People v Galvez

PEOPLE V GALVEZ FACTS At around 11 o’clock in the evening of July 27,  1991, Danilo Perez, Rosalio Enojarda, Noel Cugal, Ricardo Francisco and Wilfredo Rellios, took a break from making copra to eat leftover dinner inside the copra kiln in the farm of Perez in Matarling, Lantawan, Basilan. When Enojarda stood up from the circle where they were eating to drink water, shots rang out and Enojarda fell to the ground shouting "Dan ya tupa comigo" (Dan, I am hit).

The rest of the group took cover, crawling to different directions. After the attack, Rellios reported the incident to the barangay captain and they brought Enojarda’s dead body to his family.3

On May 28, 1992, an Information was filed against Cesar Galvez (Galvez), a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) for Murder, which reads:

That on or about the 27th day of July, 1991, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, viz. at Matarling, Municipality of Lantawan, Province of Basilan, Philippines, the above named accused, armed with an M16 armalite rifle, with treachery and evident premeditation, and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot one Rosalio Enojarda with the said M16 armalite rifle, thereby inflicting gunshot wound on the body of t he latter which caused his death.4

The prosecution presented evidence showing that: after Enojarda fell, the rest of the group took cover and Rellios while in a crawling position, saw Galvez about 5 meters away holding an armalite rifle and firing at their direction; Rellios also saw that Galvez had companions but did not recognize them as well as the firearms they carried because they were approximately nine meters away;5 Perez, also crawled and hid in the bushes about 5 meters away; when the firing stopped, sto pped, one of the attackers passed by about two meters from where Perez was hiding and because the moon was bright, he recognized Galvez, his cousin, who was wearing a fatigue uniform and armed with an armalite rifle; he also saw that Galvez had three armed companions but did not recognize them nor the firearms they were carrying because they were about nine meters from Galvez.6

Galvez put up denial and alibi as his defenses. He testified that he was staying at his father-in-law’s father-in-law’s house on July 27, 1991 and drank tuba at around 10:30 p.m. at a nearby store. He went home and slept with his wife soon after.7 To corroborate his testimony, he presented SPO2 Danilo Ramillano, a visitor at his fatherin-law’s in-law’s house and Wilhelmina Espinosa, a sari-sari sari-sari store owner. 8 He also presented Athena Elisa Anderson, Document Examiner and Forensic Analyst of the PNP Crime Laboratory of Region 9, Zamboanga City, who testified that the paraffin test conducted on both his hands showed that there was no nitrate

present;9 and Police Inspector Lemuel Caser, Ballistic Examiner, who testified that the shells found at the scene of the crime were not fired from the firearm issued to Galvez.10 RTC- rendered a judgement against the accused But what is noteworthy is that THE CA AFFIRMED THE CA findings that it was erroneous for CA to have affirmed the RTC ruling that Galvez offer to the victim’s wife to settle the case is a tacit admission of guilt ISSUE ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT HELD: Galvez correctly pointed out in his supplemental brief before this Court that it was erroneous for the CA to have affirmed the RTC ruling that Galvez’s offer to the victim’s wife to settle the case i s a tacit admission of guilt.65

While the Court agrees that in criminal cases, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt,66 such principle is not applicable in this case. The only basis of the RTC in concluding that Galvez made on offer of compromise,67 is the March 3, 1993 Order of the RTC which reads as follows: Considering that the accused as well as his Counsel, Atty. Bienvenido G. Martin appeared in Court together with Rosaflor Enojarda, the wife of the victim, and manifested that there is a possibility of understanding and settlement between the parties, the above-entitled case is hereby reset for new assignment.68 Galvez’s supposed offer of compromise was not formally offered and admitted as evidence during the trial. The victim’s widow or any prosecution witness did not testify on any offer of compromise made by Galvez. We have held that when the evidence on the alleged offer of compromise is amorphous, the

same shall not benefit the prosecution in its case against the accused.69

The Court also recognizes that there may be instances when an offer of compromise will not amount to an admission of guilt. Thus, in People v. Godoy,70 the Court pronounced that:

…In criminal cases, an offer of compromise is generally admissible as evidence against the party making it. It is a legal maxim, which assuredly constitutes one of the bases of the right to penalize, that in the matter of public crimes which directly affect t he public interest, no compromise whatever may be entered into as regards the penal action. It has long been held, however, that in such cases the accused is

permitted to show that the offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth an admission of guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom.71 (Emphasis supplied).

As the alleged offer of compromise was not presented in court, it was not shown that Galvez indeed made such an offer under the consciousness of guilt. Galvez was not given the opportunity to explain that it was

given for some other reason that would justify a claim that it was not an admission of guilt or an attempt to avoid its legal consequences.