Consti2 Cases 5

8/21/2019 Consti2 Cases 5

1/84

[G.R. No. 85215. July 7, 1989.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.HON. JUDGE RUBEN AYSON,Presiding over Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Baguio City,and FELIPE RAMOS,respondents.

Nelson Lidua for private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED; RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION; RIGHT CONSTRUED.The right against self-incrimination, mentioned in Section 20, ArticleIV of the 1973 Constitution, is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or undercompulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is NOT to "be compelledto be a witness against himself." It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not aprohibition of inquiry." It simply secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse toanswer anyparticularincriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate himfor some crime.

2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TIME TO ASSERT RIGHT.The right can be claimed only when the specific question,incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does notgive a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed,or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness receiving a subpoenamust obey it, appear as required, take thestand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when aparticularquestion is addressed to him, the answer towhich may incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutionaguaranty.

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT A SELF-EXECUTING RIGHT.The right against self-incrimination is not self-executin

or automatically operational. It must be claimed. If not claimed by or in behalf of the witness, the protectiondoes not come into play. It follows that the right may be waived, expressly, or impliedly, as by a failure to claimit at the appropriate time.

4.ID.; ID.; ID.; OTHER RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED.The accused in a criminal case in court has other rights ithe matter of giving testimony or refusing to do so. An accused "occupies a different tier of protection from anordinary witness." Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled among others

1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself, and 2) to testify as witness in his own behalf; but ifhe offers himself as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other witness; however, his neglect or refusalto be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him.

5.ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO BE EXEMPT FROM BEING A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, CONSTRUED.The rightof the defendant in a criminal case "to be exempt from being a witness against himself" signifies that he cannobe compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused, or one of theaccused. He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoenaor other process or order of the Court. He cannobe required to be a witness either for the prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself. In other words

unlike an ordinary witness (or a party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testify bysubpoena, havingonly the right to refuse to answer a particular incriminatory question at the time it is put to himthedefendant in a criminal action can refuse to testify altogether. He can refuse to take the witness stand, besworn, answer any question. And, as the law categorically states, "his neglect or refusal to be a witness shallnot in any manner prejudice or be used against him."


2/84

6.ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED BEFORE AND AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN THE COURT.Aperson suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charged with its commission in court, has thefollowing rights in that matter of his testifying or producing evidence, to wit: 1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED INCOURT (or with the public prosecutor, for preliminary investigation), but after having been taken into custodyor otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant way, and on being interrogated by the police: thecontinuing right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed thereof, not to be subjected to force,violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will; and to have evidence obtained in

violation of these rights rejected; and 2) AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURTa) to refuse to be a witness;b) not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal; c) to testify to his own behalf, subject tcross-examination by the persecution; d) WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific question whichtends to incriminate him for some time other than that for which he is prosecuted.

7.ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHTS DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION DOES NOT ENCOMPASS STATEMENTS MADEDURING AN ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY; CASE AT BAR.Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodialinterrogation, as the term should be properly understood, prior to and during the administrative inquiry into thediscovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. The constitutional rights of aperson under custodial interrogation under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not thereforecome into play, were of no relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that Ramos had voluntarily answeredquestions posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation, February 9, 1986 and agreed that

the proceedings should be recorded, the record having thereafter been marked during the trial of the criminalaction subsequently filed against him as Exhibit A, just as it is obvious that the note (later marked as Exhibit K)that he sent to his superiors on February 8, 1986, the day before the investigation, offering to compromise hisliability in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even spontaneous act on his part. They may not beexcluded on the ground that the so-called "Miranda rights" had not been accorded to Ramos.

D E C I S I O N

NARVASA, Jp

:

What has given rise to the controversy at bar is the equation by the respondent Judge of the right of anindividual not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself"accorded by Section 20, Article III of theConstitution, with the right of any person "under investigation for the commission of an offense . . . to remainsilent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right," granted by the same provision. The relevant facts arenot disputed.

Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL), assigned at itsBaguio City station. It having allegedly come to light that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of planetickets,1the PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted into the matter of February 9,1986. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the

Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) towhich Ramos pertained.2

On the day before the investigation, February 8, 1986, Ramos gave to his superiors a handwrittennote3reading as follows:

"2-8-86

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnotes


3/84

THE UNDERSIGNED WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT HE IS WILLING TO SETTLE IRREGULARITIESALLEGEDLY CHARGED VS. HIM IN THE AMT. OF P76,000 (APPROX.) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONSAS MAY BE IMPOSED BY PAL ON OR BEFORE 1700/9 FEB 86.

(s)Felipe Ramos

(Printed)F. Ramos"

At the investigation of February 9, 1986, conducted by the PAL Branch Manager in Baguio City, Edgardo R.Cruz, in the presence of Station Agent Antonio Ocampo, Ticket Freight Clerk Rodolfo Quitasol, and PALEA ShopSteward Cristeta Domingo, Felipe Ramos was informed "of the finding of the Audit Team." Thereafter, hisanswers in response to questions by Cruz, were taken down in writing. Ramos' answers were to the effect intealiathat he had not indeed made disclosure of the tickets mentioned in the Audit Team's findings, that theproceeds had been "misused" by him, that although he had planned on paying back the money, he had beenprevented from doing so, "perhaps (by) shame," that he was still willing to settle his obligation, and proferred a"compromise . . . to pay on staggered basis, (and) the amount would be known in the next investigation;" thathe desired the next investigation to be at the same place, "Baguio CTO," and that he should be representedtherein by "Shop stewardees ITR Nieves Blanco;" and that he was willing to sign his statement (as he in factafterwards did).4How the investigation turned out is not dealt with the parties at all; but it would seem that n

compromise agreement was reached much less consummated.

About two (2) months later, an information was filed against Felipe Ramos charging him with the crimeof estafaallegedly committed in Baguio City during the period from March 12, 1986 to January 29, 1987. Inthat place and during that time, according to the indictment,5he (Ramos)

". . . with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully . . . defraud thePhilippine Airlines, Inc., Baguio Branch, . . . in the following manner, to wit: said accused . . . havingbeen entrusted with and received in trust fare tickets of passengers for one-way-trip and round-trip inthe total amount of P76,700.65, with the express obligation to remit all the proceeds of the sale,account for it and/or to return those unsold, . . . once in possession thereof and instead of complyingwith his obligation, with intent to defraud, did then and there . . . misappropriate, misapply and convert

the value of the tickets in the sum of P76,700.65 and in spite of repeated demands, . . . failed andrefused to make good his obligation, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party . . ."

On arraignment on this charge, Felipe Ramos entered a plea of "Not Guilty," and trial thereafter ensued. Theprosecution of the case was undertaken by lawyers of PAL under the direction and supervision of the Fiscal.

At the close of the people's case, the private prosecutors made a written offer of evidence dated June 21,1988,6which included "the (above mentioned) statement of accused Felipe J. Ramos taken on February 9,1986 at PAL Baguio City Ticket Office," which had been marked as Exhibit A, as well as his "handwrittenadmission . . . given on February 8, 1986," also above referred to, which had been marked as Exhibit K.

The defendant's attorneys filed "Objections/Comments to Plaintiffs Evidence."7Particularly as regards thepeoples' Exhibit A, the objection was that "said document, which appears to be a confession, was taken withouthe accused being represented by a lawyer." Exhibit K was objected to "for the same reasons interposed underExhibits 'A' and 'J.' "

By Order dated August 9, 1988,8the respondent judge admitted all the exhibits "as part of the testimony ofthe witnesses who testified in connection therewith and for whatever they are worth," except Exhibits A and K,which it rejected. His Honor declared Exhibit A "inadmissible in evidence, it appearing that it is the statement oaccused Felipe Ramos taken on February 9, 1986 at PAL Baguio City Ticket Office, in an investigation
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnotes


4/84

conducted by the Branch Manager . . . since it does not appear that the accused was reminded of thisconstitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel, and that when he waived the same and gave hisstatement, it was with the assistance actually of a counsel." He also declared inadmissible "Exhibit K, thehandwritten admission made by accused Felipe J. Ramos, given on February 8, 1986 . . . for the same reasonstated in the exclusion of Exhibit 'A' since it does not appear that the accused was assisted by counsel when hemade said admission."

The private prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration.9It was denied, by Order dated September 14,1988.10In justification of said Order, respondent Judge invoked this Court's rulings in Morales, Jr. v. JuanPonce Enrile, et al., 121 SCRA 538, Peo. v. Galit, 135 SCRA 467, Peo. v. Sison, 142 SCRA 219, and Peo. v.Decierdo, 149 SCRA 496, among others, to the effect that "in custodial investigations the right to counsel maybe waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel," and the explicitprecept in the present Constitution that the rights in custodial investigation "cannot be waived except in writingand in the presence of counsel." He pointed out that the investigation of Felipe Ramos at the PAL BaguioStation was one "for the offense of allegedly misappropriating the proceeds of the tickets issued to him' andtherefore clearly fell "within the coverage of the constitutional provisions;" and the fact that Ramos was notdetained at the time, or the investigation was administrative in character could not operate to except the case"from the ambit of the constitutional provision cited."

These Orders, of August 9, 1988 and September 14, 1988 are now assailed in the petition for certiorariandprohibition at bar, filed in this Court by the private prosecutors in the name of the People of the Philippines. ByResolution dated October 26, 1988, the Court required Judge Ayson and Felipe Ramos to comment on thepetition, and directed issuance of a "TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER . . . ENJOINING the respondents fromproceeding further with the trial and/or hearing of Criminal Case No. 3488-R (People . . . vs. Felipe Ramos),including the issuance of any order, decision or judgment in the aforesaid case or on any matter in relation tothe same case, now pending before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Br. 6, First Judicial Region." TheCourt also subsequently required the Solicitor General to comment on the petition. The comments of JudgeAyson, Felipe Ramos, and the Solicitor General have all been filed. The Solicitor General has made commoncause with the petitioner and prays "that the petition be given due course and thereafter judgment be renderesetting aside respondent Judge's Orders . . . and ordering him to admit Exhibits 'A' and 'K' of the prosecution."

The Solicitor General has thereby removed whatever impropriety might have attended the institution of theinstant action in the name of the People of the Philippines by lawyers de parteof the offended party in thecriminal action in question.

The Court deems that there has been full ventilation of the issueof whether or not it was grave abuse ofdiscretion for respondent Judge to have excluded the People's Exhibits A and K. It will now proceed to resolveit.

At the core of the controversy is Section 20, Article IV of the 1973Constitution,11to which respondent Judgehas given a construction that is disputed by the People. The section reads as follows:

SEC. 20.No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigationfor the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informedof such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free willshall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible inevidence.

It should at once be apparent that there are two (2) rights, or sets of rights, dealth with in the section, namely

1)the right against self-incriminationi.e., the right of a person not to be compelled to be a witness againsthimselfset out in the first sentence, which is a verbatim reproduction of Section 18, Article III of the 1935Constitution, and is similar to that accorded by the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution,12and
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnotes


5/84

2)the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e., the rights of every suspect "under investigation for thecommission of an offense."

Parenthetically, the 1987 Constitution indicates much more clearly the individuality and disparateness of theserights. It has placed the rights in separate sections. The right against self-incrimination, "No person shall becompelled to be a witness against himself," is now embodied in Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.The rights of a person in custodial interrogation, which have been made more explicit, are now contained in

Section 12 of the same Article III.13

Right Against Self-Incrimination

The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, isaccorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena, in anycivil, criminal, or administrative proceeding.14The right is NOT to "be compelled to be a witness againsthimself."

The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning.15It prescribes an "option of refusal to answeincriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry."16It simply secures to a witness, whether he be aparty or not, the right to refuse to answer anyparticularincriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to whichhas a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the specificquestion, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. Itdoes not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the timeappointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness receiving a subpoenamust obey it, appear asrequired, take the stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when aparticularquestion is addressed tohim, the answer to which may incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse to answer on the strengthof the constitutional guaranty.

That first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution does not impose on the judge, or otherofficer presiding over a trial, hearing or investigation, any affirmative obligation to advise a witness of his rightagainst self-incrimination. It is a right that a witness knows or should know, in accordance with the well known

axiom that every one is presumed to know the law, that ignorance of the law excuses no one. Furthermore, inthe very nature of things, neither the judge nor the witness can be expected to know in advance the characteror effect of a question to be put to the latter.17

The right against self-incrimination is not self-executing or automatically operational. It must be claimed. If notclaimed by or in behalf of the witness, the protection does not come into play. It follows that the right may bewaived, expressly, or impliedly, as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time.18

Rights in Custodial Interrogation

Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution also treats of a second right, or better said, group of rights.

These rights apply to persons "under investigation for the commission of an offense," i.e., "suspects" underinvestigation by police authorities; and this is what makes these rights different from that embodied in the firstsentence, that against self-incrimination which, as aforestated, indiscriminately applies to any person testifyingin any proceeding, civil, criminal, or administrative.

This provision granting explicit rights to persons under investigation for an offense was not in the 1935Constitution. It is avowedly derived from the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona,19adecision described as an "earthquake in the world of law enforcement."20

Section 20 states that whenever any person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense"
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnotes


6/84

1)he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of each right,21

2)nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used

against him;22and

3)any confession obtained in violation of . . . (these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence.23

In Miranda, Chief Justice Warren summarized the procedural safeguards laid down for a person in policecustody, "in-custody interrogation" being regarded as the commencement of an adversary proceeding againstthe suspect.24

He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he sayscan be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and thatif he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.Opportunity to exercise those rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After suchwarnings have been given, such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligentlywaive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings andwaivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a result ofinterrogation can be used against him.

The objective is to prohibit "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere,resulting in self-incriminating statement without full warnings of constitutional rights."25

The rights above specified, to repeat, exist only in "custodial interrogations," or "in-custody interrogation ofaccused persons."26And, as this Court has already stated, by custodial interrogation is meant "questioninginitiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of hisfreedom of action in any significant way."27The situation contemplated has also been more precisely describeby this Court.28

. . . After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a confrontation arises whichat best may be termed unequal. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquartersand there questioned and "cross-examined" not only by one but as many investigators as may benecessary to break down his morale. He finds himself in strange and unfamiliar surroundings, andevery person he meets he considers hostile to him. The investigators are well-trained andseasoned in their work. They employ all the methods and means that experience and study havetaught them to extract the truth, or what may pass for it, out of the detainee. Most detainees areunlettered and are not aware of their constitutional rights. And even if they were, the intimidatingand coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms them intosilence. Section 20 of the Bill of Rights seeks to remedy this imbalance."

Not every statement made to the police by a person involved in some crime is within the scope of the

constitutional protection. If not made "under custodial interrogation," or "under investigation for thecommission of an offense," the statement is not protected. Thus, in one case,29where a person went to apolice precinct and before any sort of investigation could be initiated, declared that he was giving himself up fothe killing of an old woman because she was threatening to kill him by barang, or witchcraft, this Court ruledthat such a statement was admissible, compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogationnot being exigible under the circumstances.

Rights of Defendant in Criminal Case

As Regards Giving of Testimony
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnotes


7/84

It is pertinent at this point to inquire whether the rights just discussed, i.e., (1) that against self-incriminationand (2) those during custodial interrogation apply to persons under preliminary investigationor already chargein courtfor a crime.

It seems quite evident that a defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is not under custodialinterrogation. His interrogation by the police, if any there had been would already have been ended at the timeof the filing of the criminal case in court (or the public prosecutors' office). Hence, with respect to a defendant

in a criminal case already pending in court (or the public prosecutor's office), there is no occasion to speak ofhis right while under "custodial interrogation" laid down by the second and subsequent sentences of Section 20Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, for the obvious reason that he is no longer under "custodial interrogation."

But unquestionably, the accused in court (or undergoing preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor)in common with all other persons, possesses the right against self-incrimination set out in the first sentence ofSection 20 Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, i.e., the right to refuse to answer a specific incriminatoryquestion at the time that it is put to him.30

Additionally, the accused in a criminal case in court has other rights in the matter of giving testimony orrefusing to do so. An accused "occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness." Under theRules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled among others

1)to be exempt from being a witness against himself,31and

2)to testify as witness in his own behalf; but if he offers himself as a witness he may be cross-examined as anyother witness; however, his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be usedagainst him.32

The right of the defendant in a criminal case "to be exempt from being a witness against himself" signifies thathe cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused, or one othe accused. He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoenaor other process or order of the Court. Hecannot be required to be a witness either for the prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself.33In

other wordsunlike an ordinary witness (or a party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testifyby subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer a particular incriminatory question at the time it is putto himthe defendant in a criminal action can refuse to testify altogether. He can refuse to take the witnessstand, be sworn, answer any question.34And, as the law categorically states, "his neglect or refusal to be awitness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him."35

If he should wish to testify in his own behalf, however, he may do so. This is his right. But if he does testify,then he "may be cross-examined as any other witness." He may be cross-examined as to any matters stated inhis direct examination, or connected therewith.36He may not on cross-examination refuse to answer anyquestion on the ground that the answer that he will give, or the evidence he will produce, would have atendency to incriminate him for the crime with which he is charged.

It must however be made clear that if the defendant in a criminal action be asked a question which mightincriminate him, not for the crime with which he is charged, but for some other crime, distinct from that ofwhich he is accused, he may decline to answer that specific question, on the strength of the right against self-incrimination granted by the first sentence of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (now Section 17 ofthe 1987 Constitution). Thus, assuming that in a prosecution for murder, the accused should testify in hisbehalf, he may not on cross-examination refuse to answer any question on the ground that he might beimplicated in that crime of murder; but he may decline to answer any particular question which might implicatehim for a different and distinct offense, say, estafa.
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnotes


8/84

In fine, a person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charged with its commission incourt, has the following rights in that matter of his testifying or producing evidence, to wit:

1)BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the public prosecutor, for preliminary investigation), but aftehaving been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant way, and on beinginterrogated by the police: the continuing right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed thereof, noto be subjected to force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will; and to

have evidence obtained in violation of these rights rejected; and

2)AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT37

a)to refuse to be a witness;

b)not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal;

c)to testify to his own behalf, subject to cross-examination by the prosecution;

d)WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific question which tends to incriminate him forsome time other than that for which he is prosecuted.

It should by now be abundantly apparent that respondent Judge has misapprehended the nature and import othe disparate rights set forth in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. He has taken them as applyingto the same juridical situation, equating one with the other. In so doing, he has grossly erred. To be sure, HisHonor sought to substantiate his thesis by arguments he took to be cogent and logical. The thesis was howeveso far divorced from the actual and correct state of the constitutional and legal principles involved as to makeapplication of said thesis to the case before him tantamount to totally unfounded, whimsical or capriciousexercise of power. His Orders were thus rendered with grave abuse of discretion. They should be as they arehereby, annulled and set aside.

It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodialinterrogation, as the term should be properly understood, prior to and during the administrative inquiry into thediscovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. The constitutional rights of a

person under custodial interrogation under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not thereforecome into play, were of no relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that Ramos had voluntarily answeredquestions posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation, February 9, 1986 and agreed thatthe proceedings should be recorded, the record having thereafter been marked during the trial of the criminalaction subsequently filed against him as Exhibit A, just as it is obvious that the note (later marked as Exhibit K)that he sent to his superiors on February 8, 1986, the day before the investigation, offering to compromise hisliability in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even spontaneous act on his part. They may not beexcluded on the ground that the so-called "Miranda rights" had not been accorded to Ramos.

His Honor adverts to what he perceives to be the "greater danger . . (of) the violation of the right of anyperson against self-incrimination when the investigation is conducted by the complaining parties, complainingcompanies, or complaining employers because being interested parties, unlike the police agencies who have nopropriety or pecuniary interest to protect, they may in their overeagerness or zealousness bear heavily on theirhapless suspects, whether employees or not, to give statements under an atmosphere of moral coercion, unduascendancy, and undue influence." It suffices to draw attention to the specific and peremptory requirement ofthe law that disciplinary sanctions may not be imposed on any employee by his employer until and unless theemployee has been accorded due process, by which is meant that the latter must be informed of the offensesascribed to him and afforded adequate time and opportunity to explain his side. The requirement entails themaking of statements, oral or written, by the employee under such administrative investigation in his defense,with opportunity to solicit the assistance of counsel, or his colleagues and friends. The employee may, of
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/20866?search=%28gr%3A+%2885215%2A%29%29+OR+%28gr%3A+%28%3F%3F85215+%29%29#footnotes


9/84

course, refuse to submit any statement at the investigation, that is his privilege. But if he should opt to do so,in his defense to the accusation against him, it would be absurd to reject his statements, whether at theadministrative investigation, or at a subsequent criminal action brought against him, because he had not beenaccorded, prior to his making and presenting them, his "Miranda rights" (to silence and to counsel and to beinformed thereof, etc.) which, to repeat, are relevant only in custodial investigations. Indeed, it is self-evidentthat the employee's statements, whether called "position paper," "answer," etc., are submitted by him preciselyso that they may be admitted and duly considered by the investigating officer or committee, in negation or

mitigation of his liability.

Of course the possibility cannot be discounted that in certain instances the judge's expressed apprehensionsmay be realized, that violence or intimidation, undue pressure or influence be brought to bear on an employeeunder investigationor for that matter, on a person being interrogated by another whom he has supposedlyoffended. In such an event, any admission or confession wrung from the person under interrogation would beinadmissible in evidence, on proof of the vice or defect vitiating consent, not because of a violation of Section20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, but simply on the general, incontestable proposition that involuntary orcoerced statements may not in justice be received against the makers thereof, and really should not beaccorded any evidentiary value at all.

WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorariis granted annulling and setting aside the Orders of the respondent Judge inCriminal Case No. 3488-R, dated August 9, 1988 and September 14, 1988, and he is hereby ordered to admit ievidence Exhibits "A" and "K" of the prosecution in said Criminal Case No. 3488-R, and thereafter proceed withthe trial and adjudgment thereof. The temporary restraining order of October 26, 1988 having become functusoficio,is now declared of no further force and effect.

Cruz, Gancayco, Grio-Aquinoand Medialdea, JJ.,concur.

[G.R. No. 112983. March 22, 1995.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. HECTOR MAQUEDA @ PUTOL, andRENE SALVAMANTE (at large), accused, HECTOR MAQUEDA @ PUTOL, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1.REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION; DISTINGUISHED FROM EXTRAJUDICIALCONFESSION.A perusal of the Sinumpaang Salaysayfails to convince us that it is an extrajudicial confessionIt is only an extrajudicial admission. There is a distinction between the former and the latter as clearly shown iSections 26 and 33, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt. Theterm admission is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directlyinvolve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is chargedAnd under Section 3 of Rule 133, an extrajudicial confession made by the accused is not sufficient forconviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.


10/84

1

2.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT OF ACCUSED TO REMAIN SILENT, TO COUNSEL AND TOBE INFORMED OF SUCH RIGHT; AVAILABLE EVEN AFTER THE FILING OF CRIMINAL ACTION; SINUMPAANGSALAYSAYACQUIRED IN VIOLATION THEREOF, INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.The exercise of the rights toremain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution arenot confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available at thatstage when a person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense." Ordinarily, once a criminalcomplaint or information is filed in court and the accused is thereafter arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest,

he must be delivered to the nearest police station or jail and the arresting officer must make a return of thewarrant to the issuing judge, and since the court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person, it would beimproper for any public officer or law enforcement agency to investigate him in connection with the commissioof the offense for which he is charged. If, nevertheless, he is subjected to such investigation, then Section12(1), Article III of the Constitution and the jurisprudence thereon must be faithfully complied with. In the caseat bar, the Sinumpaang Salaysayof Maqueda taken by SPO2 Molleno after the former's arrest was taken inpalpable violation of the said Constitutional provision. As disclosed by a reading thereof, Maqueda was not evetold of any of his constitutional rights under the said section. The statement was also taken in the absence ofcounsel. Such uncounselled Sinumpaang Salaysayis wholly inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 3, Section 12,Article III of the Constitution.

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; SOURCES OF SAID LAW.The direct and primary source of Section 12(1) of the present

Constitution is the second paragraph of Section 20, Article II of the 1973 Constitution. It was an acceptance ofthe landmark doctrine laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda vs.Arizona(384 U.S. 436[1966]). In that case, the Court explicitly stated that the holding therein "is not an innovation in ourjurisprudence, but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other settings." It may bepointed out though that as formulated in the second paragraph of the aforementioned Section 20, theword custodial, which was used in Mirandawith reference to the investigation, was excluded. In view thereof,in Galman vs.Pamaran, (138 SCRA 294, 319-320 [1985]) this Court aptly observed: The fact that the framersof our Constitution did not choose to use the term ''custodial" by having it inserted between the words ''under"and "investigation," as in fact the sentence opens with the phrase "any person"goes to prove that they did notadopt in totothe entire fabric of the Mirandadoctrine. Clearly then, the second paragraph of Section 20 haseven broadened the application of Mirandaby making it applicable to the investigation for the commission of a

offense of a person not in custody. Accordingly, as so formulated, the second paragraph of Section 20 changedthe rule adopted in People vs.Jose(37 SCRA 450 [1971]) that the rights of the accused only begin uponarraignment. Applying the second paragraph of Section 20, this Court laid down this rule in Moralesvs.Enrile(121 SCRA 538, 554 [1983]): "7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arrestingofficer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shallbe informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might makecould be used against him, . . ." Note that the first sentence requires the arresting officer to inform the personto be arrested of the reason for the arrest and show him "the warrant of arrest, if any." The underscoredphrase simply means that a case had been filed against him in a court of either preliminary or originaljurisdiction and that the court had issued the corresponding warrant of arrest. From the foregoing, it is clearthat the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under the second paragraph ofSection 20 are available to a person at any time before arraignment whenever he is investigated for the

commission of an offense. This paragraph was incorporated into Section 12 (1). Article III of the presentConstitution with the following additional safeguards: (a) the counsel must be competent and independent,preferably of his own choice, (b) if the party cannot afford the services of such counsel, he must be providedwith one, and (c) the rights therein cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Then,too, the right to be heardwould be a farce if it did not include the right to counsel. Thus, Section 12(2), ArticleIII of the present Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall "enjoy the right to beheard by himself and counsel.''

4.REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION IN CASE AT BAR; ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.The extrajudicial admissions of Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and to Ray Dean Salvosa are not governed bythe exclusionary rules under the Bill of Rights. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate


11/84

1

not in the course of an investigation, but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness;and as to the other admission, it was given to a private person. The provisions of the Bill of Rights are primarilylimitations on government, declaring the rights that exist without governmental grant, that may not be takenaway by government and that government has the duty to protect. or restrictions on the power of governmentfound "not in the particular specific types of action prohibited, but in the general principle that keeps alive inthe public mind the doctrine that governmental power is not unlimited.'' They are the fundamental safeguardsagainst aggressions of arbitrary power, or state tyranny and abuse of authority. In laying down the principles o

the government and fundamental liberties of the people, the Constitution did not govern the relationshipsbetween individuals. Accordingly, Maqueda's admissions to Ray Dean Salvosa, a private party, are admissible inevidence against the former under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. InAballe vs.People, (183 SCRA196 [1990]) this Court held that the declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offensemay be given in evidence against him and any person, otherwise competent to testify as a witness, who heardthe confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it. Thesaid witness need not repeat verbatimthe oral confession; it suffices if he gives its substance. By analogy, thatrule applies to oral extrajudicial admissions. To be added to Maqueda's extrajudicial admission is his UrgentMotion for Bail wherein he explicitly stated that "he is willing and volunteering to be a state witness in theabove entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case." In the light of hisadmissions to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa and his willingness to be a state witness, Maqueda'sparticipation in the commission of the crime charged was established beyond moral certainty. His defense of

alibi was futile because by his own admission he was not only at the scene of the crime at the time of itscommission, he also admitted his participation therein. Even if we disregard his extrajudicial admissions toProsecutor Zarate and Salvosa, his guilt was, as correctly ruled by the trial court, established beyond doubt bycircumstantial evidence. The following circumstances were duly proved in this case: (1) He and a companionwere seen a kilometer away from the Barker house an hour after the crime in question was committed there;(2) Rene Salvamante, who is still at large, was positively identified by Mrs. Barker, Norie Dacara, and JulietaVillanueva as one of two persons who committed the crime; (3) He and co-accused Rene Salvamante arefriends; (4) He and Rene Salvamante were together in Guinyangan, Quezon, and both left the place sometimein September 1991, (5) He was arrested in Guinyangan, Quezon, on 4 March 1992, and (6) He freely andvoluntarily offered to be a state witness stating that "he is the least guilty."

5.ID.; ID.; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; WHEN SUFFICIENT.Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Courtprovides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance (b)The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Or, as jurisprudentially formulated, a judgment ofconviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute anunbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusionof all others, as the guilty person, i.e., the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistenwith the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesisexcept that of guilty. We do not hesitate to rule that all the requisites of Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules ofCourt are present in this case.

6.ID.; ID.; ALIBI; WEAK DEFENSE ABSENT PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY TO BE AT THE SCENE OF CRIME AT THETIME OF COMMISSION.The defense of alibi put up by the appellant must fail. The trial court correctlyrejected such defense. The rule is settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time andplace must be strictly met. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime wacommitted, he must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of thecrime at the time of its commission. Through the unrebutted testimony, it was positively established thatMaqueda and a companion were seen at 7:00 a.m. of 27 August 1991 at the waiting shed in Aguyad, Tuba,Benguet, a place barely a kilometer away from the house of the Barkers. It was not then impossible forMaqueda and his companion to have been at the Barker house at the time the crime was committed.


12/84

1

D E C I S I O N

DAVIDE, JR., J p:

As against a bustling city life, Britisher Horace William Barker, a consultant of the World Bank, andhis Filipino wife, Teresita Mendoza, chose the peace and quiet of a country home not any near the

metropolis of Manila or its environs, but in the rugged and mountainous terrain of Tuba, Benguet. Perhapsthey thought they were in a veritable paradise, beyond the reach of worldly distractions and trouble. Thatillusion was shattered when in the early morning of 27 August 1991, in the sanctity of their own home,Horace was brutally slain and Teresita badly battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robbery.Sufficientprima facieevidence pointed to Rene Salvamante, the victims, former houseboy, as one of theperpetrators of the ghastly crime.

As to Rene's co-conspirator, the prosecution initially included one Richard Malig y Severino in theinformation for robbery with homicide and serious physical injuries1filed on 19 November 1991 with Branch10 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Benguet at La Trinidad, Benguet.cdrep

Only Richard Malig was arrested. On 22 January 1992, prior to the arraignment of Richard Malig, theprosecution filed a motion to amend the information2to implead as co-accused Hector

Maqueda aliasPutolbecause the evaluation of the evidence subsequently submitted established hiscomplicity in the crime, and at the hearing of the motion the following day, the Prosecutor further askedthat accused Richard Malig be dropped from the information because further evaluation of the evidencedisclosed no sufficient evidence against him.3

The motion to drop Malig was granted and warrants for the arrest of accused Salvamante andMaqueda were issued. Maqueda was subsequently arrested on 4 March 1992, and on 9 April 1992, he filedan application for bail.4He categorically stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a Statewitness in the above-entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case."

On 22 April 1992, the prosecution filed an Amended Information5with only Salvamante andMaqueda as the accused. Its accusatory portion reads as follows:

That on or about the 27th of August, 1991, at Tagadi. Upper Tadiangan, Municipality of Tuba, Provinceof Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, armed with lead pipes, and with intent ofgain and against the will and consent of the owners thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully andfeloniously enter the house of spouses TERESITA and WILLIAM HORACE BARKER and with violenceagainst and intimidation of the persons therein ransack the place and take and carry away the followingarticles, to wit:

[An enumeration and description of the articles follow]

all having a total value of TWO HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS(P204,250.00). Philippine Currency, belonging to the said Teresita and William Horace Barker; that on

the occasion and by reason of the said robbery, both accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniouslyrepeatedly strike Teresita Barker and William Horace Barker with lead pipes on the different parts oftheir body, leading to the death of William Horace Barker and inflicting various physical injuries on theformer which required medical attendance for a period of more than thirty (30) days and have likewiseincapacitated her from the performance of her customary labor for the same period of time.

Contrary to Law.

Since Rene Salvamante continues to elude arrest and has remained at large, trial proceeded againstMaqueda only, after he entered a plea of not guilty on 22 April 1992.6
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnotes


13/84

1

In its decision7promulgated on 31 August 1993, the trial court found accused Hector Maquedaguilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and serious physical injuries andsentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuaand to "indemnify the victim, Teresita M. Barkerin the amount of P50,000.00 for the death of William Horace Barker, P41,681.00 representing actualexpenses, P100,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs." LLjur

The prosecution presented as its witnesses Mrs. Teresita Mendoza Barker, househelps Norie Dacaraand Julieta Villanueva, Mike Tayaban, Dr. Francisco Hernandez, Jr., Francisco Cabotaje, Prosecutor Daniel

Zarate, Ray Dean Salvosa, Glen Enriquez, SPO1 Rodolfo Tabadero, and Policarpio Cambod in its evidence inchief and Fredesminda Castrence and SPO3 Armando Molleno on rebuttal. Accused Hector Maqueda tookthe witness stand and presented SPO1 Aurelio Sagun, Jr. in his evidence in chief and Myrna MaquedaKatindig as his sur-rebuttal witness.

The version of the prosecution, as culled from the trial court's detailed and meticulous summarythereof, is as follows:

Between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. of 26 August 1991, the spouses Horace William Barker and TeresitaMendoza Barker repaired to their bedroom after Teresita had checked as was her wont, the main doors oftheir house to see if they had been locked and bolted.

At around 6:00 a.m. of the following day, 27 August 1991, Norie Dacara, a househelp of the Barkers

who shared a room with her cousin and fellow househelp, Julieta Villanueva, got up, opened the door to thegarage, went to the lavatory to wash her face, and proceeded to the toilet. When she opened the door ofthe toilet and switched on the light, she saw Rene Salvamante. She knew Salvamante very well because heand his sister Melanie were the former househelps of the Barkers whom she and Julieta Villanueva hadreplaced and because Salvamante had acquainted her on her chores. LLphil

Salvamante suddenly strangled her. While she was fighting back, Norie happened to turn her faceand she saw a fair-complexioned, tall man with a high-bridged nose at Salvamante's side, whom sheidentified at the trial as Maqueda. After she broke free from Salvamante, Norie fled towards the garage andshouted for help. Salvamante chased her and pulled her back inside the house.

Julieta Villanueva, who was awakened by the shouts of Norie, got out of her bed and upon openingthe door of her room, saw a man clad in maong jacket and short pants with his right hand brandishing a

lead pipe standing two meters in front of her. At the trial, she pointed to accused Maqueda as the man shesaw then. She got scared and immediately closed the door. Since the door knob turned as if someone wasforcing his way into the room, she held on to it and shouted for help.

The shouts awakened Teresita Mendoza Barker. She rose from her bed and went out of the room,leaving behind her husband who was still asleep. She went down the stairs and proceeded to the diningroom. She saw Salvamante and a companion who was a complete stranger to her. Suddenly, the tworushed towards her and beat her up with lead pipes. Despite her pleas to get what they want and not tohurt her, they continued to beat her up until she lost consciousness. At the trial, she pointed to accusedMaqueda as Salvamante's companion.

Salvamante also hit Norie with the lead pipe on her back and at the back of her right hand. She fellto the concrete floor, and after she had recovered, she ran to the garage and hid under the car. After a few

seconds, she went near the door of the garage and because she could not open it, she called Julieta. Julietaopened the door and they rushed to their room and closed the door. When they saw that the door knobwas being turned, they braced themselves against the door to prevent anyone from entering. While lockedin their room, they heard the moans of Mrs. Barker and the shouts of Mr. Barker: "That's enough, that'senough, that's enough." When the noise stopped, Norie and Julieta heard the sound of water flowing fromthe toilet and the barking of dogs.

At 7:00 a.m. of that same day, 27, August 1991, Mike Tabayan and Mark Pacio were resting in awaiting shed beside the Asin road at Aguyad, Tuba, Benguet, which is only a kilometer away from thehouse of the Barkers. They saw two men approaching them from a curve. When the two men reached the
http://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnoteshttp://www.cdasiaonline.com/search/show_article/15294?search=gr%3A+%28112983%2A%29#footnotes


14/84

1

shed, he and Mark noticed that the taller of the two had an amputated left hand and a right hand with amissing thumb and index finger. This man was carrying a black bag on his right shoulder.

Speaking in Tagalog, the taller man asked Mike and Mark whether the road they were followingwould lead to Naguilian, La Union. Mike replied that it did not. Five minutes later, a passenger jeepneybound for Baguio City and owned and driven by Ben Lusnong arrived at the waiting shed. The two menboarded it. Mike again noticed that the taller man had the defects above mentioned because the latter usedhis right hand with only three fingers to hold on to the bar of the jeepney as he boarded it. In the

investigation conducted by the Tuba police, he identified through a picture the shorter man as Salvamante,and at the hearing, he pointed to Maqueda as the taller man.

At 9:00 a.m. of 27 August 1991, Norie and Julieta gathered enough courage to leave the roomwhere they had earlier barricaded themselves and proceed to the kitchen to get the key to the gate of thegarage. In the dining room, they saw the Barkers bathed in their own blood. Norie and Julieta rushed out ofthe house and ran to the place of Janet Albon to seek help. After requesting Janet to call the police, theyreturned to the Barker's house but did not enter it for fear of what they had seen earlier. They just stayednear the road.LLphil

Soon after, security guards of the Baguio College Foundation (BCF) arrived. A team from the Baguio

City Police Station, headed by police Officer Policarpio Cambod, and which included Dr. Perfecto Micu of theCity Health Department, also arrived. The team conducted an initial investigation only because it found outthat the scene of the crime was within the jurisdiction of the Tuba Police Station, which, however, wasdifficult to get in touch with at that time. Dr. Perfecto Micu found the body of Mr. Barker inside the Barkerhouse and Cambod prepared a sketch (Exhibit "JJ") showing its location. They went around the house andfound a lead pipe (Exhibit "AA") at the toilet, a black T-shirt (Exhibit "CC"), and a green hand towel (Exhibit"DD"). He also discovered another lead pipe (Exhibit "BB") at the back of the door of the house. He theninterviewed the two househelps who provided him with descriptions of the assailants. The team then left,leaving behind BCF Security Officer Glen Enriquez and a security guard. Cambod prepared a report of hisinitial investigation (Exhibit "KK").LibLex

Enriquez conducted his own investigation. At the master's bedroom, he saw several pieces of jewelry

scattered on the floor and an empty inner cabinet. He noticed footprints at the back of the house,particularly at the riprap wall, and observed that the grass below it was parted as if someone had passedthrough and created a trail amidst the grass down toward the Asin road of Tuba, Benguet. Upon hisrequest, a security guard of the BCF, Edgar Dalit, was sent to the Barker house to secure the premises.Enriquez then left after Dalit's arrival.

At 5:00 p.m. of that same day, members of the Tuba Police Station arrived at the Barker house toconduct their investigation. Enriquez, who in the meantime was called by Dalit, returned to the Barkerhouse.

The lead pipes, black T-shirt, and the green hand towel recovered from the Barker house by theBaguio City Police were first brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service at Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad,Benguet, and then to the court.

The body of William Horace Barker was taken to the Baguio Funeral Homes at Naguilian Road,Baguio City, where it was examined by Dr. Francisco P. Cabotaje, Municipal Health Officer of Tuba,Benguet. He found in it twenty-seven injuries, which could have been caused by a blunt instrument,determined the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock, and then issued a death certificate (Exhibits "P," "O,"and "R").LexLib

The wounded Teresita Barker was brought to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center whereshe was treated and confined for eight days. The attending physician, Dr. Francisco L. Hernandez, Jr., firstsaw her at around 11:00 a.m. of 27 August 1991. She was in a comatose state. Dr. Hernandez found thatshe sustained multiple lacerations primarily on the left side of the occipital area, bleeding in the left ear, andbruises on the arm. One of the muscles adjoining her eyes was paralyzed. She regained consciousness only


15/84

1

after two days. Dr. Hernandez opined that Mrs. Barker's injuries were caused by a blunt instrument, like alead pipe, and concluded that if her injuries had been left unattended, she would have died by noontime of27 August 1991 due to bleeding or hemorrhagic shock.

On 1 September 1991, a police team from the Tuba Police Station, Benguet, came to the hospitalbed of Mrs. Barker, showed her pictures of several persons, and asked her to identify the persons who hadassaulted her. She pointed to a person who turned out to be Richard Malig. When informed of theinvestigation, Dr. Hernandez told the members of the team that it was improper for them to conduct it

without first consulting him since Mrs. Barker had not yet fully recovered consciousness. Moreover, hereyesight had not yet improved, her visual acuity was impaired, and she had double vision. LexLib

On 3 September 1991, the remains of Mr. Barker were cremated. Mrs. Barker was then dischargedfrom the hospital and upon getting home, tried to determine the items lost during the robbery. Sherequested Glen Enriquez to get back the pieces of jewelry taken by the Tuba PNP (Exhibit "U"). The TubaPNP gave them to Enriquez (Exhibit "V"). Mrs. Barker discovered that her Canon camera, radio cassetterecorder (Exhibit "W-3"), and some pieces of jewelry (Exhibit "W-2") were missing. The aggregate value ofthe missing items was P204,250.00. She then executed an affidavit on these missing items (Exhibit "X").

Mrs. Barker underwent a CT Scan at the St. Luke's Hospital in Quezon City. It was revealed that shesustained a damaged artery on her left eye which could cause blindness. She then sought treatment at theSt. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital in New York (Exhibit "L") where she underwent an unsuccessful operation.She likewise received treatment at the New York Medical Center (Exhibit "M").

On 29 November 1991, Ray Dean Salvosa, Executive Vice President of the BCF, ordered GlenEnriquez to go to Guinyangan, Quezon, to coordinate with the police in determining the whereabouts ofaccused Rene Salvamante. In Guinyangan, Enriquez was able to obtain information from the barangaycaptain, Basilio Requeron, that he saw Salvamante together with a certain "Putol" in September 1991;however, they already left the place.

On 21 December 1991, Enriquez, Melanio Mendoza, and three others went back to Guinyangan tofind out whether Salvamante and"Putol'had returned. Upon being informed by Barangay Captain Requeronthat the two had not, Enriquez requested Requeron to notify him immediately once Salvamante or "Putol"returned to Guinyangan.cdll

On 4 March 1992, Requeron's daughter called up Enriquez to inform him that "Putol," who is noneother than accused Hector Maqueda, had been arrested in Guinyangan. Enriquez and Maj. RodolfoAnagaran, Chief of the Tuba Police Station, together with another policeman, proceeded to Guinyangan.The Guinyangan Police Station turned over Maqueda to Maj. Anagaran who then brought Maqueda to theBenguet Provincial Jail.

Before Maj. Anagaran's arrival at Guinyangan, Maqueda had been taken to the headquarters of the235th PNP Mobile Force Company at Sta. Maria, Calauag, Quezon. Its commanding officer, Maj. Virgilio F.Renton, directed SPO3 Armando Molleno to get Maqueda's statement. He did so and according to him, heinformed Maqueda of his rights under the Constitution. Maqueda thereafter signed a SinumpaangSalaysay(Exhibit "LL") wherein he narrated his participation in the crime at the Barker house on 27 August1991.

On 9 April 1992, while he was under detention, Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail (Exhibit "GG-6"). He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled case, itappearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case." Prosecutor Zarate then had a talk withMaqueda regarding such statement and asked him if he was in the company of Salvamante on 27 August1991 in entering the house of the Barkers. After he received an affirmative answer, Prosecutor Zarate toldMaqueda that he would oppose the motion for bail since he, Maqueda, was the only accused on trial(Exhibit "II").

In the meantime, Ray Dean Salvosa arrived at the Office of Prosecutor Zarate and obtainedpermission from the latter to talk to Maqueda. Salvosa then led Maqueda toward the balcony. Maquedanarrated to Salvosa that Salvamante brought him to Baguio City in order to find a job as a peanut vendor;


16/84

1

Salvamante then brought him to the Barker house and it was only when they were at the vicinity thereofthat Salvamante revealed to him that his real purpose in going to Baguio City was to rob the Barkers; heinitially objected to the plan, but later on agreed to it; when they were in the kitchen of the Barker house,one of the househelps was already there; Salvamante hit her with a lead pipe and she screamed; then Mrs.Barker came down, forcing him, Maqueda, to attack her with the lead pipe provided him by Salvamante.After he felled Mrs. Barker, he helped Salvamante in beating up Mr. Barker who had followed his wifedownstairs. When the Barkers were already unconscious on the floor, Salvamante went upstairs and a few

minutes later came down bringing with him a radio cassette and some pieces of jewelry.

Maqueda further divulged to Salvosa that they then changed clothes, went out of the house, walkedtoward the road where they saw two persons from whom they asked directions and when a passengerjeepney stopped and they were informed by the two persons that it was bound for Baguio City, he andSalvamante boarded it. They alighted somewhere along Albano Street in Baguio City and walked until theyreached the Philippine Rabbit Bus station where they boarded a bus for Manila.8

Accused Hector Maqueda put up the defense of denial and alibi. His testimony is summarized by thetrial court in this wise:

Accused Hector Maqueda denied having anything to do with the crime. He stated that on August 27,1991 he was at the polvoron factory owned by Minda Castrense located at Lot 1, Block 21, Posadas

Bayview Subdivision, Sukat, Muntinlupa. Metro Manila. He was employed as a caretaker since July 5,1991 and he worked continuously there up to August 27, 1991. It was his sister, Myrna Katindig, whofound him the job as caretaker. As caretaker, it was his duty to supervise the employees in the factoryand whenever his employer was not around, he was in charge of the sales. He and his 8 co-employeesall sleep inside the factory.

On August 26, 1991, he reported for work although he could not recall what he did that day. He sleptinside the factory that night and on August 27, 1991, he was teaching the new employees how to makethe seasoning for the polvoron.

On December 20, 1991, he went home to Gapas, Guinyangan, Quezon Province as it was his vacationtime from his job at the polvoron factory. He was to be back at work after New Year's Day in 1992.Upon alighting from the bus at Guinyangan, Quezon, he saw accused Rene Salvamante. He knowsaccused Salvamante as they were childhood playmates, having gone to the same elementary school. Hehad no chance to talk to him that day when he saw him and so they just waved to each other. He againsaw accused Salvamante after Christmas day on the road beside their (Salvamante) house. Salvamanteinvited him to go to Calauag, Quezon Province and roam around. He agreed to go as he also wanted tovisit his brother, Jose Maqueda who resided at Sabangdos, Calauag, Quezon. When the two accusedwere at Calauag, Salvamante asked Maqueda to accompany him (Salvamante) in selling a cassetterecorder which he said came from Baguio City. Accused Maqueda knew that Salvamante worked inBaguio as the latter's mother told him about it. They were able to sell the cassette recorder toSalvamante's aunt. They had their meal and then went to visit accused Maqueda's brother. After thatoccasion, he never saw accused Salvamante again. After his Christmas vacation, he went back to work

at the polvoron factory until February 29, 1992. One of his co-workers Roselyn Merca, who was atownmate of his asked him to accompany her home as she was hard up in her work at the factory.Hence, he accompanied Roselyn home to Guinyangan, Quezon. He was supposed to report back forwork on March 2, 1992 but he was not able to as he was arrested by members of the CAFGU at thehouse of Roselyn Merca when he brought her home. He was then brought to the Guinyangan municipal

jail, then to the Tuba Police Station, Tuba, Benguet. There he was told to cooperate with the police inarresting Salvamante so he would not stay long in the Province of Benguet. He was also told that if hewould point to accused Salvama

Documents

Consti2 Cases 5