[G.R. No. 91694. 91694. March 14, 1997] 1997] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SABAS CALO, !R., a"# RO$OLFO LONGCOP, accused-appellants.
Fac%& Charged with and prosecuted for robbery with homicide were herein appellant Sabas Calvo, Jr. and co-accused Rodolfo Longcop. On September !, "#$% at about #&''pm in the evening they were charged of (illing )gnacia )gnacia *auleon, who with her spouse owns a ba(ery business +hilips a(ery/. *auleon *auleon was stabbed to death at her r oom and the appellants too( awa y a bag containing ","0','' '.''.
One of the ba(ery1s stay-in salesgirl, eatri2 ido, saw the two men barged out rushing to the stairs from the room of her boss. 3he two men were identified by ido as Calvo and 4aspar. 5hen ido succeeded in entering *rs. *auleon1s room, she was speechless and surprised to see the latters1s body sprawled sprawled on the floor in a pool of blood. She also saw the room in disarray disarray - clothes and other articles articles were scattered all over the place. 6earby the hilips a(ery is another store owned and operated by one Lucila 4orospe.. 4orospe was 7ust in front of her store facing the hilips a(ery when this incident happened. happened. She saw two men came from the stairs of hilips a(ery running as fast as their legs could carry them. ido identified one of the men as Sabas Calvo, Jr., who was carrying the bag. Sabas companion did not carry anything.
)n the meantime, the 8omicide Section of the 5estern olice 9istrict received a telephone call from 3essie :vangelista informing them that a female unidentified body was found inside hilips a(ery located at the corner of *orayta and :spa;a Streets. Calvo managed to escape the police but he was eventually caught at his hometown in 6orthern Samar. On 6ovember 0, "#$0, accused Rodolfo Longcop was also arrested at hilips a(ery, *anila.
eraren, Jr. of the Citi2en Legal =ssistance =ssistance Office of ?ue2on City, as counsel to assist him during the custodial investigation@interrogation. 3he accused was adviced on his Constitutional right by both the police and his counsel =tty. >eraren, Jr., during the custodial investigation. =ccused Sabas Calvo Jr. gave his statement duly counter signed by his appointed counsel =tty. >eraren Jr. 9uring the trial, while accused Rodolfo Longcop was in detention, he died of sic(ness. 5ith the death of accused Longcop during the pendency of the trial, only appellant Calvo was found guilty of the crime charged. 8e is sentenced toreclusion toreclusion perpetua or perpetua or life imprisonment and ordered to indemnify deceased )gnacia *auleons heirs in the amount of 0','''.''. 3he bases for conviction were +"/ appellants eAtra7udicial confession dated 6ovember 0, "#$%, wherein he recounted how the plan to rob the ba(ery was hatched and his participation participation as loo(-out while his companions companions Longcop and one obby 4aspar did the actual heist and (illing of )gnacia *auleon, and +/ the identification of appellant by prosecution witnesses eatri2 ido and Lucila 4orospe. Calvo appealed the resolution contending that there was an irregularity when he made his eAtra7udicial confession.
I&&'() 5hether or not the eAtra7udicial confession made by Calvo is admissible in court.
H(*#& Bes, it is admissible.
erraren, the CL=O lawyer who assisted appellant in the preparation of his eAtra7udicial confession. =ppellant claims that =tty. >erraren utterly failed to protect his rights during the custodial investigation as shown by the following advice given by said lawyer which, to borrow appellants counsels words, Gthreatened the accused and further pushed him deep to the mudH. =tty. >eraren advised the accused that if he really committed the offense, it would be better for him to eAecute an :Atra Judicial ConfessionD otherwise if he will not eAecute an :Atra Judicial Confession he might be placed in a situation where the court will thin( that he fabricates the facts in his confession.
)n the present case, the SC cannot see how this (ind of advice rendered =tty. >erraren incompetent, or could ever be considered as telltale sign of the involuntariness of the confession. )t was nothing more than a straight-forward eAhortation for appellant to tell the truth as to his participation in the crime, if he indeed had something to do with it. = confession is not rendered involuntary merely because defendant was told that he should tell the truth or that it would be better for him to tell the truth. 3elling the accused that it would be better for him to spea( or tell the truth does not furnish any )nducement, or a sufficient inducement, to render ob7ectionable a confession thereby obtained, unless threats or promises are applied. 3hese threats or promises which the accused must successfully prove in order to ma(e his confession inadmissible, must ta(e the form of violence, intimidation, a promise of reward or leniency. =tty. >errarens proposition that appellant may be suspected of merely fabricating facts if he does eAecute a confession hardly ualifies as a GthreatG or GpromiseG as herein contemplated.
3he other GirregularityG apparently relates to a denial of the right to have an independent counsel of ones own choice, inasmuch as appellant claims that the police authorities ignored his initial reuest to wait for his mother who was scouting for a lawyer. =ppellant is nonetheless deemed to have waived this defect when, as shown by the following eAcerpts from his eAtra7udicial confession that he agreed to be represented by =tty. >erraren in lieu of a counsel of his own choice. 8aving been cleared of any irregularity, we therefore uphold the admissibility of appellants eAtra7udicial confession which, by itself, is sufficient basis for his conviction.
)n fine, appellants conviction for robbery with homicide as charged is in order. 5e nonetheless have to correct that portion of the appealed decision +specifically in the dispositive portion/ where the trial court, while correctly imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to the first paragraph of =rticle #F of the Revised enal Code, apparently euated such penalty with life imprisonment. oth are different and distinct penalties. =s eAplained in eople vs. aguio, 3he Code does not prescribe the penalty of life imprisonment for any of the felonies therein defined, that penalty being invariably imposed for serious offense penali2ed not by the Revised enal Code but by special laws.
+HEREFORE, &a( -or %h( &*/h% 0o#-ca%o" r(0o"/ -ro0 %& #&o&%( or%o" %h( a*%(r"a%( r(-(r("c( %o 2*-( 0r&o"0("%2, %h( a&&a*(# #(c&o" #a%(# March 31, 199 co"c%"/ a(**a"% Sa5a& Ca*o, !r. o- %h( cr0( o- ro55(r %h ho0c#(, & h(r(5 AFFIRME$ " a** o%h(r r(&(c%&.