Pp vs Raquel
March 10, 2019 | Author: Nicholas Fox | Category: N/A
Short Description
case...
Description
[Syllabus]
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 119005. December 2, 1996]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff plaintiff-appellee, -appellee, vs. SAAS vs. SAAS RA!"EL, RA!"E L, #A #ALERIA LERIANO NO RA!"E RA!"EL L $%& A'ADO PON(E PON(E,, accused , SAAS RA!"EL $%& #A #ALERIANO LERIANO RA!"EL, accused-appellants. DE(ISION REGALADO, J .) .)
The court court a quo found found herein herein accused accused-app -appella ellants nts Sabas Sabas Rauel Rauel and Valeria aleriano no Rauel! as "ell as accused #$ado %once! &uilty of the cri$e of robbery "ith ho$icide and sentenced the$ to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua! to pay the heirs of #&apito 'a$balan! 'a$balan! (r) the su$ of %*+!+++)++ as inde$nity for his death! and the a$ount of %,!*++)++ representin& the alue of the stolen reoler) The Rauel brothers no" plead for their absolution in this appellate reie") [,]
In an infor$ation dated #u&ust ./! ,012! the afore$entioned afore$entioned accused "ere indicted for robbery "ith ho$icide before the Re&ional Trial Court of 3abacan! Cotabato! 4ranch ,2! alle alle&ed &edly ly co$$i co$$itte tted d on (uly (uly 5! ,012 ,012 in Barangay Os Osias ias of the the 6unic 6unicipa ipalit lity y of 3abacan) [.]
7pon arrai&n$ent thereafter! all the accused pleaded not &uilty) 8hile trial "as in pro&ress! ho"eer! and before he could &ie his testi$ony! accused #$ado %once escaped fro$ 9ail) [:]
The factual antecedents of the case for the %eople! as borne out by the eidence of reco record rd and and "ith "ith pa&e pa&e refe refere renc nces es to the the tran transc scri ript pts s of the the cour courtt hear hearin in&s &s!! are are su$$ari;ed by the Solicitor 'eneral in the appellees brief<
At midnight of July 4, 1986, tragedy visited the peaceful lives of spouses Juliet and Agapito Gambalan, Jr. hin!ing of a neighbor in need, Agapito attended to the person !noc!ing at the bac!door of their !itchen. "uch to his surprise, heavily armed men emerged at the door, declared a hold#up and fired their guns at him. $pp. 4#6, %&, January '(, 1988) Juliet *ent out of their room after hearing gunshots and sa* her husbands lifeless $sic) *hile a man too! her husbands gun and left hurriedly. $p. +, ibid.)
%he shouted for help at their *indo* and sa* a man fall beside their *ater pump *hile t*o $') other men ran a*ay. $p. 9, ibid.) George Jovillano responded to Juliets plea for help. e reported the incident to the police. he police came and found one of the perpetrators of the crime *ounded and lying at about 8 meters from the victims house. e *as identified as Amado -once. $pp. (#+, %&, ctober '1, 198+/ pp. 8#9, %&, "arch '1, 1988) Amado -once *as first treated at a clinic before he *as brought to the police station. $p. '+, ibid.) Amado -once revealed to -0%gt. Andal %. -angato that appellants %abas and aleriano 2a3uel *ere the perpetrators of the crime and that they may be found in their residence. o*ever, the police failed to find them there since appellants fled immediately after the shooting incident. $pp. 1'#14, ibid.) Appellants *ere later on apprehended on different occasions. $pp. (#6, %&, April ', 1991) [5]
7pon the other hand! appellants relied on alibi as their defense! on the bases of facts "hich are presented in their brief in this "ise<
Accused aleriano 2a3uel testified that on July ', 1986, *ith the permission of his pa rents he left -aatan, abacan, 5otabato and *ent to unggol -agalungan, "aguindanao. e stayed in the house of his sister#in#la*, the *ife of his deceased brother. ogether *ith oy "adriaga and 5ora7on 5orpu7, he harvested palay on July and 4. n July (, *hile he *as still asle$ep), police authorities accompanied by his father arrested him and brought him to the municipal ail of abacan, 5otabato. e already heard the name of accused Amado -once, to be an o*ner of a parcel of land in -aatan. n cross#e:amination, he admitted that their house and that of Gambalan are located in the same arangay. efore July 4, he entertained no grudge against victim Agapito Gambalan. $%&, April ', 1991, pp. '#';) Antonio 2a3uel, 64 years old, testified that on July ', 1986 he *as at home *hen his son aleriano 2a3uel told him that he *as going to unggol, -agalungan, "aguindanao to harvest palay. n $the) same date, his other son, %abas 2a3uel, also as!ed his permission to leave since the latter, a soldier, *as going to his place of assignment at -agadian. n July (, 1986, several policemen came over to his house, loo!ing for his t*o $') sons. e gave them pictures of his sons and even accompanied them to unggol *here they arrested his son aleriano. $%&, April , 1991, pp. #'6)
0%gt. &atalio irst =nfantry ?ivision, "aria 5ristina, =ligan 5ity. %abas 2a3uel *as under his division then, and *as on duty on July 4, 1986. $%&, &ov. 6, 199', pp. '#';). [*]
On #u&ust ,+! ,00:! the trial court! as stated at the outset! rendered 9ud&$ent findin& all of the accused &uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri$e char&ed and sentenced the$ accordin&ly) [2]
Not satisfied there"ith! herein appellants filed a notice of appeal "herein they $anifested that they "ere appealin& the decision to the Court of #ppeals) The lo"er court ordered the trans$ittal of the records of the case to the Court of #ppeals) In ie" of the penalty i$posed! the Court of #ppeals properly for"arded the sa$e to us) [/]
[1]
[0]
4efore us! the defense sub$its a lone assi&n$ent of error! i)e)! that the trial court erred in conictin& accused Sabas Rauel and Valeriano Rauel of the cri$e char&ed! despite absence of eidence positiely i$plicatin& the$ as the perpetrators of the cri$e) 8e find such sub$ission to be $eritorious) # careful reie" and ob9ectie appraisal of the eidence coninces us that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the real identities of the perpetrators of! $uch less the participation of herein appellants in! the cri$e char&ed) The lone eye"itness! (uliet 'a$balan! "as not able to identify the assailants of her husband) In her testi$ony on direct e=a$ination in court she declared as follo"s< >< ?ou said you shouted ri&ht after the incident and pip @sicA at the "indo"! did you see any "hen you pip @sicA at the "indo"B #< ?es! sir) >< 8hat did you see if you "ere able to see anythin&B #< I sa" a person "ho fel@lA do"n beside the "ater pu$p and I sa" a&ain t"o @.A persons "ho "ere runnin& a"ay! sir) >< 8ere you able to identify this persons "ho fel@lA do"n near the 9et$atic pu$p and t"o @.A persons runnin& a"ayB
=== >< No"! you said so$ebody fel@lA do"n near the 9et$atic pu$p! "ho is this personB #< I do not no" sir) I hae no"n that he "as #$ado %once "hen the %olice arried) [,+] (Italics ours.)
On cross-e=a$ination she further testified< >< or the first ti$e "hen you shouted for help! "here "ere youB #< I "as at the Veranda sir and I started shoutin& "hile &oin& to our roo$) >< In fact you hae no "ay @ofA identifyin& that one person "ho "as $as@edA and &ot the &un of your husband because he "as $as@edA! is that not ri&htB
#< ?es! sir) >< In fact! you sa" only this one person &ot inside to your house and &ot this &unB #< ?es! sir) >< #nd this #$ado %once cannot be the person "ho hae &ot this &un insideB ISC# DIFON< #lready ans"ered) She "as not able to identify! your Honor ) >< ?ou only sa" this #$ado %once "hen @hAe "as presented to you by the police! is that ri&htB #< ?es! sir )[,,]
=== >< ?ou testified in direct testi$ony you pip @sicA in 9alousie after you shouted for help and you sa" t"o @.A person@sA runnin&! is that ri&htB #< ?es! sir) >< No"! you sa" these persons runnin& on the road! is that not ri&htB #< I sa" the$ runnin& sir &oin& around) >< These t"o @.A persons "ere runnin& &oin& aroundB #< They "ere runnin& to"ards the road) #TT?) DIVINO< 'oin& to the road) >< #nd you cannot identify these t"o @.A persons runnin& to"ards the roadB #< No! sir )[,.] (Emphases supplied.)
Een the corroboratin& "itness! 'eor&e (oillano! in his testi$ony $ade no $ention of "ho shot #&apito 'a$balan) In fact! in his s"orn state$ent e=ecuted in the Inesti&ation Section of the 3abacan %olice Station on (uly *! ,012! he declared that< ,0 >< 4y the "ay! "hen you sa" three persons passin& about * $eters a"ay fro$ "here you "ere then drinin&! "hat hae you noticed about the$! if you eer noticed anyB ,0 #< I noticed that one of the $en ha@dA lon& firear$ "hich "as partly coered by a $aon& 9acet) The other one "ore a hat locally no"n as ipis $eanin& a hat $ade of cloth "ith leaes protrudin& aboe the forehead and see$ed to be holdin& so$ethin& "hich I failed to reco∋e) The other one "ore a shortpant "ith a so$e"hat "hite T-shirt "ith $arin&s and there "as a "hite T-shirt coerin& his head and a part of his face as he "as head-do"n durin& that ti$e) .+ >< Did you reco∋e any of these $enB ,0 #< No) 4ecause they "aled fast) [,:] (Italics supplied.)
# thorou&h reie" of the records of this case readily reealed that the identification of herein appellants as the culprits "as based chiefly on the e=tra9udicial state$ent of accused #$ado %once pointin& to the$ as his co-perpetrators of the cri$e) #s earlier stated! the said accused escaped fro$ 9ail before he could testify in court and he has been at lar&e since then) The e=tra9udicial state$ents of an accused i$plicatin& a co-accused $ay not be utili;ed a&ainst the latter! unless these are repeated in open court) If the accused neer had the opportunity to cross-e=a$ine his co-accused on the latters e=tra9udicial state$ents! it is ele$entary that the sa$e are hearsay as a&ainst said accused) That is e=actly the situation! and the disadanta&ed pli&ht of appellants! in the case at bar) [,5]
E=tre$e caution should be e=ercised by the courts in dealin& "ith the confession of an accused "hich i$plicates his co-accused) # distinction! obiously! should be $ade bet"een e=tra9udicial and 9udicial confessions) The for$er depries the other accused of the opportunity to cross-e=a$ine the confessant! "hile in the latter his confession is thro"n "ide open for cross-e=a$ination and rebuttal) [,*]
The res inter alios rule ordains that the ri&hts of a party cannot be pre9udiced by an act! declaration! or o$ission of another) #n e=tra9udicial confession is bindin& only upon the confessant and is not ad$issible a&ainst his co-accused) The reason for the rule is that! on a principle of &ood faith and $utual conenience! a $ans o"n acts are bindin& upon hi$self! and are eidence a&ainst hi$) So are his conduct and declarations) ?et it "ould not only be ri&htly inconenient! but also $anifestly un9ust! that a $an should be bound by the acts of $ere unauthori;ed stran&ersG and if a party ou&ht not to be bound by the acts of stran&ers! neither ou&ht their acts or conduct be used as eidence a&ainst hi$) [,2]
#lthou&h the aboe-stated rule ad$its of certain 9urisprudential e=ceptions! those e=ceptions do not ho"eer apply to the present case) [,/]
irstly! e=cept for that e=tra9udicial state$ent of accused #$ado %once! there e=ists no eidence "hatsoeer linin& appellants to the cri$e) In fact! the testi$ony of police S&t) #ndal S) %an&ato that appellant Sabas Rauel "as "ounded and "ent to the clinic of Dr) #nulao for treat$ent usin& the na$e Dante Cle$ente! "as ne&ated by Dr) #nulao hi$self "ho testified that he treated no person by the na$e of Danny Cle$ente) [,1]
[,0]
Secondly! this e=tra9udicial state$ent! ironically relied upon as prosecution eidence! "as $ade in iolation of the constitutional ri&hts of accused #$ado %once) This "as un"ittin&ly ad$itted in the testi$ony of the sa$e S&t) #ndal S) %an&ato "ho "as the chief of the intelli&ence and inesti&ation section of their police station< >< Durin& the inesti&ation did you infor$ hi$ @ofA his constitutional ri&ht "hile on the process of inesti&ationB #< No sir! because $y purpose "as only to &et the infor$ation fro$ hi$) ) ) ) #nd after that I checed the infor$ation that he &ae) >< Of course! you no" ery "ell that the accused should be assisted by counselB
#< 8hat I no" is if "hen a person is under inesti&ation you hae in $ind to inesti&ate as to a&ainst @sicA hi$! and you hae to infor$ his constitutional ri&ht but if the purpose is to interro&ate hi$ to acuire infor$ation "hich "ill lead to the identity of the other accused "e do not need to infor$ hi$) >< Dont you no" that under the case of %% s) 'alit! the accused should be @reApresented by counsel that is the rulin& of the Supre$e CourtB #< I do not no" if it is actually the sa$e as this case) >< 4ut it is a fact that you did not een infor$ hi$ @ofA his ri&htB #< No sir) >< #t the ti$e "hen you ased hi$ he has no counsel) #< No counsel! sir)[.+]
E=tra9udicial state$ents $ade durin& custodial inesti&ation "ithout the assistance of counsel are inad$issible and cannot be considered in the ad9udication of the case) 8hile the ri&ht to counsel $ay be "aied! such "aier $ust be $ade "ith the assistance of counsel) These ri&hts! both constitutional and statutory in source and foundation! "ere neer obsered) [.,]
# coniction in a cri$inal case $ust rest on nothin& less than a $oral certainty of &uilt) 8ithout the positie identification of appellants! the eidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to oerco$e the presu$ption of innocence &uaranteed by the 4ill of Ri&hts to the$) 8hile ad$ittedly the alibi of appellants $ay be assailable! the eidence of the prosecution is probatiely lo" in substance and eidentiarily barred in part) The prosecution cannot use the "eaness of the defense to enhance its caseG it $ust rely on the stren&th of its o"n eidence) In fact! alibi need not be inuired into "here the prosecutions eidence is "ea) [..]
[.:]
[.5]
It "ould not een hae been necessary to stress that eery reasonable doubt in cri$inal cases $ust be resoled in faor of the accused) The reuire$ent of proof beyond reasonable doubt calls for $oral certainty of &uilt) In the instant case! the test of $oral certainty "as neither $et nor "ere the standards therefor fulfilled) *HEREFORE! on reasonable doubt! the appealed 9ud&$ent is REVERSED and accused-appellants Sabas Rauel and Valeriano Rauel are hereby #C>7ITTED of the offense char&ed! "ith costs de oficio) SO ORDERED. Romero, Puno, Mendoa, and !orres, "r., ""., concur .
[,]
%enned by (ud&e abiana Inserto-Te9ada)
[.]
Ori&inal Record! .)
[:]
I#id.! ,++-,+,)
[5]
4rief for %laintiff-#ppellee! .-:G Rollo! ,00-.++)
[*]
#ppellants 4rief! 2-1G Rollo! ,5.-,55)
[2]
I#id.! 50-*1)
[/]
I#id.! *0)
[1]
I#id.! 2+)
[0]
I#id.! ,)
[,+]
!$%, "anuary &', **, *+.
[,,]
Ibid), id., -'+-.
[,.]
Ibid), id., /.
[,:]
E0hi#it 12 3riginal Record, '.
[,5]
%eople 4s) Ola! -5/,5/! (uly :! ,01/! ,*. SCR# ,)
[,*]
%eople 4s. lores! et al)! ')R) No) /,01+! 6arch ,1! ,00,! ,0* SCR# .0*)
[,2]
%eople 4s. Tena! ')R) No) ,++0+0! October .,! ,00.! ., SCR# 5:G %eople 4s. %a$on! ')R) No) ,+.++*! (anuary .*! ,00:! .,/ SCR# *+,)
[,/]
The "riter of this opinion has else"here co$piled these e=ceptions as follo"s<
@aA If the co-accused i$pliedly acuiesced in or adopted said confession by not uestionin& its truthfulness @%eople 4s) Orenciada! et al)! 5/ %hil) 0/+ [,0.5]A! as "here it "as $ade in his presence and he did not re$onstrate a&ainst his bein& i$plicated therein @%eople 4s) #$a9ul! et al)! -,52.2-./! ebruary .1! ,02,! , SCR# 2,.A< @bA If the accused persons oluntarily and independently e=ecuted identical confessions "ithout collusion! co$$only no"n as interlocin& confessions @%eople 4s) Encipido! et al)! ')R) No) /++0,! Dece$ber .0! ,012! ,52 SCR# 5/1A "hich confessions are corroborated by other eidence @%eople 4s) #r&ana! et al)! -,0551! ebruary .1! ,025! ,+ SCR# :,,G %eople 4s) %roo! et al)! .1:5/! (anuary .+! ,0/,! :/ SCR# ,0G %eople 4s) 6ateo! et al)! ')R) No) 2*,2*! (une .0! ,015! ,:+ SCR# .1.AG and "ithout contradiction by the other co-accused "ho "as present @%eople 4s) 6olleda! et al)! -:5.51! Noe$ber .,! ,0/1! 12 SCR# 22/AG @cA 8here the accused ad$itted the facts stated by the confessant after bein& apprised of such confession @%eople 4s) Narciso! -.5515! 6ay .1! ,021! .: SCR# 155AG @dA If they are char&ed as co-conspirators of the cri$e "hich "as confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used only as a corroboratin& eidence @%eople 4s) inde! et al)! -,+:*1! (anuary .1! ,02,! , SCR# :1G %eople 4s) Si$ba9on! -,1+/:-/*! Septe$ber :+! ,02*! ,* SCR# 1:G %eople 4s) Sta) 6aria! -,00.0! October :+! ,02*! ,* SCR# ...G %eople 4s) Corte;! et al)! :,,+2! 6ay :,! ,0/5! */ SCR# :+0AG @eA 8here the confession is used as circu$stantial eidence to sho" the probability of participation by the co-conspirator @%eople 4s) Conde$ena! et al)! -..*.2! 6ay .0! ,021! .: SCR# 0,+G %eople 4s) %are9a! et al)! -.,0:/! Noe$ber .0! ,020! :+ SCR# 20:G %eople 4s) Vasue;! ')R) No) *5,,/! #pril ./! ,01.! ,,: SCR# //.AG @fA 8here the confessant testified for his co-defendant @%eople 4s) Villanuea! et al)! -,.21/! (uly :,! ,02.! * SCR# 2/.AG or @&A 8here the co-conspirators e=tra9udicial confession is corroborated by other eidence of record @%eople 4s) %a;! et al)! -,*+*-*:! #u&ust :,! ,025! ,, SCR# 22/G %eople 4s) #&deppa! et al)! -,/510! Dece$ber .5! ,020! :+ SCR# /1.A)
[,1]
TSN! 6arch .,! ,011! ,5-,2)
[,0]
TSN! (anuary .,! ,00:! 5-*)
[.+]
!$%, March &, **, &5+&*.
[.,]
See %eople 4s. Salan&&a! et al.! ')R) No) ,++0,+! (uly .*! ,005! .:5 SCR# 5+/)
[..]
%eople 4s. #r&a"anon! et al )! ')R) No) ,+2*:1! 6arch :+! ,005! .:, SCR# 2,5)
[.:]
%eople 4s. Sal&uero! et al)! ')R) No) 10,,/! (une ,0! ,00,! ,01 SCR# :*/)
[.5]
%eople 4s. Sal&uero! et al)! supraG %eople 4s. Dural! et al)! ')R) No) 150.,! (une 1! ,00:! ..: SCR# .+,)
View more...
Comments
