Evid First Page Assigned Cases

8/9/2019 Evid First Page Assigned Cases

1/108

Rule 128, Section 1 Evidence Defined

TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ, petitioner,vs.COURT O A!!EALS, "ON# RO$EO # ZA$ORA, !%e&idin'(ud'e, )%# *+, Re'ion l T%i l Cou%t of ue.on Cit/ nd RA AELS# ORTANEZ, respondents.

Oscar A. Inocentes & Associates Law Off ice for petitioner.

Efren A. Santos for private respondent.

!ADILLA, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court whichseeks to reverse the decision 0 of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP o. !"545 entitled # Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez versus Hon.Romeo . !amora" #residin$ %ud$e" r. '(" Re$ional Trial )ourt of*uezon )it+ and Rafael S. Ortanez #.

The relevant facts of the case are as follows$

%n ! &a' ())*, private respondent Rafael S. %rtane+ filed with theRe ional Trial Court of ue+on Cit' a co plaint for annul ent of

arria e with da a es a ainst petitioner Teresita Salcedo-%rtane+,on rounds of lack of arria e license and/or ps'cholo ical incapacit'of the petitioner. The co plaint was docketed as Civil Case o. -)*-501* and raffled to 2ranch )4, RTC of ue+on Cit' presided over 3'respondent ud e Ro eo . 6a ora.

Private respondent, after presentin his evidence, orall' for all'offered in evidence 78hi3its #A# to #.

A on the e8hi3its offered 3' private respondent were three 90:cassette tapes of alle ed telephone conversations 3etween petitionerand unidentified persons.

Petitioner su3 itted her %3;ection/Co ent to private respondentt is uch too o3vious that the petition will have to fail,for two 3asic reasons$

9(: Tape recordin s are not inad issi3le per se . The'and an' other variant thereof can 3e ad itted inevidence for certain purposes, dependin on how the'are presented and offered and on how the trial ;ud eutili+es the in the interest of truth and fairness andthe even handed ad inistration of ;ustice.

9!: A petition for certiorari is notoriousl' inappropriate torectif' a supposed error in ad ittin evidence adduceddurin trial. The rulin on ad issi3ilit' is interlocutor'=neither does it i pin e on ;urisdiction. >f it is erroneous,the rulin should 3e ?uestioned in the appeal fro the

;ud ent on the erits and not throu h the special civilaction of certiorari. The error, assu in ratuitousl'

NJQ 1


2/108

that it e8ists, cannot 3e an' ore than an error of law,properl' correcti3le 3' appeal and not 3' certiorari. %therwise, we will have the sorr' spectacle of a case3ein su3;ect of a counterproductive #pin -pon # toand fro the appellate court as often as a trial court isperceived to have ade an error in an' of its rulin swith respect to evidentiar' atters in the course of trial.This we cannot sanction.

@ 7R7 %R7, the petition for certiorari 3ein devoidof erit, is here3' B>S&>SS7B. 1

ro this adverse ;ud ent, petitioner filed the present petition forreview, statin $

,rounds for Allowance of t e #etition

(*. The decision of respondent Court of AppealsD hasno 3asis in law nor previous decision of the Supre eCourt.

(*.( >n affir in the ?uestioned order ofrespondent ;ud e, the Court of Appealshas decided a ?uestion of su3stance not

theretofore deter ined 3' the Supre eCourt as the ?uestion of ad issi3ilit' inevidence of tape recordin s has not,thus far, 3een addressed and decideds?uarel' 3' the Supre e Court.

((. >n affir in the ?uestioned order of respondent ;ud e, the Court of Appeals has likewise rendered adecision in a wa' not in accord with law and withapplica3le decisions of the Supre e Court.

((.( Althou h the ?uestioned order isinterlocutor' in nature, the sa e can still3e theD su3;ect of a petition forcertiorari. 2

The ain issue to 3e resolved is whether or not the re ed' ofcertiorari under Rule 15 of the Rules of Court was properl' availed of3' the petitioner in the Court of Appeals.

The e8traordinar' writ of certiorari is enerall' not availa3le tochallen e an interlocutor' order of a trial court. The proper re ed' insuch cases is an ordinar' appeal fro an adverse ;ud ent,incorporatin in said appeal the rounds for assailin the interlocutor'order.

owever, where the assailed interlocutor' order is patentl' erroneousand the re ed' of appeal would not afford ade?uate and e8peditiousrelief, the Court a' allow certiorari as a ode of redress.

>n the present case, the trial court issued the assailed order ad ittinall of the evidence offered 3' private respondent, includin taperecordin s of telephone conversations of petitioner with unidentifiedpersons. These tape recordin s were ade and o3tained whenprivate respondent allowed his friends fro the ilitar' to wire tap his

ho e telephone.+

Rep. Act o. 4!** entitled #An Act to Prohi3it and Penali+e @ireTappin and %ther Related Eiolations of the Privac' ofCo unication, and for other purposes# e8pressl' akes such taperecordin s inad issi3le in evidence. The relevant provisions of Rep.

Act o. 4!** are as follows$

Sec. (. >t shall 3e unlawful for an' person, not3ein authori+ed 3' all the parties to an' privateco unication or spoken word, to tap an' wire

NJQ 2


3/108

or ca3le, or 3' usin an' other device orarran e ent, to secretl' overhear, intercept, orrecord such co unication or spoken word 3'usin a device co onl' known as adictaphone or dicta raph or detectaphone orwalkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or howeverotherwise descri3ed. . . .

Sec. 4. An' co unication or spoken word, orthe e8istence, contents, su3stance, purport, or

eanin of the sa e or an' part thereof, or an'infor ation therein contained, o3tained orsecured 3' an' person in violation of theprecedin sections of this Act shall not 3ead issi3le in evidence in an' ;udicial, ?uasi-

;udicial, le islative or ad inistrative hearin orinvesti ation.

Clearl', respondents trial court and Court of Appeals failed to consider the afore-?uoted provisions of the law in ad ittin in evidence thecassette tapes in ?uestion. A3sent a clear showin that 3oth parties tothe telephone conversations allowed the recordin of the sa e, theinad issi3ilit' of the su3;ect tapes is andator' under Rep. Act o.4!**.

Additionall', it should 3e entioned that the a3ove- entionedRepu3lic Act in Section ! thereof i poses a penalt' of i prison entof not less than si8 91: onths and up to si8 91: 'ears for violation ofsaid Act.

@e need not address the other ar u ents raised 3' the parties,involvin the applica3ilit' of A erican ;urisprudence, havin arrived atthe conclusion that the su3;ect cassette tapes are inad issi3le inevidence under Philippine law.

@ 7R7 %R7, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SPo. !"545 is here3' S7T AS>B7. The su3;ect cassette tapes are

declared inad issi3le in evidence.

S% %RB7R7B.

!EO!LE O T"E !"ILI!!INES, plaintiff-appellee, vs # (OERAL3ALLENO, accused-appellant.

B 7 C > S > %

#ER ) RIA/ $

@hat could 3e ore co pellin than decidin a case which involvesthe se8ual a3use of a five-'ear old childF 7?uall' i portant is the factthat the case 3efore us involves the hi hest penalt' i posa3le 3' law.2ein the uardian of the ost funda ental li3erties of ever' citi+en,the Court ust pass upon ever' intricate detail of the case at 3ar todeter ine whether or not accused-appellant co itted the rueso eact i puted a ainst hi .

Accused-appellant oeral Galleno seeks reversal of the ;ud ent of2ranch (4 of the Re ional Trial Court of the 1th udicial Re ionstationed in Ro8as Cit', rel'in on the defense of denial. Since thecase involves the death penalt', the atter has 3een elevated to thisCourt for auto atic review.

Accused-appellant was char ed in an >nfor ation docketed asCri inal Case o. C-41!) for the cri e of Statutor' Rape, readin asfollows$

The undersi ned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, upon priorauthorit' and approval of the Provincial Prosecutor, and the

NJQ 3


4/108

ori inal co plaint filed 3' the uardian of the offended part',accuses oeral Galleno of the cri e of STAT T%RH RAP7,co itted as follows$

That on or a3out 5$** o THT % SA B 9P5*,***.**: P7S%S.

Iet this B7C>S>% serve as clear si nal warnin theperverts, the is uided ele ents of our societ', especiall'

their lackadaisical parents in their innate oral o3li ation andresponsi3ilit' in educatin their children that in this corner ofthe world the wheels of ;ustice is not asleep and itsunfor ivin hands and watchful e'es are as vi ilant as ever.

9pp. 44-45, Rollo .:

>n flash3ack, let us visuali+e the events.

7vel'n %3li ar Gar anera is the 5-'ear old dau hter of Rosita %3li ar Gar anera who had to leave the province to find work in &anila afterseparatin fro her hus3and. 7vel'n, to ether with her 'oun er3rother, 0-'ear old 7lea+ar, was thus left under the care and custod'of their uncle, 7 etario %3li ar, and aunt, Penicola %3li ar.

Iess than kilo eter awa' fro their place of residence lived accused-appellant, ()-'ear old oeral Galleno, known well 7vel'n


5/108

The prosecution


6/108

constraints, 7vel'n was not ad itted into the ospital thatda' and went ho e with 7 eterio to 2aran a' 2ali hot.9pp.1-",tsn IaKada, anuar' 4, ())5= pp. (5-(1, ts, %3li ar,

anuar' (!, ())5:.

(*. pon her e8a ination of the victi on Au ust (", ())4,Br. IaKada opined that #a lot of thin s will cause thelacerated wound in the va ina.# 9p. ), tsn, IaKada, anuar'4, ())5:. Accordin to Br. IaKada, the va inal laceration a'3e caused 9(: 3' trau a to the area, when a irl falls and hitsher enital area on a 3lunt instru ent= 9!: 3' edicalinstru entation, like the insertion of a speculu into theva ina= or 90: 3' the insertion of 3lunt forei n o3;ect into theva ina, like a fin er or a penis of a an in full erection. 9pp."-), tsn, IaKada, anuar' 4, ())5:.

((. %n Au ust (), ())4, 7 etario 3rou ht 7vel'n 3ack to theRo8as &e orial General ospital where she was attendedto 3' Br. &achael Toledo, the resident ph'sician on dut', whofound 3lood clots and ini al 3leedin in the enital area.Br. Toledo # L pack9ed: the area to prevent further 3leedinand 9he: L ad itted the patient for possi3le repair of thelaceration and 3lood transfusion 3ecause she has anae ia!ndar' to 3leedin .# Two hundred fift' five 9!55: cc of 3lood

was transfused to 7vel'n and she was iven anti3iotics toprevent infection. owever, she was no lon er operated on3ecause the laceration had healed. ive da's later, 7vel'nwas dischar ed and sent ho e with edication. 9pp. ((-(0,(J and !1, tsn, Toledo, Bece 3er !, ())4:.

(!. pon his e8a ination of 7vel'n on Au ust (), ())4, Br.Toledo disclosed that the child suffered severe co poundlaceration which could have 3een caused 3' a nor al andfull' developed penis of a an in a state of erection that wasforci3l' inserted into her va ina and that the insertion caused

her va ina to he orrha e which thus re?uired thetransfusion of !55 cc of 3lood 9pp. (4-(1 and !1, tsn, Toledo,Bece 3er !, ())4.

(0. Prior to her confine ent in the Ro8as &e orial Generalospital on Au ust (), 7 etario and Penicola %3li ar

3rou ht 7vel'n to the &aa'on Police Station on Au ust (",())4, where the' reported the cri e to SP%( PaulinoBurana. That sa e da', appellant was apprehended in ahouse near the 2ali hot 7le entar' School and 3rou ht tothe police station 9pp(J-(), tsn, %3li ar, anuar' (!, ())5=pp. 5-), (1-(J and !(, tsn, Burana, anuar' (1, ())5:.

9pp. (14-(J(, Rollo .:

Benial is presented as the defenses. Accused-appellant testified thatwhen he arrived at the %3li ar residence that afternoon of Au ust (1,())4, he found the two children, 7vel'n and 7lea+ar 9also referred toin the record as Pilfo:. @hile seated at the 3alcon', accused-appellant was approached 3' 7vel'n, who knew hi 9tsn, April 5,())5, pp.5 and ":. e ca;oled her 3' throwin her up and down, hisri ht hand holdin the child and his left hand coverin her va ina9I0id ., p. !(:. pon liftin up the child the first ti e, his left rin fin erwas accidentall' inserted into the va ina of child since his fin ernail

was lon and the child was not wearin an' underwear.Conse?uentl', 7vel'n 3e an to cr' 3ecause her va ina started to3leed. pon seein this, he i ediatel' went down the house and otso e 3ark or leaves of madre de cacao tree and applied the sap onthe child


7/108

Accused-appellant G>E> G II @7>G T A BCR7B7 C7 T% T 7 T7ST>&% >7S % T 7 &7B>CAIB%CT%RS @ 7 T 7 SA&7 A>I7B T% C% CI S>E7IH

A B S >C>7 TIH 7STA2I>S T 7 CA S7 % T 7IAC7RAT>% > T 7 % 7 B7B PARTH A

T 7 TR>AI C% RT S %@7B &A > 7ST 2>AS T 7R72HB7PR>E> G T 7 ACC S7B-APP7IIA T T% A A>R A B>&PART>AI TR>AI A B B>SR7GARB7B T 7 R>G T %T 7 ACC S7B T% 27 PR7S &7B > %C7 T, @ 7 7

ACT>E7IH PART>C>PAT7B > T 7 CR%SS7MA&> AT> % % T 7 ACC S7B

T 7 TR>AI C% RT 7RR7B > %T B7CIAR> G T 7@ARRA TI7SS ARR7ST % T 7 ACC S7B AS

ST> >7B

T 7 TR>AI C% RT 7RR7B > > T7RPR7T> G T 7> A C>AI ASS>STA C7 7MT7 B7B 2H T 7 PAR7 TS

% T 7 ACC S7B T% T 7 % 7 B7B PARTH AS A>&PI>7B AB&>SS>% % G >IT

NJQ 7


8/108

9pp. "(-"!, Rollo. :

%ne can not escape the feelin of ut ost co passion for an' rapevicti , and ore especiall' so for a 5-'ear old statutor' rape victi .

owever, in our consideration of the atter 3efore us, we set asidee otion and o3serve i partialit' and coldness in drawinconclusions.

nder the first assi ned error, accused-appellant contends that thetesti on' of the three e8pert witnesses presented 3' the prosecution,na el', Br. Alfonso %rosco, Br. &a. Iourdes IaKada, and Br.&achael Toledo, which convinced the trial court that rape wasco itted a ainst the offended part', is not i pecca3le considerinthat the' found that there was no presence of sper ato+oa, and thatthe' were not sure as to what caused the laceration in the victi n the case at 3ar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not onl' withthe aid of the e8pert testi on' of doctors who ave their opinions asto the possi3le cause of the victi n other words, the trial court did not rel' solel' on the testi on' of the e8pertwitnesses. Such e8pert testi on' erel' aided the trial court in thee8ercise of its ;ud ent on the facts. ence, the fact that the e8pertsenu erated various possi3le causes of the victi


9/108

So that is possi3le, Boctor, that the child a' have referred toa fin er that is 3etween the le sF

@>T 7SS

Hou ean the penisF

PR%S7C T%R %2>7 BA

Hes.

@>T 7SS

>t is possi3le.

9TS , p.!J, &arch 0*,())5.:

%f vital consideration and i portance too is the unrelia3ilit', if not theoutri ht incredulit' of the version of accused-appellant which is not inaccord with ordinar' hu an e8perience. @e thus can not helpe8pressin senti ents si ilar of those of the trial court when is said$

The contention of accused oeral Galleno raises seriousdou3ts to his credi3ilit'. e failed to e8plain how his rinfin er accidentall' ca e in contact with the enitalia of7vel'n, while it was esta3lished 3' the prosecution that atthat ti e 7vel'n was wearin shorts. 7ven assu in #e8

ratia ar u ente# that 7vel'n was pant'less, how could it 3epossi3le for his fin er to penetrate to the va ina for a3outone-fourth of an inch L when she was in shorts. TheSupre e Court, in People vs. ul encio 2a?uiran, !* SCRA45(, 9held that: evidence, to 3e 3elieved ust not onl'proceed fro the outh of a credi3le witness, 3ut it ust 3ecredi3le in itself. u an perception can 3e warped 3' the

i pact of events and testi on' colored 3' the unconsciousworkin s of the ind. o 3etter test has 'et 3een found to

easure the value of a witness< testi on' than its confor it'to the knowled e and co on e8perience of ankind.

9pp.4!-40, Rollo .:

Section 4, Rule (!" of the Rules of Court provides that #9e:videnceust have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce 3elief in its

e8istence or nor-e8istence.# This si pl' eans that relevanc' isdeter ina3le 3' the rules of lo ic and hu an e8perience 9 Re$aladoRe edial Iaw Co pendiu , Eol. >>, ()"" ed., p.404:. There is noprecise and universal test of relevanc' provided 3' law. owever, thedeter ination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests lar el'at the discretion of the court, which ust 3e e8ercised accordin tothe teachin s of lo ic and ever'da' e8perience 9 Si0al and Salazar ,Co pendiu on 7vidence, ())5 ed., citin Al fred Asmore #ope

oundation vs. 1ew 2or3 , (0" A. 444, (*1 Conn. 40!:.

There is no e8planation how the left rin fin er 9alle edl' with lonfin ernail: of accused-appellant penetrated the victi


10/108

Assu in this to 3e true, this onl' shows that the child was still3leedin . @h' then would he leave the child considerin that therewas no adult to attend herF Si nificantl', his act of i ediatel'leavin the place, when considered in the li ht of the other evidence,reflects his fear 3ecause of what he had done. The prover3 #thewicked fleeth even when no an pursueth, 3ut the innocent are as3old as a lion# was correctl' adopted 3' the trial court in drawin itsconclusions.

All of these loopholes are palpa3le and anifest, and clearl' worka ainst the credi3ilit' of accused-appellantt is unnaturalfor a parent to use her offsprin as an en ine of alice, especiall' if itwill su3;ect a dau hter to e 3arrass ent and even sti a 9 #eoplevs. 4ones , supra .:

Accused-appellantt was inserted 9 insulod: to ' va ina 9Puta':.

NJQ 10


11/108

@hen oeral Galleno inserted his penis 9Pito': to 'our va ina9Puta':, that was the reason wh' it 3leedF

A Hes, sir.

And it was ver' painfulF

A Hes, Sir.

And 'ou cried 3ecause of painF

A Hes, Sir.

>SCAI %2>7 BA

And 'ou were 3rou ht to the Boctor and ad itted to thehospital 3ecause of thatF

A Hes, Sir.

9TS , pp.(*-(!, anuar' (*, ())5:

nder the second assi ned error, accused-appellant alle es that hewas deprived of a fair and i partial trial since the trial court showed3ias 3' discountin his testi on', and 3' actuall' participatin in thecross-e8a ination of accused-appellant.

@e recentl' pronounced in #eople vs. /ala0a$o 9!15 SCRA ()"())1D: that a ;ud e a' not properl' intervene in the presentation of

evidence to e8pedite and prevent unnecessar' waste of ti e andclarif' o3scure and inco plete details after the witness was ivendirect testi on' cannot 3e assailed as a specie of 3ias.

%f course, we are aware of Rule 0.*1 of the Code of udicial Conductprovides$

@hile a ;ud e a', to pro ote ;ustice, prevent waste of ti eor clear up so e o3scurit', properl' intervene in thepresentation of evidence durin the trial, it should alwa's 3e3orne in ind that undue interference a' prevent theproper presentation of the cause or the ascertain ent oftruth.

And there is undou3tedl' undue interference if the ;ud e e8tensivel'propounds ?uestion to the witness which will have the effect of or willtend to 3uild or 3olster the case for one of the parties. @e have,however, carefull' e8a ined the record and transcript of steno raphicnotes of the instant case. The trial court ;ud e, the onora3leSalvador S. Gu3aton, did not to 3uild the case for one of the parties.

or instance, accused-appellant, in his 3rief, refers to the ?uestionspropounded 3' the trial court on his of ca;olin the child. A perusal ofthe line of ?uestionin referred to hardl' shows 3ias on the part of thetrial court, 3ut pure clarification.

>n the third assi ned error, accused-appellant ?uestions the validit' ofhis arrest.

>t is settled ;urisprudence that an' o3;ection involvin a warrant ofarrest or procedure in the ac?uisition 3' the court of ;urisdiction overthe person of the accused ust 3e ade 3efore he enters his plea,

otherwise the o3;ection is dee ed waived 9People vs. Iope+, r., !45SCRA )5 ())5D:. An accused should ?uestion the validit' of his arrest3efore he enters his plea in the trial court 9 iloteo" %r. vs.Sandi$an0a+an , !10 SCRA !!! ())1D:. e is estopped fro?uestionin an' defect in the anner of his arrest if he fails to ovefor the ?uashin of the infor ation 3efore the trial court 9 #eople vs.)ompil , !44 SCRA (05 ())5D: or if he voluntaril' su3 its hi self tothe ;urisdiction of the court 3' enterin a plea and 3' participatin inthe trial 9People vs. Be Gu+ an, !! 4 SCRA )0 ())0:= #eople vs.Lopez" %r ., supra :.

NJQ 11


12/108

>t does not appear in the record that accused-appellants raised thisatter 3efore enterin his plea of #not uilt'# to the char e 9pp. 10 N

1J, Record:. urther, this issue was not even touched durin the trial.

Iastl', accused-appellant, in his fourth assi ned error, ar ues that thetrial court isinterpreted the financial assistance e8tended 3' hisparents as an atte pt to settle the case. Accused-appellant even3anks on the alle ed close relationship 3etween 7 eterio %3li ar andRaul Galleno as compadres" and the fact that 7 eterio 3orrowed fort'pesos fro Raul Galleno, despite the fact that 7 eterio alread' knewthat accused-appellant caused the laceration in 7vel'n


13/108

((J4J!, e3ruar' J, ())J: that Repu3lic Act o. J15), insofar as itprescri3es the death penalt' is unconstitutional - nevertheless su3 itto the rulin of the Court, 3' a a;orit' vote, that the law isconstitutional and that the death penalt' should accordin l' 3ei posed.

4"ERE ORE , findin the conviction of accused-appellant ;ustified 3'the evidence on record, the assailed decision is here3' A >R&7B intoto.

>n accordance with Section !5 of Repu3lic Act o. J15), a endin Article "0 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finalit' of this decision, letthe record of the case 3e forthwith forwarded to the %ffice of thePresident for possi3le e8ercise of the pardonin power.

S% %RB7R7B.

CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner,vs.COURT O A!!EALS nd AL REDO $ARTIN, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

$ENDOZA, J #5

This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals,affir in the decision of the Re ional Trial Court of &anila 92ranch M:which ordered petitioner to return docu ents and papers taken 3' her fro private respondent


14/108

dis?ualification fro the practice of edicine which petitioner had fileda ainst her hus3and.

Br. &artin 3rou ht this action 3elow for recover' of the docu entsand papers and for da a es a ainst petitioner. The case was filedwith the Re ional Trial Court of &anila, 2ranch M, which, after trial,rendered ;ud ent for private respondent, Br. Alfredo &artin,declarin hi #the capital/e8clusive owner of the properties descri3edin para raph 0 of plaintiff


15/108

Thus, the ac?uittal of Att'. eli8, r. in the ad inistrative casea ounts to no ore than a declaration that his use of the docu entsand papers for the purpose of securin Br. &artin7B for lack of erit.

S% %RB7R7B.

A%ticle III, Section& 2, , 12 617 627 6 7, 1*8 !9ili::ine Con&titution

!EO!LE O T"E !"ILI!!INES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.)ERNARDINO DO$ANTA;, < =(UNIOR OTOT,= accused-appellant

$ENDOZA, J.:

This case is here on appeal fro the decision 1 of the Re ional TrialCourt of Ba upan Cit' 92ranch 5J:, findin accused-appellant uilt' of rape with ho icide and sentencin hi to death, and to inde nif' theheirs of the victi in the a ount of P4"*,***.**, and to pa' the costs.

The facts hark 3ack to the afternoon of %cto3er (J, ())1, at around 4o


16/108

The child


17/108

;oined the roup and sat 3etween Baudencio &acasae3 and accused-appellant. 7dward said that accused-appellant, who, apparentl' hadone too an' then, rolled up his shirt and said$ # o diad Antipolo tanI iDpa et wala' assacre, diad Guili wala, wala' assacren kod dia,wala' onakis-akis# 9#>n Antipolo and Iipa, there were assacres= herein Guili , there will also 3e a assacre. > will assacre so e3od'here, and the' will cr' and cr'#:. 7dward Bo anta' saw that tucked inthe left side of accused-appellant


18/108

PR%S. > >T$

Bid 'ou introduce 'ourself as a ediapractitionerF

A Hes, sir.

ow did 'ou introduce 'ourself to theaccusedF

A > showed to 2ernardino Bo anta'alias # unior %tot# ' >.B. card and >presented 'self as a ediapractitioner with ' tape recorder inD

' hand, sir.

@hat was his reaction to 'our re?uestfor an interviewF

A e was willin to state what hadhappened, sir.

@hat are those atters which 'ou3rou ht out in that interview with theaccused 2ernardino Bo anta' alias# unior %tot#F

A > asked hi what was his purpose forhu an interestT$

Hou entioned a3out accusedad ittin to 'ou on the co i ssionD ofthe cri e, how did 'ou ask hi thatF

A > asked hi ver' politel'.

&ore or less what have 'ou askedhi on that particular atterF

A > asked # unior %tot,# 2ernardinoBo anta', #Oun pina sisisihan o 3aan i'on inawaF# #%po# sa3i ni'a,#>3i o 3an sa3ihin un, ikaw anpu ata' ka' enniferF#, #Ako n a po#The lDast part of ' interview, #Ounnakikini an a a ulan ni ennifer,ano an usto on iparatin F#, #kun

usto nilan aka tan an hustis'a a'tatan apin ko#. That is what he said,and > also asked unior %tot, what washis purpose, and he said, it was a3outthe 3oundar' dispute, and he used that

little irl in his reven e.

%n cross-e8a ination, &anuel e8plained that the interview wasconducted in the ;ail, a3out two to three eters awa' fro the policestation. An uncle of the victi was with hi and the nearest police enpresent were a3out two to three eters fro hi , includin those whowere in the radio roo . 18 There was no law'er present. 2eforeinterviewin accused-appellant, &anuel said he talked to the chief ofpolice and asked per ission to interview accused-appellant. 1* %n?uestionin 3' the court, &anuel said that it was the first ti e he had3een called to testif' re ardin an interview he had conducted. 2? As

NJQ 18


19/108

in the case of the testi on' of SP%( 7spino+a, the defense o3;ectedto the ad ission of &anuel e denied 7dward Bo anta'


20/108

S% %RB7R7B.

>n this appeal, accused-appellant alle es that$ 2

>

T 7 C% RT A * O 7RR7B > APPR7C>AT> G T 77MTRA B>C>AI C% 7SS>% SD &AB7 2H T 7

ACC S7B-APP7IIA T.

>>

T 7 C% RT A * O 7RR7B > C% E>CT> G T 7 ACC S7B B7SP>T7 A>I R7 % T 7PR%S7C T>% T% PR%E7 >S G >IT 27H% BR7AS% A2I7 B% 2T.

irst . Accused-appellant contends that his alle ed confessions toSP%( Antonio 7spino+a and Celso &anuel are inad issi3le inevidence 3ecause the' had 3een o3tained in violation of Art. >>>, Q(!9(: of the Constitution and that, with these vital pieces of evidencee8cluded, the re ainin proof of his alle ed uilt, consistin ofcircu stantial evidence, is inade?uate to esta3lish his uilt 3e'ondreasona3le dou3t.

Art. >>>, Q (! of the Constitution in part provides$

9(: An' person under investi ation for the co issionof an offense shall have the ri ht to 3e infor ed of hisri ht to re ain silent and to have co petent andindependent counsel prefera3l' of his own choice. >fthe person cannot afford the services of counsel, he

ust 3e provided with one. These ri hts cannot 3ewaived e8cept in writin and in the presence ofcounsel.

888 888 888

90: An' confession or ad ission o3tained in violation of this section or section (J hereof shall 3e inad issi3lein evidence.

This provision applies to the sta e of custodial investi ation, that is,#when the investi ation is no lon er a eneral in?uir' into an unsolvedcri e 3ut starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect.# + R.A

o. J40" has e8tended the constitutional uarantee to situations inwhich an individual has not 3een for all' arrested 3ut has erel'3een #invited# for ?uestionin .

Becisions > of this Court hold that for an e8tra;udicial confession to 3ead issi3le, it ust satisf' the followin re?uire ents$ 9(: it ust 3evoluntar'= 9!: it ust 3e ade with the assistance of co petent andindependent counsel= 90: it ust 3e e8press= and 94: it ust 3e inwritin .

>n the case at 3ar, when accused-appellant was 3rou ht to the&alasi?ui police station in the evenin of %cto3er (J, ())1, he waalread' a suspect, in fact the onl' one, in the 3rutal sla'in of ennifer Bo anta'. e was, therefore, alread' under custodial investi ationand the ri hts uaranteed in Art. >>>, Q (!9(: of the Constitution applied

to hi . SP%( 7spino+a narrated what transpired durin accused-appellantD interro ated 2ernardino Bo anta', prior to theinterro ation conducted to hi , > infor ed hi of hisconstitutional ri ht as follows= that he has the ri ht tore ain silent= that he has the ri ht to a co petentlaw'er of his own choice and if he can not afford acounselD then he will 3e provided with one, and furtherinfor ed hi D that all he will sa' will 3e reduced intowritin and will 3e used the sa e in the proceedin s of

NJQ 20


21/108

the case, 3ut he told e that he will cooperate even inthe a3sence of his counsel= that he ad itted to e thathe killed ennifer Bo anta', and he revealed also theweapon used andD where he ave itD to.

2ut thou h he waived the assistance of counsel, the waiver wasneither put in writin nor ade in the presence of counsel. or thisreason, the waiver is invalid and his confession is inad issi3le. SP%(7spino+an holdin the confessionad issi3le, despite the fact that the accused ave his answerswithout the assistance of counsel, this Court said$ +1

ADppellant


22/108

>ndeed, there is no showin that the radio reporter was actin for thepolice or that the interview was conducted under circu stances whereit is apparent that accused-appellant confessed to the killin our offear. As alread' stated, the interview was conducted on %cto3er !0,())1, 1 da's after accused-appellant had alread' confessed to thekillin to the police.

Accused-appellant


23/108

appellant is uilt' of ho icide. Art. !4) of the Revised Penal Codeprovides$

An' person who, not fallin within the provisions of Article !41 parricideD shall kill another without theattendance of an' of the circu stances enu erated inthe ne8t precedin article urderD, shall 3e dee ed

uilt' of ho icide and 3e punished 3' reclusiontemporal .

The killin was co itted with the eneric a ravatin circu stanceof a3use of superior stren th. The record shows that the victi ,

ennifer Bo anta', was si8 'ears old at the ti e of the killin . Shewas a child of s all 3uild, 41# in hei ht. + >t is clear then that shecould not have put up uch of a defense a ainst accused-appellantndeed, theph'sical evidence supports a findin of a3use of superior stren th$accused-appellant had a weapon, while the victi was not shown tohave had an'= there were 0" sta3 wounds= and all the knife woundsare located at the 3ack of ennifer


24/108

R7&AROS$ (: indin s at the enital area indicate thepro3a3ilit' of penetration of that area 3' a hard, ri idinstru ent.

' enal laceration is not necessar' to prove rape= neither does itspresence prove its co ission. As held in #eople v . lili , > a edicalcertificate or the testi on' of the ph'sician is presented not to provethat the victi was raped 3ut to show that the latter had lost hervir init'. Conse?uentl', standin alone, a ph'sician2

PR%S. . > >T$

1ow , w at mi$ t ave caused t ecomplete laceration of t e ri$ t side oft e +men , doctor F

A @ell, sir, if 'ou look at ' report thereis a re ark and it sa's there= findin$s at

t e $enital area indicated t e pro0a0ilit+ of penetration of t at area 0+ a ardri$id instrument .

Could it have 3een caused 3' ahu an or anF

A If t e uman male or$an is erect , fulerect and ard t en it is possi0le , sir .

888 888 888

ATTH. EAIB76$

>n 'our re arks= findin at the enitalarea indicates the pro3a3ilit' ofpenetration of that area 3' a hard ri idinstru ent, t is ma+ ave also 0eencaused 0+ a da$$er used in t e 3illin$ of %ennifer 4omanta+ is t at correct F

A 7ell , sir w en I sa+ ard ri$idinstrument it s ould not 0e s arp

pointed and s are ri$id , it s ould 0e aard 0l8u9nt instrument .

Bo 'ou consider a 3olo a 3l uDinstru ent, or a da erF

A The da er is a sharp ri id 3ut it is nota 3l uDnt instru ent, sir.

T is ,enital E5amination s owed acomplete laceration of t e ri$ t side of

NJQ 24


25/108


26/108

onl' circu stance fro which such inference i ht 3e ade is thataccused-appellant was seen with the victi walkin toward the placewhere the irl>

ADfter e8a inin the 3od' > took note that were severalsta3 wounds . . . these were all found at the 3ack areasir . . . e8tendin fro the 3ack shoulder down to thelower 3ack area fro the left to the ri ht.

Considerin the relative ph'sical positions of the accused andthe victi in cri es of rape, the usual location of the e8ternal3odil' in;uries of the victi is on the face, > neck, >8 andanterior portion >* of her 3od'. Althou h it is not unnatural tofind contusions on the posterior side, these are usuall' caused3' the downward pressure on the victi n the special co ple8 cri e of rape with ho icide,3oth the rape and the ho icide ust 3e esta3lished 3e'ondreasona3le dou3t.

T ird . The trial court ordered accused-appellant to pa' the heirs ofennifer Bo anta' the a ount of P0*,***.** as actual da a es.owever, the list of e8penses produced 3' the victi


27/108

ho icide with the a ravatin circu stance of a3use of superiorstren th and sentencin hi to a prison ter of (! 'ears of prisionma+or , as ini u , to !* 'ears of reclusion temporal , as a8i u ,and %RB7R> G hi to pa' the heirs of ennifer Bo anta' thea ounts of P5*,***.**, as inde nit', P5*,***.**, as oralda a es, P!5,***.**, as e8e plar' da a es, and P(!,***.**, asactual da a es, and the costs. :;wp i:.nn a letter-co plaint dated Au ust (), ())!, respondent ud e&anuel T. &uro of the Re ional Trial Court 9RTC: of &anila, 2ranch54, was char ed 3' State Prosecutors ilo C. &ariano, Geor e C.Bee and Paterno E. Tac-an with i norance of the law, rave

isconduct and violations of Rules !.*(, 0.*( and 0.*! of the Code of udicial Conduct, co itted as follows$

(. That on Au ust (0, ())!, respondent ;ud e issuedan %rder dis issin eleven 9((: cases 9docketed asCri . Cases os. )!-(*()5) to )!- (*()1), inclusive:filed 3' the undersi ned co plainant prosecutors9 e 3ers of the B% Panel of Prosecutors: a ainstthe accused &rs. > elda Ro ualde+ &arcos, forEiolation of Central 2ank orei n 78chan eRestrictions, as consolidated in C2 Circular o. )1*, inrelation to the penal provisions of Sec. 04 of R.A. !15,as a ended, . . .=

!. That respondent ud e issued his %rder solel' on

the 3asis of newspaper reports 9Au ust ((, ())!issues of the Philippine Bail' >n?uirer and the Bail'Glo3e: concernin the announce ent on Au ust (*,())! 3' the President of the Philippines of the liftin 3'the overn ent of all forei n e8chan e restrictions andthe arrival at such decision 3' the &onetar' 2oard asper state ent of Central 2ank Governor ose Cuisia=

0. That clai in that the reported announce ent of the78ecutive Bepart ent on the liftin of forei ne8chan e restrictions 3' two newspapers which are

NJQ 27


28/108

reputa3le and of national circulation had the effect ofrepealin Central 2ank Circular o. )1*, as alle edl'supported 3' Supre e Court decisions . . ., the Courtcontended that it was deprived of ;urisdiction, and,therefore, otu, prop9r:io had to dis iss all the elevencases afore entioned #for not to do so opens thisCourt to char es of tr'in cases over which it has no

ore ;urisdiction=#

4. That in dis issin aforecited cases on Au ust (0,())! on the 3asis of a Central 2ank Circular or&onetar' 2oard Resolution which as of date hereof,has not even 3een officiall' issued, and 3asin his%rder/decision on a ere newspaper account of theadvance announce ent ade 3' the President of thesaid fact of liftin or li3erali+in forei n e8chan econtrols, respondent ;ud e acted pre aturel' and inindecent haste, as he had no wa' of deter inin thefull intent of the new C2 Circular or &onetar' 2oardresolution, and whether the sa e provided fore8ception, as in the case of persons who had pendincri inal cases 3efore the courts for violations ofCentral 2ank Circulars and/or re ulations previousl'issued on the atter=

5. That respondent ud e


29/108

to ?uash filed 3' the counsel for accused has evenplaced his dis issal %rder suspect.

Pursuant to a resolution of this Court dated Septe 3er ", ())!,respondent ;ud e filed his co ent, + contendin , inter alia , that therewas no need to await pu3lication of the Central 2ank 9C2: circularrepealin the e8istin law on forei n e8chan e controls for the si plereason that the pu3lic announce ent ade 3' the President inseveral newspapers of eneral circulation liftin forei n e8chan econtrols was total, a3solute, without ?ualification, and wasi ediatel' effective= that havin acted onl' on the 3asis of suchannounce ent, he cannot 3e 3la ed for rel'in on the erroneousstate ent of the President that the new forei n e8chan e rulesrendered oot and acade ic the cases filed a ainst &rs. &arcos,and which was corrected onl' on Au ust (J, ())! 3ut pu3lished in thenewspapers on Au ust (", ())!, and onl' after respondent ;ud e hadissued his order of dis issal dated Au ust (0, ())!= that thePresident was ill-advised 3' his advisers and, instead of rescuin theChief 78ecutive fro e 3arrass ent 3' assu in responsi3ilit' forerrors in the latter


30/108

Section ((( of Circular o. (0(", which contains a savin clausesu3stantiall' si ilar to that of the new circular, in turn refers to andincludes Circular o. )1*. ence, whether under Circular o. (0(" orCircular o. (050, pendin cases involvin violations of Circular o.)1* are e8cepted fro the covera e thereof. urther, it is alle ed thatthe precipitate dis issal of the eleven cases, without accordin theprosecution the opportunit' to file a otion to ?uash or a co ent, oreven to show cause wh' the cases a ainst accused > elda R. &arcosshould not 3e dis issed, is clearl' reflective of respondent elda R. &arcos pleaded not uilt'to all these cases= apparentl' the other accused inso e of these cases, Ro3erto S. 2enedicto, was notarrested and therefore the Court did not ac?uire

;urisdiction over his person= trial was co enced asa ainst &rs. &arcos.

is 78cellenc', the President of the Philippines,announced on Au ust (*, ())! that the overn enthas lifted all forei n e8chan e restrictions and it is alsoreported that Central 2ank Governor ose Cuisia saidthat the &onetar' 2oard arrived at such decision 9issueof the Philippine Bail' >n?uirer, Au ust ((, ())! andissue of the Bail' Glo3e of the sa e date:. The Courthas to ive full confidence and credit to the reportedannounce ent of the 78ecutive Bepart ent, speciall'fro the hi hest official of that depart ent= the Courtsare char ed with ;udicial notice of atters which are ofpu3lic knowled e, without introduction of proof, theannounce ent pu3lished in at least the twonewspapers cited a3ove which are reputa3le and ofnational circulation.

Per several cases decided 3' the Supre e Court9People vs. Alcaras, 51 Phil. 5!*, People vs. rancisco,51 Phil. 5J!, People vs. Pastor, JJ Phil. (***, Peoplevs. Crisanto Ta a'o, 1( Phil. !!5:, a on others, itwas held that the repeal of a penal law without re-enact ent e8tin uishes the ri ht to prosecute orpunish the offense co itted under the old law and ifthe law repealin the prior penal law fails to penali+e

the acts which constituted the offense defined andpenali+ed in the repealed law, the repealed law carrieswith it the deprivation of the courts of ;urisdiction to tr',convict and sentence persons char ed with violationsof the old law prior to its repeal. nder the aforeciteddecisions this doctrine applies to special laws and notonl' to the cri es punisha3le in the Revised PenalCode, such as the > port Control Iaw. The Central2ank Circular o. )1* under which the accused &rs.&arcos is char ed is considered as a penal law3ecause violation thereof is penali+ed with specific

NJQ 30


31/108

reference to the provision of Section 04 of Repu3lic Act!15, which penali+es violations of Central 2ankCircular o. )1*, produces the effect cited in theSupre e Court decisions and since accordin to thedecisions that repeal deprives the Court of ;urisdiction,this Court motu proprio dis isses all the eleven 9((:cases as a forestated in the caption, for not to do soopens this Court to char es of tr'in cases over whichit has no ore ;urisdiction.

This order was su3se?uentl' assailed in a petition for certiorari filedwith the Court of Appeals, entitled #People of the Philippines vs. on.&anuel T. &uro, ud e, RTC of &anila, 2r. 54 and > elda R. &arcos,#docketed as CA-G.R. SP o. !)04). @hen re?uired to file herco ent, private respondent &arcos failed to file an'. Iikewise, afterthe appellate court ave due course to the petition, private respondentwas ordered, 3ut a ain failed despite notice, to file an answer to thepetition and to show cause wh' no writ of preli inar' in;unctionshould issue. 7ventuall', on April !), ())0, the Court of Appealsrendered a decision * settin aside the order of Au ust (0, ())!, andreinstatin Cri inal Cases os. )!-(*()5) to )!-(*()1).

>n findin that respondent ;ud e acted in e8cess of ;urisdiction andwith rave a3use of discretion in issuin the order of dis issal, the

appellate court held that$

The order was issued motu proprio , i.e., without an'otion to dis iss filed 3' counsel for the accused,

without ivin an opportunit' for the prosecution to 3eheard, and solel' on the 3asis of newspaper reportsannouncin that the President has lifted all forei ne8chan e restrictions.

The newspaper report is not the pu3lication re?uired 3'law in order that the enact ent can 3eco e effective

and 3indin . Iaws take effect after fifteen da'sfollowin the co pletion of their pu3lication in the%fficial Ga+ette or in a newspaper of eneralcirculation unless it is otherwise provided 9Section (,78ecutive %rder o. !**:. The full te8t of C2 Circular(050, series of ())!, entitled # urther Ii3erali+in

orei n 78chan e Re ulation# was pu3lished in the Au ust !J, ())! issue of the &anila Chronicle, thePhilippine Star and the &anila 2ulletin. Per certificationof the C2 Corporate Affairs %ffice, C2 Circular o.(050 took effect on Septe 3er ! . . . .

Considerin that respondent ;ud e ad ittedl' had notseen the official te8t of C2 Circular o. (050, he was inno position to rule ;udiciousl' on whether C2 Circular

o. )1*, under which the accused &rs. &arcos ischar ed, was alread' repealed 3' C2 Circular o.(050. . . .

888 888 888

A cursor' readin of the . . . provision would havereadil' shown that the repeal of the re ulations on non-trade forei n e8chan e transactions is not a3solute, as

there is a provision that with respect to violations offor er re ulations that are the su3;ect of pendinactions or investi ations, the' shall 3e overned 3' there ulations e8istin at the ti e the cause of action9arose:. Thus his conclusion that he has lost

;urisdiction over the cri inal cases is precipitate andhast'. ad he awaited the filin of a otion to dis iss3' the accused, and iven opportunit' for theprosecution to co ent/oppose the sa e, hisresolution would have 3een the result of deli3eration,not speculation.

NJQ 31


32/108

>. The doctrine of ;udicial notice rests on the wisdo and discretion ofthe courts. The power to take ;udicial notice is to 3e e8ercised 3'courts with caution= care ust 3e taken that the re?uisite notoriet'e8ists= and ever' reasona3le dou3t on the su3;ect should 3e pro ptl'resolved in the ne ative. 1?

Generall' speakin , atters of ;udicial notice have three aterialre?uisites$ 9(: the atter ust 3e one of co on and eneralknowled e= 9!: it ust 3e well and authoritativel' settled and notdou3tful or uncertain= and 90: it ust 3e known to 3e within the li itsof the ;urisdiction of the court. 11 The provincial uide in deter ininwhat facts a' 3e assu ed to 3e ;udiciall' known is that of notoriet'.12 ence, it can 3e said that ;udicial notice is li ited to facts evidenced3' pu3lic records and facts of eneral notoriet'. 1

To sa' that a court will take ;udicial notice of a fact is erel' anotherwa' of sa'in that the usual for of evidence will 3e dispensed with ifknowled e of the fact can 3e otherwise ac?uired. 1+ This is 3ecausethe court assu es that the atter is so notorious that it will not 3edisputed. 1 2ut ;udicial notice is not ;udicial knowled e. The erepersonal knowled e of the ;ud e is not the ;udicial knowled e of thecourt, and he is not authori+ed to ake his individual knowled e of afact, not enerall' or professionall' known, the 3asis of his action.

udicial co ni+ance is taken onl' of those atters which are

#co onl'# known.1>

Thin s of #co on knowled e,# of which courts take ;udicial notice,a' 3e atters co in to the knowled e of en enerall' in the

course of the ordinar' e8periences of life, or the' a' 3e atterswhich are enerall' accepted 3' ankind as true and are capa3le ofread' and un?uestioned de onstration. 1 Thus, facts which areuniversall' known, and which a' 3e found in enc'clopedias,dictionaries or other pu3lications, are ;udiciall' noticed, provided the'are of such universal notoriet' and so enerall' understood that the'

a' 3e re arded as for in part of the co on knowled e of ever'person. 18

Respondent ;ud e, in the uise of e8ercisin discretion and on the3asis of a ere newspaper account which is so eti es even referredto as hearsa' evidence twice re oved, took ;udicial notice of thesupposed liftin of forei n e8chan e controls, a atter which was notand cannot 3e considered of co on knowled e or of eneralnotoriet'. @orse, he took co ni+ance of an ad inistrative re ulationwhich was not 'et in force when the order of dis issal was issued.

urisprudence dictates that ;udicial notice cannot 3e taken of a statute3efore it 3eco es effective. 1* The reason is si ple. A law which is not'et in force and hence, still ine8istent, cannot 3e of co onknowled e capa3le of read' and un?uestiona3le de onstration,which is one of the re?uire ents 3efore a court can take ;udicialnotice of a fact.

7videntl', it was i possi3le for respondent ;ud e, and it was definitel'not proper for hi , to have taken co ni+ance of C2 Circular o. (050,when the sa e was not 'et in force at the ti e the i provident orderof dis issal was issued.

>>. Central 2ank Circular o. (050, which took effect on Septe 3er (,())!, further li3erali+ed the forei n e8chan e re ulations on receipts

and dis3urse ents of residents arisin fro non-trade and tradetransactions. Section (1 thereof provides for a savin clause, thus$

Sec. (1. inal #rovisions of ) )ircular 1o. :=:> . - Athe provisions in Chapter M of C2 Circular o. (0("insofar as the' are not inconsistent with, or contrar' tothe provisions of this Circular, shall re ain in full forceand effect$ #rovided" owever , that an' re ulation onnon-trade forei n e8chan e transactions which has3een repealed, a ended or odified 3' this Circular,violations of which are the su3;ect of pendin actions or

NJQ 32


33/108

investi ations, shall not 3e considered repealed insofar as such pendin actions or investi ations areconcerned, it 3ein understood that as to such pendinactions or investi ations, the re ulations e8istin at theti e the cause of action accrued shall overn.

Respondent ;ud e contends that the savin clause refers onl' to theprovisions of Circular o. (0(", whereas the eleven cri inal cases hedis issed involve a violation of C2 Circular o. )1*. ence, heinsists, Circular o. )1* is dee ed repealed 3' the new circular andsince the for er is not covered 3' the savin clause in the latter, thereis no ore 3asis for the char es involved in the cri inal cases whichtherefore warrant a dis issal of the sa e. The contention is patentl'un eritorious.

irstl', the second part of the savin clause in Circular o. (050e8plicitl' provides that # an+ re ulation on non-trade forei ntransactions which has 3een repealed, a ended or odified 3' thisCircular, violations of w ic are t e su06ect of pendin$ actions orinvesti$ations" shall not 3e considered repealed insofar as suchpendin actions or investi ations are concerned, it 3ein understoodthat as to such pendin actions or investi ations, the re$ulationse5istin$ at t e time t e cause of action accrued s all $overn .# Theter s of the circular are clear and una 3i uous and leave no roo

for interpretation. >n the case at 3ar, the accused in the eleven caseshad alread' 3een arrai ned, had pleaded not uilt' to the char es ofviolations of Circular o. )1*, and said cases had alread' 3een set for trial when Circular o. (050 took effect. Conse?uentl', the trial courtwas and is supposed to proceed with the hearin of the cases in spiteof the e8istence of Circular o. (050.

Secondl', had respondent ;ud e onl' 3othered to read a little orecarefull' the te8ts of the circulars involved, he would have readil'perceived and known that Circular o. (0(" also contains asu3stantiall' si ilar savin clause as that found in Circular o. (050,since Section ((( of the for er provides$

Sec. (((. Repealin$ clause . - All e8istin provisions ofCirculars 015, )1* and (*!", includin a end entsthereto, with the e8ception of the second para raph ofSection 1" of Circular (*!", as well as all other e8istinCentral 2ank rules and re ulations or parts thereof,which are inconsistent with or contrar' to the provisionsof this Circular, are here3' repealed or odifiedaccordin l'$ Provided, however, that re ulations,violations of which are the su3;ect of pendin actions or investi ations, shall 3e considered repealed insofar assuch pendin actions or investi ations are concerned,it 3ein understood that as to such pendin actions orinvesti ations, the re ulations e8istin at the ti e thecause of action accrued shall overn.

>t une?uivocall' appears fro the section a3ove ?uoted that althou hCircular o. (0(" repealed Circular o. )1*, the for er specificall'e8cepted fro its purview all cases covered 3' the old re ulations

which were then pendin at the ti e of the passa e of the newre ulations. Thus, an' reference ade to Circular o. (0("necessaril' involves and affects Circular o. )1*.

>>>. >t has 3een said that ne8t in i portance to the dut' of renderin ari hteous ;ud ent is that of doin it in such a anner as will 3e etno suspicion of the fairness and inte rit' of the ;ud e. 2? This eansthat a ;ud e should not onl' render a ;ust, correct and i partialdecision 3ut should do so in such a anner as to 3e free fro an'suspicion as to its fairness and i partialit' and as to his inte rit'.@hile a ;ud e should possess proficienc' in law in order that he can

NJQ 33


34/108

co petentl' construe and enforce the law, it is ore i portant that heshould act and 3ehave in such a anner that the parties 3efore hishould have confidence in his i partialit'. Thus, it is not enou h thathe decides cases without 3ias and favoritis . or is it sufficient thathe in fact rids hi self of prepossessions. is actuations should

oreover inspire that 3elief. Iike Caesart isinconceiva3le that respondent should insist on an alto ether different

and illo ical interpretation of an esta3lished and well-entrenched ruleif onl' to suit his own personal opinion and, as it were, to defend hisindefensi3le action. >t was not for hi to indul e or even to ive theappearance of caterin to the at-ti es hu an failin of 'ieldin to firsti pressions. 2+ e havin done so, in the face of the fore oinpre ises, this Court is hard put to 3elieve that he indeed acted in

ood faith.

>E. This is not a si ple case of a isapplication or erroneousinterpretation of the law. The ver' act of respondent ;ud e inalto ether dis issin sua sponte the eleven cri inal cases withouteven a otion to ?uash havin 3een filed 3' the accused, and withoutat least ivin the prosecution the 3asic opportunit' to 3e heard onthe atter 3' wa' of a written co ent or on oral ar u ent, is notonl' a 3latant denial of ele entar' due process to the Govern ent3ut is palpa3l' indicative of 3ad faith and partialit'.

The avowed desire of respondent ;ud e to speedil' dispose of thecases as earl' as possi3le is no license for a3use of ;udicial powerand discretion, 2 nor does such professed o3;ective, even if true,

;ustif' a deprivation of the prosecution

The li htnin speed, to 3orrow the words of co plainants, with whichrespondent ;ud e resolved to dis iss the cases without the 3enefit ofa hearin and without reasona3le notice to the prosecution inevita3l'opened hi to suspicion of havin acted out of partialit' for theaccused. Re ardless of how carefull' he a' have evaluatedchan es in the factual situation and le al standin of the cases, as aresult of the newspaper report, the fact re ains that he ave theprosecution no chance whatsoever to show or prove that it had stronevidence of the uilt of the accused. To repeat, he there3' effectivel'deprived the prosecution of its ri ht to due process. 2 &orei portantl', notwithstandin the fact that respondent was not sure of

NJQ 34


35/108

the effects and i plications of the Presidentn a puerile defense of his action,respondent ;ud e can 3ut rhetoricall' ask$ #@hat e8planation couldhave 3een ivenF That the President was talkin should wait for the pu3lication of a stillthen non- e8istent C2 CircularF# The pretended co enc' of thisratiocination cannot stand even the inutest le al scrutin'.

>n order that 3ias a' not 3e i puted to a ;ud e, he should have thepatience and circu spection to ive the opposin part' a chance topresent his evidence even if he thinks that the oppositor. To hold a ;ud e lia3le for renderin a anifestl' un;ust orderthrou h ine8cusa3le ne li ence or i norance, it ust 3e clearl'shown that althou h he has acted without alice, he failed to o3servein the perfor ance of his dut' that dili ence, prudence and care whichthe law is entitled to e8act in the renderin of an' pu3lic service.

e li ence and i norance are ine8cusa3le if the' i pl' a anifestin;ustice which cannot 3e e8plained 3' a reasona3le interpretation,and even thou h there is a isunderstandin or error of the law

NJQ 35


36/108

applied, it nevertheless results lo icall' and reasona3l', and in a ver'clear and indisputa3le anner, in the notorious violation of the le alprecept. 1

>n the present case, a cursor' perusal of the co ent filed 3'respondent ;ud e reveals that no su3stantial ar u ent has 3eenadvanced in plausi3le ;ustification of his act. e utterl' failed to showan' le al, factual, or even e?uita3le ;ustification for the dis issal ofthe eleven cri inal cases. The e8planation iven is no e8planation atall. The strained and fallacious su3 issions therein do not speak wellof respondent and cannot 3ut further depreciate his pro3it' as a

;ud e. %n this point, it is 3est that pertinent unedited e8cerpts fro hisco ent 2 3e ?uoted 3' wa' of raphic illustration and e phasis$

%n the alle ed i norance of the law i puted to e, it issaid that > issued the %rder dis issin the eleven 9((:cases a ainst &rs. > elda R. &arcos on the 3asis ofnewspaper reports referred to in para raph ! of theletter co plaint without awaitin the official pu3licationof the Central 2ank Circular. %rdinaril' a Central 2ankCircular/Resolution ust 3e pu3lished in the %fficialGa+ette or in a newspaper of eneral circulation, 3utthe liftin of #all forei n e8chan e controls# wasannounced 3' the President of the Philippines

@>T % T AI> >CAT>% S= as pu3lished in theBail' Glo3e, Au ust ((, ())!# the overn ent haslifted AII forei n e8chan e controls,# and in the wordsof the Philippine Bail' >n?uirer report of the sa e date#The overn ent 'esterda' I> T7B the IASTre ainin restrictions on forei n e8chan etransactions, . . .# 9e phasis in 3oth ?uotationssupplied: not onl' the President ade theannounce ent 3ut also the Central 2ank Governor

ose Cuisia ;oined in the announce ent 3' sa'in that#the &onetar' 2oard arrived at the decision after notin

how the #partial li3erali+ation# initiated earl' this 'earworked.#

Therefore, 3ecause of the A2S%I T7 liftin of AIIrestrictions on forei n e8chan e transactions, therewas no need to await the pu3lication of the repealincircular of the Central 2ank. The purpose of re?uirinpu3lication of laws and ad inistrative rules affectinthe pu3lic is to infor the latter as to how the' willconduct their affairs and how the' will confor to thelaws or the rules. >n this particular case, with the totalliftin of the controls, there is no need to awaitpu3lication. >t would have 3een different if the circularthat in effect repealed Central 2ank Circular o. )1*,under which the accused was char ed in the casesdis issed 3' e, had provided for penalties and/or

odified the provisions of said Circular o. )1*.

The Co plainants state that the liftin of controls wasnot 'et in force when > dis issed the cases 3ut itshould 3e noted that in the report of the two 9!:newspapers afore?uoted, the Presidentn?uirer:. >n other words, it has alread' 3een lifted= theannounce ent did not sa' that the overn ent> T7 BS to lift all forei n e8chan e restrictions 3utinstead sa's that the overn ent #has I> T7B allforei n e8chan e controls,# and in the other newspaper cited a3ove, that #The overn ent 'esterda' lifted thelast re ainin restrictions on forei n e8chan etransactions#. The liftin of the last re ainin e8chan ere ulations effectivel' cancelled or repealed Circular

o. )1*.

NJQ 36


37/108

The President, who is the Chief 78ecutive, pu3licl'announced the liftin of all forei n e8chan ere ulations. The President has within his controldirectl' or indirectl' the Central 2ank of the Philippines,the Secretar' of inance 3ein the Chair an of the&onetar' 2oard which decides the policies of theCentral 2ank.

o official 3othered to correct or ?ualif' the President >R7R


38/108

Court notwithstandin the anifest lack of co enc' thereof. This callsto ind si ilar scenarios and how this Court reacted thereto.

>n one case, an RTC ud e was ad inistrativel' char ed forac?uittin the accused of a violation of C2 Circular o. )1* despitethe fact that the accused was apprehended with S 055,04).** while3oardin a plane for on kon , erroneousl' rulin that the State ustfirst prove cri inal intent to violate the law and 3enefit fro the ille alact, and further orderin the return of S 0,***.** out of the totala ount sei+ed, on the istaken interpretation that the C2 circulare8e pts such a ount fro sei+ure. Respondent ;ud e therein wasordered dis issed fro the overn ent service for rossinco petence and i norance of the law.

Su3se?uentl', the Court dis issed another RTC ;ud e, with forfeitureof retire ent 3enefits, for ross i norance of the law and forknowin l' renderin an un;ust order or ;ud ent when he ranted 3ailto an accused char ed with rapin an ((-'ear old irl, despite thecontrar' reco endation of the investi atin ;ud e, and thereafter

ranted the otion to dis iss the case alle edl' e8ecuted 3' theco plainant. +

Si ilarl', an RTC ;ud e who was descri3ed 3' this Court as one #whois i norant of fairl' ele entar' and ?uite fa iliar le al principles and

ad inistrative re ulations, has a arked penchant for appl'inunorthodo8, even stran e theories and concepts in the ad;udication of controversies, e8hi3its indifference to and even disdain for dueprocess and the rule of law, applies the law whi sicall', capriciousl'and oppressivel', and displa's 3ias and i partialit',# was dis issedfro the service with forfeiture of all retire ent 3enefits and withpre;udice to reinstate ent in an' 3ranch of the overn ent or an' ofits a encies or instru entalities.

Still in another ad inistrative case, an RT ;ud e was also dis issed3' this Court for ross i norance of the law after she ordered, in a

pro3ate proceedin , the cancellation of the certificates of title issuedin the na e of the co plainant, without affordin due process to thelatter and other interested parties. >

%nl' recentl', an RTC ;ud e who had 3een reinstated in the servicewas dis issed after he ac?uitted all the accused in four cri inalcases for ille al possession of firear s, on the round that there wasno proof of alice or deli3erate intent on the part of the accused toviolate the law. The Court found hi uilt' of ross i norance of thelaw, his error of ;ud ent 3ein al ost deli3erate and tanta ount toknowin l' renderin an incorrect and un;ust ;ud ent.

ACC%RB> GIH, on the fore oin pre ises and considerations, theCourt finds respondent ud e &anuel T. &uro uilt' of rossi norance of the law. e is here3' B>S&>SS7B fro the service, suchdis issal to carr' with it cancellation of eli i3ilit', forfeiture of leavecredits and retire ent 3enefits, and dis?ualification froree plo' ent in the overn ent service. 8

Respondent is here3' ordered to C7AS7 and B7S>ST i ediatel'fro renderin an' ;ud ent or order, or continuin an' ;udicial actionor proceedin whatsoever, effective upon receipt of this decision.

S% %RB7R7B.

!EO!LE O T"E !"ILI!!INES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.!RUDENCIO !U3AL, ANTONIO SORIANO nd RICARDOADDUCA, ccu&ed, !RUDENCIO !U3AL, accused-appellant.

RE3ALADO, J.:

NJQ 38


39/108

>n an infor ation 1 filed on ove 3er 5, ()"5 3efore the Re ionalTrial Court of Ta3uk, 2ranch !5, Oalin a-Apa'ao, herein accusedPrudencio Pu al, Antonio Soriano, Ricardo Adduca and one Arte ioPana an were char ed with the cri e of #Ro33er' with o icide withthe se of nlicensed irear # under Article !)4, para raph (, of theRevised Penal Code in relation to Presidential Becree o. ("11,co itted as follows$

That on or a3out the evenin of ul' !0, ()"5 atRiverside, Ia'a @est, Ta3uk, Oalin a-Apa'ao andwithin the ;urisdiction of this onora3le Court, thea3ove-na ed accused, conspirin , confederatin and

utuall' aidin one another, with treacher' and evidentpre editation, with intent to ain and 3' the use offorce, violence and inti idation of persons, did thenand there willfull', unlawfull', and feloniousl' take andcarr' awa' the a ount of % 7 T % SA B9P(,***.**: Pesos, Philippine Currenc', 3elon in tothe victi and his wife, to their da a e and pre;udicein said a ount, and 3' reason and on the occasion ofsaid Ro33er', the accused tied said AC> T%SAIA&A CA to a coconut tree and thereafter, willfull',and feloniousl' shot acinto Sala anca on differentparts of his 3od' 9and: said ultiple unshot wounds

caused his direct and i ediate death.

The cri e is a ravated 3' nocturnit', craft, dwellin ,treacher' and a3use of superior stren th.

AII C% TRARH T% IA@.

Pursuant to the order of arrest issued on ove 3er 5, ()"5, theaccused were arrested and co itted to the custod' of the Provincial@arden on ove 3er !!, ()"5.

%n Bece 3er 4, ()"5, accused Prudencio Pu al, Antonio Soriano,Ricardo Adduca and Arte io Pana an, assisted 3' their defensecounsel, Att's. Cesar Puru anan and @illia . Claver, werearrai ned and entered a plea of not uilt' to the offense char ed.

Accused Ricardo Adduca posted his 3ail 3ond and was orderedreleased on %cto3er !, ()"1. owever, on the 3asis of a otion towithdraw 3' his 3onds an, Adduca was re-arrested and co itted tothe provincial ;ail. @hile detained therein, Adduca escaped. %n

e3ruar' !, ()"), the trial court issued an order for his arrest 3ut untilnow he re ains at lar e.

Accused Antonio Soriano was #receipted# for 3' a certain Ro3erto2a a', the Actin &a'or of Pudtol, Oalin a-Apa'ao, ine8plica3l'without the approval of or an order fro the trial court authori+in hito do so. Su3se?uentl', said accused also re ained at lar e.

The trial court dis issed the case as a ainst accused Arte ioPana an upon otion of the prosecution on the 3asis of an affidavit of desistance of 7rlinda Sala anca, wife of the victi , wherein shestated that the for er was not one of those who killed her hus3and.Trial, however, proceeded a ainst the herein three accused since the'had all 3een arrai ned and the a3sence of accused Soriano and

Adduca was un;ustified.

The record show that on anuar' ((, ()"), accused Prudencio Pu alhad 3een ordered released fro ;ail after filin his 3ail 3ond. owever,after the pro ul ation of the ;ud ent of the trial court hereunderindicated, said court issued an order on ul' (J, ()") cancellin his3ail 3ond and co ittin hi to the provincial ;ail where he wasaccordin l' detained. 2

Parentheticall', aside fro the a3ove-na ed accused char ed in theinfor ation filed 3' the Provincial iscal of Oalin a-Apa'ao, Pat.Ra' und CaseKas of Pinukpuk, Oalin a-Apa'ao was also char ed in

NJQ 39


40/108

connection with the said killin of acinto Sala anca 3ut the casea ainst hi was forwarded to the ilitar' tri3unal pursuant to theprovisions of Presidential Becree o. ("5*, as a ended, and thesa e is not involved in the present proceedin .

%n ul' (J, ()"), the trial court rendered ;ud ent disposin asfollows$

@ 7R7 %R7, ;ud ent is here3' rendered findinthe accused PR B7 C>% P GAI, R>CARB%

ABB CA and A T% >% S%R>A % uilt' 3e'ondreasona3le dou3t as principals of the cri e ofR%227RH @>T %&>C>B7 @>T T 7 S7 %

I>C7 S7B >R7AR&, defined and penali+ed under Article !)4, in relation with P.B. ("11, sentencin eachof the accused to suffer the penalt' of Reclusion#erpetua , to inde nif' ;ointl' and severall' the heirs ofthe deceased acinto Sala anca the a ount of Thirt'Thousand Pesos 9P0*,***.**: plus ort' ThousandPesos 9P4*,***.**: oral and e8e plar' da a eswithout su3sidiar' i prison ent in case of insolvenc'pursuant to Article 0) of the Revised Penal Code andto pa' the costs.

S% %RB7R7B.+

Appellant Prudencio Pu al, the lone accused who appealed to usfro said decision, assi ns the followin errors alle edl' co itted3' the court a ?uo $

(. The trial court rievousl' erred in holdin that thekillin of the victi was positivel' witnessed 3'prosecution witnesses i+on and 7rlinda Sala anca=

!. The lower court rievousl' erred in ivin fullevidentiar' wei ht and credence to the testi onies of

i+on and 7rlinda Sala anca who are 3iased andwhose testi onies are pre nant with serious and

aterial inconsistencies, i pro3a3ilities and shak'=

0. The lower court erred in findin that appellantPrudencio Pu al was the one who pulled the deceasedfro inside the house, 3rou ht hi outside and tiedhi to a coconut tree=

4. The lower court erred in disre ardin the plea of ali3i3' appellant Prudencio Pu al=

5. The lower court co itted rave error in notac?uittin Prudencio Pu al on round of reasona3ledou3t.

The prosecution presented as witnesses i+on Sala anca, son of thedeceased acinto Sala anca= 7rlinda Sala anca, wife of said victi =Br. ai e Al ora= and Att'. @a'ne %die , whose collectivetesti onies esta3lish the facts of this case as hereunder su ari+ed.

%n ul' !0, ()"5, at around )$** P.&., 7rlinda Sala anca, to ether

with her son i+on and dau hter-in-law Iolita, was restin inside theirhouse at Ia'a @est, Ta3uk, Oalin a-Apa'ao. er hus3and, acintoSala anca, had ;ust started to eat supper when the do s started3arkin and the' heard and reco ni+ed the voice of Prudencio Pu alcall #Apo# three ti es. > acinto, who was followed 3' 7rlinda, went tothe sala and asked, #@ho are 'ouF# So e3od' answered, #Baka i,#

eanin #@e are the ones.# @hen acinto a ain called out, #@ho are'ou,# the person outside replied, #@e are the ones, we ca e froBa upan.# acinto and 7rlinda peeped throu h the ;alousie windowand the' saw Prudencio Pu al and Ricardo Adduca standin near thedoor. The place was then li hted 3' a !*-watt flourescent la p.

NJQ 40


41/108

7rlinda told acinto to open the door. %nce it was opened, however,Pu al pulled acinto out of the house, and then three asked enrushed inside the house. %ne of the en who had a lon ar alite riflestood uard at the door, while the other two, one of who had a shortfirear , entered the house. 8 Adduca, one of the two en who ca einside, de anded one' and an ar alite rifle fro the occupants ofthe house, and when the latter failed to produce an', Adducaransacked the house. * 7rlinda was thus co pelled to ive herearnin s for the da' a ountin to P(,***.** and, in addition, she

ave the rin of her dau hter-in-law. The' were then ordered andforced to lie on the floor face down. Su3se?uentl', 7rlinda and i+onheard the clappin of hands fro outside the house. 1? Sensin thatno3od' was uardin the an' ore, 7rlinda and i+on crawledtowards the window. ro there, the' saw the en dra acinto andtie hi to a coconut tree with a rope. 7rlinda also saw Pu al slap andkick acinto. Then, the an with an ar alite rifle pointed his unupwards and fired it several ti es. Afterwards, he oved 3ackward,pointed the un at acinto, and shot the latter several ti es. 11

The alefactors thereafter fled towards the north and when the'reached the #canto# leadin to Ca3aruan, another unshot was heard.

pon seein that the culprits were alread' far awa', 7rlinda andi+on rushed to where acinto was, onl' to find his alread' lifeless

3od'. 7rlinda then sent i+on to call for assistance and, in no ti e,

the 3aran a' people and the police arrived at the scene of the cri e.@hen acinto B> GS

78ternal 78a ination Cadaver full' clothed, flaccid, with no si n ofri or ortis or lividit' or deco position.

ead Ieft side of skull sa in and with ultiple fracture due toultiple unshot wounds with loss of so e 3rain tissue and left e'e.

Chest Gunshot wound with point of entr' easurin 5 to J atthe 54th ics id clavicular line directed posteriorl', ediall' Nhori+ontall' e8itin at the 9I: id clavicular line level of the "th lcs.

78tre ities R Thi h ra+in wound directed downward at theanterior upper third of R thi h.

I Thi h entr' wound at the iddle third, edial aspect of left thi hdirected laterall', posteriorl' downward.

Ieft le 7ntr' wound at the antero- edial aspect of left le iddlethird with no point of e8it. Copper acket of 2ullet recovered.

CA S7 % B7AT $ &ultiple unshot wound9s:, head, chest, thi h,and le . 1+

>t appears that 7rlinda and i+on Sala anca ave their swornstate ents on Au ust (1 1 and Septe 3er ", ()"5, 1> respectivel',3oth to Police S t. Arte io Cata3a' in the investi ation roo of theTa3uk Police Station at Ta3uk, Oalin a-Apa'ao.

The records further reveal that on Septe 3er !4, ()"5, accused Antonio Soriano, acco panied 3' S ts. Ta uia and A?uino, went to

NJQ 41


42/108

the office of prosecution witness Att'. @a'ne %die , Bistrict Citi+en Attorne' of the Citi+ens Ie al Assistance %ffice, to seek the latter saw the there, sir.

ow far were the' this Adduca and Pu al when 'ou saw the F

A Pu al is near the window and Ricardo Adduca is 3ehind PrudencioPu al, sir.

@ere the' in askF

A o, the' were not in ask 3ecause we opened it, if the' were usina ask we did 9 sic , would: not open the door, sir. 22

urther ore, there could 3e no inconsistenc' to speak of precisel'3ecause 7rlinda likewise testified that the accused were alread'wearin asks when the' entered the house, in effect corro3oratinthe testi on' of i+on on this point. ence, in her direct e8a ination,7rlinda declared

Can 'ou identif' an' of the two 9!: persons who actuall' entered'our houseF

NJQ 42


43/108


44/108

certain that rancisca, who feared for her life as well asthe lives of her relatives, would not e8pose hi .

Still, in another case, this Court held that$

>n so e cases of urder, ro33er', or even rape wherea person is a pri e suspect, his not fleein a' 3e a3ad e of innocence. >n the present case, however, thecri e was co itted with i punit' on three occasions3' one who thou ht the victi would not co plain.

nder the circu stances of this case, the appellantwould ost likel' not have 3een discovered if

osephine did not 3eco e pre nant. The appellant didnot have to flee. ?

And, finall', in #eople vs . Luardo" et al . 1 where the accused, as inthe case at 3ar, likewise attended the vi il and funeral of thedeceased, the Court, did not appl' the eneral rule with thise8planation$

The defense laid stress on the fact that appellantscould have escaped, 3ut did not. %n the contrar', 3oth2edico and Capio attended the vi il and funeral of thedeceased and even helped carr' the 3ier of the

latter. . . .

Eeril', there is no ar u ent on the fact that fli ht isindicative of uilt' so that it a' 3e considered in favorof the accused in the case at 3ar that the' did noescape. onetheless, it has also 3een held 3' thisCourt that the fact that the accused did not take fli ht3ut even helped the police to locate the supposedculprits, is not a sufficient round to e8culpate thefro the proved cri inal lia3ilit'.

Third, appellant asseverates that the failure of i+on and 7rlindaSala anca to i ediatel' ive their state ents to the police 9whichthe' ave onl' after the lapse of 1J da's after the incident took place:affects their credi3ilit'.

As a eneral rule, the failure of a witness to report at once to thepolice authorities the cri e he had witnessed cannot 3e taken a ainsthi for it is not unco on for a witness to a cri e to show so ereluctance a3out ettin involved in a cri inal case. The naturalreticence of ost people to et involved in a cri inal case is of ;udicialnotice, and the fear of e'ewitnesses when town ates are involved inthe co ission of the cri e is understanda3le for the' a' provokeretaliation fro the accused. The dela', when ade?uatel' e8plained,does not i pair the credi3ilit' of the witness= neither will it render histesti on' 3iased nor destro' its pro3ative value. 2

>n the case at 3ar, the two principal witnesses for the prosecutionave ore than ade?uate reason for their initial reluctance in ivin

their sworn state ents to the police, that is, fear for their safet' andtheir lives. As a atter of fact, after the ninth da' of pra'er for thedeceased, the Sala ancas had to leave their house and transfer toanother place in apprehension of possi3le reprisals fro the culprits.

@hen asked wh' he failed to i ediatel' report and disclose the

identit' of the suspects, i+on Sala anca testified$

ow, &r. i+on Sala anca, in spite 9of: the death of 'our father, inspite of the threats of Pu al, and in spite of the fact that 'ou auledhi 3efore and 'ou know that he is s aller than 'ou are, 'ou did notreport his na e to the police that he was the one who entered 'our house and killed 'our fatherF

A Hes, sir, 3ecause we were afraid, for fear that the' i ht co e 3ackfor us.

NJQ 44


45/108

Hou did not even tell that to an'one else Hou told it onl' to 'ourother, is that correctF

A Hes, sir.

Hou did not even tell that to 'our wifeF

A > told this to ' wife and to ' 3rothers.

@ho were 'our 3rothersF

A Ra' undo and all ' 3rothers, sir.

Hou ave this infor ation to the that Pu al was one of theurderers i ediatel' after the incident, is that correctF

A o, > did not sa' it i ediatel' to ' 3rothers 3ecause the' werestud'in in Tu ue arao.

2ut i ediatel' after the killin the police en of Ta3uk ca e toIa'a @est, is that correctF

A Hes, sir.

The' ade an investi ation of the cri eF

A Hes, sir.

And the' asked 'ou know 9 sic : the killers, is it notF

A Hes, sir.

And 'ou told the 'ou do not know 3ecause 'ou were afraidF

A Hes, sir.

Accordin to 'ou 'ou sta'ed in Ta3uk for the whole seven da'sthat 'our father was in his wake, is that correctF

A Hes, sir.

And there were an' visitors who ca e even the &a'or of Ta3ukca e to 'our house, is that correctF

A Hes, sir.

And the' asked 'ou if 'ou know who the killers wereF

A Hes, sir.

2ut ;ust the sa e 'ou stick 9 sic : 'our 3elief that 'ou should not tellthe the truthF

A Hes, sir.

C% RT$

Bid 'ou not know that if onl' 'ou told the the identit' of the killers of'our father, the police could have arrested the and put the to ;ailand for this reason there would 3e no ore dan er in 'our lifeF

@>T 7SS$

Hes, 3ut > a afraid, for fear that the'i ht have still other co panions.

C% RT$

Proceed.

NJQ 45


46/108

2ut when 'ou ave 'our state entstwo onths and seven da's after theincident, 'ou were no lon er afraidF

A o ore, sir, 3ecause the' werealread' apprehended.

>t did not occur to 'ou that there arestill others at the ti e and the' could oout after 'ouF

A o ore, sir, 3ecause the' 9 sic :alread' there in the ;ail,depressed.

ourth, appellant clai s that i+on and 7rlinda are 3iased aswitnesses considerin that the' are related and ver' close to thedeceased, hence the' have the tendenc' to e8a erate or ive falsecolor to their testi onies.

This Court has repeatedl' held that ere relationship of the witnessesto the victi does not render their clear and positive testi on' lessworth' of full faith and credit. %n the contrar', their natural interest insecurin the conviction of the uilt' would deter the fro i plicatin

persons other than the culprits, for otherwise, the latter would there3'ain i unit'. + ence, the closeness of their relationship to thedeceased should not, contrar' to appellantt is a ;urisprudentiall' e 3edded and conceded rule that the

ere fact that the witness is a relative is not a valid or sufficient

round to disre ard the for ert cannprevail over the positive identification of prosecution witnesses. * To3e iven credence, it ust not onl' appear that the accusedinterposin the sa e was at so e other place 3ut also that it wasph'sicall' i possi3le for hi to 3e at the scene of the cri e at theti e of its co ission. +?

>n the case at 3ar, appellant was positivel' identified 3' i+on and7rlinda. The followin o3servations thereon in appellee


47/108

3ecause the' have had occasions in the past to talk tohi oftenl' considerin that appellant is their nei h3orand 3arrio ate for ore than !* 'ears. 9TS , p. J,7rlinda S.= TS , p. ", i+on S.:.

Appellant was also seen and identified 3' prosecutionwitnesses as he was not wearin an' ask and neither was his face covered durin the ti e he was callinfro outside the house. 9TS , p. ", 7rlinda S.= TS , p.(0-(1, i+on S.:.

Appellant was reco ni+ed 3' the prosecution witnesses3ecause of the fluorescent la p in front of the houseener i+ed 3' a (!-volt 3atter' then illu inatin theirhouse. 2esides, the ni ht then was a oonlit ni ht.9TS , p. ", 7rlinda S.= TS , p. (0, i+on S.:.

888 888 888

@orth' to note is the testi on' of 7rlinda that whenshe reco ni+ed the identit' of the persons callin frothe outside, she even told her hus3and to open thedoor. This is 3ut natural and in accord with co ono3servation and hu an e8perience.

%therwise, if the persons callin were asked asclai ed 3' the defense, the natural and lo ical reactionwould 3e to suspect that the' were 3ad ele ents andthere would 3e reason not to open the door. . . . +1

The pretension that appellant was alle edl' at his house at the ti e of the incident cannot stand a ainst the clear and positive identification3' the prosecution witnesses. Also, the Solicitor General correctl'concluded that considerin the pro8i it' in the distance 3etween thetwo houses, it was not ph'sicall' i possi3le for appellant to 3e at thelocus criminis and then return to his house shortl' afterwards.

inall', conspirac' has 3een sufficientl' esta3lished in this case. Theconcerted acts of the accused 3e an with the deceased uanito 3eincalled 3' Pu al and Adduca who purposel' ade the selvesidentifia3le to facilitate their entr' into the house. %nce the door wasopened, three of the accused who were alread' wearin asksentered the house while Pu al pulled acinto outside. Then one of thethree who entered the house stood uard at the door while the twoothers ransacked the place. Thereafter, upon hearin the clappin ofhands fro the outside, the three alefactors i ediatel' left. Thedeceased was tied to the coconut tree and then shot to death. 2'these concerted actions, it is 3e'ond cavil that the accused acted inunison and cooperated with each other towards the acco plish entof a co on cri inal desi n, which was to ro3 the Sala ancas andthereafter kill acinto. The trial court definitel' did not err in findin thee8istence of a conspirac'.

@here conspirac' is shown to e8ist, the act of one is the act of all. +

@hile it has not 3een esta3lished that it was appellant who actuall'shot the victi , conspirac' havin 3een found to e8ist, he is e?uall'uilt' of the cri e of ro33er' with ho icide. The rule is whenever

ho icide has 3een co itted as a conse?uence or on the occasionof the ro33er', all those who took part as principals in the ro33er' willalso 3e held uilt' as principals in the ro33er' will also 3e held uilt'as principals of the special co ple8 cri e of ro33er' with ho icidealthou h the' did not actuall' take part in the ho icide, unless itclearl' appears that the' endeavored to prevent the ho icide. + There is nothin in the records to show that the e8ception applied inthis case.

NJQ 47


48/108

@e, however, re;ect that portion of the decision of the trial courtfindin that the lia3ilit' of the accused for the cri e of ro33er' withho icide was attended 3', and ostensi3l' should 3e odified 3' thecircu stances of, their use of unlicensed firear s. o evidence waspresented to show, and even the trial court ade no findin , that thefirear s used 3' herein accused were unlicensed. >n addition, theinde nit' for which the accused is lia3le for the death of acintoSala anca should 3e increased to P5*,***.** in accordance with thepolic' adopted 3' the Court en 0anc on Au ust 0*, ())*. ++

@ 7R7 %R7, su3;ect to the a3ove-stated odifications, the ;ud ent of the court a ?uo is here3' A >R&7B in all other respects.

S% %RB7R7B.

!EO!LE O T"E !"ILI!!INES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.AR$ANDO REANZARES 0 l&o noBn & AR$ANDO RIANZARES,accused-appellant.

)ELLOSILLO, J #5

This case is with us on auto atic review of the !1 &a' ())JBecision ( of the Re ional Trial Court of Tanauan, 2atan as, findinaccused AR&A B% R7A 6AR7S also known as #Ar andoRian+ares# uilt' of i hwa' Ro33er' with o icide under PB 50! ! and sentencin hi to the e8tre e penalt' of death. e was alsoordered to pa' the heirs of his victi Iilia Tactacan P(J!,***.** forfuneral, 3urial and related e8penses, P5*,***.** as inde nit' fordeath, P(,***.** for the cash taken fro her 3a , and to rei 3urseGre orio Tactacan P!,5**.** for the Seiko wristwatch taken frohi . :;wp i:.n


49/108

incurred funeral, 3urial and other related e8penses, and that his wifewas earnin P0,40*.** a onth as a teacher .1

Br. Iil' B. unes, &edical ealth %fficer of Sto. To as, 2atan as,conducted a post-mortem e8a ination on the 3od' of the victi . er

edical report disclosed that the victi sustained ei ht 9": sta3wounds on the chest and a3do inal re ion of the 3od'. She testifiedthat a sharp pointed o3;ect like a lon knife could have caused thosewounds which ust have 3een inflicted 3' ore than one 9(: person,and that all those wounds e8cept the non-penetratin one caused thei ediate death of the victi . J

Su3se?uentl', two 9!: infor ations were filed a ainst accused Ar ando Rean+ares and three 90: ohn Boes in relation to theincident. The first was for violation of PB 50! otherwise known as the

Anti-Pirac' and Anti- i hwa' Ro33er' Iaw of ()J4 for alle edl'conspirin , with intent to ain and ar ed with 3laded weapons and a .0" cali3er revolver, to ro3 and carr' awa' one 9(: Seiko wristwatchowned 3' Gre orio Tactacan and P(,***.** cash of Iilia Tactacan,and on the occasion thereof, killed her. The second was for violationof RA 150", An Act Preventin and Penali+in Carnappin , for takinawa' 3' eans of violence and inti idation of persons one 9(:passen er-t'pe ;eepne' with Plate o. B2P !05 owned and driven 3'Gre orio Tactacan and valued at P((*,***.**. %nl' the accused

Ar ando Rean+ares was arrested. The other three 90: have re ainedunidentified and at lar e.

The accused testified in his defense and clai ed that he could nothave perpetrated the cri es i puted to hi with three 90: others ashe was in 2aran a' Ta nipa, Garchitorena, Ca arines Sur, for the3aptis of his dau hter essica when the incident happened. " isfather, ose Rean+ares, corro3orated his stor'. ose clai ed that theaccused 3orrowed P5**.** fro hi for the latter


50/108

consistent on cross-e8a ination. >ndeed, Gre orio i ht not havei ediatel' revealed the na e of accused Ar and

Documents

Evid First Page Assigned Cases