8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

1/85

G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs.

HON. JUDGE RUBEN AYSON, P!"#$#%& o'! B(%)* +, R!o%(l T#(l

ou-, F#"- Ju$#)#(l R!o%, B(&u#o #-y, (%$ FELIPERAOS, respondents.

Nelson Lidua for private respondent.

NAR/ASA, J

.0

What has given rise to the controversy at bar is the equation by the

respondent Judge of the right of an individual not to "be compelled to be a

witness against himself"

accorded by Section 20, Article III of theConstitution, ith the right of any person "under investigation for the

commission of an offense . . . to remain silent and to counsel, and to be

informed of such right,"

granted by the sa!e provision. "he relevant facts

are not disputed.

#rivate respondent $elipe %a!os as a tic&et freight cler& of the

#hilippine Airlines '#A(), assigned at its *aguio City station. It having

allegedly co!e to light that he as involved in irregularities in the sales of

plane tic&ets, 1the #A( !anage!ent notified hi! of an investigation to be

conducted into the !atter of $ebruary +, +-. "hat investigation as

scheduled in accordance ith #A(/s Code of Conduct and iscipline, andthe Collective *argaining Agree!ent signed by it ith the #hilippine

Airlines 1!ployees/ Association '#A(1A) to hich %a!os pertained.2

n the day before the investigation, $ebruary -,+-, %a!os gave to his

superiors a handritten notes reading as follos3

24-4-

" W56 I" 6A7 C8C1%83

"51 981%SI:81 W9( (I;1 " S"A"1 "5A" 51 IS WI((I8: "

S1""(1 I%%1:9(A%I"I1S A((1:1(7 C5A%:1

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

2/85

.. ith unfaithfulness and?or abuse of confidence, did then and there

illfully ... defraud the #hilippine Airlines, Inc., *aguio *ranch, ... in the

folloing !anner, to it3 said accused ... having been entrusted ith and

received in trust fare tic&ets of passengers for one4ay trip and round4trip

in the total a!ount of #=,=00.F, ith the epress obligation to re!it all

the proceeds of the sale, account for it and?or to return those unsold, ...once in possession thereof and instead of co!plying ith his obligation,

ith intent to defraud, did then and there ... !isappropriate, !isapply and

convert the value of the tic&ets in the su! of #=,=00.F and in spite of

repeated de!ands, ... failed and refused to !a&e good his obligation, to

the da!age and preGudice of the offended party .. .

n arraign!ent on this charge, $elipe %a!os entered a plea of B8ot

:uilty,B and trial thereafter ensued. "he prosecution of the case as

underta&en by layers of #A( under the direction and supervision of the

$iscal.

At the close of the people/s case, the private prosecutors !ade a ritten

offer of evidence dated June 2, +--, +hich included Bthe 'above

!entioned) state!ent of accused $elipe J. %a!os ta&en on $ebruary +,

+- at #A( *aguio City "ic&et ffice,B hich had been !ar&ed as 1hibit

A, as ell as his Bhandritten ad!ission given on $ebruary -, +-,B

also above referred to, hich had been !ar&ed as 1hibit ;.

"he defendant/s attorneys filed BbGections?Co!!ents to #laintiff s

1vidence.B7#articularly as regards the peoples/ 1hibit A, the obGectionas that Bsaid docu!ent, hich appears to be a confession, as ta&en

ithout the accused being represented by a layer.B 1hibit ; as

obGected to Bfor the sa!e reasons interposed under 1hibits /A/ and /J./

*y rder dated August +, +--, 8the respondent Gudge ad!itted all the

ehibits Bas part of the testi!ony of the itnesses ho testified in

connection thereith and for hatever they are orth,B ecept 1hibits A

and ;, hich it reGected. 5is 5onor declared 1hibit A Binad!issible in

evidence, it appearing that it is the state!ent of accused $elipe %a!os

ta&en on $ebruary +, +- at #A( *aguio City "ic&et ffice, in an

investigation conducted by the *ranch 6anager since it does not

appear that the accused as re!inded of this constitutional rights to

re!ain silent and to have counsel, and that hen he aived the sa!e and

gave his state!ent, it as ith the assistance actually of a counsel.B 5ealso declared inad!issible B1hibit ;, the handritten ad!ission !ade by

accused $elipe J. %a!os, given on $ebruary -, +- for the sa!e

reason stated in the eclusion of 1hibit /A/ since it does not appear that

the accused as assisted by counsel hen he !ade said ad!ission.B

"he private prosecutors filed a !otion for reconsideration. 9It as denied,

by rder dated Septe!ber H, +--. 13In Gustification of said rder,respondent Judge invo&ed this Court/s rulings in Morales, Jr. v. Juan

Ponce Enrile, et al., 2 SC%A F-, People v. Galit, F SC%A

H=,People. v. ison, H2 SC%A 2+, and People v. !ecierdo, H+ SC%A

H+, a!ong others, to the effect that Bin custodial investigations the right to

counsel !ay be aived but the aiver shall not be valid unless !ade ith

the assistance of counsel,B and the eplicit precept in the present

Constitution that the rights in custodial investigation Bcannot be aived

ecept in riting and in the presence of counsel.B 5e pointed out that the

investigation of $elipe %a!os at the #A( *aguio Station as one Bfor the

offense of allegedly !isappropriating the proceeds of the tic&ets issued to

hi!/ and therefore clearly fell Bithin the coverage of the constitutional

provisionsDB and the fact that %a!os as not detained at the ti!e, or the

investigation as ad!inistrative in character could not operate to ecept

the case Bfro! the a!bit of the constitutional provision cited.B

"hese rders, of August +, +-- and Septe!ber H, +-- are no

assailed in the petition for certiorari and prohibition at bar, filed in this

Court by the private prosecutors in the na!e of the #eople of the

#hilippines. *y %esolution dated ctober 2, +--, the Court required

Judge Ayson and $elipe %a!os to co!!ent on the petition, and directed

issuance of a B"16#%A%7 %1S"%AI8I8: %1% . . . 18JI8I8: the

2

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

3/85

respondents fro! proceeding further ith the trial and?or hearing of

Cri!inal Case 8o. H--4% '#eople ... vs. $elipe %a!os), including the

issuance of any order, decision or Gudg!ent in the aforesaid case or on

any !atter in relation to the sa!e case, no pending before the %egional

"rial Court of *aguio City, *r. , $irst Judicial %egion.B "he Court also

subsequently required the Solicitor :eneral to co!!ent on the petition."he co!!ents of Judge Ayson, $elipe %a!os, and the Solicitor :eneral

have all been filed. "he Solicitor :eneral has !ade co!!on cause ith

the petitioner and prays Bthat the petition be given due course and

thereafter Gudg!ent be rendered setting aside respondent Judge/s rders .

. . and ordering hi! to ad!it 1hibits /A/ and /;/ of the prosecution.B "he

Solicitor :eneral has thereby re!oved hatever i!propriety !ight have

attended the institution of the instant action in the na!e of the #eople of

the #hilippines by layers de parteof the offended party in the cri!inal

action in question.

"he Court dee!s that there has been full ventilation of the issue E of

hether or not it as grave abuse of discretion for respondent Judge to

have ecluded the #eople/s 1hibits A and ;. It ill no proceed to resolve

it.

At the core of the controversy is Section 20, Article I< of the +=

Constitution, 11to hich respondent Judge has given a construction that is

disputed by the #eople. "he section reads as follos3

S1C. 20. 8o person shall be co!pelled to be a itness against hi!self

Any person under investigation for the co!!ission of an offense shall

have the right to re!ain silent and to counsel, and to be infor!ed of such

right. 8o force, violence, threat, inti!idation, or any other !eans hich

vitiates the free ill shall be used against hi!. Any confession obtained in

violation of this section shall be inad!issible in evidence.

It should at once be apparent that there are to '2) rights, or sets of rights,

dealt ith in the section, na!ely3

) the right against self4incri!ination E i.e., the right of a person not to be

co!pelled to be a itness against hi!self E set out in the f irst sentence,

hich is a verbati! reproduction of Section -, Article III of the +F

Constitution, and is si!ilar to that accorded by the $ifth A!end!ent of the

A!erican Constitution, 12and

2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e., the rights of every

suspect Bunder investigation for the co!!ission of an offense.B

#arenthetically, the +-= Constitution indicates !uch !ore clearly the

individuality and disparateness of these rights. It has placed the rights in

separate sections. "he right against self4 incri!ination, B8o person shall

be co!pelled to be a itness against hi!self,B is no e!bodied in Section

=, Article III of the +-= Constitution. "he lights of a person in custodial

interrogation, hich have been !ade !ore eplicit, are no contained in

Section 2 of the sa!e Article III. 1

%ight Against Self4Incri!ination

"he first right, against self4incri!ination, !entioned in Section 20, Article

I< of the += Constitution, is accorded to every person ho gives

evidence, hether voluntarily or under co!pulsion of subpoena, in any

civil, cri!inal, or ad!inistrative proceeding. 1"he right is 8" to Bbeco!pelled to be a itness against hi!selfB

"he precept set out in that first sentence has a settled !eaning. 15Itprescribes an Boption of refusal to anser incri!inating questions and not

a prohibition of inquiry.B

1+

It si!ply secures to a itness, hether he be aparty or not, the right to refue to anser any particular incri!inatoryquestion, i.e., one the anser to hich has a tendency to incri!inate hi!

for so!e cri!e. 5oever, the right can be clai!ed only hen the specific

question, incri!inatory in character, is actually put to the itness. It cannot

be clai!ed at any other ti!e. It does not give a itness the right to

disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the ti!e

3

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

4/85

appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. "he itness receiving a

subpoena !ust obey it, appear as required, ta&e the stand, be sorn and

anser questions. It is only hen a particular question is addressed to

hi!, the anser to hich !ay incri!inate hi! for so!e offense, that he

!ay refuse to anser on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.

"hat first sentence of Section 20, Article I< of the += Constitution does

not i!pose on the Gudge, or other officer presiding over a trial, hearing or

investigation, any affir!ative obligation to advise a itness of his right

against self4incri!ination. It is a right that a itness &nos or should &no,

in accordance ith the ell &non aio! that every one is presu!ed to

&no the la, that ignorance of the la ecuses no one. $urther!ore, in

the very nature of things, neither the Gudge nor the itness can be

epected to &no in advance the character or effect of a question to be put

to the latter. 17

"he right against self4incri!ination is not self4 eecuting or auto!aticallyoperational. It !ust be clai!ed. If not clai!ed by or in behalf of the

itness, the protection does not co!e into play. It follos that the right

!ay be aived, epressly, or i!pliedly, as by a failure to clai! it at the

appropriate ti!e. 18

%ights in Custodial Interrogation

Section 20, Article I< of the += Constitution also treats of a second right,

or better said, group of rights. "hese rights apply to persons Bunder

investigation for the co!!ission of an offense,B i.e., BsuspectsB under

investigation by police authoritiesD and this is hat !a&es these rights

different fro! that e!bodied in the first sentence, that against self4

incri!ination hich, as aforestated, indiscri!inately applies to any person

testifying in any proceeding, civil, cri!inal, or ad!inistrative.

"his provision granting eplicit rights to persons under investigation for an

offense as not in the +F Constitution. It is avoedly derived fro! the

decision of the 9.S. Supre!e Court in 6iranda v. Ari@ona, 19a decision

described as an Bearthqua&e in the orld of la enforce!ent.B 23

Section 20 states that henever any person is Bunder investigation for the

co!!ission of an offenseB44

) he shall have the right to re!ain silent and to counsel, and to be

infor!ed of such right, 21

2) nor force, violence, threat, inti!idation, or any other !eans hich

vitiates the free ill shall be used against hi!D 22and

) any confession obtained in violation of 'these rights shall be

inad!issible in evidence. 2

In 6iranda, Chief Justice Warren su!!ari@ed the procedural safeguards

laid don for a person in police custody, Bin4custody interrogationB beingregarded as the co!!ence!ent of an adversary proceeding against the

suspect.2

5e !ust be arned prior to any questioning that he has the right to re!ain

silent, that anything he says can be used against hi! in a court of la, that

he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford

an attorney one ill be appointed for hi! prior to any questioning if he so

desires. pportunity to eercise those rights !ust be afforded to hi!

throughout the interrogation. After such arnings have been given, such

opportunity afforded hi!, the individual !ay &noingly and intelligently

aive these rights and agree to anser or !a&e a state!ent. *ut unlessand until such arnings and aivers are de!onstrated by the prosecution

at the trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used

against hi!.

4

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

5/85

"he obGective is to prohibit Binco!!unicado interrogation of individuals in a

police4do!inated at!osphere, resulting in self4incri!inating state!ent

ithout full arnings of constitutional rights.B 25

"he rights above specified, to repeat, eist only in Bcustodial

interrogations,B or Bin4custody interrogation of accused persons.B2+

And, asthis Court has already stated, by custodial interrogation is !eant

Bquestioning initiated by la enforce!ent officers after a person has been

ta&en into custody or otherise deprived of his freedo! of action in any

significant ay.B 27"he situation conte!plated has also been !ore

precisely described by this Court.B 28

.. . After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a

confrontation arises hich at best !ay be tanned unequal. "he detainee is

brought to an ar!y ca!p or police headquarters and there questioned and

Bcross4ea!inedB not only by one but as !any investigators as !ay be

necessary to brea& don his !orale. 5e finds hi!self in strange andunfa!iliar surroundings, and every person he !eets he considers hostile

to hi!. "he investigators are ell4trained and seasoned in their or&. "hey

e!ploy all the !ethods and !eans that eperience and study have taught

the! to etract the truth, or hat !ay pass for it, out of the detainee. 6ost

detainees are unlettered and are not aare of their constitutional rights.

And even if they ere, the inti!idating and coercive presence of the

officers of the la in such an at!osphere overhel!s the! into silence.

Section 20 of the *ill of %ights see&s to re!edy this i!balance.

8ot every state!ent !ade to the police by a person involved in so!e

cri!e is ithin the scope of the constitutional protection. If not !ade

Bunder custodial interrogation,B or Bunder investigation for the co!!ission

of an offense,B the state!ent is not protected. "hus, in one case, 29here

a person ent to a police precinct and before any sort of investigation

could be initiated, declared that he as giving hi!self up for the &illing of

an old o!an because she as threatening to &ill hi! by barang, or

itchcraft, this Court ruled that such a state!ent as ad!issible,

co!pliance ith the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation not

being eigible under the circu!stances.

%ights of efendant in Cri!inal Case

As %egards :iving of "esti!ony

It is pertinent at this point to inquire hether the rights Gust discussed, i.e.,

') that against self4incri!ination and '2) those during custodial

interrogation apply to persons under preli!inary investigation or already

charged in court for a cri!e.

It see!s quite evident that a defendant on trial or under preli!inary

investigation is not under custodial interrogation. 5is interrogation by the

police, if any there had been ould already have been ended at the ti!e of

the filing of the cri!inal case in court 'or the public prosecutors/ office).

5ence, ith respect to a defendant in a cri!inal case already pending incourt 'or the public prosecutor/s office), there is no occasion to spea& of

his right hile under Bcustodial interrogationB laid don by the second and

subsequent sentences of Section 20, Article I< of the += Constitution,

for the obvious reason that he is no longer under Bcustodial interrogation.B

*ut unquestionably, the accused in court 'or undergoing preli!inary

investigation before the public prosecutor), in co!!on ith all other

persons, possesses the right against self4 incri!ination set out in the first

sentence of Section 20 Article I< of the += Constitution, i.e., the right to

refuse to anser a specific incri!inatory question at the ti!e that it is put

to hi!. 3

Additionally, the accused in a cri!inal case in court has other rights in the

!atter of giving testi!ony or refusing to do so. An accused Boccupies a

different tier of protection fro! an ordinary itness.B 9nder the %ules of

Court, in all cri!inal prosecutions the defendant is entitled a!ong others4

5

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

6/85

) to be ee!pt fro! being a itness against hi!self, 1and 2) to testify as

itness in his on behalfD but if he offers hi!self as a itness he !ay be

cross4ea!ined as any other itnessD hoever, his neglect or refusal to be

a itness shall not in any !anner preGudice or be used against hi!. 2

"he right of the defendant in a cri!inal case Bto be ee!pt fro! being aitness against hi!self/ signifies that he cannot be co!pelled to testify or

produce evidence in the cri!inal case in hich he is the accused, or one

of the accused. 5e cannot be co!pelled to do so even by subpoena or

other process or order of the Court. 5e cannot be required to be a itness

either for the prosecution, or for a co4accused, or even for hi!self. In

other ords E unli&e an ordinary itness 'or a party in a civil action) ho

!ay be co!pelled to testify by subpoena, having only the right to refuse to

anser a particular incri!inatory question at the ti!e it is put to hi!4the

defendant in a cri!inal action can refuse to testify altogether. 5e can

refuse to ta&e the itness stand, be sorn, anser any question. And,

as the la categorically states, Bhis neglect or refusal to be a itness shall

not in any !anner preGudice or be used against hi!.B 5

If he should ish to testify in his on behalf, hoever, he !ay do so. "his

is his right. *ut if he does testify, then he B!ay be cross4 ea!ined as any

other itness.B 5e !ay be cross4ea!ined as to any !atters stated in his

direct ea!ination, or connected thereith . +5e !ay not on cross4ea!ination refuse to anser any question on the ground that the anser

that he ill give, or the evidence he ill produce, ould have a tendency to

incri!inate hi! for the cri!e ith hich he is charged.

It !ust hoever be !ade clear that if the defendant in a cri!inal action be

as&ed a question hich !ight incri!inate hi!, not for the cri!e ith hich

he is charged, but for so!e other cri!e, distinct fro! that of hich he is

accused, he !ay decline to anser that specific question, on the strength

of the right against self4incri!ination granted by the first sentence of

Section 20, Article I< of the += Constitution 'no Section = of the +-=

Constitution). "hus, assu!ing that in a prosecution for !urder, the

accused should testify in his behalf, he !ay not on cross4ea!ination

refuse to anser any question on the ground that he !ight be i!plicated in

that cri!e of !urderD but he !ay decline to anser any particular question

hich !ight i!plicate hi! for a different and distinct offense, say, estafa.

In fine, a person suspected of having co!!itted a cri!e and subsequentlycharged ith its co!!ission in court, has the folloing rights in the !atter

of his testifying or producing evidence, to it3

) *1$%1 "51 CAS1 IS $I(1 I8 C9%" 'or ith the public

prosecutor, for preli!inary investigation), but after having been ta&en into

custody or otherise deprived of his liberty in so!e significant ay, and on

being interrogated by the police3 the continuing right to re!ain silent and to

counsel, and to be infor!ed thereof, not to be subGected to force, violence,

threat, inti!idation or any other !eans hich vitiates the free illD and to

have evidence obtained in violation of these rights reGectedD and

2) A$"1% "51 CAS1 IS $I(1 I8 C9%" E 7

a) to refuse to be a itnessD

b) not to have any preGudice hatsoever result to hi! by such refusalD

c) to testify in his on behalf, subGect to cross4ea!ination by the

prosecutionD

d) W5I(1 "1S"I$7I8:, to refuse to anser a specific question hich

tends to incri!inate hi! for so!e cri!e other than that for hich he is thenprosecuted.

It should by no be abundantly apparent that respondent Judge has

!isapprehended the nature and i!port of the disparate rights set forth in

Section 20, Article I< of the += Constitution. 5e has ta&en the! as

6

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

7/85

applying to the sa!e Guridical situation, equating one ith the other. In so

doing, he has grossly erred. "o be sure, 5is 5onor sought to substantiate

his thesis by argu!ents he too& to be cogent and logical. "he thesis as

hoever so far divorced fro! the actual and correct state of the

constitutional and legal principles involved as to !a&e application of said

thesis to the case before hi! tanta!ount to totally unfounded, hi!sicalor capricious eercise of poer. 5is rders ere thus rendered ith grave

abuse of discretion. "hey should be as they are hereby, annulled and set

aside.

It is clear fro! the undisputed facts of this case that $elipe %a!os as not

in any sense under custodial interrogation, as the ter! should be properly

understood, prior to and during the ad!inistrative inquiry into the

discovered irregularities in tic&et sales in hich he appeared to have had a

hand. "he constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation

under Section 20, Article I< of the += Constitution did not therefore

co!e into play, ere of no relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that

%a!os had voluntarily ansered questions posed to hi! on the first day of

the ad!inistrative investigation, $ebruary +, +- and agreed that the

proceedings should be recorded, the record having thereafter been

!ar&ed during the trial of the cri!inal action subsequently filed against hi!

as 1hibit A, Gust as it is obvious that the note 'later !ar&ed as 1hibit ;)

that he sent to his superiors on $ebruary -,+-, the day before the

investigation, offering to co!pro!ise his liability in the alleged

irregularities, as a free and even spontaneous act on his part. "hey !ay

not be ecluded on the ground that the so4called B6iranda rightsB had not

been accorded to %a!os.

5is 5onor adverts to hat he perceives to be the Bgreater danger 'of)

the violation of the right of any person against self4incri!ination hen the

investigation is conducted by the co!plaining parties, co!plaining

co!panies, or co!plaining e!ployers because being interested parties,

unli&e the police agencies ho have no propriety or pecuniary interest to

protect, they !ay in their over4eagerness or @ealousness bear heavily on

their hapless suspects, hether e!ployees or not, to give state!ents

under an at!osphere of !oral coercion, undue ascendancy and undue

influence.B It suffices to dra attention to the specific and pere!ptory

require!ent of the la that disciplinary sanctions !ay not be i!posed on

any e!ployee by his e!ployer until and unless the e!ployee has been

accorded due process, by hich is !eant that the latter !ust be infor!edof the offenses ascribed to hi! and afforded adequate ti!e and

opportunity to eplain his side. "he require!ent entails the !a&ing of

state!ents, oral or ritten, by the e!ployee under such ad!inistrative

investigation in his defense, ith opportunity to solicit the assistance of

counsel, or his colleagues and friends. "he e!ployee !ay, of course,

refuse to sub!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 ould be absurd to reGect his state!ents, hether at the ad!inistrative

investigation, or at a subsequent cri!inal action brought against hi!,

because he had not been accorded, prior to his !a&ing and presenting

the!, his B6iranda rightsB 'to silence and to counsel and to be infor!ed

thereof, etc.) hich, to repeat, are relevant only in custodial investigations.

Indeed, it is self4evident that the e!ployee/s state!ents, hether called

Bposition paper,B Banser,B etc., are sub!itted by hi! precisely so that they

!ay be ad!itted and duly considered by the investigating officer or

co!!ittee, in negation or !itigation of his liability.

f course the possibility cannot be discounted that in certain instances the

Gudge/s epressed apprehensions !ay be reali@ed, that violence or

inti!idation, undue pressure or influence be brought to bear on an

e!ployee under investigation E or for that !atter, on a person being

interrogated by another ho! he has supposedly offended. In such an

event, any ad!ission or confession rung fro! the person under

interrogation ould be inad!issible in evidence, on proof of the vice or

defect vitiating consent, not because of a violation of Section 20, Article I (%$ =ILFREDO TOLENDOY

BLANAFLOR,defendants4appellants.

&he olicitor General for plaintiff8appellee.

'iti#ens Legal ssistance (ff we for defendants8appellants.

ORTES,J.:

"he accused $elino Aleta, rlando "onil, $elipe Lurbito,

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

33/85

nly accused > >

W51%1$%1, pre!ises considered, the Court finds the

accused

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

34/85

she as shot by "olendoy *lancaflor and hit at the bac&

felling her. She identified to of the robbers ho entered

the house as

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

35/85

"hese inconsistencies, though do not detract fro! the positiveness of the

Identification of the appellants. 8ora *eloso, hen confronted by the trial

court ith the fact that her husband had earlier testified that "olendoy

*lancaflor as not one of the three robbers ho entered the house gave a

convincing eplanation. According to her, her husband and

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

36/85

Accordingly, since the rule in conspiracy is that every conspirator is

responsible for the acts of others done in pursuance of the conspiracy

Q#eople v. #areGa, :.%. 8o. (42+=, 8ove!ber 2+, ++, 0 SC%A +R,

Alvare@ and *lancaflor can be held liable for the act of the robber ho shot

1velyn *acaresas, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical

inGuries. (i&eise, they should be held accountable for the act of another

robber hose identity hoever as not established, in shooting Severino

6alapitan, Jr., resulting in the latter/s death. $or hen a group of

!alefactors conspire to co!!it robbery and ar! the!selves for the

purpose, no !e!ber of the group !ay disclai! responsibility for any act of

violence that is perpetrated by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Such

violence is alays reasonably to be epected, either to overco!e active

opposition or to forestall it altogether by disabling the victi! at the very

outset, or even to silence hi! co!pletely thereafter Q#eople v. 1speGo,

:.%. 8o. (42==0-, ece!ber +, +=0, SC%A H00.R

In su!, the appellants/ atte!pt at casting doubt upon their identification by

the prosecution itnesses as the !alefactors is futile. "his Court hasalready ruled that despite the suddenness of the robbery and the absence

of a shoing as to its duration or the nu!ber of ti!es the robbers ere

seen by the eyeitnesses, the latter/s identification of the !alefactors can

be given credence. $or the victi! or his relatives ho actually itnessed

the robbery ould strive to re!e!ber the uncovered faces of the

!alefactors Q#eople v. Cru@, :I( 8o. (4==, 8ove!ber 2+, +-H,

SC%A H2.R

n the other hand, appellants defense is anchored pri!arily on alibi, an

inherently ea& defense. Appellants clai!ed that on the particular date

and ti!e hen the robbery too& place, they ere in :igatanga, 6abini,8abal, (eyte. According to the appellants, they left for :igatangan on June

2=, +=- on board a pu!p boat oned by Alvare@ hich as hired by one

%udy Salut to fetch his parents. 5oever, they ere not able to bring ith

the! the parents of Salut hen they left the place on July F, +=-. "hey

ad!itted, though that on said date, they spent the night in 8aro, iot,

Caayan, 6asbate due to engine trouble. According to the!, it as there

that they ca!e to &no of the robbery as the people there suspected the!

of being the robbers Q"S8, August =, +=, p. F.R

It is ele!entary that in cases of positive identification of the culprit by

reliable itnesses, the defense of alibi !ust be established by Bfull, clear

and satisfactory evidenceB Q9.S. v. #ascua, #hil. '+0)D 9.S. v.

#ascua, 2+ #hil. F-= '+F)D #eople v. #ili, F #hil. +F '+2).R "he

evidence presented by the defense on their alibi is far fro! being Bfull,

clear and satisfactory/. n this point, the trial court said3

#assing on the defense of alibi by both accused, the court

cannot help but find it a convenient coincidence that of the

seven accused the only to accused ho are under

custody and under trial are together in the sa!e alibi.

Another coincidence hich !a&es one onder is the fact

that the defense itness supplying alibi to the to

accused has the sa!e surna!e as the accused ho

escaped fro! the custody of the Court, na!ely,

#A:A78A8 Q%ollo, p. 2.R

"his "ribunal has laid don the rule that for the defense of alibi to prosper,

it is not enough to prove that the accused as so!ehere else hen the

cri!e as co!!itted but he !ust li&eise de!onstrate that it as

physically i!possible for hi! to have been at the scene of the cri!e

Q#eople v. *enaraba, :.%. 8o. (42-F, 6ay -, +-H, 2+ SC%A 2.R In

this case, the appellants failed to sho such physical i!possibility. n thecontrary, defense itness 1!!a #agayonan testified that it ta&es only

eight to nine hours to travel by !otorboat fro! :igatangan, (eyte to

6ilagros, 6asbate Q"S8, August =, +-, p. F.R

36

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

37/85

1ven if e grant the truth of the appellants/ story that they ere in (eyte

since June 2=, +=-, it is not physically i!possible for the! to have gone

to 6ilagros 6asbate on July , +=- considering that they had an

available !eans of transportation, i.e., the !otorboat oned by Alvare@. It

should be pointed out that according to the testi!ony of the prosecution

itnesses, the robbers in this case fled fro! the scene using a !otorboat

Q".S.8., Septe!ber H, +- , p. H.R

"o corroborate appellants/ clai! that they ere in (eyte at the ti!e of the

incident, the defense presented 1!!a Salut #agayonan, sister of %udy

Salut, the person ho hired Alvare@/ boat for use in (eyte. 5er testi!ony,

hoever as shon to be unreliable upon a rigid cross4ea!ination by the

prosecuting fiscal. "he fiscal as able to elicit an ad!ission that 1!!a

#agayonan is a resident of Salvacion, *alud, 6asbate and that she had no

other evidence to sho that she had resided in :igatangan, 6abini, 8abal,

(eyte in +=-, ecept her birth certificate, hich hoever as never

presented to the trial court for confir!ation of her clai! Q"S8, August =,

+-, p. .R

:ranting for the sa&e of argu!ent the veracity of her clai! that appellants

stayed in :igatangan fro! June 2=, to July F, +=-, the defense of alibi

!ust nevertheless fail. 1!!a #agayonan as not able to satisfactorily

and clearly account for the hereabouts of the appellants on the particular

date and ti!e hen the cri!e as perpetrated. All that she testified to as

that the appellants stayed in their place during the designated period but

she never clai!ed &noledge of hat eactly the appellants ere doing,

or here the appellants ere, on the night in question.

Aside fro! 1!!a #agayonan, the other persons, li&e %udy Salut, hocould have corroborated their alibi ere not presented to the itness stand

for no apparent reason at all. "his "ribunal had occasion to state in People

v. Mendo#a Q00 #hil. - '+F=)R that the defense of alibi !erits outright

reGection here it could have been corroborated by other persons and yet,

no such corroborating evidence as presented.

Appellants sought to eculpate the!selves by presenting the sorn

state!ent of a certain (ino $enis,VVV !ar&ed as 1hibit BH/ after having

been properly identified by at. Winnie %uga of the I8# 6andaon #olice

Station, attesting to the fact that another group as responsible for the

robbery QSee riginal records, p. 22, et seq. R 5oever, the sa!e has no

probative value. An affidavit is inad!issible under the hearsay rule unless

the affiant is presented on the itness stand to testify thereon Q#eople v.

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

38/85

should be !erged in the co!posite, integrated hole, that is robbery ith

ho!icide, it being evident that the &illing and the physical inGuries ere

perpetrated ith the sole end in vie of eli!inating opposition to the

robbery or oppressing the evidence, or both Q#eople v. :enoguin, :.%. 8o.

(420+, 6arch 2-, +=H, F SC%A -.R 5ere, the offense as

co!!itted by a band as defined in Article 2+ of the %evised #enal Code

hich states3 BWhen !ore than three ar!ed !alefactors ta&e part in the

co!!ission of robbery, it shall be dee!ed to have been co!!itted by a

band. . . .B "he *eloso spouses testified that the three robbers ho

entered the house ere all ar!ed hile another prosecution itness,

8onilon %itos, as able to prove that the four other robbers left outside the

house as guards ere li&eise ar!ed Q"S8, 6arch =, +-2, p. 0.R

9nder the prevailing Gurisprudence, if robbery ith ho!icide is co!!itted

by a band, the offense is deno!inated as B robbery ith ho!icideB under

Article 2+H'l) of the %evised #enal Code ith the ele!ent of band as an

ordinary aggravating circu!stance Q#eople v. Cru@, supra, p. H.R Since

the death penalty can not presently be i!posed under the +-=Constitution, the penalty for robbery ith ho!icide under Article 2+H ') of

the %evised #enal Code is no only reclusion perpetua.espite the

eistence of a !itigating circu!stance of voluntary surrender in favor of

the appellants and an aggravating circu!stance of band, the sa!e cannot

be considered for purposes of !eting out the appropriate penalty in this

case. Article of the %evised #enal Code !andates that in all cases in

hich the la prescribes a single indivisible penalty such as reclusion

perpetua for robbery ith ho!icide, it shall be applied by the courts

regardless of any !itigating or aggravating circu!stances that !ay have

attended the co!!ission of the deed.

W51%1$%1, the instant appeal is hereby IS6ISS1 and Gudg!ent of

the %egional "rial Court is A$$I%61 ith !odification as to the

deno!ination of the cri!e co!!itted hich should be Brobbery ith

ho!icideB under Article 2+H ') of the %evised #enal Code.

S %1%1.

G.R. No. 73+ J(%u(y 1, 1989

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff4appellee,vs.

/IENTE AL/ARE>, =ILFREDO BLANAFLOR, FELINO ALETA,ORLANDO TONIL, FELIPE >URBITO (%$ ROGELIO PAGAYONAN,

38

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

39/85

$!;!%$(%-", /IENTE AL/ARE> (%$ =ILFREDO TOLENDOYBLANAFLOR,defendants4appellants.

&he olicitor General for plaintiff8appellee.

'iti#ens Legal ssistance (ff we for defendants8appellants.

ORTES,J.:

"he accused $elino Aleta, rlando "onil, $elipe Lurbito, > >

W51%1$%1, pre!ises considered, the Court finds the

accused

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

40/85

"he case against accused $1(I8 A(1"A, %(A8

"8I(, $1(I#1 L9%*I" and %:1(I #A:A78A8,

ho are still at large and against ho! alias arrants of

arrest had been issued, are hereby ordered A%C5I

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

41/85

"he thrust of the instant appeals is that the Identities of the appellants as

the perpetrators of the cri!e have not been positively proven.

9pon a thorough evaluation and revie of the evidence on record, the

Court finds that the identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of

the cri!e has been sufficiently established. In their testi!onies before the

courta 0uothe prosecution itnesses unhesitatingly pinpointed the

appellants as the robbers ho entered the house on that fateful night.

Considering the uncontested facts that during the robbery, the inside of the

house as ell4lighted ith &erosene la!ps Q"S8, 6arch , +-2, p. H=R

and that the three !en ho entered the house ore no !as&s nor !ade

any effort to conceal their faces nor did they put out the light Q"S8,

Septe!ber H, +-, p. R, it is no onder that the victi!s ere able to

recogni@e the faces of the !alefactors. "hus hen the appellants upon

their voluntary surrender, ere brought to the !unicipal hall of 6ilagros,

6asbate, together ith other apprehended suspects, a fe days after the

incident, the *eloso couple readily pointed to the appellants as the

!alefactors Q%ollo, p. -.R "hus3

While evidence as to the Identity of the accused as the

person ho co!!itted the cri!e should be carefully

analy@ed, the Court has consistently held that Bwhere

conditions of visibilit- are favorable and the witness does

not appears to be biased against the man on the doc4, his

or her assertions as to the 3dentit- of the malefactor

should normall- be accepted. nd this is more so where

the witness is the victim or his near8 relative, as in this

case, because these >people? usuall- strive to remember

the faces of the assailantsB Q#eople v. *ernat, :.%. 8o.FF=, $ebruary 2-, +-, 20 SC%A +-, +2H citing

#eople v. Lapanta, HF .:. 2D 1!phasis supplied.R

Appellants, citing inconsistencies in the testi!onies of the co!plainants,

clai! that the itnesses for the prosecution have seriously contradicted

the!selves on crucial and !aterial points. While 8ora 6orado *eloso

testified that "olendoy *lancaflor as a!ong those ho entered the

house, yet her husband categorically stated on cross4ea!ination that he

did not see "olendoy *lancaflor in the house during the ar!ed robbery.

Also, as regards the clai! of 1velyn *acaresas that it as "olendoy

*lancaflor ho shot her hen she ran outside, the defense insists that the

sa!e is not orthy of credence as she herself ad!itted on cross4ea!ination that since it as dar&, she did not see the person ho shot

her Q*rief for Accused4Appellant, p. D %ollo, p. 2.R

"hese inconsistencies, though do not detract fro! the positiveness of the

Identification of the appellants. 8ora *eloso, hen confronted by the trial

court ith the fact that her husband had earlier testified that "olendoy

*lancaflor as not one of the three robbers ho entered the house gave a

convincing eplanation. According to her, her husband and

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

42/85

the Identity of "olendoy. When the robbers, ithout tying her hands,

ordered her to sit beside %oberto *eloso, she &ept staring at their faces

hich she fully sa as they ere not earing any !as&s and the roo!

as brightly illu!inated Q"S8, 6arch , +-2, pp4 F0 and =-.R

1ven if the trial court disbelieved *acaresas/ identification of *lancaflor as

the one ho shot her, it does not follo that her entire testi!ony should be

discredited. $or the testi!ony of a itness can be believed as to so!e

facts and disbelieved as to others/ Q#eople v. #acada, Jr. :.%. 8os. HF,

July =, +-, H2 SC%A H2=.R "he categorical declaration of 1velyn

*acaresas that appellants Alvare@ and *lancaflor ere to of the robbers

ho entered the house on that fateful night, hich is corroborated by the

testi!ony on 8ora *eloso, is orthy of belief.

1ven assu!ing that 1velyn *acaresas !istoo& *lancaflor as her assailant,

the latter ill not be absolved fro! any liability. Since 1velyn *acaresas

as able to establish in her testi!ony that *lancaflor as one of the

robbers ho entered the house, it does not !atter no if it as actuallyone of his co!panions and not he, ho shot *acaresas since in a

conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. "hus, it as ruled in People v.

&rinidadQ:.%. 8o, (4-+0, June 2-, +-- that here conspiracy has

been proven, a shoing as to ho inflicted the fatal blo is not required.

"he net inquiry then is hether conspiracy in the co!!ission of the

robbery as duly proven in the instant case.

It is settled that conspirac- need not be established b- direct evidence but

ma- be proven through a series of acts done in pursuance of a common

unlawful purpose Q#eople v. Cadag, :.%. 8o. (4 -0, 6ay , +, 2SC%A --D #eople v. Cru@, :.%. 8o. (4F+, April 2, +2, H SC%A

HD #eople 7. Alcantara, :.%. 8o. (42=, June 0, +=0, SC%A

-2.R "he facts proven by the prosecution clearly indicate a conspiracy to

rob the *eloso fa!ily. Indeed, in order that conspiracy !ay properly be

appreciated, it is enough that at the ti!e the offense as co!!itted, the

participants had the sa!e purpose and ere united in its eecution as

!ay be inferred fro! the attendant circu!stances Q#eople v. 6asang&ay,

:.% 8o. =H, ctober 2=, +-=, FF SC%A .R "hat the appellants

ere united in purpose and in the eecution of their cri!inal designs has

been a!ply proven in the instant case. 5ere, the eistence of a conspiracy

can be gleaned fro! the concerted acts of the appellants in going together

inside the *eloso house and robbing the occupants hile their otherco!panions stood guard outside the house. "hen after the appellants had

ransac&ed the house, appellants and their co!panions fled together to the

seashore and rode in a !otorboat aay fro! the scene of the cri!e.

Accordingly, since the rule in conspiracy is that every conspirator is

responsible for the acts of others done in pursuance of the conspiracy

Q#eople v. #areGa, :.%. 8o. (42+=, 8ove!ber 2+, ++, 0 SC%A +R,

Alvare@ and *lancaflor can be held liable for the act of the robber ho shot

1velyn *acaresas, thereby inflicting upon the latter serious physical

inGuries. (i&eise, they should be held accountable for the act of another

robber hose identity hoever as not established, in shooting Severino6alapitan, Jr., resulting in the latter/s death. $or hen a group of

!alefactors conspire to co!!it robbery and ar! the!selves for the

purpose, no !e!ber of the group !ay disclai! responsibility for any act of

violence that is perpetrated by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Such

violence is alays reasonably to be epected, either to overco!e active

opposition or to forestall it altogether by disabling the victi! at the very

outset, or even to silence hi! co!pletely thereafter Q#eople v. 1speGo,

:.%. 8o. (42==0-, ece!ber +, +=0, SC%A H00.R

In su!, the appellants/ atte!pt at casting doubt upon their identification by

the prosecution itnesses as the !alefactors is futile. "his Court hasalready ruled that despite the suddenness of the robbery and the absence

of a shoing as to its duration or the nu!ber of ti!es the robbers ere

seen by the eyeitnesses, the latter/s identification of the !alefactors can

be given credence. $or the victi! or his relatives ho actually itnessed

the robbery ould strive to re!e!ber the uncovered faces of the

42

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

43/85

!alefactors Q#eople v. Cru@, :I( 8o. (4==, 8ove!ber 2+, +-H,

SC%A H2.R

n the other hand, appellants defense is anchored pri!arily on alibi, an

inherently ea& defense. Appellants clai!ed that on the particular date

and ti!e hen the robbery too& place, they ere in :igatanga, 6abini,

8abal, (eyte. According to the appellants, they left for :igatangan on June

2=, +=- on board a pu!p boat oned by Alvare@ hich as hired by one

%udy Salut to fetch his parents. 5oever, they ere not able to bring ith

the! the parents of Salut hen they left the place on July F, +=-. "hey

ad!itted, though that on said date, they spent the night in 8aro, iot,

Caayan, 6asbate due to engine trouble. According to the!, it as there

that they ca!e to &no of the robbery as the people there suspected the!

of being the robbers Q"S8, August =, +=, p. F.R

It is ele!entary that in cases of positive identification of the culprit by

reliable itnesses, the defense of alibi !ust be established by Bfull, clear

and satisfactory evidenceB Q9.S. v. #ascua, #hil. '+0)D 9.S. v.#ascua, 2+ #hil. F-= '+F)D #eople v. #ili, F #hil. +F '+2).R "he

evidence presented by the defense on their alibi is far fro! being Bfull,

clear and satisfactory/. n this point, the trial court said3

#assing on the defense of alibi by both accused, the court

cannot help but find it a convenient coincidence that of the

seven accused the only to accused ho are under

custody and under trial are together in the sa!e alibi.

Another coincidence hich !a&es one onder is the factthat the defense itness supplying alibi to the to

accused has the sa!e surna!e as the accused ho

escaped fro! the custody of the Court, na!ely,

#A:A78A8 Q%ollo, p. 2.R

"his "ribunal has laid don the rule that for the defense of alibi to prosper,

it is not enough to prove that the accused as so!ehere else hen the

cri!e as co!!itted but he !ust li&eise de!onstrate that it as

physically i!possible for hi! to have been at the scene of the cri!e

Q#eople v. *enaraba, :.%. 8o. (42-F, 6ay -, +-H, 2+ SC%A 2.R In

this case, the appellants failed to sho such physical i!possibility. n the

contrary, defense itness 1!!a #agayonan testified that it ta&es onlyeight to nine hours to travel by !otorboat fro! :igatangan, (eyte to

6ilagros, 6asbate Q"S8, August =, +-, p. F.R

1ven if e grant the truth of the appellants/ story that they ere in (eyte

since June 2=, +=-, it is not physically i!possible for the! to have gone

to 6ilagros 6asbate on July , +=- considering that they had an

available !eans of transportation, i.e., the !otorboat oned by Alvare@. It

should be pointed out that according to the testi!ony of the prosecution

itnesses, the robbers in this case fled f ro! the scene using a !otorboat

Q".S.8., Septe!ber H, +- , p. H.R

"o corroborate appellants/ clai! that they ere in (eyte at the ti!e of the

incident, the defense presented 1!!a Salut #agayonan, sister of %udy

Salut, the person ho hired Alvare@/ boat for use in (eyte. 5er testi!ony,

hoever as shon to be unreliable upon a rigid cross4ea!ination by the

prosecuting fiscal. "he fiscal as able to elicit an ad!ission that 1!!a

#agayonan is a resident of Salvacion, *alud, 6asbate and that she had no

other evidence to sho that she had resided in :igatangan, 6abini, 8abal,

(eyte in +=-, ecept her birth certificate, hich hoever as never

presented to the trial court for confir!ation of her clai! Q"S8, August =,

+-, p. .R

:ranting for the sa&e of argu!ent the veracity of her clai! that appellants

stayed in :igatangan fro! June 2=, to July F, +=-, the defense of alibi

!ust nevertheless fail. 1!!a #agayonan as not able to satisfactorily

and clearly account for the hereabouts of the appellants on the particular

date and ti!e hen the cri!e as perpetrated. All that she testified to as

43

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

44/85

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

45/85

case. Article of the %evised #enal Code !andates that in all cases in

hich the la prescribes a single indivisible penalty such as reclusion

perpetua for robbery ith ho!icide, it shall be applied by the courts

regardless of any !itigating or aggravating circu!stances that !ay have

attended the co!!ission of the deed.

W51%1$%1, the instant appeal is hereby IS6ISS1 and Gudg!ent ofthe %egional "rial Court is A$$I%61 ith !odification as to the

deno!ination of the cri!e co!!itted hich should be Brobbery ith

ho!icideB under Article 2+H ') of the %evised #enal Code.

S %1%1.

G.R. No. 17+229 O)-o:! 19, 2311

HO =AI PANG,#etitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,%espondent.

1 C I S I 8

DEL ASTILLO, J.:

Infraction of the rights of an accused during custodial investigation or the

so4called 6iranda %ights render inad!issible only the etraGudicial

confession or ad!ission !ade during such investigation.B"he

ad!issibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue andis not otherise ecluded by la or rules, is not affected even if obtained

or ta&en in the course of custodial investigation.B2

#etitioner 5o Wai #ang 'petitioner) in this present recourse assails the

June , 200 ecisionof the Court of Appeals 'CA) in CA4:.%. C%45.C.

8o. 0HF+ affir!ing the April , ++F ecisionHof the %egional "rial Court

'%"C), *ranch - of #asay City in Cri!inal Case 8o. +4F+2, finding

hi! and his co4accused, na!ely, (a ;a Wang, Chan Chit 7ue,FWu 5ing

Su!, "in San 6aoand ;in San 5o=guilty beyond reasonable doubt for

violation of Section F, Article III-of %epublic Act '%.A.) 8o. H2F

otherise &non as the angerous rugs Act of +=2. Also assailed is the

January , 200= CA %esolution+denying the !otion for reconsideration

thereto.

%actual ntecedents

45

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt9

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

46/85

n Septe!ber , ++, at around 30 in the evening, 9nited Arab

1!irates Airlines $light 8o. 0- fro! 5ong&ong arrived at the 8inoy

Aquino International Airport '8AIA). A!ong the passengers ere

5ong&ong nationals ho ca!e to the #hilippines as tourists. At the arrival

area, the group leader Wong ;o& Wah 'Sonny Wong) presented a

*aggage eclaration $or! to Custo!s 1a!iner :ilda (. Cinco 'Cinco),

ho as then !anning (ane - of the 1press (ane. Cinco ea!ined thebaggages of each of the passengers as their turn ca!e up. $ro! the

first traveling bag, she sa fe personal belongings such as used clothing,

shoes and chocolate boes hich she pressed. When the second bag as

ea!ined, she noticed chocolate boes hich ere al!ost of the sa!e

si@e as those in the first bag. *eco!ing suspicious, she too& out four of

the chocolate boes and opened one of the!. Instead of chocolates, hat

she sa inside as hite crystalline substance contained in a hite

transparent plastic. Cinco thus i!!ediately called the attention of her

i!!ediate superiors uty Collector Alalo and Custo!s Appraiser 8ora

Sancho ho advised her to call the 8arcotics Co!!and '8A%C6) and

the police. "hereupon, she guided the tourists to the Intensive Counting9nit 'IC9) hile bringing ith her the four chocolate boes earlier

discovered.

At the IC9, Cinco called the tourists one after the other using the

passenger !anifest and further ea!ined their bags. "he bag of (a ;a

Wang as first found to contain three chocolate boes. 8et as

petitionerPs bag hich contains nothing ecept for personal effects. Cinco,

hoever, recalled that to of the chocolate boes earlier discovered at the

epress lane belong to hi!. Wu 5ing Su!Ps bag folloed and sa!e

yielded three chocolate boes hile the baggages of 5o ;in San, Chan

Chit 7ue and "in San 6ao each contained to or three si!ilar chocolateboes. All in all, - chocolate boes ere recovered fro! the baggages of

the si accused.

8A%C6 Agent 8eoillie de Castro corroborated the relevant testi!ony

of Cinco pertaining to the presence of the chocolate boes. According to

hi!, he conducted a test on the hite crystalline substance contained in

said chocolate boes at the 8AIA using the 6andelline %e4Agent

"est.0"he result of his ea!inationof the hite crystalline substance

yielded positive for !etha!pheta!ine hydrochloride or shabu. "hereafter,

the chocolate boes ere bundled together ith tape, placed inside a

plastic bag and brought to the Inbond Section.

"he folloing day, Septe!ber =, ++, the tourists ere brought to the

8ational *ureau of Investigation '8*I) for further questioning. "he

confiscated stuff ere turned over to the $orensic Che!ist ho eighed

and ea!ined the!. $indings sho that its total eight is .2

&ilogra!s and that the representative sa!ples ere positive for

!etha!pheta!ine hydrochloride.2ut of the tourists, the 8*I found

evidence for violation of %.A. 8o. H2F only as against petitioner and his

five co4accused.

Accordingly, si separate Infor!ations all dated Septe!ber +, ++ ere

filed against petitioner and his co4accused. "hese Infor!ations eredoc&eted as Cri!inal Case 8os. +4F+ to +=. Subsequently, hoever,

petitioner filed a 6otion for %einvestigationhich the trial court granted.

"he reinvestigation conducted gave ay to a finding of conspiracy a!ong

the accused and this resulted to the filing of a single A!ended

Infor!ationHunder Cri!inal Case 8o. +4F+2 and to the ithdraal of the

other Infor!ations.F"he A!ended Infor!ation reads3

"hat on or about Septe!ber , ++ in #asay City, #hilippines and ithin

the Gurisdiction of this 5onorable Court, the above4na!ed accused,

conspiring, confederating and !utually helping one another, did, then and

there, illfully, unlafully and feloniously carry and transport into thecountry ithout laful authority, .2 &ilogra!s, !ore or less, of

6etha!pheta!ine 5ydrochloride, also popularly &non as BS5A*9B, a

regulated drug.

C8"%A%7 " (AW.

46

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_176229_2011.html#fnt16

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

47/85

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

48/85

I

W5I(1 AC;8W(1:I8: "5A" #1"I"I81% WAS 1#%IIS"18C1 $ A C8S#I%AC7.

IA, OL.ERNESTO B. YU, OL. ROEO ODI, OL. =ILLY FLORENDO,OL. DIONY A. /ENTURA, (%$ APT. FRANISO T.ALLILLIN, petitioners,vs.

HON. IANO . ASUNION, P!"#$#%& Ju$&!, B(%)* 13,

REGIONAL TRIAL OURT, .., LT. JAINTO LIGOTPA., respondents.

No. 9+98 Au&u"- 2, 1991

73

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

74/85

BCGEN. JOSE OENDADOR, BCGEN. ARELO BLANDO, APT.DANILO PI>ARRO PN, APT. ANUEL ISON PN, LT. ROELINOGOJO PN , LT. ARSENIO TESON PA, LT. RAFAEL GAL/E>PA, LT. TIBURIO FUSILLERO PA, LT. ERISON AURELIO PA,LT. JAINTO LIGOT PA, LT. FRANLIN BRA=NER PA, AJ.ALFREDO OLI/EROS PA, AJ. ESAR DE LA PENA PN 0 AJ.

LEU/INO /ALENIA PA, APT. FLORENIO FLORES PA, APT.JAIE JUNIO PA, APT. DANILO LI PA, APT. ELER AONPAF APT. /ERGEL NAINO, (%$ LT. JOEY SARRO>A, petitioners,vs.

BCGEN. DEETRIO AUA OL. HERINIO A. ENDO>A, OL.ERNESTO B. YU, OL. ROEO ODI OL. =ILLY FLORENDO,OL. DIONY A. /ENTURA, (%$ APT. FRANISO T. ALLILLINPRESIDENT AND EBERS OF GENERAL OURTARTIAL NO.1, respondents.

No. 975 Au&u"- 2, 1991

AFP HIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. RODOLFO BIA>ON, DEPUTYHIEF OF STAFF AJOR GEN. ALEANDER AGUIRRE, PNPDIRETOR GENERAL AJOR GEN. ESAR NA>ARENO (%$ LT.OL. ALBERTO OLARIO, o(%$#%& O;;#)! o; -*! PNPCINPD!-!%-#o% !%-!CJ(#l, petitioners,vs.

HON. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, P!"#$#%& Ju$&!, R!o%(l T#(lou-, u!o% #-y, B(%)* 8+, APTAIN REYNALDO S. RAFAEL,1 LT SER/ANDO A. BAOANAN PN, 1 LT. =ILFREDO JIENE>

PAF 1 LT. ATANAIO T. AALAN JR P 2LT ELISEO T. RASOP, 2LT JONAS ALLEJA P, 2LT JAIRUS JS GEL/E>ON III P2LT JOSELITO ABREROS P 2LT EEL ROJAS PN (%$2LT HERINIO L. ANTAO P, respondents.

rmando M. Marcelo and )ainier L. Madrid for petitioners Luisito

anche#, &iburcio %usillero, Ericson urelio, Levino Balencia, !anilo

rnon Bergel Nacino, %lorencio %lores, /enigno Junio and Joe-

arro#a.

Manuel ;. Malvar for )afael Galve# and !ann- Lim.

Manuel E. Balen#uela for rsenio &ecson

Mariano ). antiago for lfredo (liveros.

)icardo J.M. )ivera for Manuel 3son.

'astillo, Laman, &an and Pantaleon for !anilo Pi#arro.

lfredo La#aro for )omelino Go1o.

Manuel . /arcelona, Jr. for Jose 'omendador.

Jonathan /.. )ebong and Efren '. 'arag for Marcelo /lando.

Pablito B. anidad for %ran4lin /rawner and Ericson urelio.

Efren '. Moncupa for ll &ecson.

M.M. La#aro $ ssociates for respondents Ligot and 3son .

/aldomero .P. Gatbonton, Jr. for Jacinto Ligot.

alvador /. /ritanico for 'esar de la Pena.

Gilbert ).&. )e-es for !anilo Pi#arro.

74

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

75/85

Ponce Enrile, 'a-etano, )e-es $ Manalastas for petitioners in G.).

No. CD@.

&he olicitor General for respondents.

RU>, J.:p

"hese four cases have been consolidated because they involve

practically the sa!e parties and related issues arising fro! the sa!e

incident.

"he petitioners in :.%. 8os. +== and ++H- and the private

respondents in :.%. 8os. +F020 and +=HFH are officers of the Ar!ed

$orces of the #hilippines facing prosecution for their alleged

participation in the failed coup d2 etatthat too& place on ece!ber to

+, +-+.

"he charges against the! are violation of Articles of War 'AW) =

'6utiny), AW + 'Conduct 9nbeco!ing an fficer and a :entle!an)

and AW +H '

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

76/85

$ailure to sub!it the afore!entioned counter4affidavits on the date

above specified shall be dee!ed a aiver of your right to sub!it

controverting evidence.

n the sa!e date, the petitioners ac&noledged receipt of a copy of

the charge sheet, sorn state!ents of itnesses, and death and

!edical certificates of victi!s of the rebellion.

At the first scheduled hearing, the petitioners challenged the

proceedings on various grounds, pro!pting the #"I #anel to grant

the! 0 days ithin hich to file their obGections in riting "his as

done through a 6otion for Su!!ary is!issal dated $ebruary 2,

++0.

In a resolution dated $ebruary 2=,++0, the #"I #anel denied the

!otion and gave the petitioners F days fro! notice to sub!it their

respective counter4affidavits and the affidavits of their itnesses.

n 6arch =, ++0, the petitioners verbally !oved for reconsideration

of the foregoing denial and the #"I #anel gave the! = days ithin

hich to reduce their !otion to riting. "his as done on 6arch

H,++0.

"he petitioners no clai! that there as no pre4trial investigation of

the charges as !andated by Article of War =, hich provides3

Art. =. 'harges ction upon. E Charges and specifications !ust be

signed by a person subGect to !ilitary la, and under the oath eitherthat he has personal &noledge of, or has investigated, the !atters set

forth therein and that the sa!e are true in fact, to the best of his

&noledge and belief.

No charge will be referred to a general court8martial for trial until after a

thorough and impartial investigation thereof shall have been made.

&his investigation will include in0uiries as to the truth of the matter set

forth in said charges, form of charges, and what disposition of the case

should be made in the interest of 1ustice and discipline. t such

investigation full opportunit- shall be given to the accused to cross8

eamine witnesses against him if the- are available and to presentan-thing he ma- desire in his own behalf, either in defense or

mitigation, and the investigating officer shall eamine available

witnesses re0uested b- the accused. 3f the charges are forwarded

after such investigation, the- shall be accompanied b- a statement of

the substance of the testimon- ta4en on both sides . '1!phasis

supplied.)

"hey also allege that the initial hearing of the charges consisted !erely

of a roll call and that no prosecution itnesses ere presented to

reaffir! their affidavits. hile the !otion for su!!ary dis!issal as

denied, the !otion for reconsideration re!ains unresolved to date and

they have not been able to sub!it their counter4affidavits.

At the hearing of 6ay F, ++0, the petitioners in :.%. 8o. ++H-

!anifested that they ere eercising their right to raise pere!ptory

challenges against the president and !e!bers of :C6 8o.H. "hey

invo&ed Article - of Co!. Act 8o. H0- for this purpose. :C6 8o. H

ruled, hoever, that pere!ptory challenges had been discontinued

under #.. 8o. +.

In :.%. 8o. +F020, (tc Jacinto (igot applied for bail on June F, ++0,but the application as denied by :C6 8o.H. 5e thereupon filed ith

the %egional "rial Court of ue@on City a petition

for certiorariand mandamusith prayer for provisional liberty and a rit

of preli!inary inGunction. After considering the petition and the anser

76

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

77/85

thereto filed by the president and !e!bers of :C6 8o.H, Judge

6ai!iano C. Asuncion issued an order granting provisional liberty to

(igot.

n July 2-, ++0, (igot filed an urgent o!nibus !otion to enforce the

order for his release and to declare in conte!pt the co!!anding

officer of the #C?I8# Jail for disobey /ng the said order. 5e later alsoco!plained that :enerals e

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

78/85

afore!entioned counter4affidavits on the date above specified shall be

dee!ed a aiver of 'their) right to sub!it controverting evidence.B

"hey chose not to heed the arning. As their !otions appeared to be

dilatory, the #"I #anel as Gustified in referring the charges to :C6

8o. H ithout aiting for the petitioners to sub!it their defense.

ue process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded anopportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is dee!ed aived or

forfeited ithout violation of the *ill of %ights.

"here as in our vie substantial co!pliance ith Article of War = by

the #"I #anel. 6oreover, it is no settled that Beven a failure to

conduct a pre4trial investigation does not deprive a general court4

!artial of Gurisdiction.B We so held inrula v. Espino, 1thus3

*ut even a failure to conduct a pre4trial investigation does not deprive

a general court4!artial of Gurisdiction.

"he better accepted concept of pre4trial investigation is that it is

directory, not !andatory, and in no ay affects the Gurisdiction of a

court4!artial. In 5u!phrey v. S!ith, 9.S. +F, + ( ed +- '+H+),

the Court said3

We do not thin& that the pre4trial investigation procedure by Article =0

'"he #hilippine counter4part is article of ar =, Co!!onealth Act

H0-) can properly be construed as an indispensable pre4requisite tothe eercise of the Ar!y :eneral court !artial Gurisdiction.. "he Article

does serve i!portant functions in the ad!inistration of court4!artial

procedures and does provide safeguards to an accused. Its language

is clearly such that a defendant could obGect to trial in the absence of

the required investigation. In that event the court4!artial could itself

postpone trial pending the investigation. And the !ilitary revieing

authorities could consider the sa!e contention, reversing a court4

!artial conviction here failure to co!ply ith Article =0 has

substantially inGured an accused. *ut e are not persuaded that

Congress intended to !a&e otherise valid court4!artial Gudg!ents

holly void because pre4trial investigations fall short of the standardsprescribed by Article =0. "hat Congress has not required analogous

pre4trial procedure for 8avy court4!artial is an indication that the

investigatory plan as not intended to be ealted to the Gurisdictional

level.

Shortly after enact!ent of Article =0 in +20 the Judge Advocate

:eneral of the Ar!y did hold that here there had been no pre4trial

investigation, court4!artial proceedings ere void ab initio. *ut this

holding has been epressly repudiated in later holdings of the Judge

Advocate :eneral. "his later interpretation has been that the pre4trial

require!ents of Article =0 are directory, not !andatory, and in no ay

effect the Gurisdiction of a court4!artial. "he War epart!ent/s

interpretation as pointedly called to the attention of Congress in +H=

after hich Congress a!ended Article =0 but left unchanged the

language here under consideration. co!pensable pre4requisite to the

eercise of Ar!y general court4!artial Gurisdiction

A trial before a general court4!artial convened ithout any pretrial

investigation under article of ar = ould of course be altogetherirregular but the court4!artial !ight nevertheless have Gurisdiction.

Significantly, this rule is si!ilar to the one obtaining in cri!inal

procedure in the civil courts to the effect that absence of preli!inary

78

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

79/85

investigation does not go into the Gurisdiction of the court but !erely to

the regularity of the proceedings.

As to hat la should govern the conduct of the preli!inary

investigation, that issue as resolved !ore than to years ago

in Aapunan v. !e Billa, 2here e declared3

"he Court finds that, contrary to the contention of petitioners, there

as substantial co!pliance ith the require!ents of la as provided in

the Articles of War and #.. 8o. ==, as a!ended by #.. 8o. +. "he

a!ended charge sheets, charging petitioners and their co4respondents

ith !utiny and conduct unbeco!ing an officer, ere signed by 6aG.

Antonio %ui@, a person subGect to !ilitary la, after he had investigated

the !atter through an evaluation of the pertinent records, including thereports of respondent A$# *oard of fficers, and as convinced of the

truth of the testi!onies on record. "he charge sheets ere sorn to by

6aG. %ui@, the Baccuser,B in accordance ith and in the !anner

provided under Art. = of the Articles of War. Considering that #.. 8o.

==, as a!ended by #.. 8o. +, is only of suppletory application, the

fact that the charge sheets ere not certified in the !anner provided

under said decrees, i.e., that the officer ad!inistering the oath has

personally ea!ined the affiant and that he is satisfied that they

voluntarily eecuted and understood its affidavit, does not invalidate

said charge sheets. "hereafter, a Bpretrial investigationB as conducted

by respondent 6aG. *aldonado, herein, pursuant to #.. 8o. ==, as

a!ended by #.. 8o. +, petitioners ere subpoenaed and required

to file their counter4affidavit. 5oever, instead of doing so, they filed an

untitled pleading see&ing the dis!issal of the charges against the!.

"hat petitioners ere not able to confront the itnesses against the!

as their on doing, for they never even as&ed 6aG. *aldonado to

subpoena said itnesses so that they !ay be !ade to anser

clarificatory questions in accordance ith #. , 8o. ==, as a!ended by

#.. 8o. +.

"he petitioners also allege that :C6 8o. H has not been constitute inaccordance ith Article - of the Articles of War because :eneral rder

8o. 64, hich supposedly convened the body, as not signed by

:en. %enato de

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

80/85

Article of War 8o. - reads3

Art. -. General 'ourts8Martial. E "he #resident of the #hilippines, the

Chief of Staff of the Ar!ed $orces of the #hilippines, the Chief of

Constabulary and, hen e!poered by the #resident, the

co!!anding officer of a !aGor co!!and or tas& force, the

co!!anding officer of a division, the co!!anding officer of a !ilitaryarea, the superintendent of the 6ilitary Acade!y, the co!!anding

officer of a separate brigade or body of troops !ay appoint general

courts4!artialD but hen any such co!!ander is the accuser or the

prosecutor of the person or persons to be tried, the court shall be

appointed by superior co!petent authority. ...

While it is true that :eneral rder 8o. 64 as not signed by :en. e

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

81/85

the Ar!ed $orces of the #hilippines had epanded to a very large

nu!ber, and a great !any of the officers had been indoctrinated in

!ilitary la. It as in these environ!ental circu!stances that Article of

War - as a!ended on June 2,+H- to entitle Beach sideB to one

pere!ptory challenge, ith the sole proviso that Bthe la !e!ber of

court shall not be challenged ecept for cause.

n Septe!ber 2=,+=2, #resident 6arcos issued :eneral rder 8o.

-, e!poering the Chief of Staff of the Ar!ed $orces to create !ilitary

tribunals Bto try and decide cases of !ilitary personnel and such other

cases as !ay be referred to the!.

n 8ove!ber =,+=2, he pro!ulgated #.. 8o. + ':overning the

Creation, Co!position, Jurisdiction, #rocedure, and other !atters

relevant to !ilitary "ribunals). "his decree disalloed the pere!ptory

challenge, thus3

8o pere!ptory challenge shall be alloed. Challenges for cause !ay

be entertained to insure i!partiality and good faith. Challenges shall

i!!ediately be heard and deter!ined by a !aGority of the !e!bers

ecluding the challenged !e!ber. A tie vote does not disqualify the

challenged !e!ber. A successfully challenged !e!ber shall be

i!!ediately replaced.

n June , +=-, #resident 6arcos pro!ulgated #.. 8o. H+-, or

the 8ational Security Code, hich as a co!pilation and codification

of decrees, general orders, (I and policies intended Bto !eet the

continuing threats to the eistence, security and stability of the State.B"he !odified rule on challenges under #.. 8o. + as e!bodied in

this decree.

n January =,+-, #resident 6arcos issued #roc. 8o. 20HF

proclai!ing the ter!ination of the state of !artial la throughout the

#hilippines. "he procla!ation revo&ed :eneral rder 8o. - and

declared the dissolution of the !ilitary tribunals created pursuant

thereto upon final deter!ination of the cases pending therein.

#.. 8o. + as issued to i!ple!ent :eneral rder 8o. - and theother general orders !entioned therein. With the ter!ination of !artial

la and the dissolution of the !ilitary tribunals created thereunder, the

reason for the eistence of #.. 8o. + ceased auto!atically.

It is a basic canon of statutory construction that hen the reason of the

la ceases, the la itself ceases.'essante ratione legis, cessat ipsa

le. "his principle is also epressed in the !ai! ratio legis est

animaFthe reason of la is its soul.

Applying these rules, e hold that the ithdraal of the right to

pere!ptory challenge in ( #.. 8o. + beca!e ineffective hen the

apparatus of !artial la as dis!antled ith the issuance of

#rocla!ation 8o. 20HF, As a result, the old rule e!bodied in Article -

of Co!. Act 8o. H0- as auto!atically revived and no again allos

the right to pere!ptory challenge.

We do not agree ith the respondents in :.%. 8o. ++H- that the right

to pere!ptory challenge re!ains ithdran under #.. 8o. +. "o

repeat for e!phasis, this decree as itself ithdran hen !artial la

as lifted on January =, +-. Indeed, even if not so ithdran, it

could still be considered no longer operative, having been cast outunder the ne dispensation as, in the ords of the $reedo!

Constitution, one of the Biniquitous vestiges of the previous regi!e.

81

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

82/85

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

83/85

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

84/85

8/9/2019 Consti Sec 12 13

85/85