(5)peoplevsreyes_fulltext_10.1

7/21/2019 (5)peoplevsreyes_fulltext_10.1

1/16

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 178300 March 17, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DOMINGO REES ! P"#E, "L$IN "RN"LDO ! "$EN" a%& #OSELITO FLORES !

$ICTORIO,Accuse-Appellants.

D ! " I S I O N

CHICO'N"("RIO, J.:

#o$ $evie% is the Decision,&ate &' Au(ust )**+, an Resolution,)ate & Octobe$ )**+, of the "ou$t

of Appeals in "A-.R. "R-H.". No. *)*& affi$/in( %ith /oifications the Decision,ate )+ #eb$ua$0

)**), of the Re(ional T$ial "ou$t 1RT"2, 3$anch &), Malolos, 3ulacan, in "$i/inal "ase No. &+&&-M-44

finin( he$ein accuse-appellants Do/in(o Re0es 0 Pa5e 1Re0es2, Alvin A$nalo 0 Avena 1A$nalo2 an

6oselito #lo$es 0 Victo$io 1#lo$es2 (uilt0 of the special co/ple7 c$i/e of 8inappin( fo$ $anso/ %ith

ho/icie an i/posin( upon each of the/ the capital punish/ent of eath.

The facts culle f$o/ the $eco$s a$e as follo%s9

On && Au(ust &444, an Info$/ation'%as file befo$e the RT" cha$(in( appellants %ith the special

co/ple7 c$i/e of 8inappin( fo$ $anso/ %ith ho/icie. The accusato$0 po$tion of the info$/ation $eas9

The une$si(ne State P$osecuto$ of the Depa$t/ent of 6ustice he$eb0 accuses Do/in(o Re0es 0 Pa5e,

Alvin A$nalo 0 Avena an 6oselito #lo$es 0 Victo$io of the c$i/e of 8inappin( fo$ $anso/ %ith ho/icie

efine an penali:e une$ A$ticle )+; of the Revise Penal "oe, as a/ene, co//itte as follo%s9

That on o$ about &&9** p./. on 6ul0 &+, &444, at Sitio ,***,***.**2, that u$in( the etention of "hua On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on( =ao, sai

accuse %ith intent to 8ill, %illfull0 an unla%full0 st$an(le "hua On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on =ao toeath to the a/a(e an p$e5uice of thei$ hei$s in such a/ount as /a0 be a%a$e to the/ b0 this

Hono$able "ou$t.

Du$in( thei$ a$$ai(n/ent,>appellants, assiste b0 a counsel e oficio, pleae ?Not (uilt0? to the cha$(e.

T$ial on the /e$its the$eafte$ follo%e.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt1


2/16

The p$osecution p$esente as %itnesses 6ona Aba(atnan 1Aba(atnan2, Robe$t =ao 1Robe$t2, =ao San,

Police Office$ 1PO2 Ale7 Albe$to, PO Robe$to 6abien, Att0. #lo$i/on Rous 1Att0. Rous2 an Att0.

"a$lo @/in(a 1Att0. @/in(a2. Thei$ testi/onies, ta8en to(ethe$, attest to the follo%in(9

The =ao fa/il0 is co/pose of =ao San 1fathe$2, "hua On( Pin( Si/ 1/othe$2, Robe$t an Ra0/on

1chil$en2,

/illion fo$ "hua On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on. =ao San accee to appellants e/an. Appellants

allo%e =ao San to tal8 %ith "hua On( Pin( Si/.&
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt13


3/16

On the /o$nin( of &4 6ul0 &444, appellants a(ain calle =ao San via a cellula$ phone an th$eatene to

8ill "hua On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on because of ne%spape$ an $aio $epo$ts $e(a$in( the incient.

=ao San cla$ifie to appellants that he i not $epo$t the incient to the police an also pleae %ith the/

to spa$e the life of "hua On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on. Appellants then inst$ucte =ao San to appea$ an

b$in( %ith hi/ the $anso/ of P> /illion at 9** p./. in the @san u/psite, 2 Sinu/paan( Sala0sa0 of Robe$t 1!7hibit

#2B)'1+2 Sinu/paan( Sala0sa0 of =ao San 1!7hibit H2B)>1;2 5oint affiavit of Police Senio$ Inspecto$ 6ul0 &444, %hile

he %as at the t$ic0cle te$/inal of 3$(0. Sto. "$isto, San 6ose el Monte, 3ulacan, a police office$ na/e


4/16

$efuse to o so because he fea$e 3$(0. "apt. Ra/os. The a0 afte$, "olonel Mancao calle appellant

A$nalo to his office. @pon a$$ivin( the$eat, the latte$ sa% =ao San. =ao San p$o/ise hi/ that if thei$

8inappe$s %oul be app$ehene th$ou(h his coope$ation, he %oul (ive hi/P>**,***.**. He accepte

=ao Sans offe$ une$ the conition that he %oul ientif0 a iffe$ent set of suspects.

The efense p$offe$e ocu/enta$0 an ob5ect evience to butt$ess thei$ fo$e(oin( clai/s, to %it9 1&2

p$a0e$ boo8let of appellant A$nalo 1!7hibit & fo$ appellant A$nalo2B+1)2 callin( ca$ of "olonel Mancao

1!7hibit ) fo$ appellant A$nalo2B;an 12 pictu$es alle(el0 sho%in( appellant #lo$es %o$8in( as a

ca$pente$ in Antipolo "it0 1!7hibits & F ) fo$ appellant #lo$es2.

Afte$ t$ial, the RT" $ene$e a Decision ate )+ #eb$ua$0 )**) convictin( appellants of the special

co/ple7 c$i/e of 8inappin( fo$ $anso/ %ith ho/icie an sentencin( each of the/ to suffe$ the

sup$e/e penalt0 of eath. Appellants %e$e also o$e$e to pa0 5ointl0 an seve$all0 the =ao

fa/il0 P&>*,***.** as civil ine/nit0,P>**,***.** as /o$al a/a(es an the costs of the p$oceein(s.

The ispositive po$tion of the RT" Decision $eas9

GH!R!#OR!, finin( he$ein th$ee 12 accuse DOMINO R!=!S 0 PA6!, Ato suffe$ the sup$e/e penalt0 of D!ATH as /anate b0 la%, to 5ointl0 an seve$all0 ine/nif0 the hei$s
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt38


5/16

of ecease "hua On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on =ao in the a/ount of One Hun$e #ift0 Thousan Pesos

1P&>*,***.**2, an all the p$ivate offene pa$ties o$ victi/s, incluin( the hei$s of the ecease, in the

a/ount of #ive Hun$e Thousan Pesos 1P>**,***.**2 as /o$al a/a(es, sub5ect to the co$$esponin(

filin( fee as a fi$st lien, an to pa0 the costs of the p$oceein(s.4

30 $eason of the eath penalt0 i/pose on each of the appellants, the instant case %as elevate to us fo$

auto/atic $evie%. Ho%eve$, pu$suant to ou$ $ulin( in People v. Mateo, '*%e $e/ane the instant case tothe "ou$t of Appeals fo$ p$ope$ isposition.

On &' Au(ust )**+, the "ou$t of Appeals p$o/ul(ate its Decision affi$/in( %ith /oifications the RT"

Decision. The appellate cou$t $euce the penalt0 i/pose b0 the RT" on each of the appellants f$o/

eath penalt0 to $eclusion pe$petua %ithout the possibilit0 of pa$ole. It also ec$ease the a/ount of civil

ine/nit0 f$o/P&>*,***.** to P&**,***.**. #u$the$, it i$ecte appellants to pa0 5ointl0 an seve$all0 the

=ao fa/il0P&**,***.** as e7e/pla$0 a/a(es. The fallo of the "ou$t of Appeals ecision states9

GH!R!#OR!, p$e/ises consie$e, the Decision of the Re(ional T$ial "ou$t of Malolos, 3ulacan,

3$anch &), ate #eb$ua$0 )+, )**), in "$i/inal "ase No. &+&&-M-44 convictin( accuse-appellants of

the c$i/e of Einappin( #o$ Ranso/ %ith 1Double2 Ho/icie, is he$eb0 A##IRM!D %ith

MODI#I"ATIONS in that9

&2 accuse-appellants a$e instea sentence to suffe$ the penalt0 of $eclusion pe$petuaB

)2 the a%a$ of civil ine/nit0 e7 elicto is he$eb0 $euce to P&**,***B an

2 accuse-appellants a$e fu$the$ o$e$e to pa0 p$ivate co/plainants the a/ount of P&**,***.**

as e7e/pla$0 a/a(es.'&

Appellants file a /otion fo$ $econsie$ation of the "ou$t of Appeals Decision but this %as enie. Hence,

appellants file thei$ Notice of Appeal on )> Au(ust )**+.

In thei$ sepa$ate b$iefs,')appellants assi(ne the follo%in( e$$o$s9

I.

TH! TRIA< "O@RT !RR!D IN IVIN G!IHT AND "R!D!N"! TO TH! T!STIMONI!S O# TH!

PROS!"@TION GITN!SS!SB

II.

TH! TRIA< "O@RT !RR!D IN #INDIN A "ONSPIRA"= 3!TG!!N APP!


6/16

V.

TH! TRIA< "O@RT !RR!D IN #INDIN THAT TH! PROS!"@TION HAD PROV!N APP!Robe$t confi$/e that appellants an

thei$ coho$ts blinfole the/ insie the van u$in( the incient. He also $ecounte that appellants an

thei$ coho$ts etaine hi/ an "hua On( Pin( Si/, Ra0/on an Aba(atnan in a safe-house. He %as

late$ inst$ucte b0 appellants to fin =ao San an $e/in hi/ about the $anso/.'+=ao San ecla$e that

u$in( the incient, appellant Re0es an Pata$a0 app$oache hi/, po8e thei$ (uns at hi/, an $a((e

hi/ into the van. Appellant #lo$es too8 the $ive$s seat an $ove the van. Appellant #lo$es an his /ale

co/panion tol hi/ to p$ouce P> /illion as $anso/ /one0 in e7chan(e fo$ the $elease of "hua On(Pin( Si/, Robe$t, Ra0/on an Aba(atnan.';

Aba(atnan, Robe$t an =ao San testifie in a clea$ an cani /anne$ u$in( the t$ial. Thei$ $espective

testi/onies %e$e consistent %ith one anothe$. The0 %e$e steafast in $ecountin( thei$ o$eal espite the

($uelin( c$oss e7a/ination of the efense. Mo$eove$, thei$ testi/onies %e$e in ha$/on0 %ith the

ocu/enta$0 evience auce b0 the p$osecution. The RT" an the "ou$t of Appeals foun thei$

testi/onies c$eible an t$ust%o$th0. 3oth cou$ts also foun no ill /otive fo$ Aba(atnan, Robe$t an =ao

San to testif0 a(ainst appellants.

Appellants, nonetheless, /aintain that Aba(atnan, Robe$t an =ao San coul not have ientifie thei$

8inappe$s, because 1&2 the incient occu$$e in the a$8ness of the ni(htB 1)2 the0 %e$e blinfole thenB

an 12 the heas of the 8inappe$s %e$e cove$e b0 T-shi$ts.

It appea$s that the c$i/e scene %as %ell-li(hte u$in( the incient. At that ti/e, the$e %as a li(ht f$o/ a

fluo$escent bulb han(in( above the (ate of the poult$0 fa$/ %he$ein =ao San %as hel at (unpoint b0

appellant Re0es an Pata$a0.'The heali(hts of the van %e$e also tu$ne on, /a8in( it possible fo$

Aba(atnan an Robe$t to see the faces of appellant Re0es an Pata$a0 as the t%o app$oache an

po8e thei$ (uns at =ao San.'4#u$the$, the$e %as a bulb insie the van, %hich tu$ne on %hen the oo$s

van %as opene. This bulb li(hte up %hen appellants an thei$ coho$ts fo$cibl0 boa$e the van, thus,

allo%in( Aba(atnan, Robe$t an =ao San to (lance at the faces of appellants an thei$ coho$ts. >*
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt50


7/16

Althou(h the =ao fa/il0 %as blinfole u$in( the incient, it %as, neve$theless, sho%n that it too8

appellants an thei$ coho$ts about &* /inutes befo$e all /e/be$s of the =ao fa/il0 %e$e

blinfole.>&Du$in( this consie$able len(th of ti/e, Aba(atnan, Robe$t an =ao San %e$e able to ta8e a

(oo loo8 at the faces of appellants an thei$ coho$ts. In aition, Aba(atnan an Robe$t na$$ate that

thei$ $espective blinfols loosene seve$al ti/es, (ivin( the/ the oppo$tunit0 to have a (li/pse at the

faces of appellants an thei$ coho$ts.>)

Aba(atnan, Robe$t an =ao San testifie that even thou(h the heas of appellants an thei$ coho$ts %e$e

cove$e b0 T-shi$ts, thei$ faces %e$e, nonetheless, e7pose an uncove$e, allo%in( the/ to see thei$

faces.>Robe$t an =ao San also ecla$e that the0 $eco(ni:e the faces of appellants u$in( the incient

because the latte$ $esie nea$ the poult$0 fa$/ of the =ao fa/il0, %hich use to hi$e the/ seve$al ti/es

in the fa$/ as ca$pente$s%ele$s.>'

Appellants, ho%eve$, insist that the testi/onies of Aba(atnan, Robe$t an =ao San that the0 %e$e able to

$eco(ni:e the 8inappe$s -- because althou(h the 8inappe$s heas %e$e cove$e %ith T-shi$ts, thei$

faces %e$e neve$theless e7pose o$ uncove$e -- a$e inc$eible. Appellants a$(ue that it is a(ainst hu/an

natu$e an e7pe$ience that 8inappe$s %oul cove$ onl0 thei$ heas an not thei$ faces in concealin(

thei$ ientities.

It is not illo(ical o$ a(ainst hu/an natu$e fo$ appellants an thei$ coho$ts to cove$ thei$ heas %ith T-

shi$ts, %hile leavin( thei$ faces e7pose an uncove$e %hen the0 8inappe the =ao fa/il0. Pe$haps,

appellants an thei$ coho$ts thou(ht that puttin( T-shi$ts on thei$ heas %ithout cove$in( thei$ faces %as

sufficient to conceal thei$ ientities. Re(a$less of thei$ $eason, the fact $e/ains that Aba(atnan, Robe$t

an =ao San positivel0 ientifie appellants as thei$ 8inappe$s, an thei$ sai ientification an

testi/onies %e$e foun b0 the RT", the "ou$t of Appeals an b0 this "ou$t to be c$eible. In People v.

3a$$eo,>>the victi/ testifie that he %as able to ientif0 the accuse as his assailants because the latte$

too8 off thei$ /as8s u$in( the assault. The accuse a$(ue that the victi/s testi/on0 %as inc$eible

because pe$sons %ho %o$e /as8s %oul not ta8e the/ off so casuall0 in the p$esence of thei$ victi/s, as

oin( so %oul $eveal thei$ ientities. The t$ial cou$t, nonetheless, $ule that the victi/s testi/on0 %as

c$eible an t$uthful. Ge sustaine such $ulin( of the t$ial cou$t an $atiocinate9

Appellants ispute the plausibilit0 of !n$ico "ebuhanos clai/ that he %as able to ientif0 the assailants

because the0 too8 off thei$ /as8s. Pe$sons %ho %ea$ /as8s %oul not ta8e the/ off so casuall0 in the

p$esence of thei$ victi/s, as oin( so %oul the$eb0 $eveal thei$ ientities. 7 7 7.

The above a$(u/ents a$e untenable. In his testi/on0, !n$ico "ebuhano clea$l0 state that the /en %ho

ente$e his ho/e $e/ove thei$ /as8s %hen he %as b$ou(ht o%nstai$s. Gh0 the0 i so %as 8no%n

onl0 to the/. It is possible that the0 thou(ht that the$e %as no one in the vicinit0 %ho coul ientif0 the/,

o$ that the0 %ante !n$ico to see %ho the0 %e$e so as to inti/iate hi/. It is also possible that the0 felt

secu$e because the$e %e$e &' of the/ %ho %e$e all a$/e. In an0 event, %hat is i/po$tant is that the t$ial

cou$t foun !n$ico "ebuhanos testi/on0 to be both c$eible an believable, an that he %as able to

positivel0 ientif0 appellants he$ein, because the /en %ho ente$e his ho/e $e/ove thei$ /as8s, 7 7 7.

It is si(nificant to note that "hua On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on %e$e b$utall0 8ille as a $esult of the

8inappin(. It is ifficult to believe that Robe$t an =ao San %oul point to appellants an thei$ coho$ts as

thei$ 8inappe$s if such %e$e not t$ue. A %itness $elationship to the victi/ of a c$i/e /a8es his testi/on0

/o$e c$eible as it %oul be unnatu$al fo$ a $elative inte$este in vinicatin( a c$i/e one to thei$ fa/il0 to

accuse so/ebo0 othe$ than the $eal culp$it.>+Relationship %ith a victi/ of a c$i/e %oul ete$ a %itness

f$o/ inisc$i/inatel0 i/plicatin( an0bo0 in the c$i/e. His natu$al an usual inte$est %oul be to ientif0

the $eal /alefacto$ an secu$e his conviction to obtain t$ue 5ustice fo$ the eath of a $elative.>;
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt57


8/16

Appellants put in issue the failu$e of Robe$t an =ao San to i//eiatel0 $epo$t the incient an ientif0

appellants to autho$ities espite thei$ co//on clai/ that the0 $eco(ni:e appellants, as the latte$ use to

%o$8 in the poult$0 fa$/.

Robe$t an =ao San cannot be bla/e fo$ not i//eiatel0 $epo$tin( the incient to the autho$ities. "hua

On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on %e$e still hel b0 appellants an thei$ coho$ts %hen the $anso/ %as

e/ane fo$ thei$ $elease. Appellants an thei$ coho$ts %e$e a$/e an an(e$ous. Appellants an thei$coho$ts also th$eatene to 8ill "hua On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on if =ao San an Robe$t %oul $epo$t the

incient to the autho$ities.>@ne$stanabl0, =ao San an Robe$t %e$e e7t$e/el0 fea$ful fo$ the safet0 of

thei$ love ones, an this cause the/ to $ef$ain f$o/ $epo$tin( the incient. Robe$t an =ao San cannot

also be bla/e fo$ not $epo$tin( the incient to the police even afte$ the co$pses of "hua On( Pin( Si/

an Ra0/on ha al$ea0 been foun, an appellants an thei$ coho$ts ha cut thei$ co//unication %ith

the/. "e$tainl0, the 8illin(s of "hua On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on ha a chillin(pa$al0:in( effect on

Robe$t an =ao San. Also, appellants an thei$ coho$ts %e$e still at la$(e then, an the possibilit0 that

the0 %oul ha$/ the $e/ainin( /e/be$s of the =ao fa/il0 %as not $e/ote, consie$in( that appellants

an thei$ coho$ts %e$e fa/ilia$ %ith the %he$eabouts of the =ao fa/il0. At an0 $ate, %e have hel that

failu$e to i//eiatel0 $epo$t the 8inappin( incient oes not i/inish the c$eibilit0 of the

%itnesses.>4The lapse of a consie$able len(th of ti/e befo$e a %itness co/es fo$%a$ to $eveal the

ientities of the pe$pet$ato$s of the c$i/e oes not taint the c$eibilit0 of the %itness an his testi/on0%he$e such ela0 is satisfacto$il0 e7plaine.+*

Ap$opos the secon assi(ne e$$o$, appellants conten that the p$osecution faile to p$ove that the0

conspi$e in 8inappin( the =ao fa/il0.

@ne$ A$ticle of the Revise Penal "oe, the$e is conspi$ac0 %hen t%o o$ /o$e pe$sons a($ee to

co//it a felon0 an ecie to co//it it. "onspi$ac0 p$esupposes unit0 of pu$pose an unit0 in the

e7ecution of the unla%ful ob5ective a/on( the accuse.+&Ghen the accuse b0 thei$ acts ai/e at the

sa/e ob5ect, one pe$fo$/in( one pa$t an the othe$ pe$fo$/in( anothe$ pa$t as to co/plete the c$i/e,

%ith a vie% to the attain/ent of the sa/e ob5ect, conspi$ac0 e7ists.+)

As can be (leane f$o/ the c$eible testi/onies an s%o$n state/ents of Aba(atnan, Robe$t an =ao,appellant Re0es an Pata$a0+app$oache an po8e thei$ (uns at =ao San, an the$eafte$ $a((e the

latte$ into the van. Appellant #lo$es then too8 the $ive$s seat an $ove the van, %hile each /e/be$ of

the =ao fa/il0 %as blinfole b0 appellants Re0es an A$nalo an thei$ coho$ts insie the van.

The$eafte$, appellant #lo$es inst$ucte =ao San to p$ouce the a/ount of P> /illion as $anso/ /one0 in

e7chan(e fo$ the $elease of "hua On( Pin( Si/, Robe$t, Ra0/on an Aba(atnan. Appellant Re0es an

appellant A$nalo %e$e a/on( the 8inappe$s %ho (ua$e Aba(atnan, Robe$t, "hua On( Pin( Si/ an

Ra0/on in the safe-house. The0 also acco/panie Aba(atnan an Robe$t in (oin( to the poult$0 fa$/

to sea$ch fo$ an $e/in =ao San about the $anso/ e/ane. #u$the$, appellants A$nalo an #lo$es

na$$ate in thei$ $espective e7t$a-5uicial confessions+'ho% the0 planne an e7ecute the 8inappin( of

the =ao fa/il0. Thei$ e7t$a-5uicial confessions also etaile the pa$ticula$ $olepa$ticipation pla0e b0

each of appellants an thei$ coho$ts in the 8inappin( of the fa/il0. "lea$l0, the fo$e(oin( iniviual acts

of appellants an thei$ coho$ts e/onst$ate thei$ unit0 of pu$pose an esi(n in 8inappin( the =ao

fa/il0 fo$ the pu$pose of e7to$tin( $anso/.

Appellants, ho%eve$, challen(e the le(alit0 an a/issibilit0 of the %$itten e7t$a-5uicial confessions.

Appellant Re0es clai/s that his alle(e pa$ticipation in the 8inappin( of the =ao fa/il0 %as base solel0

on the %$itten e7t$a-5uicial confessions of appellants A$nalo an #lo$es. He /aintains, ho%eve$, that

sai e7t$a-5uicial confessions a$e ina/issible in evience, because the0 %e$e obtaine in violation of

his co-appellants constitutional $i(ht to have an inepenent counsel of thei$ o%n choice u$in( custoial
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt64


9/16

investi(ation. Appellant Re0es alle(es that the a(ents of the PAO"T# i not as8 his co-appellants u$in(

the custoial investi(ation %hethe$ the0 ha a la%0e$ of thei$ o%n choice, an %hethe$ the0 coul affo$

to hi$e a la%0e$B that the a(ents of the PAO"T# su((este the availabilit0 of Att0. @/in(a an Att0. Rous

to his co-appellantsB an that Att0. @/in(a an Att0. Rous %e$e associates of the PAO"T#. Appellant

Re0es also asseve$ates that the e7t$a-5uicial confessions of appellants A$nalo an #lo$es cannot be

utili:e a(ainst hi/.

Appellant #lo$es a$(ues that his %$itten e7t$a-5uicial confession is ina/issible in evience, because it

%as obtaine in violation of his constitutional $i(ht to have an inepenent counsel of his o%n choice

u$in( custoial investi(ation. He insists that his %$itten e7t$a-5uicial confession %as elicite th$ou(h

fo$ce, to$tu$e an %ithout the assistance of a la%0e$. He ave$s that he %as not assiste b0 an0 la%0e$

f$o/ the ti/e he %as a$$este until he %as coe$ce to si(n the pu$po$te confessionB that he %as fo$ce

to si(n it because he coul not an0/o$e enu$e the beatin(s he suffe$e at the hans of the PAO"T#

a(entsB an that he neve$ /et o$ 8ne% Att0. Rous %ho, acco$in( to the PAO"T#, ha assiste hi/

u$in( the custoial investi(ation.

Appellant A$nalo contens that his %$itten e7t$a-5uicial confession shoul be e7clue as evience, as it

%as p$ocu$e in violation of his constitutional $i(ht to have an inepenent counsel of his o%n choice

u$in( custoial investi(ation. He clai/s that he %as not (iven f$eeo/ to choose his counselB that thea(ents of the PAO"T# i not as8 hi/ u$in( the custoial investi(ation %hethe$ he ha a la%0e$ of his

o%n choice, an %hethe$ he coul affo$ to hi$e a la%0e$B an that the a(ents of the PAO"T# su((este

the availabilit0 of Att0. @/in(a to hi/.

An e7t$a-5uicial confession is a ecla$ation /ae volunta$il0 an %ithout co/pulsion o$ inuce/ent b0 a

pe$son une$ custoial investi(ation, statin( o$ ac8no%le(in( that he ha co//itte o$ pa$ticipate in

the co//ission of a c$i/e.+>In o$e$ that an e7t$a-5uicial confession /a0 be a/itte in evience,

A$ticle III, Section &) of the &4; "onstitution /anates that the follo%in( safe(ua$s be obse$ve++9

Section &). 1&2 An0 pe$son une$ investi(ation fo$ the co//ission of an offense shall have the $i(ht to be

info$/e of his $i(ht to $e/ain silent an to have co/petent an inepenent counsel p$efe$abl0 of his

o%n choice. If the pe$son cannot affo$ the se$vices of counsel, he /ust be p$ovie %ith one. These$i(hts cannot be %aive e7cept in %$itin( an in the p$esence of counsel.1awphi.zw+

1)2 No to$tu$e, fo$ce, violence, th$eat, inti/iation, o$ an0 othe$ /eans %hich vitiate the f$ee %ill shall be

use a(ainst hi/. Sec$et etention places, solita$0, inco//unicao, o$ othe$ fo$/s of etention a$e

p$ohibite.

12 An0 confession o$ a/ission obtaine in violation of this o$ Section &; shall be ina/issible in

evience a(ainst hi/.

Thus, %e have hel that an e7t$a-5uicial confession is a/issible in evience if the follo%in( $euisites

have been satisfie9 1&2 it /ust be volunta$0B 1)2 it /ust be /ae %ith the assistance of co/petent an

inepenent counselB 12 it /ust be e7p$essB an 1'2 it /ust be in %$itin(.

+;

The /antle of p$otection affo$e b0 the above-uote constitutional p$ovision cove$s the pe$io f$o/ the

ti/e a pe$son is ta8en into custo0 fo$ the investi(ation of his possible pa$ticipation in the co//ission of

a c$i/e o$ f$o/ the ti/e he is sin(le out as a suspect in the co//ission of the offense althou(h not 0et

in custo0.+

The $i(ht of an accuse to be info$/e of the $i(ht to $e/ain silent an to counsel conte/plates the

t$ans/ission of /eanin(ful info$/ation $athe$ than 5ust the ce$e/onial an pe$functo$0 $ecitation of an
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt68


10/16

abst$act constitutional p$inciple.+4Such $i(ht conte/plates effective co//unication %hich $esults in the

sub5ect une$stanin( %hat is conve0e.;*

The $i(ht to counsel is a funa/ental $i(ht an is intene to p$eclue the sli(htest coe$cion as %oul

lea the accuse to a/it so/ethin( false.;&The $i(ht to counsel attaches upon the sta$t of the

investi(ation, i.e., %hen the investi(atin( office$ sta$ts to as8 uestions to elicit info$/ation ano$

confessions o$ a/issions f$o/ the accuse.;)The la%0e$ calle to be p$esent u$in( such investi(ationshoul be, as fa$ as $easonabl0 possible, the choice of the accuse. If the la%0e$ is one fu$nishe in

behalf of accuse, he shoul be co/petent an inepenentB that is, he /ust be %illin( to full0 safe(ua$

the constitutional $i(hts of the accuse.;A co/petent an inepenent counsel is lo(icall0 $eui$e to be

p$esent an able to avice an assist his client f$o/ the ti/e the latte$ ans%e$s the fi$st uestion as8e

b0 the investi(ato$ until the si(nin( of the confession. Mo$eove$, the la%0e$ shoul asce$tain that the

confession %as /ae volunta$il0, an that the pe$son une$ investi(ation full0 une$stoo the natu$e an

the conseuence of his e7t$a-5uicial confession vis-a-vis his constitutional $i(hts. ;'

Ho%eve$, the fo$e(oin( $ule is not intene to ete$ to the accuse f$o/ confessin( (uilt if he volunta$il0

an intelli(entl0 so esi$es, but to p$otect hi/ f$o/ a/ittin( %hat he is bein( coe$ce to a/it althou(h

unt$ue. To be an effective counsel, a la%0e$ nee not challen(e all the uestions bein( p$opoune to his

client. The p$esence of a la%0e$ is not intene to stop an accuse f$o/ sa0in( an0thin( %hich /i(htinc$i/inate hi/B but, $athe$, it %as aopte in ou$ "onstitution to p$eclue the sli(htest coe$cion on the

accuse to a/it so/ethin( false. The counsel shoul neve$ p$event an accuse f$o/ f$eel0 an

volunta$il0 tellin( the t$uth.;>

Ge have (one ove$ the $eco$s an foun that the PAO"T# investi(ato$s have ul0 app$ise appellants

A$nalo an #lo$es of thei$ constitutional $i(hts to $e/ain silent an to have co/petent an inepenent

counsel of thei$ o%n choice u$in( thei$ $espective custoial investi(ations.

The Pasubali;+of appellants A$nalo an #lo$ess %$itten e7t$a-5uicial confessions clea$l0 sho%s that

befo$e the0 /ae thei$ $espective confessions, the PAO"T# investi(ato$s ha info$/e the/ that the

inte$$o(ation about to be conucte on the/ $efe$$e to the 8inappin( of the =ao fa/il0. The$eafte$, the

PAO"T# a(ents e7plaine to the/ that the0 ha a constitutional $i(ht to $e/ain silent, an that an0thin(the0 %oul sa0 /a0 be use a(ainst the/ in a cou$t of la%. The0 %e$e also tol that the0 %e$e entitle to

a counsel of thei$ o%n choice, an that the0 %oul be p$ovie %ith one if the0 ha none. Ghen as8e if

the0 ha a la%0e$ of thei$ o%n, appellant A$nalo $eplie that he %oul be assiste b0 Att0. @/in(a, %hile

appellant #lo$es a($ee to be $ep$esente b0 Att0. Rous. The$eafte$, %hen as8e if the0 une$stoo thei$

sai $i(hts, the0 $eplie in the affi$/ative. The app$aisal of thei$ constitutional $i(hts %as one in the

p$esence of thei$ $espective la%0e$s an in the Ta(alo( ialect, the lan(ua(e spo8en an une$stoo b0

the/. Appellants A$nalo an #lo$es an thei$ $espective counsels, Att0. @/in(a an Att0. Rous, also

si(ne an thu/b/a$8e the e7t$a-5uicial confessions. Att0. @/in(a an Att0. Rous atteste to the

ve$acit0 of the afo$e-cite facts in thei$ $espective cou$t testi/onies.;;Inee, the app$aisal of appellants

constitutional $i(hts %as not /e$el0 pe$functo$0, because it appea$e ce$tain that appellants ha

une$stoo an, in fact, e7e$cise thei$ funa/ental $i(hts afte$ bein( info$/e the$eof.

Reco$s $eflect that appellants A$nalo an Re0es %e$e li8e%ise acco$e thei$ $i(ht to co/petent an

inepenent counsel u$in( thei$ $espective custoial investi(ations.

As $e(a$s appellant A$nalo, Att0. @/in(a testifie that p$io$ to the uestionin( of appellant A$nalo

about the incient, Att0. @/in(a tol the PAO"T# investi(ato$s an a(ents to (ive hi/ an appellant

A$nalo space an p$ivac0, so that the0 coul f$eel0 conve$se. Afte$ the PAO"T# investi(ato$s an a(ents

left the/, he an appellant A$nalo %ent to a cubicle %he$e onl0 the t%o of the/ %e$e p$esent. He

inte$vie%e appellant A$nalo in the Ta(alo( lan(ua(e $e(a$in( the latte$s pe$sonal ci$cu/stances an
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt77


11/16

as8e hi/ %h0 he %as in the PAO"T# office an %h0 he %ante a la%0e$. Appellant A$nalo $eplie that

he %ante to /a8e a confession about his pa$ticipation in the 8inappin( of the =ao fa/il0. The$eupon, he

as8e appellant A$nalo if the latte$ %oul accept his assistance as his la%0e$ fo$ pu$poses of his

confession. Appellant A$nalo a($ee. He %a$ne appellant A$nalo that he /i(ht be sentence to eath

if he confesse involve/ent in the incient. Appellant A$nalo ans%e$e that he %oul face the

conseuences because he %as bothe$e b0 his conscience. He inui$e f$o/ appellant A$nalo if he %as

ha$/e o$ inti/iate into (ivin( self-inc$i/inatin( state/ents to the PAO"T# investi(ato$s. AppellantA$nalo ans%e$e in the ne(ative. He $eueste appellant A$nalo to $e/ove his shi$t fo$ hi/ to chec8 if

the$e %e$e to$tu$e /a$8s on his bo0, but he foun none. He also obse$ve that appellant A$nalos

appea$ance an /ove/ents %e$e no$/al. His confe$ence %ith appellant A$nalo laste fo$ &> /inutes o$

/o$e. The$eafte$, he allo%e the PAO"T# investi(ato$s to uestion appellant A$nalo. ;

#u$the$, Att0. @/in(a sat besie appellant A$nalo u$in( the inui$0 an listene to the latte$s enti$e

confession. Afte$ the ta8in( of appellant A$nalos confession, Att0. @/in(a $eueste the PAO"T#

investi(ato$s to (ive hi/ a cop0 of appellant A$nalos confession. @pon obtainin( such cop0, he $ea it

enti$el0 an the$eafte$ (ave it to appellant A$nalo. He inst$ucte appellant A$nalo to $ea an

co/p$ehen the sa/e ca$efull0. He tol appellant A$nalo to as8 hi/ fo$ cla$ification an co//ent if he

i not a($ee o$ une$stan an0 pa$t of his %$itten confession. Appellant A$nalo $ea his enti$e %$itten

confession an hane it to hi/. Att0. @/in(a as8e hi/ if he ha ob5ections to it. Appellant A$nalo$eplie in the ne(ative. He then $e/ine appellant A$nalo that the latte$ coul still chan(e his /in, an

that he %as not bein( fo$ce to si(n. Appellant A$nalo /anifeste that he %oul si(n his %$itten

confession.


12/16

the custoial investi(ation.'It appea$s that Att0. @/in(a %as calle b0 the PAO"T# to assist appellant

A$nalo, because Att0. @/in(as telephone nu/be$ %as liste on the i$ecto$0 of his fo$/e$ N3I

office/ates etaile at the PAO"T#. Att0. Rous, on the othe$ han, %as a /e/be$ of the #$ee Pa$t of Att0. Rous ut0 as /e/be$ of the sai ($oup %as to $ene$ le(al assistance

to the ini(ents incluin( suspects une$ custoial investi(ation. The$e %as no evience sho%in( that

Att0. Rous ha o$(ani:ational o$ pe$sonal lin8s to the PAO"T#. In fact, he p$oceee to the PAO"T#office to assist appellant #lo$es, because he happene to be the la%0e$ /annin( the office %hen the

PAO"T# calle.+In People v. #ab$o,;%e state9

The "onstitution fu$the$ $eui$es that the counsel be inepenentB thus, he cannot be a special counsel,

public o$ p$ivate p$osecuto$, counsel of the police, o$ a /unicipal atto$ne0 %hose inte$est is a/ittel0

ave$se to that of the accuse. Att0. 6un(co oes not fall une$ an0 of sai enu/e$ation. No$ is the$e an0

evience that he ha an0 inte$est ave$se to that of the accuse. The inelible fact is that he %as

p$esient of the Ja/bales "hapte$ of the Inte($ate 3a$ of the Philippines, an not a lac8e0 of the

la%/en.

#u$the$, as ea$lie$ state, une$ Section &)1&2, A$ticle III of the &4; "onstitution, an accuse is entitle to

have co/petent an inepenent counsel p$efe$abl0 of his o%n choice. The ph$ase ?p$efe$abl0 of his o%nchoice? oes not conve0 the /essa(e that the choice of a la%0e$ b0 a pe$son une$ investi(ation is

e7clusive as to p$eclue othe$ euall0 co/petent an inepenent atto$ne0s f$o/ hanlin( the efense.

Othe$%ise, the te/po of custoial investi(ation %oul be solel0 in the hans of the accuse %ho can

i/pee, na0, obst$uct, the p$o($ess of the inte$$o(ation b0 si/pl0 selectin( a la%0e$ %ho, fo$ one $eason

o$ anothe$, is not available to p$otect his inte$est.Ghile the choice of a la%0e$ in cases %he$e the pe$son

une$ custoial inte$$o(ation cannot affo$ the se$vices of counsel K o$ %he$e the p$efe$$e la%0e$ is not

available K is natu$all0 lo(e in the police investi(ato$s, the suspect has the final choice, as he /a0

$e5ect the counsel chosen fo$ hi/ an as8 fo$ anothe$ one. A la%0e$ p$ovie b0 the investi(ato$s is

ee/e en(a(e b0 the accuse %hen he oes not $aise an0 ob5ection to the counsels appoint/ent

u$in( the cou$se of the investi(ation, an the accuse the$eafte$ subsc$ibes to the ve$acit0 of the

state/ent befo$e the s%ea$in( office$.4Appellants A$nalo an #lo$es i not ob5ect to the appoint/ent

of Att0. @/in(a an Att0. Rous as thei$ la%0e$s, $espectivel0, u$in( thei$ custoial investi(ation. P$io$ to

thei$ uestionin(, appellants A$nalo an #lo$es confe$$e %ith Att0. @/in(a an Att0. Rous. Appellant

A$nalo /anifeste that he %oul be assiste b0 Att0. @/in(a, %hile appellant #lo$es a($ee to be

counsele b0 Att0. Rous. Att0. @/in(a an Att0. Rous counte$si(ne the %$itten e7t$a-5uicial confessions

of appellants A$nalo an #lo$es, $espectivel0. Hence, appellants A$nalo an #lo$es a$e ee/e to have

en(a(e the se$vices of Att0. @/in(a an Att0. Rous, $espectivel0.

Since the p$osecution has sufficientl0 establishe that the $espective e7t$a-5uicial confessions of

appellant A$nalo an appellant #lo$es %e$e obtaine in acco$ance %ith the constitutional (ua$antees,

these confessions a$e a/issible. The0 a$e evience of a hi(h o$e$ because of the st$on( p$esu/ption

that no pe$son of no$/al /in %oul elibe$atel0 an 8no%in(l0 confess to a c$i/e, unless p$o/pte b0

t$uth an conscience.4*"onseuentl0, the bu$en of p$ovin( that unue p$essu$e o$ u$ess %as use to

p$ocu$e the confessions $ests on appellants A$nalo an #lo$es.4&

In the case at ba$, appellants A$nalo an #lo$es faile to ischa$(e thei$ bu$en of p$ovin( that the0 %e$e

fo$ce o$ coe$ce to /a8e thei$ $espective confessions. Othe$ than thei$ self-se$vin( state/ents that the0

%e$e /alt$eate b0 the PAO"T# office$sa(ents, the0 i not p$esent an0 plausible p$oof to substantiate

thei$ clai/s.lawphil.netThe0 i not sub/it an0 /eical $epo$t sho%in( that thei$ boies %e$e sub5ecte to

violence o$ to$tu$e. Neithe$ i the0 file co/plaints a(ainst the pe$sons %ho ha alle(el0 beaten o$

fo$ce the/ to e7ecute thei$ $espective confessions espite seve$al oppo$tunities to o so. Appellants

A$nalo an #lo$es ave$$e that the0 info$/e thei$ fa/il0 /e/be$s$elatives of the alle(e /alt$eat/ent,

but the latte$ i not $epo$t such alle(ations to p$ope$ autho$ities. On the cont$a$0, appellants A$nalo an
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_178300_2009.html#fnt91


13/16

#lo$es ecla$e in thei$ $espective confessions that the0 %e$e not fo$ce o$ ha$/e in (ivin( thei$ s%o$n

state/ents, an that the0 %e$e not p$o/ise o$ (iven an0 a%a$ in consie$ation of the sa/e. Reco$s

also bea$ out that the0 %e$e ph0sicall0 e7a/ine b0 octo$s befo$e the0 /ae thei$ confessions.4)Thei$

ph0sical e7a/ination $epo$ts ce$tif0 that no e7te$nal si(ns of ph0sical in5u$0 o$ an0 fo$/ of t$au/a %e$e

note u$in( thei$ e7a/ination.4In People v. Pia,4'%e hel that the follo%in( facto$s inicate

volunta$iness of an e7t$a-5uicial confession9 1&2 %he$e the accuse faile to p$esent c$eible evience of

co/pulsion o$ u$ess o$ violence on thei$ pe$sonsB 1)2 %he$e the0 faile to co/plain to the office$s %hoa/iniste$e the oathsB 12 %he$e the0 i not institute an0 c$i/inal o$ a/inist$ative action a(ainst thei$

alle(e inti/iato$s fo$ /alt$eat/entB 1'2 %he$e the$e appea$e to be no /a$8s of violence on thei$

boiesB an 1>2 %he$e the0 i not have the/selves e7a/ine b0 a $eputable ph0sician to butt$ess thei$

clai/.

It shoul also be note that the e7t$a-5uicial confessions of appellants A$nalo an #lo$es a$e $eplete

%ith etails on the /anne$ in %hich the 8inappin( %as co//itte, the$eb0 $ulin( out the possibilit0 that

these %e$e involunta$il0 /ae. Thei$ e7t$a-5uicial confessions clea$l0 state ho% appellants an thei$

coho$ts planne the 8inappin( as %ell as the seuence of events befo$e, u$in( an afte$ its occu$$ence.

The volunta$iness of a confession /a0 be infe$$e f$o/ its lan(ua(e if, upon its face, the confession

e7hibits no suspicious ci$cu/stances tenin( to cast oubt upon its inte($it0, it bein( $eplete %ith etails

%hich coul onl0 be supplie b0 the accuse.

4>

Gith $espect to appellant Re0ess clai/ that the e7t$a-5uicial confessions of appellants A$nalo an

#lo$es cannot be use in evience a(ainst hi/, %e have $ule that althou(h an e7t$a-5uicial confession is

a/issible onl0 a(ainst the confessant, 5u$isp$uence /a8es it a/issible as co$$obo$ative evience of

othe$ facts that ten to establish the (uilt of his co-accuse.4+In People v. Alva$e:,4;%e $ule that %he$e

the confession is use as ci$cu/stantial evience to sho% the p$obabilit0 of pa$ticipation b0 the co-

conspi$ato$, that confession is $eceivable as evience a(ainst a co-accuse. In People v. !ncipio4%e

eluciate as follo%s9

It is also to be note that APP!


14/16

Appellants a$(ue that thei$ alibis cast $easonable oubt on thei$ alle(e (uilt. Appellant Re0es ave$s that

he coul not have been one of those %ho 8inappe the =ao fa/il0 on the ni(ht of &+ 6ul0 &444 at a$oun

&&9** p./., because he %as sleepin( %ith his fa/il0 in thei$ $esience u$in( such ti/e an ate.


15/16

/eical $eco$sce$tificates o$ file an0 co/plaint a(ainst the PAO"T# a(ents to bolste$ his clai/ of

/alt$eat/ent.

It is t$ue that the alibis of appellants Re0es an #lo$es an the efense of f$a/e-up of appellant A$nalo

%e$e co$$obo$ate on so/e points b0 the testi/onies of so/e of thei$ $elativesf$iens. Ge have,

ho%eve$, hel that alibi an the efense of f$a/e-up beco/e less plausible %hen the0 a$e co$$obo$ate

onl0 b0 $elatives an f$iens because of pe$ceive pa$tialit0.&*'

Inee, the positive an c$eible testi/onies of Aba(atnan, Robe$t an =ao San p$evail ove$ the alibis

an efense of f$a/e-up of appellants.&*>

Ge shall no% ete$/ine the p$op$iet0 of appellants conviction fo$ the special co/ple7 c$i/e of 8inappin(

fo$ $anso/ %ith ho/icie an the co$$esponin( penalties i/pose.

@ne$ A$ticle )+; of the Revise Penal "oe, the c$i/e of 8inappin( is co//itte %ith the concu$$ence

of the follo%in( ele/ents9 1&2 the offene$ is a p$ivate iniviualB 1)2 he 8inaps o$ etains anothe$, o$ in

an0 /anne$ ep$ives the latte$ of his libe$t0B 12 the act of etention o$ 8inappin( is ille(alB an 1'2 in the

co//ission of the offense, an0 of the follo%in( ci$cu/stances is p$esent9 1a2 the 8inappin( o$ etention

lasts fo$ /o$e than th$ee a0sB 1b2 it is co//itte b0 si/ulatin( public autho$it0B 1c2 se$ious ph0sicalin5u$ies a$e inflicte upon the pe$son 8inappe o$ etaine o$ th$eats to 8ill hi/ a$e /aeB o$ 12 the

pe$son 8inappe o$ etaine is a /ino$, fe/ale, o$ a public office$.&*+All of the fo$e(oin( ele/ents %e$e

ul0 establish b0 the testi/onial an ocu/enta$0 eviences fo$ the p$osecution in the case at ba$. #i$st,

appellants an thei$ coho$ts a$e p$ivate iniviuals. Secon, appellants an thei$ coho$ts 8inappe the

=ao fa/il0 b0 ta8in( cont$ol of thei$ van an etainin( the/ in a seclue place. Thi$, the =ao fa/il0 %as

ta8en a(ainst thei$ %ill. An fou$th, th$eats to 8ill %e$e /ae an the 8inap victi/s inclue fe/ales.

Republic Act No. ;+>4 p$ovies that the eath penalt0 shall be i/pose if an0 of the t%o ualif0in(

ci$cu/stances is p$esent in the co//ission of the 8inappin(9 1&2 the /otive of the 8inappe$s is to e7to$t

$anso/ fo$ the $elease of the 8inap victi/s, althou(h none of the ci$cu/stances /entione une$

pa$a($aph fou$ of the ele/ents of 8inappin( %e$e p$esent. Ranso/ /eans /one0, p$ice o$

consie$ation pai o$ e/ane fo$ the $ee/ption of a captu$e pe$son that %oul $elease hi/ f$o/captivit0.&*;Ghethe$ o$ not the $anso/ is actuall0 pai to o$ $eceive b0 the pe$pet$ato$s is of no

/o/ent.&*It is sufficient that the 8inappin( %as co//itte fo$ the pu$pose of e7actin( $anso/B&*4an

1)2 the 8inap victi/s %e$e 8ille o$ ie as a conseuence of the 8inappin( o$ %as $ape, o$ sub5ecte

to to$tu$e o$ ehu/ani:in( acts. 3oth of these ualif0in( ci$cu/stances a$e alle(e in the info$/ation an

p$oven u$in( t$ial.

As testifie to b0 Aba(atnan, Robe$t an =ao San, appellants an thei$ coho$ts e/ane the a/ount

of P> /illion fo$ the $elease of "hua On( Pon( Si/ an Ra0/on. In fact, =ao San %ent to the @san

u/psite,


16/16

%ithout the possibilit0 of pa$ole. The "ou$t of Appeals, the$efo$e, acte acco$in(l0 in i/posin( the

penalt0 of $eclusion pe$petua %ithout the possibilit0 of pa$ole on each of the appellants.

The "ou$t of Appeals %as also co$$ect in o$e$in( appellants to 5ointl0 an seve$all0 pa0 civil ine/nit0

an e7e/pla$0 a/a(es to the =ao fa/il0. Nonetheless, thei$ co$$esponin( a/ounts shoul be /oifie.

In People v. Cuiachon,&&*%e e7plaine that even if the eath penalt0 %as not to be i/pose on accuse

because of the p$ohibition in Republic Act No. 4'+, the civil ine/nit0 of P;>,***.** %as still p$ope$, asthe sai a%a$ %as not epenent on the actual i/position of the eath penalt0 but on the fact that

ualif0in( ci$cu/stances %a$$antin( the i/position of the eath penalt0 attene the co//ission of the

offense. As ea$lie$ state, both the ualif0in( ci$cu/stances of e/an fo$ $anso/ an the ouble 8illin(

o$ eath of t%o of the 8inap victi/s %e$e alle(e in the info$/ation an p$oven u$in( t$ial. Thus, fo$ the

t%in eaths of "hua On( Pin( Si/ an Ra0/on, thei$ hei$s 1=ao San, Robe$t,

Documents

(5)peoplevsreyes_fulltext_10.1