People vs. Endino

SUBJECT: Criminal Procedure

TOPIC: Miranda Rights

Date Made: August 14, 2016

Digest Maker: Ruth F. Melicor

CASE NAME: People vs. Ending PONENTE: Bellosillo, J.

Case Date: February 20, 2001

Case Summary: Gerry Galgarin, and his nephew Edward Endino, were accused of slaying Dennis Aquino, where the former stabbed him several times and the latter shot him. This was done in the presence of the victim’s girlfriend. Galgarin was arrested, and was interviewed by TV Patrol where he confessed and begged his nephew to surrender as well. This confession was admitted by the trial court as evidence for his guilt. The trial court convicted him of the crime of murder. He questioned this before the Supreme Court, stating that it was forced from him and against his constitutional right. The Court rejected this contention stating that it did not form part of custodial investigation, since it was given to newsmen and not the police. It however cautioned lower courts from admitting evidence such as this, since it should be done only after scrutiny to avoid abuse and legalising coerced extrajudicial confessions.

BLOCK D 2019

!1

Detailed Facts: • On October 16, 1991, on a busy street in Pietro Princesa, Gerry Galgarin (uncle of accused, Edward Endino) suddenly and without warning lunged at Dennis Aquino and stabbed him repeatedly on the chest. • Clara, the girlfriend of the victim, pleaded for him to stop. • Dennis, struggled and was able to run to Midtown Sales, however accused appeared and fired at him. • The 2 assailants fled in the direction of the airport, while Dennis sought refuge at Elohim Store. He died before he could have medical treatment. • An information for the murder of Dennis Aquino was filed against Edward Ending and Gerry Galgarin, and warrants were issued for their arrest. However, they both remained at large, thus the trial court issued an order putting the case in the archives without prejudice to its reinstatement upon their apprehension. • On November 19, 1992, Galgarin was arrested in Antipolo Rizal and was taken into custody by the police. He was to be taken to Palawan. • On their way to the airport, they stopped at ABS-CBN where accused Galgarin was interviewed by reporters. Video footages of the interview were taken showing him admitting his guilt while pointing to his nephew as the gunman. • Clara was able to identify the two assailants, claiming that Edward was a spurned lover. • Galgarin claimed he had nothing to do with the murder, stating that he was with his common-law wife helping her give birth. • Accused-Appellant disowned the confession which he made over TV Patrol and claimed it was induced by threats of the arresting police officers. He asserted that the videotaped confession was constitutionally informed and inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. • Trial court admitted the video footages on the strength of the testimony of police officers that no force or compulsion was exerted, and the presence of the newsmen dissipated hostility. They believed the police officers statements that it was Galgarin who begged to air his appeal on TV. • Appellant assails the trial court for rejecting his alibi and admitting his video-taped confession as evidence against him. Issue: (1)W/N alibi should be admitted. - No (2)W/N the trial court erred in admitting the video-taped confession as evidence. - No Holding:

BLOCK D 2019

!2

First Issue: • Alibi is a weal defense. The testimony that the name “Gerry Glagarin” did not appear on their passenger manifest for the Manila- Puerto Princesa Flight, cannot be relied upon since he used a different identity. • Witnesses did not categorically state that they saw him in Antipolo during the time of the crime. • Accused has been positively identified by the prosecution witness. Second Issue: • The interview and confession does not form part of custodial investigation, since it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public • If he was forced to do it, he could have easily sought help from the newsmen who would have been sympathetic to him. • However, because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a medium for admitting guilt, it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions. • Police may attempt to connive with the media, and place coerced extrajudicial confessions beyond the ambit of the exclusionary ruled. • We should never presume that all media confessions described as voluntary have been given freely. It should remain suspect and be thoroughly examined and scrutinised. Ruling: Decision of lower court Affirmed Other Opinions:

BLOCK D 2019

!3