People v. Sequino

PEOPLE V. SEQUINO November 13, 1996 Davide, Jr., J. FACTS: The witnesses present by the prosecution in its evidence in chief were Eugenio Godinez, Jimmy Ser!n, po"ice p o"ice o#cers E"pidio $un, A"fredo %ondigo nd %rio &emu"t, 'r( Arturo Sormi""on, $t( %yrn Areo", Emi"io 'c"n, Atty( )erpetu Socorro *e"rmino, nd )resentcion vd( de *ronio", whi"e +"ympio $ozno ws presented s rebutt" witness( +n"y the ccused testi!ed in their defense(  )E+)$E: Eugenio Godinez, overseer since -./ of 0ciend Jose Anc1s in %ede""in, Cebu, nd )edro *ronio", the hciend2s boo33eeper, went to the %ede""in &ur" *n3 to withdrw ).4,..5(5 The bn32s cshier instructed Jimmy Ser!n,  1nitor nd motorcyc"e motorcyc"e driver of the bn3, to drive Godinez nd *ronio" *ronio" bc3 to the hciend on one of the bn32s motorcyc"es( Ser!n drove the motorcyc"e with Godinez behind him nd *ronio" behind Godinez( Godinez crried the money in  money bg which he hung over his "eft shou"der( shou"der( As the three were in nering the hciend, the ccused, rmed with guns, tried to b"oc3 their pth nd ordered them to stop( Godinez herd  gunshot( *ronio" hd f""en o6 the motorcyc"e( Ser!n "ept from the motorcyc"e nd rn wy( wy( The motorcyc"e topp"ed over Godinez, pinning him to the ground( Accused Tumngn, Tumngn, with gun in hnd, pproched Godinez, too3 the money from the money bg, nd 7ed on foot with his coccused( 8ith the ssi"nts gone, Godinez rn home, "eving *ronio" *ronio" behind( %enwhi"e, Ser!n hd proceeded proceeded to the house of the *ronio"s, which ws ner the crime scene, nd informed *ronio"2s wife of the incident( S)+ E"pidio $un, $un went to the crime scene where he found n bndoned motorcyc"e( )eop"e )eop"e who by then hd mi""ed round the site informed $un 9tht 9 tht the cu"prit hd "redy 7ed(9 $un noticed tht the 9bushes were compressed9 nd found 9 piece of pper uti"ized s toi"et pper with  stoo" on it which; ws somewht new"y de"ivered(9 The pper ws  bioEEEE888? After After !nding =enito %e"vid,$un s3ed %e"vid to go with him to the brngy b rngy cptin2s house( %e"vid hesitted t !rst, but his compnions previ"ed upon him to go with $un(  The brngy cptin ws not home, so $un $un too3 %e"vid to the po"ice po"ice sttion insted( %e"vid ws 3ept t the sttion the who"e evening of /@ Apri" -- for investigtion conducted, !rst, by $un, then, by his fe""ow po"icemen Sgt( )b"o  got, Cp"( A"fredo A"fredo %ondigo nd E"iseo Tepit, s $un hd to t3e t3e his supper( supper( %e"vid ws ""owed to go home the neBt dy, but on"y fter the po"ice hd !"ed crimin" chrges ginst him he hd posted bi"( %e"vid ws not ssisted by counse" during

the po"ice investigtion, "though $un ssured the tri" 1udge tht the %unicip" %yor of %ede""in, who is  "wyer, ws present, 8hi"e $un c"imed he s3ed the %yor to ct s %e"vid2s counse", he dmitted tht this reuest did not pper in the record of the investigtion( $un2s investigtion of %e"vid ws not reduced into writing(  Dn the course of $un2s investigtion, %e"vid dmitted tht he 3ept 9his shre from the "oot9 in his house( %e"vid then ws brought to his house where he got )-,444(44, in one hundred peso bi""s, p"ced inside  shoe which he de"ivered to the po"icemen( 'uring the investigtion conducted by S)+ A"fredo %ondigo, %e"vid dmitted tht his >%e"vid2s? compnions during the robbery were icente  Tumngn nd Erme"indo Seuio, Dmmedite"y, %ondigo nd po"icemn )ronie"y Artiue" proceeded to the house of 0ones where they sw Tumngn nd Seuio on the porch( =oticing something bu"ging on the wist of Tumngn, %ondigo nd Artiue" pproched Tumngn nd s3ed him wht ws tht bu"ging t his wist(  Tumngn did not nswer( So, %ondigo ptted the bu"ge which turned out to be  ( H c"iber Suires *inghm revo"ver with ho"ster nd four bu""ets( 8hen s3 if he hd  "icense for the !rerm, Tumngn nswered in the negtive( %ondigo nd Artiue" then brought Tumngn nd Seuio to the po"ice sttion( Tumngn ws then investigted in the presence of the %unicip" %yor( Tumngn dmitted tht he ws one of the ho"dupppers( 

%ondigo further dec"red tht the po"ice recovered )//,./I(44, but cou"d not eBp"in ny further how the recovery ws mde nd from whom( As to this mount, S)+ %rino &emu"t, property custodin of the %ede""in )=) sttion, mere"y dec"red tht he ws entrusted with the )//,./I(44 which, ccording to the sttion commnder, ws 9recovered in connection with the highwy robbery cse(9  The defense interposed "ibi nd deni" nd suggested  frme
Since he ws rrested without  wrrnt, the inuiry must now be whether  v"id wrrnt"ess rrest ws e6ected( &u"e  of the &u"es on Crimin" )rocedure ( There ws =+ v"id wrrnt"ess rrest in this cse( $un hd no person" 3now"edge of fcts indicting %e"vid2s gui"tK t best, he hd n unresonb"e suspicion( %e"vid2s rrest ws thus i""eg"( After his un"wfu" rrest, %e"vid underwent custodi" investigtion( The custodi" investigtion commenced when the po"ice pinpointed %e"vid s one of the uthors of the crime or hd focused on him s  suspect thereof( his brought into opertion prgrph >? of Section /, Artic"e DDD of the Constitution gurnteeing the ccused2s rights to remin si"ent nd to counse", nd his right to be informed of these rights(  There ws no showing tht %e"vid ws ever informed of these rights, nd $un dmitted tht %e"vid ws not ssisted by counse" during the investigtion( Dndisputb"y, the po"ice o#cers concerned 7outed these constitution" rights of %e"vid nd Tumngn nd de"iberte"y disregrded the ru"e regrding n investigtor2s duties prior to nd during custodi" interrogtion "id down in %or"es vs( Enri"e nd reiterted in  cten of subseuent cses(