendants.[23]
Nevertheless, on December 26, 1989, counsel for the defense Claro mailed a "demurrer to
evidence or motion to dismiss on (sic) insufficiency of evidence."[24] On January 10, 1990, the trial
court denied the motion finding that the demurrer did not "contain any reason compelling enough to
recallthepreviousorder,"disallowingthefilingofsaidpleading.[25]
On February 8, 1990, upon the manifestation of Atty. Claro that appellants would no longer
presentevidence,thetrialcourtissuedanorderconsideringthecaseterminatedasfarasappellants
wereconcerned.However, it granted a "reservation" to present evidence as regards Cid. The trial
courtfurtherdirectedAtty.ClarotopresentCidbeforethecourtonMarch9,1990.Itorderedthefiling
ofmemoranda"asthecaseofaccusedJanuarioandCanope(sic)isnowconsideredclosed."It set
the "partial promulgation of judgment" on March 9, 1990 "insofar as the two (2) accused are
concerned."[26]
OnMarch1,1990,appellants'counselfiledtheirmemorandum.[27]
On March 9, 1990, the trial court did not make a "partial promulgationofjudgment." Instead, it
orderedthe"continuationofproceedingsforpurposesofrebuttalevidence."[28]
On the same day, the defense presented Santiago Cid as a witness.He testified that a certain
RaulRepe,TotoSaritaandDigoSarrealapproachedhimaboutthesaleofthejeepney.Hereferred
them to Vicente Pons who he thought would buy the vehicle. He knew appellants were also from
Libmananbutdidnotseethemduringthetransactionforthesaleofthejeepney.[29]
On March 27, 1990, the Court denied defense counsel Claro's motion to cancel the hearing
scheduled for that day. Noting the presence of Atty. Carlos Saunar, a prosecution witness whose
attendanceduringscheduledtrialdateshadbeendelayed,andcitingthe"imperativesofjustice,"the
trialcourtissuedanorderdirectingthatthetestimonyofsaidwitnessshouldbeheardthatday.[30] In
theabsenceofthecounselofrecordforthedefense,thetrialcourtreiteratedtheappointmentofAtty.
OscarZaldivarascounseldeoficio.
Atty.SaunartestifiedthathejoinedtheNBIsometimeinMayorJune1988.OnMarch1988,while
stillinprivatepractice,hewasattheNBIheadofficehandlingaclientcasewhenAtty.Vela,anNBI
agent,approachedhim.ThelatterandAtty.ToribiointroducedhimtoappellantsandCid.Velaand
Toribiotoldhimthatthethreehadverballyconfessedtoparticipationinacrimeandthattheyneeded
hisassistanceastheywereabouttoexecutetheirswornstatements.[31]Saunaragreedtoassistthe
three suspects and allegedly explained to them the consequences of their confession. He also
supposedlytoldthemindividuallyandinTagalog,theirconstitutionalrights,liketheirrightstobesilent
andtocounselandthatwhatevertheywouldsaycouldbeusedagainstthem.[32]
SaunaridentifiedhissignatureintheswornstatementofappellantJanuario.However,hecould
no longer recall which of the three accused was appellant Canape although he admitted that the
latter'sfacewas"familiar."[33]Hewascertain,however,thatheparticipatedinthetakingofappellant
Canape's sworn statement on March 28, 1988.He admitted that his signature does not appear on
appellantCanape'sswornstatementbuthecould"onlysurmise"thathedidnotsignthesamesworn
statement because either it was not presented to him immediately after the statement was taken or
thatitcouldhavebeenmisplaced.[34]
AfterreceivingSaunar'stestimony,thetrialcourtaskedtheprosecutionwhetheritwaspresented
asrebuttaltestimony.Answeringinthepositive,theprosecutorremindedthecourtthatwhenSaunar
couldnotbepresentedasawitness,hehadmadeareservationtocallhimas"additionalevidencefor

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 8/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

theprosecutionand/orrebuttal"testimony.Clarifying,thecourtsaidthatasagainstCid,thetestimony
wasaprincipalonebutarebuttalasfarastheappellantswereconcerned.[35]
On May 11, 1990, the defense manifested that it was closing its case. The prosecution having
waiveditsrighttopresent"anyrebuttalevidence,"thetrialcourtissuedanorderrequiringthefilingof
the parties' respective memoranda.[36] On June 27, 1990, the trial court rendered the herein
questionedDecision.[37]

TheIssues

Intheirseparatebriefsfiledbytheirrespectivecounsel(Atty.JoseC.ClaroforJanuarioandAtty.
FlorendoC.MedinaforCanape),appellantsascribebasicallytwoerrorsagainstthetrialcourt:

(1) The trial procedure, particularly the presentation and admission of the testimony of Atty. Carlos Saunar, was
irregular and prejudicial to the appellants; and

(2) The extra-judicial confessions of the appellants are inadmissible in evidence for having been extracted in violation
of their constitutional right to counsel.

Insistingthathisguilthadnotbeenprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt,appellantJanuariocontends
thatthetrialcourterredinadmittinginevidencehisswornstatementbeforetheNBIandthetestimony
ofAtty.Saunarasrebuttaloradditionalwitnessaftertheprosecutionhadresteditscase,he(appellant
Januario)hadfiledhismemorandum,andthedecisionhadbeenscheduledforpromulgation.[38]
Forhispart,appellantCanapealsoclaimsthathisguilthadnotbeenprovenbeyondreasonable
doubt. He questions the trial court's having given "weight and sufficiency" to his extrajudicial
confession.[39]
AppellantJanuariocontendsthatthetrialcourterredinallowingthepresentationofSaunarasa
witnessaftertheprosecutionhadcloseditscaseandoffereditsdocumentaryevidence.Saunarcould
notinanyguisebeconsideredasarebuttalwitnesssimplybecausetherewasnodefenseevidenceto
rebut.

TheCourtsRuling
TheFirstIssue:OrderofTrial

ThepertinentprovisionsofRule119oftheRulesofCourtstate:
"Sec. 3. Order of trial.- The trial shall proceed in the following order:

(a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge, and in the proper case, the civil liability.

(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and damages, if any, arising from the issuance of any
provisional remedy in the case.

(c) The parties may then respectively present rebutting evidence only, unless the court, in the furtherance of justice,
permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue.

(d) Upon admission of the evidence, the cases shall be deemed submitted unless the court directs the parties to argue
orally or to submit memoranda.

(e) However, when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but interposes a
lawful defense, the order of trial may be modied accordingly." (Emphasis supplied.)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 9/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

The trial procedure as outlined in this rule is ordinarily followed to insure the orderly conduct of
litigations to attain the magisterial objective of the Rules of Court to protect the parties' substantive
rights.[40]However, strict observance of the Rules depend upon the circumstances obtaining in each
caseatthediscretionofthetrialjudge.Thus,asearlyas1917,thisCourtexplained:

"x x x. The orderly course of proceedings requires, however, that the prosecution shall go forward
and should present all of its proof in the rst instance; but it is competent for the judge, according to the
nature of the case, to allow a party who has closed his case to introduce further evidence in rebuttal. This
rule, however, depends upon the particular circumstances of each particular case, and falls within the sound
discretion of the judge, to be exercised or not as he may think proper."[41]

Hence, the court may allow the prosecutor, even after he has rested his case or even after the
defense has moved for dismissal, to present involuntarily omitted evidence.[42] The primary
considerationiswhetherthetrialcourtstillhasjurisdictionoverthecase.Thus

"The claim that the lower court erred in allowing the prosecuting attorney to introduce new evidence is devoid of
any merit, for while the prosecution had rested, the trial was not yet terminated and the cause was still under the
control and jurisdiction of the court and the latter, in the exercise of its discretion, may receive additional
evidence. Sec. 3(c), Rule 119 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that, in the furtherance of justice, the court
may grant either of the parties the right and opportunity to adduce new additional evidence bearing upon the
main issue in question."[43]

Saunars testimony was admitted in evidence before the trial court rendered its Decision.
Undoubtedlythen,thecourtaquoretaineditsjurisdictioneventhoughtheprosecutionhadrestedits
case.Astoappellants,Saunarwasanadditionalprosecutionwitness,notarebuttalwitness,because
thedefensewaivedpresentationofevidenceaftertheprosecutionhadresteditscase.[44]Saunarwas,
therefore,arebuttalwitnesswithrespecttoaccusedCid.[45]

TheSecondIssue:AppellantsRighttoCounsel

Proof of Saunar's presence during the custodial investigation of appellants is, however, not a
guarantee that appellants' respective confessions had been taken in accordance with Article III,
Section 12 (1) of the Constitution. This constitutional provision requires that a person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have no less than "competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice." Elucidating on this particular constitutional requirement, this
Courthastaught:
It is noteworthy that the modiers competent and independent were terms absent in all organic laws previous to the
1987 Constitution. Their addition in the fundamental law of 1987 was meant to stress the primacy accorded to the
voluntariness of the choice, under the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation, by according the
accused, deprived of normal conditions guaranteeing individual autonomy, an informed judgment based on the choices
given to him by a competent and independent lawyer.

Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such investigation should be as far as reasonably possible, the choice of the
individual undergoing questioning. If the lawyer were one furnished in the accused's behalf, it is important that he
should be competent and independent, i.e., that he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as
distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual's
constitutional rights. In People v. Basay, this Court stressed that an accused's right to be informed of the right to remain
silent and to counsel `contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.'

Ideally, therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial investigation (if the latter could not afford
one) `should be engaged by the accused (himself), or by the latter's relative or person authorized by him to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 10/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper petition of the accused or person authorized by the accused to
le such petition. Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever testimonials are given as proof of their probity and
supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many areas, the relationship between lawyers and law
enforcement authorities can be symbiotic."[46]

We find that Saunar was not the choice of appellant Januario as his custodial investigation
counsel.Thus,NBIAgentArlisVelatestified:
"Q Now, considering that they were then under your custody, and under investigation, were they
representedbycounselduringthetimethatyoutooktheirstatements?
AYes,sir.Theywere.
QDoyourecallwhowasthatcounselwhorepresentedthem?
AAtty.CarlosSaunar,sir.
QWashethecounseloftheirownchoice,orwasthecounselfurnishedbyyouroffice?
A Because they were not represented by counsel of their own choice, we got the
serviceofAtty.CarlosSaunarwhohelpedthem.[47]
xxxxxxxxx.
QAndAtty.SaunarisconnectedwiththeNBI?
AAtthattime,hewasattheNBIOffice.Hewasjustsomewherearound.
QAnditwastheNBIwhorequestedSaunartoassistMr.ReneJanuariointheinvestigation?
AWerequestedhim,becausehewasjustaround,sir."[48](Emphasissupplied.)
AsregardsSaunar'sassistanceascounselforappellantCanape,investigatingNBIAgentMagno
Toribiotestifiedasfollows:
"QNow,withregardstoyouradvicethathehasarighttocounsel,andtoseekassistanceofa
counselofhisownchoiceifhedoesnothaveone,andtoremainsilent,andifhedoesnothavea
lawyer,youwillfurnishoneforhim,nowwhatwashisanswer?
WITNESS:
Accordingtohim,hedoesnotneedalawyer,butdespitethatrefusaltohavealawyer...
COURT:
Thatisnotrefusal.Thatismanifestationthathedoesnotneedalawyer.Hedidnotrefuse.Hesaid,
hedoesnotneedalawyer.
WITNESS:(con't.)
Although,hedoesnotneedalawyer,weprovidedhimalawyerbythenameofAtty.CarlosSaunar,
who was present during the investigation, and who advised him of the consequences of the
statementsthathewillgive,andhedidnotrefuse.
FISCALVELAZCO:
QNow,howdidyouknowthatAtty.Saunargavehimadvice,gaveaccusedCanapeadvice?
ABecausewewerepresent.
QNow,whendidAtty.SaunargivethatadvicetoaccusedCanape,wasitbefore,during,orafterthe
takingofthisstatement?
ABefore,during,andafterthetakingofthestatement.
QNow,mayweknowfromyouwhyAtty.Saunarwaspresentthere?
AHewaspresenttherebecausehewasthenapplyingforthepositionofNBIagent.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 11/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
FISCAL VELAZCO:

QWashetheonlylawyerwhowaspresentthere?
AIremember,Atty.Claro,sometimesisthere,representinganotherclient.[49]
xxxxxxxxx.
QNow,Atty.SaunarisemployedwiththeNBIoffice,amIright?
AYes,sir.
QWhenwasheemployedattheNBIoffice?Tellustheexactdate?

COURT:

If you can.

WITNESS:

Maybe in September.

ATTY. CLARO:

19?

A1988.
QButhewasalwaysfrequentintheNBIofficebecausehewastobeemployed,isthatwhatyou
mean?
AHewasapplying.
QAndfromwhereishe?
AIthinkheisfromBicol.
xxx
xxxxxx.
Q Now, how many times have you requested Atty. Saunar to assist a person under your
investigationintheNBIoffice,otherthanthis?
AIcannotrememberanymore.
QYoualwaysaskhimtoassistifthereisnolawyeravailable,orthepersontobeinvestigatedhas
nolawyer?
AIfheisaround."[50](Emphasissupplied.)
LetusforthemomentgrantarguendothatSaunar'scompetenceasalawyerisbeyondquestion.
Under the circumstances described by the prosecution however, he could not have been the
independentcounselsolemnlyspokenofbyourConstitution.Hewasanapplicantforapositionin
the NBI and therefore it can never be said that his loyalty was to the confessants. In fact, he was
actuallyemployedbytheNBIafewmonthsafter.AsregardsappellantJanuario,Saunarmighthave
really been around to properly apprise appellant of his constitutional right as reflected in the written
swornstatementitself.
However,thesamecannotbesaidaboutappellantCanape.Clearly,hewasnotproperlyinformed
ofhisconstitutionalrights.Perfunctorilyinformingaconfessantofhisconstitutionalrights,askinghim
if he wants to avail of the services of counsel and telling him that he could ask for counsel if he so
desires or that one could be provided him at his request, are simply not in compliance with the
constitutionalmandate.[51]In this case, appellant Canape was merely told of his constitutional rights
and posthaste, asked whether he was willing to confess. His affirmative answer may not, by any
means,beinterpretedasawaiverofhisrighttocounselofhisownchoice.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 12/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

Furthermore, the right of a person under custodial investigation to be informed of his rights to
remain silent and to counsel implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to
explain and to contemplate an effective communication that results in an understanding of what is
conveyed.[52]AppellantCanape'sswornstatement,whichreadsandsoundssolifelessonpaper,fails
to reflect compliance with this requirement. Neither does the aforequoted testimony of NBI Agent
Toribio. Bearing in mind that appellant Canape reached only the fifth grade, the NBI agents should
haveexertedmoreeffortinexplainingtohimhisconstitutionalrights.
Moreover, there is enough reason to doubt whether appellant Canape was in fact and in truth
assistedbycounsel.Atty.SaunaraffirmedonthewitnessstandthatheassistedappellantsonMarch
28, 1988.[53] However, the sworn statement itself reveals that it was taken on March 27, 1988. No
satisfactoryexplanationwasmadebytheprosecutiononthisdiscrepancy.AllthatAgentVelastated
wasthattheyconductedanoralinvestigationinNagaCityonMarch27,1988andthatinvestigationat
theNBIManilaheadofficewasmadeintheafternoonofMarch28,1988.[54]
The law enforcement agents' cavalier disregard of appellants' constitutional rights is shown not
only by their failure to observe Section 12 (1) of Article III of the Constitution. They have likewise
forgottenthethirdparagraphofSection12ofthesamearticlewhichmandatesthatanadmissionof
facts related to a crime must be obtained with the assistance of counsel otherwise it would be
inadmissibleinevidenceagainstthepersonsoadmitting.[55]
Anadmission,which,underSection26ofRule130oftheRulesofCourt,isan"act,declarationor
omission of a party as to a relevant fact" is different from a confession which, in turn, is defined in
Section33ofthesameRuleasthe"declarationofanaccusedacknowledginghisguiltoftheoffense
charged,orofanyoffensenecessarilyincludedtherein."Bothmaybegiveninevidenceagainstthe
person admitting or confessing. In People vs. Lorenzo,[56] the Court explained that in a confession
thereisanacknowledgmentofguiltwhileinanadmissionthestatementsoffactbytheaccuseddonot
directlyinvolveanacknowledgmentofguiltorofthecriminalintenttocommittheoffensewithwhich
theaccusedischarged.
AppellantsverballyintimatedfactsrelevanttothecommissionofthecrimetotheNBIagentsin
NagaCity.ThisisshownbythetestimonyofNBIAgentVelathat,basedonthefactsgatheredfrom
interviewsofpeopleinthatcity,they"invited"andquestionedappellants,thus:
"QNow,tellus,whatwasyourpurposeininvitingthesetwo(2)people?
AThatwasinconnectionwiththevehicleImentionedearlier,inconnection with the carnapping
incidentmentionedearlier.
QYouinvitedtheminconnectionwiththecarnappingbecauseyouwanttoknowfromthemactually
whattheyknowaboutthecarnapping,amIcorrect?
APrecisely,thatisright."[57]
Apparently attempting to avoid the questions on whether appellants admitted complicity in the
crime,AgentToribiotestified:
"ATTY.CLARO:
Whenyouwereconductinganinvestigation,andyousawmeattheNBIbuilding,NagaCity,youwere
referringtotheinvestigationofMr.Canape,amIright?
AYes,sir.
QAndthatinvestigationyouwereconductingwasreducedtowriting,andthatisnowExhibit`G',am
Iright?
AThatisnot.
QButyouinvestigatedMr.CanapeinNagaCityattheNBIbuilding,amIright,telltheCourt?

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 13/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
AAtthattime,weweretakingthestatementofthewoman,thecomplainant,intheestafacase,and
theotherwitnesses.
COURT:
You mean, at the time you investigated that estafa complaint, that was the time when you also
investigatedCanape,isthatwhatyoumean?
FISCALVELAZCO:
No,yourHonor.
COURT:
Butthereisaquestionofcounsel.Youbetterclarifythat.
WITNESS:
HewasaskingmeifIhadalreadytakenthestatementofCanape.
COURT:
Thatisit,sir,NagaCity.Thatisthequestion.
WITNESS:
Notyet.Wewereonlyaskinghim.
ATTY.CLARO:
Byhim,whomareyoureferringto:
AThecomplainantsandthewitnesses,sir.
QAllright.YouwerewithAtty.Velawhenyouconductedaninvestigationto(sic)Mr.Canape,amI
right?InNagaCity?
WITNESS:
Yes,sir.
QAndMr.Velaatthattime,wasalsoconductinganinvestigationto(sic)acertainReneJanuarioin
NagaCity,isthatright?
A.No.WetookthestatementinManila.
COURT:
YoutookthestatementinManila.HowaboutinNaga,thatisthequestionofcounsel?
ANaga,nostatementyet.
ATTY.CLARO:
Mr. Toribio, because you were with Mr. Vela, Mr. Vela did not conduct any investigation to (sic) Mr.
Januario,oneoftheaccusedinthiscase,inNagaCity?TelltheCourt?
ANotyetatthattime,becauseitwasuseless.ThecrimewascommittedinSilang,Cavite.They
willhavetobebroughttoManilafortheappropriateJudgeorFiscal.
COURT:
So,youareclaimingthatyoudidnotconductanyinvestigationofCanape?
AWeconductedaninvestigation.Whenwetookthestatementoftheotherwitnesses,complainant
andwitnesses.
COURT:
Doesthatsatisfyyou?
ATTY.CLARO:
No.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 14/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
COURT
Pleaseclarifythequestion.
WITNESS:(con't.)
It is true that we were sometimes talking with those people, but not investigating them yet."[58]
(Emphasissupplied.)
NoteshouldalsobetakenofthefactthataccordingtoAtty.Saunar,whenheaccededtobethe
custodialinvestigationcounselofappellants,thelatterhadalreadyconfessed.Thus:
"COURT:
Thereisonethingthathewouldliketoadd,`thatItalkedtotheaccusedonebyone,'youwanttoadd
something?
AAndIconfirmedwiththemwhethertheyareconfessingtotheircrime,andtheysaidyes.Infact,
fromwhatIobserved,theyhavealreadyconfessedtotheNBIagents.
COURT:
Allofthemconfessed?
AYes,yourHonor,becausetheyalsotoldmewhathappened.
FISCALVELAZCO:
Now,whentheyinformedyouthattheyintendtoconfess,now,didyouexplaintothem,totheaccused
ortothepersonsunderinvestigationtheconsequencesofconfessing?
AYes,thatisbasic.Iinformedthemoftheirrightstoremainsilentandtocounsel,andwhatever
theywillconfesstherewillbeusedagainstthemduringthetrialofthiscase.
QHowaboutthatultimateconsequenceofadmission?
AYes.Itoldthemthatiftheyconfess,theywillhavetogotoprison.
QAndwhatweretheiranswers?
AActually,theyhavealreadyconfessedtotheircrimebeforeItalkedtothem.
xxxxxxxxx.
ATTY.ZALDIVAR:
YourHonor,thewitnesshasjustansweredduringthepreliminaryquestionoftheFiscalthatatthetime
hisassistancewassoughtbytheNBI,theaccusedhadinfactalreadyconfessed.
COURT:
Iamnowaskinghim,haveyousaidthat?
ATheyhavealreadyconfessed.
ATTY.ZALDIVAR:
Wecanreviewthetranscriptofstenographicnotes.
COURT:
Whatdoyoumeanbythat?
ATheywerestillconfessingatthattime,yourHonor.
ATTY.ZALDIVAR:
I just want to manifest into the record that they have already confessed that the witness has just
repeatedtheword.
COURT:
Butthereisanexplanationbyhim.Putthatonrecord,allofthem.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 15/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
FISCALVELAZCO:
Now,didyouverifywhetherthatconfessionwasonlyverbalorinwriting?
A That was only verbal that is why there is a need for the sworn statement to be
taken.ThatwasthetimethatIwastellingthemthattheycanbeputtojail."[59](Emphasis
supplied.)
It is therefore clear that prior to the execution of the sworn statements at the NBI head office,
appellants had already made verbal admissions of complicity in the crime. Verbal admissions,
however,shouldalsobemadewiththeassistanceofcounsel.Thus:

"The verbal admissions allegedly made by both appellants of their participation in the crime, at the time of
their arrest and even before their formal investigation, are inadmissible, both as violative of their
constitutional rights and as hearsay evidence. These oral admissions, assuming they were in fact made,
constitute uncounselled extrajudicial confessions within the meaning of Article III, Section 12 of the
Constitution."[60]

That appellants indeed admitted participation in the commission of the crime in Naga City is
shownbythefactthattheNBIagentsbroughtthemtoManilatofacilitateapprehensionoftheother
culpritswhocouldbeeitherinCaviteorManila.BecausetheiruncounselledoraladmissionsinNaga
City resulted in the execution of their written confessions in Manila, the latter had become as
constitutionallyinfirmastheformer.InPeoplevs.Alicando,[61]thisCourtexplainedtheramifications
ofanirregularlycounselledconfessionoradmission:

"We have not only constitutionalized the Miranda warnings in our jurisdiction. We have also adopted the libertarian
exclusionary rules known as the `fruit of the poisonous tree,' a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in the
celebrated case of Nardone v. United States. According to this rule, once the primary source (the `tree') is shown to
have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the `fruit') derived from it is also inadmissible.
Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the `fruit of the
poisonous tree' is the indirect result of the same illegal act. The `fruit of the poisonous tree is at least once removed
from the illegally seized evidence, but is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally
obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints
all evidence subsequently obtained."

Appellants might have indeed committed the crime in concert with Eliseo Sarita and Eduardo
Sarinos. However, what could have been their valuable admissions and confessions as far as the
prosecutionwasconcernedweresulliedandrenderedinadmissiblebytheirregularmannerbywhich
the law enforcement agents extracted such admissions and confessions from appellants. Without
such statements, the remaining prosecution evidence consisting mostly of hearsay testimony and
investigationreportsissorelyinadequatetoproveappellantsparticipationinthecrime.
Notably,theselawenforcersdidnotonlydefythemandateofSection12oftheBillofRightsbut,
aftermaking"inquiries"fromappellantsaboutthecrime,theylikewiseillegallydetainedappellantsas
shownbytheadmissionofoneoftheNBIagentsthatappellantsweredeprivedoftheirlibertywhilein
theircustody.[62]Appellants were even made to travel for ten (10) hours[63]from Naga City to Manila
justsotheirformalconfessionscouldbeexecutedinthelattercity.AccordingtoNBIAgentVela,they
"actually arrested" the appellants when the court issued the warrant for their arrest.[64] The records
show however that the NBI turned appellants over to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Silang
AmadeoinCaviteonlyonMarch30,1989.Onthesameday,thesamecourtturnedthembacktothe
NBIfor"detentionduringpendencyofthecase."[65]

Epilogue

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 16/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

The Court understands the difficulties faced by law enforcement agencies in apprehending
violatorsofthelawespeciallythoseinvolvingsyndicates.Itsympathizeswiththepublicclamorforthe
bringingofcriminalsbeforethealtarofjustice.However,quicksolutionofcrimesandtheconsequent
apprehensionofmalefactorsarenottheendallandbealloflawenforcement.Enforcersofthelaw
mustfollowtheproceduremandatedbytheConstitutionandthelaw.Otherwise,theireffortswouldbe
meaningless.Andtheirexpensesintryingtosolvecrimeswouldconstituteneedlessexpendituresof
taxpayersmoney.
ThisCourtvalueslibertyandwillalwaysinsistontheobservanceofbasicconstitutionalrightsasa
condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative and prosecutory powers of government.
The admonition given by this Court to government officers, particularly those involved in law
enforcementandtheadministrationofjustice,inthecaseofPeoplevs.Cuizon,[66]whereNBIagents
mishandled a drug bust operation and in so doing violated the constitutional guarantees against
unlawfularrestsandillegalsearchesandseizures,isagaincalledforandthusreiteratedinthecaseat
bench,towit:

x x x In the nal analysis, we in the administration of justice would have no right to expect ordinary
people to be law-abiding if we do not insist on the full protection of their rights. Some lawmen, prosecutors
and judges may still tend to gloss over an illegal search and seizure as long as the law enforcers show the
alleged evidence of the crime regardless of the methods by which they were obtained. This kind of attitude
condones law-breaking in the name of law enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the more rapid
breakdown of our system of justice, and the eventual denigration of society. While this Court appreciates
and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of
society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the
Constitution and the law. Truly, the end never justies the means.[67]

WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 18 in
TagaytayCity,isherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.AppellantsReneJanuarioandEfrenCanape
areACQUITTED.LetacopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedtheDirectorGeneral,PhilippineNational
Police and the Director, National Bureau of Investigation in order that Eliseo Sarita and Eduardo
Sarinos, who are still at large, may be apprehended and this time properly investigated and
prosecuted.
The accusedappellants are hereby ORDERED RELEASED immediately unless they are being
detainedforsomeotherlegalcause.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.(Chairman),Davide,Jr.,MeloandFrancisco,JJ.,concur.

[1]PennedbyJudgeJulietoP.Tabiolo.

[2]
Theparticularprovisionofthelawforwhichappellantswerefoundguiltybythetrialcourtreads:
"SEC.14.Anypersonwhoisfoundguiltyofcarnapping,asthistermisdefinedinSectionTwoofthisAct,shallirrespective
ofthevalueof the motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight
monthsandnotmorethanseventeenyearsandfourmonths,whenthecarnappingiscommittedwithoutviolence
or intimidation ofpersons,orforceuponthings,andbyimprisonmentofnotlessthanseventeenyears and four
months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against or
intimidationofanypersonorforceuponthingsandthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeathshallbeimposed
when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the
commissionofthecarnappingoronoccasionthereof."
[3]Rollo,p.11Record,p.199.

[4]Record,pp.204205.

[5]Ibid,pp.257259.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 17/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
[6]TSN,April11,1989,pp.5356.

[7]TSN,March16,1989,pp.611.

[8]Ibid.,August11,1989,p.17.

[9]Ibid.,p.18.

[10]Ibid.,April11,1989,pp.79.

[11]Record,p.14.

[12]Ibid.,pp.1516.

[13]Ibid.,pp.1820.

[14]TSN,April11,1989,p.51.

[15]Ibid.,April11,1989,pp.6364Exh.HXeroxcopiesofpicturesonpage27ofRecord.

[16]Record,p.77.

[17]TSN,April11,1989,p.30.

[18]Ibid.,p.70.

[19]Ibid.,p.71.

[20]Record,p.280.

[21]Ibid.,p.284.

[22]Ibid.,pp.313314.

[23]Ibid.,pp.320321.

[24]Ibid.,p.327.

[25]Ibid.,p.336.

[26]Ibid.,p.337.

[27]Ibid.,p.338.

[28]Ibid.,p.344.

[29]TSN,May9,1990,pp.49.

[30]Record,p.358.

[31]TSN,March27,1990,pp.1114,29.

[32]Ibid.,pp.1415,3031.

[33]Ibid.,pp.1617.

[34]Ibid.,p.1921.

[35]Ibid.,p.32.

[36]Record,p.363.

[37]Thetrialcourterroneouslyimposedthepenaltyof"reclusionperpetuaorlifeimprisonment."Thetwopenaltiesarenot
synonymous.Reclusionperpetuaentailsatleast30yearsofimprisonmentandcarrieswithitaccessorypenalties
whereas"lifeimprisonment"hasnodefinitedurationanddoesnotcarryanyaccessorypenalty(Peoplev.Dolar,
231SCRA414,425,March24,1994.).
[38]Rollo,p.71.

[39]Ibid.,p.130.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 18/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
[40]Ligonvs.CourtofAppeals,244SCRA693,701,June1,1995.

[41]U.S.vs.Alviar,36Phil.804,806(1917).

[42]FRANCISCO,CRIMINALPROCEDURE,1994ed.,p.411citing23C.J.S.464467.

[43]Vegavs.Panis,117SCRA269,277278,September30,1982.

[44]Intheirsupplementalmemorandumandadditionalargumentstothedemurrertoevidencefiledbeforethetrialcourt,
appellants stated that they "choose not to present evidence nor allow the two accused (Efren Canapi and Rene
Januario) to testifyon the ground that the inadmissibility of the alleged confession or admission, no prima facie
case was established by the prosecution against the two accused. This point was stressed in the demurrer to
evidencewhichismadepartoftheoriginalmemorandumandthissupplementalmemorandumxxx." (Record,
pp.368369.)
[45]ThetrialcourtappearstohavebeeninaquandaryonhowtotreatSaunar:washearebuttaloranadditionalwitness?

"FISCALVELAZCO:

Nomorefortheprosecution.
COURT:
ThisisrebuttalasfarasthetwootheraccusedIthinkareconcerned?
FISCALVELAZCO:
Yes,yourHonor,andIhavemadereservationsevenbefore,yourHonor,atthetimewhenAtty.Saunarcannotbe
produced here, and I made reservation that I be allowed to call him as additional evidence for the prosecution
and/orrebuttal.
COURT:
AdditionalevidenceinthecaseofCid?
FISCALVELAZCO:
Yes,yourHonor,asagainstthethree.
COURT:
AsagainstCid,principaltestimonyasagainstthetwoaccused,itisrebuttal?
FISCALVELAZCO:
Yes,yourHonor."(TSN,March27,1990,p.32.)
[46]Peoplevs.Deniega,251SCRA626,637638,December29,1995.

[47]TSN,April11,1989,p.13.

[48]Ibid.,p.41.

[49]Ibid.,August11,1989,pp.1214.

[50]Ibid.,pp.2728.

[51]Peoplevs.DelaCruz,224SCRA506,526527,July6,1993.

[52]Peoplevs.Tujon,215SCRA559,576,November13,1992.

[53]TSN,March27,1990,pp.910.

[54]Ibid.,April11,1989,pp.37&40.

[55]
"Section12.(1)Anypersonunderinvestigationforthecommissionofanoffenseshallhavetherighttobeinformedof
his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannotaffordtheservicesofcounsel,hemustbeprovidedwithone.Theserightscannotbewaivedexceptinwritingandin
thepresenceofcounsel.
xxxxxxxxx.
(3)Anyconfessionoradmissionobtainedinviolationofthisortheprecedingsectionshallbeinadmissibleagainsthim."
[56]240SCRA624,638639,January26,1995,citingU.S.vs.Corrales,28Phil.362(1914).

[57]TSN,April11,1989.

[58]Ibid.,August11,1989,pp.2123.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 19/20
11/8/2017 People vs Januario : 98552 : February 7, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
[59]Ibid.,March27,1990,pp.1214.

[60]Peoplevs.Cabintoy,247SCRA442,452,August21,1995.

[61]251SCRA293,314315,December12,1995.

[62]TSN,August11,1989,pp.25,26and30.

[63]Ibid.,p.25.

[64]Ibid.,p.43.

[65]Record,pp.2223.

[66]G.R.No.109287,April18,1996.

[67]Ibid.,p.34.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/98252.htm 20/20