People vs Maqueda 1995 FACTS: FACTS: Britisher Horace William Barker, a consultant of the World Bank, and his Filipino wife, Teresit Teresita a Mendoza chose chose to live in the rugged and and mountainous terrain of Tuba, Tuba, Benguet earl morning of !" #ugust $%: Horace was brutall slain and Teresita badl battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robberin robberin their house su&cient prima su&cient prima facie evidence pointed to Rene to Rene Salvamante, Salvamante , the victims'former victims'former housebo, as one of the perpetrators %$ (ovember %$$%, information for robbery wit omi!ide and serious pysi!al in"uries )led before *T+ a Trinidad, Benguetprosecution initiall included one Ri!ard Mali# y Severino in info o !! .anuar %$$!: onl *ichard Mali# was arrested o prior to Malig/s arraignment, arraignment, prosecution )led motion to amend o information to implead as !o$a!!used %e!tor Maqueda alias Putol hearing of the motion the following da, 0rosecutor further asked accused o *ichard Malig be dropped from the information because further evaluation of the evidence disclosed no su&cient evidence against him o motion to drop Malig was granted and warrants for te arrest of a!!used Salvamante and Maqueda were Maqueda were issued o 1 March %$$!, Maqueda arrested $ #pril %$$!, Maqueda )led appli!ation for bail, bail , !ate#ori!ally stated o therein that 2he is willing and volunteering to be a 3tate witness in the above4 entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilt among the accused in this case5 !! #pril %$$!, prosecution prosecution )led Amended &nformations with onl 3alvamante and Ma6ueda as the accused7 8ts accusator portion reads as follows: •
•
•
•
•
Rene Salvamante !ontinues to elude arrest and has remained at lar#e, lar#e, trial proceeded !! #pril %$$!: Ma6ueda entered a plea of not guilt 9% #ugust %$$9, RTC %$$9, RTC 'a Trinidad( Ma6ueda #uilty beond #uilty beond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery robbery wit omi!ide and serious pysi!al &n"uries) penalt of reclusion perpetua and to indemnif the victim, Teresita M, Barker40;k for death of William Horace Barker, 01%,<=%7;; representing actual e>penses, 0%;;k as moral damages and to pa costs prosec witnesses: evidence in chief o Mrs7 Teresita Teresita Mendoza Mend oza Barker househelps (orie ?acara and .ulieta @illanueva Mike Taaban ?r7 ?r7 Francisco Hernandez, .r7, .r7, Francisco +abotaAe prosecutor ?aniel arate, *a ?ean 3alvosa, Clen Dnri6uez, 30E% *odolfo Tabadero, and 0olicarpio +ambod o rebuttal Fredesminda +astrence 30;9 #rmando Molleno defense witnesses:
o o o
#ccused Hector Ma6ueda 30E% #urelio 3agun, .r7 in his evidence in chief Mrna Ma6ueda atindig as his sour4rebuttal witness
version of te prose!ution 26 August 1991: Between %;:9; and %%pm, Barker spouses repaired to bedroom after Teresita Teresita had checked checked main doors 27 August 1991 *am, *am, (orie ?acara, a househelp of the Barkers who shared a room with her cousin and fellow househelp, .ulieta @illanueva, @illanueva, got up, went to lavator, opened the door of the toilet and switched on the light, she saw *ene 3alvamante G3alvamante ver well because he and his sister Melanie were the former househelps who ac6uainted her on her chores 3alvamante strangled her, so she fought back, turned her face and saw whom o she later identi)ed at the trial as Ma6ueda broke free, ran to garage, shouted, and 3alvamante chased, pulled back to o house .ulieta @illanueva, @illanueva, awakened awakened b the shouts, shouts, went out then saw tall tall man whom she later pointed to at trial, accused Ma6ueda closed door, held on to doorknob and shouted for help o shouts awakened Teresita Mendoza Barker, left husband still asleep, headed to dining room saw 3alvante and companion who was stranger to her- two rushed towards o her and beat her up with lead pipes, later loss consciousness consciousness at trial, also pointed to Ma6ueda as the companion o 3alvamante also hit (orie with the lead pipe- (orie feel but upon recover, hid under car, then rushed to door of garage, called for .ulieta who opened the door- both went to their room I closed the door braced themselves against the door to prevent anone from entering o o heard the moans of Mrs7 Barker and the shouts of Mr7 Barker: 2 That's enough that's enough that's enough72 enough72 When the noise stopped, (orie and .ulieta heard the sound of water Jowing from the toilet and the barking of dogs +am, +am, Mike Tabaan and Mark 0acio were resting in a waiting shed, onl a kilometer awa from the house of the Barkers saw two men approaching them from a curve o o Mark noticed that the taller of the two had an amputated left hand and a right hand with a missing thumb and inde> )nger o 3peaking in Tagalog, taller man asked them whether road the were following would lead to (aguilian, (aguilian, a Knion7 Mike replied replied that it did not7 •
•
•
•
•
o
o
•
Five minutes later, passenger Aeepne bound for Baguio arrived and the two men boarded it, Mike again noticed that the taller man had the defects because the latter used his right hand with onl three )ngers to hold on to the bar of the Aeepne7 8n the 8nvestigation conducted b the Tuba 0olice, Mike identi)ed through a picture the shorter man as 3alvamante, and at the hearing, he pointed to Ma6ueda as the taller man
9am, 9am, (orie and .ulieta, gathered courage and went out, saw Barkers bathed in their own blood in the dining room, ran to .anet #lbon and re6uested re6uested latter to call the police
•
3oon after, securit guards of the Baguio +ollege Foundation LB+F arrived o
o
o
o
o
•
team conducted an initial investigation went around the house and found a lead pipe at the toilet, a black T4shirt and a green hand towel- also discovered another lead pipe at the back of the door of the house interviewed the two househelps who provided him with descriptions of the assailants team left, leaving behind B+F 3ecurit E&cer Clen Dnri6uez and a securit guard
Dnri6uez conducted his own investigation o
o
•
team from Baguio +it 0olice 3tation, headed b 0olice E&cer 0olicarpio +ambod, and which included ?r7 0erfecto Micu of the +it Health ?epartment, also arrived
masterNs bedroom, saw several pieces of Aewelr scattered on Joor and empt inner cabinet Kpon his re6uest, a securit guard of the B+F, Ddgar ?alit, was sent to the Barker house to secure the premises- Dnri6uez then left upon ?alit/s arrival
5pm, members of the Tuba 0olice 3tation arrived at the'Barker house to conduct their investigation o
o
o
pipes, T4shirt, I green hand towel recovered b the Baguio +it 0olice 4O 0(0 +rime aborator 3ervice at +amp ?angwa, a Trinidad 4O court bod of William Horace Barker 4O Baguio Funeral Homes at (aguilian *oad, Baguio +it, where it was e>amined b ?r7 Francisco 07 +abotaAe, Municipal'Health E&cer of Tuba, Benguet- twent4seven inAuries, which could have been caused b a blunt instrument, determined the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock, and then issued a death certi)cate wounded Teresita Barker 4O Baguio Ceneral Hospital and Medical +enter where she was treated and con)ned for eight das- attending phsician, ?r7 Francisco 7 Hernandez, .r7, )rst saw her at around %% a7m7 of !" #ugust %$$%7 3he was in a comatose state- she sustained multiple lacerations primaril an the left side of the occipital area, bleeding in the left ear, and bruises on the arm7 Ene of the muscles adAoining ees was paralzed7 3he regained consciousness onl after ! das7 ?r7 Hernandez opined that Mrs7 BarkerNs inAuries were caused b a blunt instrument, like a lead pipe, and concluded that if her inAuries had been left unattended, she would have died b noontime of !" #ugust %$$% due to bleeding or hemorrhagic shock7
1 !eptember 1991: police team from the Tuba 0olice 3tation came to the hospital bed of Mrs7 Barker- was showed pictures, asked her to identif the persons who had assaulted her
•
•
pointed to a person who turned out to be *ichard Malig ?r7 Hernandez told them it was improper to conduct it without )rst consulting him-e Mrs7 Barker had not et full recovered consciousness- her eesight had not et improved, her visual acuit was impaired, and she had double vision
" !eptember 1991: remains of Mr7 Barker were cremated- Mrs7 Barker was discharged- upon getting home, tried to determine the items lost during the robber •
•
•
re6uested Dnri6uez to get back pieces of Aewelr from Tuba 0olice discovered that her +anon camera, radio cassette recorder and some pieces of Aewelr missing- aggregate value: 0!;1,!;7;; then e>ecuted a&davit of these missing items
29 #ovember 1991: *a ?ean 3alvosa, D>ecutive @ice 0resident of the B+F, ordered Dnri6uez to go to Cuinangan, Puezon, to coordinate with police in determining whereabouts of 3alvamante •
baranga captain, Basilio *e6ueron saw 3alvamante together with a certain 2 Putol2 in 3eptember %$$%- but has alread left the place
$ March 1992: *e6ueronNs daughter called up Dnri6uez to inform him that 0utol,2 who is none other than accused Hector Ma6ueda, had been arrested in Cuinangan •
•
Cuinangan 0olice 3tation turned over Ma6ueda to Tuba 0(0 +hief MaA7 #nagaran who then brought Ma6ueda to the Benguet 0rovincial .ail Before MaA7 #nagaranNs arrival at Cuinangan, Maqueda ad been ta,en to teeadquarters of te ./5t P0P Mobile For!e Company at Sta- Maria) Calaua#) ue2on7 commanding o&cer, MaA7 @irgilio F7 Rendon) dire!ted SP3/ Armando Molleno to #et Maqueda4s statement 7 He did so and according to him he informed Ma%ueda of his rights under the &onstitution 7 Ma6ueda thereafter si#ned a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime at the Barker house on !" #ugust %$
%$9 April 1992: while under detention, Ma6ueda )led a Motion to Crant Bail, stated willingness t be 3tate witnesses •
•
0rosecutor arate then had a talk with Ma6ueda regarding such statement and asked him if he was in the compan of 3alvamante on !" #ugust %$$% in entering the house of the Barkers7 #fter he received an armative answer, 0rosecutor arate told Ma6ueda that he would oppose the motion for bail since he, Ma6ueda, was the onl accused on trial *a ?ean 3alvosa arrived, also had a talk with him o
Maqueda narrated to Salvosa that 3alvamante brought him to Baguio +it in order to )nd a Aob as a peanut vendor- 3alvamante then brought him to the Barker house and it was onl when the were at the vicinit thereof that
3alvamante revealed to him that his zeal purpose in going to Baguio +it was to rob the Barkers- he initiall obAected to the plan, but later on agreed to itGkwento how the commited crime as stated kanina dagdag lang: after boarding Aeep bound for Baguio, alighted somewhere along #lbano 3treet in Baguio +it and walked until the reached the 0hilippine *abbit Bus station where the boarded a bus for Manila
•
•
•
G?K*8(C T*8##ccused Hector Ma6ueda put up the defense of denial and alibi: basicall he said na he(s been )or*ing as care ta*er in polvoron factor since +ul 1991 in Muntinlupa Manila, tapos he spent vacation in -uinangan .ue/on sa) at times si !alvante )ho )as his childhood plamate accompanied the latter to sell to his aunt a cassette plaer from 0aguio, tapos )ent bac* ulit to )or*, and then ecember brea* spent ulit sa -uinangan )hen he accompanied ocemate to go bac* to their province but then he )as arrested na da) Mar , %$$!: Ma6ueda was detained prosecution rebutted te testimony of Maqueda , presented Fredesminda +astience, the owner of the polvoron factor, testi)ed that she started er business only on /3 Au#ust 1991 , imposible to have hired Ma6ueda in .ul o
•
also presented SP3/ Molleno who declared that he informed Maqueda of is !onstitutional ri#ts before Maqueda was investi#ated and tat Maqueda voluntarily and freely #ave is Sinumpaang Salaysay
trial !ourt had doubts on the identi)cation of Ma6ueda b prosecution witnesses Teresita Mendoza Barker, (orie ?acara, and .ulieta @illanueva and thus disregarded their testimonies on this matter, it de!reed a !onvi!tion 6based on te !onfession and te proof of !orpus deli!ti 2
3#ote: trial court distinguished bet7 an e>traAudicial confession Q the !inumpaang !alasa Q and an e>traAudicial admission Q the, verbal admissions to 0rosecutor arate and *a ?ean 3alvosa- 3ections !< and 99, *ule %9; of the *ules of +ourt which read as follows: 3ec7 !<7 Admission of a part 7 Q The act, declaration or omission of part as to a relevant fa!t ma be given in evidence against him7 >>> >>> >>> 3ec7 997 &onfession7 Q The declaration of an a!!used a!,nowled#in# is #uilt of the oRense charged, or of an oRense necessaril included therein, ma be given in evidence against him7
&SS78( %7 WE( the !inumpaang !alasa was an e>traAudicial confessionS !7 WON accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt (YES, by circumstantial evidence)
RAT&( (o7 # perusal of the 3inumpaang 3alasa fails to convince us t hat it is an e>traAudicial confession7 8t is onl an e>traAudicial admission7 8n a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt7 The term admission is usuall applied in criminal cases to statements of fact b the accused which do not directl involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the oRense with which he is charged7 # confession is an acknowledgment in e>press terms, b a part in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement b the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt7 8n other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insu&cient to authorize a conviction and which tends onl to establish the ultimate fact of guilt7 The trial court admitted the 3inumpaang 3alasa of accused Ma6ueda although it was taken without the assistance of counsel because it was of the opinion that since an information had alread bene)ted in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued b the court, the 3inumpaang 3alasa was not, therefore, taken during custodial investigation7 Hence, 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitutio investigation for the commission of an oRense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferabl of his own choice7 8f the person cannot aRord the services of counsel, he must be provided with one7 These rights cannot be waived e>cept in within the ambit of a custodial investigation72 8t heavil relied on 0eople vs7 #son where this +ourt elucidated on the rights of a person under custodial investigation and the rights of an accused after a case is )led in court7 The trial court then held that the admissibilit of the 3inumpaang 3alasa should not be tested under the afore6uoted 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution, but on the voluntariness of its e>ecution7 3ince voluntariness is presumed, Ma6ueda had the burden of proving otherwise, which he failed to do and, hence, the 3inumpaang 3alasa was admissible against him7 #s to !inumpaang !alasa of Ma6ueda taken b 30;! Molleno •
•
•
taken in palpable violation of is ri#ts under 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution Ma6ueda was not even told of any of is !onstitutional ri#ts under the said section statement was also taken in the absen!e of !ounsel4O wolly inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 9, 3ection %!, #rticle 888 Le>clusionar rule
•
#s to the e>traAudicial admissions of Ma6ueda to 0rosecutor arate and to *a ?ean 3alvosa not governed b the e>clusionar rules under the Bill of *ights Ma6ueda voluntarily and freely made them to 0rosecutor arate not in te !ourse of an investi#ation, but in connection with Ma6uedaNs plea to be utili2ed as a state witness •
•
• •
•
as to *a ?ean 3alvosa, it was given to a private person- provisions of the Bill of *ights are primaril limitations on government e:tra"udi!ial admissions $; A
plicitl 7stated that 2he is willing and volunteering to be a state witness in the above entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilt among the accused in this case2 4O Ma6uedaNs participation in the commission of the crime charged was established beond moral certaint defense of alibi )as futile because by is own admission he was not onl at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, he also admitted his participation therein
Maqueda as guilty beyond reasonable doubt! 8n the end, Ma6ueda was still pronounced !7 guilt7 The court ruled that even if we disregard his e>traAudicial admissions to 0rosecutor arate and 3alvosa, his guilt was, as correctl ruled b the trial court, establised beyond doubt by !ir!umstantial eviden!e7 The following circumstances were dul proved in this case: o He and a companion were seen a kilometer awa from the Barker house an hour after the crime in 6uestion was committed there*ene 3alvamante, who is still at large, was positivel identi)ed b Mrs7 Barker, o (orie ?acara, and .ulieta @illanueva as one of two persons who committed the crime o He and co4accused *ene 3alvamante are friendsHe and *ene 3alvamante were together in Cuinangan, Puezon, and both left o the place sometime in 3eptember %$$%o He was arrested in Cuinangan, Puezon, on 1 March %$$!- and He freel and voluntaril oRered to be a state witness stating that 2he is the o least guilt !ection $ 4ule 1"" of the 4ules of &ourt provides tat !ir!umstantial eviden!e is su!ient for conviction if: La There is more than one circumstanceLb The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven- and Lc the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beond reasonable doubt • •
all the re6uisites of 3ection !, *ule %99 of the *ules of +ourt are present in this case alibi failed, per unrebutted testimon of Mike Taaban, which Ma6ueda does not controvert that he was seen there
*T+ a&rmed, costs ag appellant
Fullte:t >-R- 0o- 11.9?/
Mar! ..) 1995
P8P'8 F T%8 P%&'&PP&08S plainti@$appellee) vs%8CTR MA78BAMA&T8 Dat lar#eE) A!!used) %8CTR MA78
?#@8?D, .*7, .7: #s against a bustling cit life, Britisher Horace William Barker, a consultant of the World Bank, and his Filipino wife, Teresita Mendoza, chose the peace and 6uiet of a countr home not an near the metropolis of Manila or its environs, but in the rugged and mountainous terrain of Tuba, Benguet7 0erhaps the thought the were in a veritable paradise, beond the reach of worldl distractions and trouble when in the earl morning of !" #ugust $%, in the, sanctit of their own home, Horace was brutall slain and Teresita badl battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robber7 3u&cient prima facie evidence pointed to *ene 3alvamante, the victims'former housebo, as one of the perpetrators of the That illusion was shattered ghastl crime7 #s to *eneNs co4conspirator, the, prosecution initiall included one *ichard Malig 3everino in the information for robber with homicide and serious phsical inAuries % )led on %$ (ovember %$$% with Branch %; of the *egional Trial +ourt L*T+ of Benguet at a Trinidad, Benguet7 Enl *ichard Malig was arrested En !! .anuar %$$!, prior to the arraignment of *ichard Malig, the prosecution )led a motion to amend the information ! to implead as co4accused Hector Ma6ueda alias 0utol because the evaluation Ef the evidence subse6uentl submitted established his complicit in the crime, and at the hearing of the motion the following da, the 0rosecutor further asked that accused *ichard Malig be dropped from the information because further evaluation of the evidence disclosed no su&cient evidence against him7 9 The motion to drop Malig was granted and warrants for the arrest of accused 3alvamante and Ma6ueda were issued7 Ma6ueda was subse6uentl arrested on 1 March %$$!, and on $ #pril %$$!, he )led an application for bail7 1 He categoricall stated therein that 2he is willing and volunteering to be a 3tate witness in the above4entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilt among the accused in this case72 En !! #pril %$$!, the prosecution )led an #mended 8nformations with onl 3alvamante and Ma6ueda as the accused7 8ts accusator portion reads as follows: That on or about the !"th Ef #ugust, %$$%, at Tagadi- Kpper Tadiangan Municipalit of Tuba, 0rovince Ef Benguet, 0hilippines, and within the Aurisdiction of this Honorable +ourt, the, above4named accused, +onspiring, confederating and mutuall aiding one another, armed with lead pipes, and with intent of gain and against the will and consent of the owners thereof, did then and there willfull, unlawfull and feloniousl enter the house of 3pouses TD*D38T# and W88#M HE*#+D B#*D* and with violence against and intimidation of the persons therein ransack the place and take and carr awa the following articles, to ,it: G#n enumeration and description of the articles follow all having a total value of TWE HK(?*D? FEK* THEK3#(? TWE HK(?*D? F8FT 0D3E3 L0!;17!;7;;, 0hilippine +urrenc, belonging to, the said Teresita and William Horace Barker- that on the occasion and b reason of the said robber- both accused willfull, unlawfull and feloniousl repeatedl strike Teresita Barker and William Horace Barker with lead pipes on the diRerent 0arts of their bod, leading to the death of William Horace Barker and inJicting various phsical inAuries on the former which re6uired medical attendance for a period of more than thirt L9; das and have likewise incapacitated her from the performance of her, customar labor for the same period of time7 +ontrar to aw7
3ince *ene 3alvamante continues to elude arrest and has remained at large, trial proceeded entered a plea of not guilt on !! #pril %$$!7 < 8n its decision " 0romulgated on 9% #ugust %$$9, the trial Ma6ueda guilt beond reasonable doubt of the crime of robber with homicide and serious phsical 8nAuries and sentenced him to 3uRer the penalt of reclusion perpetua and to indemnif the victim, Teresita M, Barker in the amount of 0;,;;;7;; for the death of William Horace Barker, court found accused Hector 01%,<=%,;; representing actual e>penses, 0%;;,;;;7;; as moral damages and to pa the costs72 The prosecution presented as its witnesses Mrs7 Teresita Mendoza Barker, househelps (orie ?acara and .ulieta @illanueva, Mike Taaban, ?r7 Francisco Hernandez, .r7, Francisco +abotaAe, prosecutor ?aniel arate, *a ?ean 3alvosa, Clen Dnri6uez, 30E% *odolfo Tabadero, and 0olicarpio +ambod in its evidence in chief and Fredesminda +astrence and 30;9 #rmando Molleno on rebuttal7 #ccused Hector Ma6ueda took the witness stand and presented 30E% #urelio 3agun, .r7 in his evidence in chief and Mrna Ma6ueda atindig as his sour4rebuttal witness7 The version of the prosecution, as culled from the trial courtNs detailed and meticulous summar thereof, is as follows: Between %;:9; and %%:;; pm7 of !< #ugust %$$%, the spouses Horace William Barker and Teresita Mendoza Barker repaired to their bedroom after Teresita had checked, as washer wont, the main doors of their house to see if the had been locked and bolted7 #t around <:;; a7m7 of the following da, !" #ugust %$$%, (orie ?acara, a househelp of the Barkers who shared a room with her cousin and fellow househelp, .ulieta @illanueva, got up, opened the door to the garage, went to the lavator to wash her face, and proceeded to the toilet7 When she opened the door of the toilet and switched7 on the light, she saw *ene 3alvamante7 3he knew 3alvamante ver well because he and his sister Melanie were the former househelps of the Barkers whom she and .ulieta @illanueva had replaced and because 3alvamante had ac6uainted her on her chores7 3alvamante suddenl strangled her7 While she Was )ghting back, (orie happened to turn her face and she saw a fair4comple>ioned, tall man with a high4bridged nose at 3alvamanteNs side, whom she identi)ed at the trial as Ma6ueda7 #fter she broke free from 3alvamante, (orie Jed towards the garage and shouted for help7 3alvamante chased her and pulled her back inside the house7 .ulieta @illanueva, who was awakened b the shouts of (orie, got out of her bed and upon opening the door of her room, saw a man clad in maong Aacket and short pants with Nhis right hand brandishing a lead pipe standing two meters in front of her7 #t the trial, 3he pointed to, accused Ma6ueda as the man she saw then7 L3he got scared and immediatel closed the door7 3ince the door knob turned as if someone was forcing his wa into the room, she held on to it and shouted for help7 The shouts awakened Teresita Mendoza Barker7 3he rose from her bed and went out of the room, leaving behind her husband who was still asleep- 3he went down the 3tairs and proceeded t, the dining room7 3he saw 3alvamante and a companion who was a complete stranger to her7 3uddenl the two rushed towards her and beat her up with lead pipes7 ?espite her pleas to get what the want and not to hurt her, the continued to beat her up until she lost consciousness7 #t the trial, she pointed to accused Ma6ueda as 3alvamanteNs companion7
3alvamante also hit (orie with the lead pipe on her back and at the'back of her right hand7 3he fell to the concrete Joor, and after she had recovered, she ran to4the garage and hid under the car7 #fter a few seconds, ,he went near the door of the garage and because she could not open it, she called .ulieta7 .ulieta opened the door and the rushed to their room and closed the door7 When the saw that the door knob was being turned, the braced themselves against the door to prevent anone from entering7 While locked in their room, the heard the moans of Mrs7 Barker and the shouts of Mr7 Barker: 2ThatNs enough, thatNs enough, thatNs enough72 When the noise stopped, (orie and .ulieta heard the sound of water Jowing from the toilet and the barking of dogs7 #t ":;; a7m7 of that same da, !" #ugust %$$%, Mike Tabaan and Mark 0acio were resting in a waiting shed beside the #sin road at #guad, Tuba', Benguet, which is onl a kilometer awa from the house of the Barkers7 The saw two men approaching them from a curve7 When the two men reached the shed, he and Mark noticed that the taller of the two had an amputated left hand and a right hand with a missing thumb and inde> )nger7 This man was carring a black bag on his right shoulder 3peaking in Tagalog, the taller man asked Mike and Mark whether the road the were following would lead to (aguilian, a Knion7 Mike replied that it did not7 Five minutes later, a passenger Aeepne bound for Baguio +it and owned and driven b Ben usnong arrived at the waiting shed7 The two men bearded it, Mike again noticed that the taller man had the defects above mentioned because the latter used his right hand with onl three )ngers to hold on to the bar of the Aeepne as he bearded it7 8n the 8nvestigation conducted b the Tuba 0olice, he identi)ed through a picture the shorter man as 3alvamante, and at the hearing, he pointed to Ma6ueda as the taller man7 #t $:;; a7m7 of !" #ugust %$$%, (orie and .ulieta gathered bough courage to leave the room where the had earlier barricaded themselves and proceed to the kitchen to get the ke to the gate of the garage7 8n the dining room, the saw the Barkers bathed in their own blood7 (orie and .ulieta rushed out of the house and ran to the place of .anet #lbon to seek help7 #fter re6uesting .anet to call the police, the returned to the BarkerNs house but did not enter it for fear of what the had seen earlier7 The Aust staed near the road7 3oon after, securit guards of the Baguio +ollege Foundation LB+F arrived7 # team from the Baguio +it 0olice 3tation, headed b 0olice E&cer 0olicarpio +ambod, and which included ?r7 0erfecto Micu of the +it Health ?epartment, also arrived7 The team conducted an initial investigation onl because it found out that the scene of t he crime was within the Aurisdiction of the Tuba 0olice 3tation, which, however, was di&cult to get in touch with at that time7 ?r7 0erfecto Micu found the bod of Mr7 Barker inside the Barker house and +ambod prepared a sketch LD>hibit 2..2 showing its location7N The went around the house and found a lead pipe LD>hibit 2##2 at the toilet, a black T4shirt LD>hibit 2++2, and a green hand towel LD>hibit 2??27 He also discovered another lead pipe LD>hibit 2BB2 at the back of the door of the house7 He then interviewed the two househelps who provided him with descriptions of the assailants7 The team then left, leaving behind B+F 3ecurit E&cer Clen Dnri6uez and a securit guard7 +ambod prepared a report of his initial investigation LD>hibit 227 Dnri6uez conducted his own investigation7 #t the masterNs bedroom, he saw several pieces of Aewelr scattered on the Joor and an empt inner cabinet7 He noticed footprints at the back of the house, particularl at the riprap wall, and observed that the grass below it was parted as if someone had passed through and created a trail amidst the grass down toward the #sin road of Tuba, Benguet7 Kpon his re6uest, a securit guard of the B+F, Ddgar ?alit, was sent to the Barker house to secure the premises7 Dnri6uez then left after ?alitNs arrival7
#t :;; p7m7 of that same da, members of the Tuba 0olice 3tation arrived at the'Barker house to conduct their investigation7 Dnri6uez, who in the meantime was called b ?alit, returned to the Barker house7 The lead pipes, black T4shirt, and the green hand towel recovered from the Barker house b the Baguio +it 0olice were )rst brought to the 0(0 +rime aborator 3ervice at +amp ?angwa, a Trinidad, Benguet, and then to the court7 The bod of William Horace Barker was taken to the Baguio Funeral Homes at (aguilian *oad, Baguio +it, where it was e>amined b ?r7 Francisco 07 +abotaAe, Municipal'Health E&cer of Tuba, Benguet7 H, found in it twent4seven inAuries, which could have been caused b a blunt instrument, determined the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock, and then issued a death certi)cate LD>hibits 20,2 2E,2 and 2*27 The wounded Teresita Barker was brought to the Baguio Ceneral Hospital and Medical +enter where she was treated and con)ned for eight das7 The attending phsician, ?r7 Francisco 7 Hernandez, .r7, )rst saw her at around %%:;; a7m7 of !" #ugust %$$%7 3he was in a comatose state7 ?r7 Hernandez found that she sustained multiple lacerations primaril an the left side of the occipital area, bleeding in the left ear, and bruises on the arm7 Ene of the muscles adAoining her ees was paralzed7 3he regained consciousness onl after two das7 ?r7 Hernandez opined that Mrs7 BarkerNs inAuries were caused b a blunt instrument, like a lead pipe, and concluded that if her inAuries had been left unattended, she would have died b noontime of !" #ugust %$$% due to bleeding or hemorrhagic shock7 En % 3eptember %$$%, a police team from the Tuba 0olice 3tation, Benguet, came to the hospital bed of Mrs7 Barker, showed her pictures of several persons, and asked her to identif the persons who had assaulted her7 3he pointed to a person who turned out to be *ichard Malig7 When informed of the investigation, ?r7 Hernandez told the members of the team that it was improper for them to conduct it without )rst consulting him since Mrs7 Barker had not et full recovered consciousness7 Moreover, her eesight had not et improved, her visual acuit was impaired, and she had double vision7 En 9 3eptember %$$%, the remains of Mr7 Barker were cremated7 Mrs7 Barker was then discharged from the hospital and upon getting home, tried to determine the items lost during the robber7 3he re6uested Clen Dnri6uez to get back the pieces of Aewelr taken b the Tuba 0(0 LD>hibit 2K27 The Tuba 0(0 gave them to Dnri6uez LD>hibit 2@27 Mrs7 Barker discovered that her +anon camera, radio cassette recorder LD>hibit 2W492, and some pieces of Aewelr LD>hibit 2W4!2 were missing7 The aggregate value of the missing items was 0!;1,!;7;;7 3he then e>ecuted an a&davit on these missing items LD>hibit 2U77 Mrs7 Barker underwent a +T 3can at the 3t7 ukeNs Hospital in Puezon +it7 8t was revealed that she sustained a damaged arter on her left ee which could cause blindness7 she then sought treatment at the 3t7 ukeNs *oosevelt Hospital in (ew ork LD>hibit 22 where she underwent an unsuccessful operation7 3he likewise received treatment at the (ew ork Medical +enter LD>hibit 2M27 En !$ (ovember %$$%, *a ?ean 3alvosa, D>ecutive @ice 0resident of the B+F, ordered Clen Dnri6uez to go to Cuinangan, Puezon, to coordinate with the police in determining the, whereabouts of accused *ene 3alvamante7 8n Cuinangan, Dnri6uez was able to obtain information from the baranga captain, Basilio *e6ueron, that he saw 3alvamante together with a certain 20utol2 in 3eptember %$$%- however, the alread left the place7 En !% ?ecember %$$%, Dnri6uez, Melanie Mendoza, and three others went back to Cuinangan to )nd out whether 3alvamante and 20utol2 had returned7 Kpon being informed
b Baranga +aptain *e6ueron that the two had not, Dnri6uez re6uested *e6ueron to notif him immediatel once 3alvamante or 20utol2 returned to Cuinangan, En 1 March %$$!, *e6ueronNs daughter called up Dnri6uez to inform him that 0utol,2 who is none other than accused Hector Ma6ueda, had been arrested in Cuinangan7 Dnri6uez and MaA7 *odolfo #nagaran, +hief of the Tuba 0olice 3tation, together with another policeman, 0roceeded to Cuinangan7 The Cuinangan 0olice 3tation turned over Ma6ueda to MaA7 #nagaran who then brought Ma6ueda to the Benguet 0rovincial .ail7 Before MaA7 #nagaranNs arrival at Cuinangan, Ma6ueda had been taken to the7 head6uarters of the !9th 0(0 Mobile Force +ompan at 3ta7 Maria, +alauag, Puezon7 8ts commanding o&cer, MaA7 @irgilio F7 *endon, directed 30;9 #rmando Molleno to get Ma6uedaNs statement7 He did so and according to him, he informed Ma6ueda of his rights under the +onstitution7 Ma6ueda thereafter signed a 3inumpaang 3alasa LD>hibit 22 wherein he narrated his participation in the crime at the Barker house on !" #ugust %$$%7 En $ #pril %$$!, while he was under detention, Ma6ueda )led a Motion to Crant Bail LD>hibit 2CC4<27 He stated therein that 2he is willing and volunteering'to be a 3tate witness in the above entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilt among the accused in this case72 0rosecutor arate then had a talk with Ma6ueda regarding such statement and asked him if he was in the compan of 3alvamante on !" #ugust %$$% in entering the house of the Barkers7 #fter he received an a&rmative answer, 0rosecutor arate told Ma6ueda that he would oppose the motion for bail since he, Ma6ueda, was the onl accused on trial LD>hibit 28827 8n the meantime, *a ?ean 3alvosa arrived at the E&ce of 0rosecutor arate and obtained permission from the latter to talk to Ma6ueda7 3alvosa then led Ma6ueda toward the balcon7 Ma6ueda narrated to 3alvosa that 3alvamante brought him to Baguio +it in order to )nd a Aob as a peanut vendor- 3alvamante then brought him to the Barker house and it was onl when the were at the vicinit thereof that 3alvamante revealed to him that his zeal purpose in going to Baguio +it was to rob the Barkers- he initiall obAected to the plan, but later on agreed to it- when the were in the kitchen of the Barker house, one of the househelps was alread there- 3alvamante hit her with a lead pipe and she screamed- then Mrs7 Barker came down, forcing him, Ma6ueda, to attack her with the lead pipe provided'him b 3alvamante, #fter he felled Mrs7 Barker, he helped 3alvamante in beating up Mr7 Barker who had followed his wife downstairs7 the Barkers were alread unconscious on theN Joor, 3alvamante went upstairs and a few minutes later came down bringing with him a radio cassette and some pieces of Aewelr7 Ma6ueda further divulged to 3alvosa that the then changed clothes, went out of the house, walked toward the road where the 3aw two persons from whom the asked directions, and when a passenger Aeepne stopped and the were informed b the two 0ersons that it was bound for Baguio +it, he and 3alvamante bearded it7 The alighted somewhere along #lbano 3treet in Baguio +it and walked until the reached the 0hilippine *abbit Bus station where the boarded a bus for Manila7 = #ccused Hector Ma6ueda put up the defense of denial and alibi7 Hi, testimon is summarized b the trial court in this wise: #ccused Hector Ma6ueda denied having anthing to do with the crime7 He stated that E2 #ugust !", %$$% he was at the polvoron factor owned b Minda +astrense located at ot %, Block !% 0osadas Baview 3ubdivision, 3ukat, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila7 He was emploed as a caretaker 3ince .ul , %$$% and he worked continuousl there up to #ugust !", %$$%, 8t was his sister, Mrna atindig, who found him the Aob as caretaker7 #, caretaker, it was his
dut to supervise the emploees in the factor and whenever his emploer was not around, he was in charge of the sales7 He and his = co4emploees all 3leep inside the factor7 En #ugust !<, %$$%, he reported for work although he could not recall what he did that da7 He slept inside the factor that night and on #ugust !", %$$%, he was teaching the new emploees how to make the seasoning for the polvoron7 En ?ecember !;, %$$%, he went home to Capas, Cuinangan, Puezon 0rovince as it was his vacation time from his Aob at the polvoron factor7 He was to be back at work after (ew earNs ?a in %$$!7 Kpon alighting from the bus at Cuinangan, Puezon, he saw accused *ene 3alvamante7 He knows accused 3alvamante as the were childhood plamates, having gone to the same elementar school7 He had no chance to talk to him that da when he saw him and so the Aust waved to each other7 He again saw accused 3alvamante after +hristmas da on the road beside their L3alvamante house7 3alvamante invited him to go to +alauag, Puezon 0rovince and roam around7 He agreed to go as he also wanted to visit his brother, .ose Ma6ueda who resided at 3abangdos, +alauag, Puezon7 When the two accused were at +alauag, 3alvamante asked Ma6ueda to accompan him V3alvamante in selling a cassette recorder which he said came from Baguio +it7 #ccused Ma6ueda knew that 3alvamante worked in Baguio as the latterNs mother told him about it7 The were able to sell the cassette recorder to 3alvamanteNs aunt7 The had their meal and then went to visit accused Ma6uedaNs brother7 #fter that occasion, he never saw accused 3alvamante again7 #fter his +hristmas vacation, he went back to work a the polvoron factor until Februar !$, %$$!7 Ene of his co4workers *oseln Merca, who was a townmate of his asked him to accompan her home as she was hard up in her work at the factor7 Hence, he accompanied *osel home to Cuinangan, Puezon7 He was supposed to report back for work on March !, %$$! but he was not able to as he was arrested b members of the +#CFK at the house of *oseln Merca when he brought her home7 He was then brought to the Cuinangan municipal Aail, then to the Tuba 0olice 3tation, Tuba, Benguet7 There he was told to cooperate with the police in arresting 3alvamante so he would not sta long in the 0rovince of Benguet7 He was also told that if he would point to accused 3alvamante, he would be freed and he could also become a state witness: He told them that he could attest to the fact that he accompanied accused 3alvamante in selling the cassette recorder7 En March , %$$!, he was brought to the Benguet 0rovincial .ail at a Trinidad, Benguet where he has remained under detention up to the present7 $ The prosecution rebutted the testimon of Hector Ma6ueda b presenting Fredesminda +astience and 30;9 #rmando Molleno7 +astrence, the owner of the polvoron factor where Ma6ueda worked, 'testi)ed that she started her business onl on 9; #ugust %$$% and thus it was impossible for her to have hired Ma6ueda on .ul %$$%7 SP3/ Molleno de!lared tat e informed Maqueda of is !onstitutional ri#ts before Maqueda was investi#ated and tat Maqueda voluntarily and freely #ave is Sinumpaan# Salaysay LD>hibit 227 %; #lthough the trial court had doubts on the identi)cation of Ma6ueda b prosecution witnesses Teresita Mendoza Barker, (orie ?acara, and .ulieta @illanueva and thus disregarded their testimonies on this matter, it decreed a conviction 2based on the confession and the proof of corpus delicti2 as well as on circumstantial evidence7 8t stated thus: 3ince we have discarded the positive identi)cation theor of t he prosecution pinpointing accused Ma6ueda as the culprit, can we still secure a conviction based on the confession and the proof of corpus delicti as well as on circumstantial evidenceS
8n order to establish the guilt of the accused through circumstantia% evidence, the following re6uisites must be present: % there must be more than Ene circumstance- ! the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved- and 9 the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beond reasonable doubt L0eople vs7 0aAarit, C7*7 (o7 =!"";, Ectober %$, %$$!, !%1 3+*# <"=7 There must be an unbroken chain of circamstances which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the defendant to the e>clusion of all Ethers, as the author of the crime L0eople vs7 #buen, C7*7 (o7 ""!=, 3eptember 1, %$$!, !%9 3+*# <$7 The circumstances shown b the prosecution which tend to show the guilt of the accused are: %7 # phsical demonstration to which the accused and his counsel did not oRer an obAection shows that despite his being handicapped, accused Ma6ueda could well and easil grip a lead pipe and strike a cement post with such force that it produced a resounding vibration7 8t is not farfetched then to conclude that accused Ma6ueda could have easil beat Mr7 Barker to death7 !7 His presence within the vicinit of the crime scene right after the incident in the compan of accused 3alvamante was testi)ed to b Mike Tabaan, the onl prosecution witness who noticed the defective hands of the accused7 #s the had to ask for directions from the witness in the Tagalog dialect shows that the were strangers to the place 97 #ccused Ma6ueda knows or is familiar with accused *ene 3alvamante as the from the same town7 B his own testimon, accused Ma6ueda has established that he 3alvamante are close friends to the point that the went out together during the +hristmas vacation in %$$% and he even accompanied 3alvamante in selling the black radio cassette recorder7 17 His Motion to Crant Bail LD>hibit 2HH2 contains this statement that he is willing and volunteering to be 3tate witness in the above4entitled case, it the accused in appearing that he is the least guilt along This in eRect, supports his e>traAudicial confession trade to the police at #lthough he claims that he did not his signature would lean his as he was Aust told that release from detention, this is a Jims e>cuse which cannot Had he not understood what the motion meant, he could have easil asked his sister and brother4in4law what it meant seeing that their signatures up alread a&>ed on the motion7 7 This time, his admission to 0rosecutor arate that he was at the Barker house that fateful morning and his even more damaging admission to *a ?ean 3alvosa as to what he actuall did can be considered as another circumstance to alread bloster the increasing circumstances against the accused7 <7 The accusedNs defense is alibi7 #s stated in a long ine of cases, alibi is at best a weak defense and eas of fabrication L0eople vs7 Martinado, C7*7 (o7 $!;!;, Ectober %$, %$$!, !%1 3+*# "%!7 For alibi to be given credence, it must not onl appear that the accused interposing the same was at some other place but also that it was phsicall impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission L0eople vs7 0ugal, C7*7 (o7 $;<9", Ectober !$, %$$!, !% 3+*# !1"7 This defense easil crumbles down as Taaban placed accused Ma6ueda at vicinit of the crime scene7 The combination of all these circumstances plus e>traAudicial confession produce the needed proof beond reasonable doubt that indeed accused Ma6ueda is guilt of the crime7 %% The e>traAudicial confession referred to is the 3inumpaang 3alasa LD>hibit: 22 of Ma6ueda taken b 30;! Molleno immediatel after Ma6ueda was arrested7
Ma6ueda seasonabl appealed to us his conviction7 8n his %14page brief, he pleads that we ac6uit him because the trial court committed this lone error: 7 7 7 8( F8(?8(C THD #++K3D?4#00D#(T CK8T BDE(? *D#3E(#BD ?EKBT EF THD +*8MD +H#*CD?7 %! Enl three pages of the brief, tped double space, are devoted to his arguments which are anchored on his alibi that at the time the crime Was committed he was not in Benguet but in 3ukat, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, ad the failure of the star witnesses for the 0rosecution to identif him7 He alleges that Mrs7 Barker, when investigated at the hospital, 0ointed to *ichard Malig as the companion of *ene 3alvamante, and that when initiall investigated, the two housemaids gave a description of 3alvamanteNs companion that )tted *ichard Malig7 We )nd no merit in this appeal7 #s hereinafter shown, the defense of alibi is unconvincing7 The accusedNs arguments which stress the incredibilit of the testimonies of Mrs7 Barker and the househelps identifing Ma6ueda are misdirected and misplaced because the trial court had ruled that Mrs7 Teresita Mendoza Barker and the two housemaids, (orie ?acara and .ulieta @illanueva, were not able to positivel identif Magueda, The trial court based his conviction on his e>traAudicial confession and the proof of corpus delicti, as well as on circumstantial evidence7 He should have focused his attention and arguments on these7 From its ratiocinations, the trial court made a distinction between an e>traAudicial confession Q the 3inumpaang 3alasa Q and an e>traAudicial admission Q the, verbal admissions to 0rosecutor arate and *a ?ean 3alvosa7 # perusal of the 3inumpaang 3alasa fails to convince us that it is an e>traAudicial confession7 8t is onl an e>traAudicial admission7 There is a distinction between7 the former and the latter as clearl shown in 3ections !< and 99, *ule %9; of the *ules of +ourt which read as follows: 3ec7 !<7 #dmission of a part7 Q The act, declaration or omission of part as to a relevant fact ma be given in evidence against him7 >>>
>>>
>>>
3ec7 997 +onfession7 Q The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the oRense charged, or of an oRense necessaril included therein, ma be given in evidence against him7 8n a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt7 The term admission is usuall applied in criminal cases to statements of fact b the accused which do not directl involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the oRense with which he is charged7 %9 Wharton distinguishes a confession from an admission as follows: # confession is an acknowledgment in e>press terms, b a part in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement b the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt7 8n other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insu&cient to authorize a conviction and which tends onl to establish the ultimate fact of guilt7 %1 #nd under 3ection 9 of *ule %99, an e>traAudicial confession made b the accused is not su&cient for conviction unless corroborated b evidence of corpus delicti7
The trial court admitted the 3inumpaang 3alasa of accused Ma6ueda although it was taken without the assistance of counsel because it was of the opinion that since an information had alread bene)ted in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued b the court, the 3inumpaang 3alasa was not, therefore, taken during custodial investigation7 Hence, 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution providing as follows: 3ec7 %!7 L% #n person under investigation for the commission of an oRense s hall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferabl of his own choice7 8f the person cannot aRord the services of counsel, he must be provided with one7 These rights cannot be waived e>cept in writing and in the presence of counsel7 is not appli!able, % i7e7, the police investigation was 2 no longer within the ambit of a custodial investigation72 8t heavil relied on 0eople vs7 #son %< where this +ourt elucidated on the rights of a person under custodial investigation and the rights of an accused after a case is )led in court7 The trial court went on to state: #t the time of the confession, the accused was alread facing charges in court7 He no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have an preAudice whatsoever result to him b such refusal7 #nd et, despite his knowing full well that a case had alread been )led in court, he still confessed when he did not have to do so7 %" The trial court then held that the admissibilit of the 3inumpaang 3alasa should not be tested under the afore6uoted 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution, but on the voluntariness of its e>ecution7 3ince voluntariness is presumed, Ma6ueda had the burden of proving otherwise, which he failed to do and, hence, the 3inumpaang 3alasa was admissible against him7 #s to the admissions made b Ma6ueda to 0rosecutor arate and *a ?ean 3alvosa, the trial court admitted their testimon thereon onl to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the truth of the admission because such testimon was obAected to as hearsa7 8t said: 8n an case, it is settled that when testimon is presented to establish not the truth but the tenor of the statement or the fact that such statement was made, it is not hearsa L0eople vs7 Fule, C7*7 (o7 =9;!", Februar !=, %$$!, !;< 3+*# <!7 %= While we commend the eRorts of the trial court to distinguish between the rights of a person under 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution and his rights after a criminal complaint or information had been )led against him, we cannot agree with its sweeping view that after such )ling an accused 2no longer Has the right to remain silent Dnd to counsel but he Ghas the right to refuge to be a witness and not to have an preAudice whatsoever result to him b such refusal72 8f this were so, then there would be a hiatus in the criminal Austice process where an accused is deprived of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such rights7 3uch a view would not onl give a ver restrictive application to 3ection %!L%- it would also diminish the said accusedNs rights under 3ection %1L! #rticle 888 of the +onstitution, The e>ercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution are not con)ned to that period prior to the )ling of a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is 2under investigation for the commission of an oRense72 The direct and primar source of this
3ection %!L% is the second paragraph of 3ection !;, #rticle 88 of the %$"9 +onstitution which reads: #n person under investigation for the commission of an oRense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right 7 7 7 The )rst sentence to which it immediatel follows refers to the right against self4 incrimination reading: (o person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself7 which is now 3ection %", #rticle 888 of the %$=" +onstitution7 The incorporation of the second paragraph of 3ection !; in the Bill of *ights of the %$"9 constitution was an acceptance of the landmark doctrine laid down b the united 3tates 3upreme +ourt in Miranda vs7 #rizona7 %$ 8n that case, the +ourt e>plicitl stated that the holding therein 2is not an innovation in our Aurisprudence, but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other settings72 8t went on to state its ruling: Eur holding will be spelled out with some speci)cit in the pages which follow but brieJ stated, it is this: the prosecution ma not use statements, whether e>culpator or inculpator, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards eRective to secure the privilege against self4incrimination7 B custodial interrogation, we mean 6uestioning initiated b law enforcement o&cers after a person has been taken into custod or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in an signi)cant wa7 #s for the procedural safeguards to be emploed, unless other full eRective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunit to e>ercise it, the following measures are re6uired7 0rior to an 6uestioning the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that an statement he does make ma be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorne, either retained or appointed7 The defendant ma waive eRectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntaril, knowingl and intelligentl7 8f, however, he indicates in an manner and at an stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorne before speaking there can be no 6uestioning7 ikewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in an manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police ma not 6uestion him7 The mere fact that he ma have answered some 6uestion or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering an further in6uiries until he has consulted with an attorne and thereafter consents to a 6uestioned7 !; 8t ma be pointed out though that as formulated in the second paragraph of the aforementioned 3ection !;, the word custudial, which was used in Miranda with reference to the investigation, was e>cluded7 8n view thereof, in Calman vs7 0amaran, !% this +ourt aptl observed: Te fa!t tat te framers of our Constitution did not !oose to use te term 6!ustodial6 by avin# it inserted between te words 6under6 and 6investi#ation)6 as in fa!t te senten!e opens wit te prase 6any person6 #oes to prove tat tey did not adopt in toto te entire fabri! of te Miranda do!trine+learl then, the second paragraph of 3ection !; has even broadened the application of Miranda b making it applicable to the investigation for the commission of an oRense of a person and in custod7 !! #ccordingl, as so formulated, the second paragraph of 3ection !; changed the rule adopted in 0eople vs7 .ose !9 that the rights of the accused onl begin upon arraignment, #ppling the second paragraph of 3ection !;, this +ourt laid down this rule in Morales vs, Dnrile: !1
"7 #t the time a person is arrested, it shall be the dut of the arresting o&cer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if an7 He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that an statement he might make could be used against him7 The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawer, a relative, or anone he chooses b the most e>pedient means Q b telephone if possible Q or b letter or messenger7 8t shall be the responsibilit of the arresting o&cer to see to it that this is accomplished7 (o custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged b the person arrested, b an person on his behalf, or appointed b the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or b anone on his behalf7 The right to counsel ma be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel7 #n statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether e>culpator or inculpator, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence7 (ote that the )rst sentence re6uires the arresting o&cer to inform the person to be arrested of the reason for the arrest and show him 2the warrant of arrest, if an72 The underscored phrase simpl means that a case had been )led against him in a court of either preliminar or original Aurisdiction and that the court had issued the corresponding warrant of arrest7 From the foregoing, it is clear that the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under the second paragraph of 3ection !; are available to a person at an time before arraignment whenever he is investigated for the commission of an oRense7 This paragraph was incorporated into 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the present +onstitution with the following additional safeguards: La the counsel must be competent and independent, preferabl of his own choice, Lb if the part cannot aRord the services of such counsel, he must be provided with one, and Lc the rights therein cannot be waived e>cept in writing and in the presence of counsel7 Then, too, the right to be heard would be a farce if it did not include the right to counsel7 ! Thus, 3ection %!L!, #rticle 888 of the present +onstitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enAo the right to be heard b himself and counsel72 8n 0eople vs7 Holgado, !< this +ourt emphaticall declared: Ene of the great principles of Austice guaranteed b our +onstitution is that 2no person shall be4held to answer for a criminal oRense without due process of law2, and that all accused 2shall enAo the right to be heard b himself and counsel72 8n criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunit to be heard b counsel7 The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard b counsel7 Dven the most intelligent or educated man ma have no skill in the science of the law, particularl in the rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he ma be convicted not because he is guilt but because he does not know how to establish his innocence7 #nd this can happen more easil to persons who are ignorant or uneducated7 8t is for this reason that the right to be assisted b counsel is deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the +ourt to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorne, it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorne, but it is essential that the court should assign one de o&cio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorne of his own7 8t was, therefore, wrong for the trial court to hold that 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution is strictl limited to custodial investigation and that it does not appl to a person against whom a criminal complaint or information has alread been )led because after its )ling he loses his right to remain silent and to counsel7 8f we follow the theor of the trial court, then police authorities and other law enforcement agencies would have a heda in e>tracting confessions or admissions from accused persons after the had been arrested
but before the are arraigned because at such stage the accused persons are supposedl not entitled to the enAoment of the rights to remain silent and to counsel7 Ence a criminal complaint or information is )led in court and the accused is thereafter arrested b virtue of a warrant of arrest, he must be delivered to the nearest police station or Aail and the arresting o&cer must make a return of the warrant to the issuing Audge, !" and since the court has alread ac6uired Aurisdiction over his person, it would be improper for an public o&cer Er law enforcement agenc to investigate him in connection with the commission of the oRense for which he is charged7 8f, nevertheless, he is subAected to suchN investigation, then 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution and the Aurisprudence thereon must be faithfull complied with7 The 3inumpaang 3alasa of Ma6ueda taken b 30;! Molleno after the formerNs arrest was taken in palpable violation of his rights under 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution7 #s disclosed b a reading thereof, Ma6ueda was not even told of an of his constitutional rights under the said section7 The statement was also taken in the absence of counsel7 3uch uncounselled 3inumpaang 3alasa is wholl inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 9, 3ection %!, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution which reads: L9 #n confession or admission obtained in violation of this or 3ection %" hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him7 %owever) te e:tra"udi!ial admissions of Maqueda to Prose!utor arate and to Ray ist without governmental grant, that ma not be taken awa b government and that government has the dut to protect- != or restriction on the power of government found 2not in the particular speci)c tpes of action prohibited, but in the general principle that keeps alive in the public mind the doctrine that governmental power is not unlimited7 !$ The are the fundamental safeguards against aggressions of arbitrar power, 9; or state trann and abuse of authorit7 8n laing down the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the people, the +onstitution did not govern the relationships between individuals7 9% A!!ordin#ly) Maqueda4s admissions to Ray pressl acknowledging his guilt of the oRense ma be given in evidence against him and an person, otherwise competent to testif as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testif as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it7 The said witness need not repeat verbatim the oral confession- it su&ces if he gives its substance7 B analog, that rule applies to oral e>traAudicial admissions7 To be added to Ma6uedaNs e>traAudicial admission is his Krgent Motion for Bail wherein he e>plicitl 7stated that 2he is willing and volunteering to be a state witness in the above entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilt among the accused in this case72 8n the light of his admissions to 0rosecutor arate and *a ?ean 3alvosa and his willingness to be a state witness, Ma6uedaNs participation in the commission of the crime charged was established beond moral certaint7 His defense of alibi was futile because b his own admission he was not onl at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, he also admitted his participation therein7 Dven if we disregard his e>traAudicial admissions to
0rosecutor arate and 3alvosa, his guilt was, as correctl ruled b the trial court, established beond doubt b circumstantial evidence7 The following circumstances were dul proved in this case: L% He and a companion were seen a kilometer awa from the Barker house an hour after the crime in 6uestion was committed thereL! *ene 3alvamante, who is still at large, was positivel identi)ed b Mrs7 Barker, (orie ?acara, and .ulieta @illanueva as one of two persons who committed the crimeL9
He and co4accused *ene 3alvamante are friends-
L1 He and *ene 3alvamante were together in Cuinangan, Puezon, and both left the place sometime in 3eptember %$$%L
He was arrested in Cuinangan, Puezon, on 1 March %$$!- and
L< He freel and voluntaril oRered to be a state witness stating that 2he is the least guilt72 3ection 1, *ule %99 of the *ules of +ourt provides that circumstantial evidence is su&cient for conviction if: La
There is more than one circumstance-
Lb The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven- and Lc the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beond reasonable doubt7 Er, as Aurisprudentiall formulated, a Audgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld onl if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the e>clusion of all others, as the guilt person, i7e7 the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hpothesis that the accused is guilt, and at the same time inconsistent with an other hpothesis e>cept that of guilt7 99 We do not hesitate to rule that all the re6uisites of 3ection !, *ule %99 of the *ules of +ourt are present in this case7 This conclusion having been reached, the defense of alibi put up b the appellant must fail7 The trial court correctl reAected such defense7 The rule is settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the re6uirements of time and place must be strictl met7 8t is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must demonstrate that it was phsicall impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission7 91 Through the unrebutted testimon of Mike Taaban, which Ma6ueda does not controvert in his brief, it was positivel established that Ma6ueda and a companion were seen at ":;; a7m7 of !" #ugust %$$% at the waiting shed in #guad, Tuba, Benguet, a place barel a kilometer awa from the house of the Barkers7 8t was not then impossible for Ma6ueda and his companion to have been at the Barker house at the time the crime was committed7 Moreover, Fredisminda +astrence categoricall declared that Ma6ueda started working in her polvoron factor in 3ukat onl on " Ectober %$$%, thereb beling his, testimon that he started working on .ul %$$% and continuousl until !" #ugust %$$%7
WHD*DFE*D, in of the foregoing, the instant appeal is ?83M833D? and the appealed decision Ef Branch %; of the *egional Trial +ourt Ef Benguet in +riminal +ase, (o7$%4+*4%!;< is #FF8*MD? in toto7 +osts against accused4appellant HD+TE* M#PKD?# 0KTE7 3E E*?D*D?,
