February 17, 2000
They scratched some loose earth aside and Editha’s hand pitted
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
RADEL GALLARDE, accused-appellant.
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
NATURE: Appeal from conviction by the RTC
SUMMARY: Gallarde was charged with rape with homicide for having caused the death (and
suspected rape – never proven) of Editha Talan, 10 years old. While no one had seen him
commit the crime, the circumstances surrounding the apprehension of the accused by his
neighbors hours after the victim had gone missing were deemed to be sufficient to warrant
conviction by the court. Apart from convicting him of the higher offense of murder, however, the
trial court declared photographs of the accused taken immediately after his arrest inadmissible
for being violative of the right against self-incrimination, noting that he was all alone with the
police when the photos were taken. The SC ruled otherwise, explaining that the right in custodial
investigations covered only testimonial compulsions.
DOCTRINE:
 The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is,
the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act. Purely mechanical
acts such as the taking of photographs are not included in the prohibition, and may
thus be done even without the presence of counsel.
FACTS:
 Accused was charged with having committed rape with homicide against 10-year-old
victim Editha Talan.
 The facts as established by the prosecution are as follows:
o One evening, at the house of spouses Eduardo and Elena Talan, their
neighbors converged for a drinking session, and among them was accused
Gallarde. Idling by was Editha, 10-year-old daughter of the spouses.
o Later on a couple of guests (including accused) were invited to dine in the
kitchen. While they were eating, accused suddenly left. Another guest
stepped out to urinate. Outside the house he chanced upon accused and
Editha talking to each other. He whistled at accused but the latter sprinted
towards the road leading to his house. Editha thereafter took a kerosene
lamp and told the guest that she would look for the accused.
o Around 10pm, when the drinking buddies had dispersed and a handful
regrouped at another’s house, Roger arrived and informed them that Editha
was missing. (NOTE: idk who he is because the case said the spouse is
Eduardo, but the name doesn’t appear elsewhere and sya rin nag invite sa
kitchen earlier on so baka mali lang talaga yung Eduardo haha) The
remaining neighbors thus formed asearch party of sorts to look for the
missing child. When it was mentioned that she was last seen talking to
accused, they went back to the house of the accused. About 7m away from
his house they found Editha’s left foot slipper.
o Six meters away from appellant’s house was his toilet, and there they found
him squatting with his shorts, hands and nees covered with soil. He claimed
he was relieving himself. He denied any knowledge of Editha’s
whereabouts, claiming that he was asleep at Kiko’s house. Only, one of the
searchers got angry at this excuse because Kiko was in fact with him,
drinking.
o Accused was brought to the Brgy. Captain. Meanwhile, back in the field, one
of the searchers tripped on wet ground. As she reached for her slipper, she
saw Editha’s right foot slipper. Three meters farther was another slipper, an
old one, 8 to 9 in long. Accused was seen wearing it that morning.
Searchers thereafter noticed disheveled grasses, and among the grass a
wide hole.
out.
o The Barangay Captain heard the shouts saying Editha was there, dead. He
decided to bring accused to the municipal building, but on his way there he
met policemen and so turned him over to them. The policemen together with
accused proceeded to where the others found Editha. The lifeless girl was
completely naked when she was recovered.
o The cause of Editha's death as revealed in the post-mortem examination
showed "suffocation of the lungs as a result from powerful covering of the
nose and mouth, associated with laceration of the vagina and raptured
hymen.”
 Gallarde on the other hand was the lone witness for the defense. He denied
everything and claimed he was at home with his mother and brothers at the time the
crime occurred.
 The RTC convicted him of murder and not of rape with homicide because there was
lack of proof of carnal knowledge. The court also rejected the photographs of
Gallarde presented by the prosecution in evidence taken immediately after the
incident on the ground that the same were taken while the accused was already
at the mercy of the police.
ISSUE:
1. W/N the photographs violated the right against self-incrimination and were therefore
inadmissible. NO (relevant to topic)
2. W/N accused may be convicted of an offense higher than that with which he is
charged in the information. NO
3. W/N the circumstantial evidence were sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. YES
RATIO:
1. Right against self incrimination
 The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the
use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused
and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. Purely
mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not
thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not
required. The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial
compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial
act. Examples:
o Pregnancy test for adultery case
o Physical exam/ drug test
o Measure foot size to compare with bloody footprints
o Be photographed or measured, or garments or shoes removed or
replaced
 The taking of pictures of an accused even without the assistance of counsel,
being a purely mechanical act, is not a violation of his constitutional right against
self-incrimination.
2. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
 There was no allegation of any qualifying circumstance. Although "homicide" as
used in special complex crime of rape with homicide is to be understood in its
generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by
reason or on the occasion of rape,13 it is settled in this jurisdiction that where a
complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one
of the component offense, the accused can be convicted of the other. In rape
with homicide, in order to be convicted of murder in case the evidence fails to
support the charge of rape, the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently
 alleged and proved. Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of the accused to
be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. It is
fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint
or information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to
be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his
defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense.
 In the absence then in the information of an allegation of any qualifying
circumstance, GALLARDE cannot be convicted of murder. An accused cannot be
convicted of an offense higher than that with which he is charged in the complaint
or information under which he is tried. It matters not how conclusive and
convincing the evidence of guilt may be, but an accused cannot be convicted of
any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information for which he is
tried, or is necessarily included in that which is charged. He has a right to be
informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on
trial. To convict an accused of a higher offense than that charged in the
complaint or information under which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial
of that right.
3. Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence
 conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the
established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to one
fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of
all others, as the guilty person, i.e., the circumstances proved must be consistent
with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at
the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty.

DISPOSITIVE: Decision of RTC modified. Guilty of homicide only.