CRIMINAL PROCEDURES RULE 119: TRIAL

Title G.R. No. L-23092

PEOPLE V BEBERINO Date: October 28, 1977
Ponente: CONCEPCION JR., J.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee ANITO BEBERINO alias NIT (appeal withdrawn),
GERARDO CASAÑ;A alias BANDONG (appeal
withdrawn), LEODEGARIO ESTRADA (appeal
withdrawn), and IGNACIO CALVARIO, defendants,
IGNACIO CALVARIO, defendant-appellant
FACTS
TIMELINE OF THE CASE
1. February 3, 1960- he house of Gregoria Nuñez situated in sitio Balibayon, barrio Lakandula, Placer, Suripo del
Norte, was broken into and robbed by several persons of cash and other articles of value amounting to P 605.00, on the
occasion of which Gregoria Nuñez was strangled to death.
2. March 1, 1960 - Cpl. Michael Desoloc was dispatched to Placer to conduct an investigation. He received
information that one Ignacio Calvario had knowledge of the crime and was willing to testify if the authorities would
utilize him as a witness in the case. Ignacio Calvario was taken into custody, and after questioning, he executed an
affidavit wherein he described the means by which the crime was committed and the role he played in the commission
thereof. He also named (Bandong) Gerardo Casaña, (Nit) Anito Beberino, (Mandot) Rumaldo Guibao, Floro Abas, Gario
Estrada, Rose Bebang, Penoy, Busio and (Pelesio Simplicio) Guibao as his confederates.
3. Judgment was rendered finding the accused Anito Beberino, Gerardo Casañ;a and Leodegario Estrada guilty of
the crime of robbery with homicide. The accused Ignacio Calvario was found guilty as an accomplice in the crime of
simple robbery since he did not actually participate in the killing of Gregoria Nuñ;ez and no conspiracy was proved
among the accused.
4. Gerardo Casaña, Anito Beberino, Leodegario Estrada, and Ignacio Calvario appealed. However, the appeals of
Gerardo Casaña Leodegario Estrada, and Anito Beberino were subsequently withdrawn, so that the appeal of Ignacio
Calvario alone is left for consideration.

PETITIONERS’ CONTENTION: In seeking a reversal of the judgment appealed from, the appellant Ignacio Calvario
claims that the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to sustain a conviction because the extra-judicial confession
upon which said judgment is based was obtained from him by means of threats, and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence.
Further, counsel for the appellant claims that the trial court erred in convicting Calvario as an accomplice in the crime
of robbery although he had no knowledge of the criminal intent of his c-oaccused.
ISSUE
Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the appellant is admissible in evidence – YES

Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Calvario as an accomplice in the crime of robbery – NO

RATIO
Petitioners’ contention lacks merit.

1. Cpl. Desoloc denied having threatened or coerced the appellant into executing the said extra-judicial
confession and claimed that Ignacio Calvario furnished the statements contained therein freely and voluntarily. His claim
is corroborated by the Justice of the Peace of Placer, Surigao, before whom Ignacio Calvario swore to the veracity of its
contents, who testified that he read the extra- judicial confession to the accused and asked the latter if he understood
what had been read to him; and that when the accused answered in the affirmative, he requested the accused to affix
his thumbmark on the document, which he did.
The appellant's claim that he had been threatened into executing the extra-judicial confession in question
appears to be more of an afterthought than a valid claim. The confession document was executed freely and voluntarily
and the only reason that prompted the accused to do so was that he had been promised immunity from prosecution as
he would be utilized as a government witness. In fact, in the complaint filed before the Justice of the Peace Court of
Placer, Surigao Ignacio Calvario was merely listed as one of the witnesses for the prosecution. However, after the
preliminary investigation, the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Surigao for trial wherein a re-
investigation was conducted, during which time Ignacio Calvario turned hostile, so that he was included in the
information as one of the accused.
 Thus, because of the hostility and denial of the accused of the facts he first revealed in his confession, the
appellant was not used as a government witness anymore. This Court has earlier held that where one of several co-
defendants tums state's evidence on a promise of immunity by the prosecuting attorney, but later retracts and fails to
keep his part of the agreement, his confession made under such a promise may then be used against him. In view
thereof, the extra-judicial confession of the appellant is admissible as evidence against him
2. Here, since the extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence may be used against the appellant, he is found
guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. The evidence thus presented proves conspiracy and that appellant not
only knew of the plan to rob Gregoria Nuñez, but also participated in its commission by previous and simultaneous acts
which lent to the accomplishment of the criminal intent. Although the appellant may not have foreseen the killing of
the victim and did not take part in its execution, he is nevertheless guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. The
rule is that when homicide takes place as a consequence of or on the Occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in
the robbery shall be guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless there is proof that they have tried
to prevent the killing. Here, there is nothing in the record which would tend to show that the appellant ever attempted
to prevent the homicide.

RULING
Modified in the manner above indicated, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, affirmed with
costs against appelant.

SO ORDERED.
2-S 2016-17 (SALANGUIT)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/oct1977/gr_23092_1977.html