G.R. No. 179448
June 26, 2013
CARLOS L. TANENGGEE, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Ponene! Del Castillo, J. F"#$! 1. Five separate Information Information for estafa through falsication falsication of commercial documents documents were led against petitioner petitione r. 2. he said Information Information portra! the same mode of commission commission of the crime as in Criminal Criminal Case "o. #$%1&'$(& )ut di*er di*er with respect respect to the num)ers of of the chec+s and promissor! promissor! notes involved and the dates and amounts. '. In the middle of anuar! anuar! 1##$, 1##$, two -2 /etro)an+ /etro)an+ auditors auditors conducted conducted an audit audit of the Commercio 0ranch for more than a wee+. . hereafter hereafter or on 2& anuar! 1##$, appellant was as+ed as+ed )! lvira 3ng%Chan, senior senior vice president of /etro)an+, to report to the 4ead 35ce on the following da!. 6. 7hen appellant arrived arrived at the said o5ce, he was was surprised that there there were seven other people present8 two senior )ranch o5cers, two )an+ law!ers, two policemen -one in uniform and the other in plain clothes, and a representative of the Internal 9*airs unit of the )an+, :alentino levado. a. 9ppellant claimed claimed that levado as+ed as+ed him to sign a paper in connection with the audit inve invest stig igat atio ion; n; that that he in?ust to get it over with he signed the paper which turned out to )e a confession. ). 9fter the said said meeting, appellant went to see an an at his o5ce )ut was una)le to nd the latter. c. 4e also tried tried to phone him him )ut to no avail. avail. d. 4e asserts that said written written statement was ta+en ta+en in violation of his rights under @ection 12, 9rticle III of the Constitution, particularl! particularl! of his right to remain remain silent, right right to counsel, and right to )e informed of the rst two rights. 4ence, the same should not have )een admitted in evidence against him. I$$ue! 7hether or not the written statement e=ecuted )! the appellant is admissi)le in evidence. He%&!
7e nd the Petition wanting in merit.
PetitionerAs written statement is admissi)le in evidence.
he constitutional proscription against the admissi)ilit! of admission or confession of guilt o)tained in violation of @ection 12, 9rticle III of the Constitution, as correctl! o)served )! the C9 and the 3@B, is applica)le onl! in custodial interrogation.
Custodial interrogation means an!
/oreover, in Remolona v. Civil @ervice Commission, 2( we declared that the right to counsel applies onl! to admissions made in a criminal investigation )ut not to those made in an administrative investigation. 9mplif!ing further on the matter, the Court made clear in the recent case of Car)onel v. Civil @ervice Commission8 21
4owever, it must )e remem)ered that the right to counsel under @ection 12 of the 0ill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect during custodial investigation. hus, the e=clusionar! rule under paragraph -2, @ection 12 of the 0ill of Rights applies onl! to admissions made in a criminal investigation )ut not to those made in an administrative investigation. 22
4ere, petitionerAs written statement was given during an administrative in
PetitionerAs written statement was given voluntaril!, +nowingl! and intelligentl!.
Petitioner attempts to convince us that he signed, under duress and intimidation, an alread! prepared t!pewritten statement. 4owever, his claim lac+s sustaina)le )asis and his supposition is ?ust an afterthought for there is nothing in the records that would support his claim of duress and intimidation.
/oreover, it is settled that a confession or admission is presumed voluntar! until the contrar! is proved and the confessant )ears the )urden of proving the contrar!. 2' Petitioner failed to overcome this presumption. 3n the contrar!, his written statement was found to have )een e=ecuted freel! and consciousl!. he pertinent details he narrated in his statement were of such nature and
9s the trial court noted, the written statement -=hi)it " of appellant is replete with details which could onl! )e supplied )! appellant. he statement reects spontaneit! and coherence which cannot )e associated with a mind to which intimidation has )een applied. 9ppellantAs answers to
In People v. /uit, 26 it was held that one of the indicia of voluntariness in the e=ecution of petitionerAs e=tra?udicial statement is that it contains man! details and facts which the investigating o5cers could not have +nown and could not have supplied without the +nowledge and information given )! him.
9lso, the fact that petitioner did not raise a whimper of protest and le an! charges, criminal or administrative, against the investigator and the two policemen present who allegedl! intimidated him and forced him to sign negate his )are assertions of compulsion and intimidation. It is a settled rule that where the defendant did not present evidence of compulsion, where he did not institute an! criminal or administrative action against his supposed intimidators, where no ph!sical evidence of violence was presented, his e=tra?udicial statement shall )e considered as having )een voluntaril! e=ecuted. 2&
"either will petitionerAs assertion that he did not read the contents of his statement )efore a5=ing his signature thereon ?ust to get it over with prop up the instant Petition. o recall, petitioner has a masteral degree from a reputa)le educational institution and had )een a )an+ manager for
e=ercise due diligence in the conduct of his own a*airs. 4e can therefore e=pect no consideration for it.
"o suppression of evidence on the part of the prosecution.
Petitioner claims that the prosecution should have presented an in court to shed light on the matter. 4is non%presentation created the presumption that his testimon! if given would )e adverse to the case of the prosecution. Petitioner thus contends that the prosecution suppressed its own evidence.
@uch contention is li+ewise untena)le. he prosecution has the prerogative to choose the evidence or the witnesses it wishes to present. It has the discretion as to how it should present its case. 2# /oreover, the presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavora)le does not appl! where the evidence was at the disposal of )oth the defense and the prosecution. '( In the present case, if petitioner )elieves that an is the principal witness who could e=culpate him from lia)ilit! )! esta)lishing that it was an and not him who signed the su)?ect documents, the most prudent thing to do is to utilie him as his witness. 9n!wa!, petitioner has the right to have compulsor! process to secure anAs attendance during the trial pursuant to 9rticle III, @ection 1-2 '1 of the Constitution. he records show, however, that petitioner did not invo+e such right. In view of these, no suppression of evidence can )e attri)uted to the prosecution.
PetitionerAs denial is unavailing.
he Court is also not persuaded )! the )are and uncorro)orated allegation of petitioner that the loans covered )! the promissor! notes and the cashierAs chec+s were personall! transacted )! an against his approved letter of credit, although he admittedl! never saw an a5= his signature thereto. 9gain, this allegation, as the RC aptl! o)served, is not supported )! esta)lished evidence. It is settled that denials which are unsu)stantiated )! clear and convincing evidence are negative and self%serving evidence. he! merit no weight in law and cannot )e given greater evidentiar! value over the testimon! of credi)le witnesses who testied on a5rmative matters. '2 he chain of events in this case, from the preparation of the promissor! notes to the encashment of the cashierAs chec+s, as narrated )! the prosecution witnesses and )ased on petitionerAs own admission, esta)lished )e!ond reasona)le dou)t that he committed the unlawful acts alleged in the Informations.
74RF3R, the Petition is D"ID. he Decision and Resolution of the Court of 9ppeals in C9%B.R. CR "o. 2'&6' dated Decem)er 12, 2((& and @eptem)er &, 2((G, respectivel!, are here)! 9FFIR/D with the /3DIFIC9I3" that the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence to )e imposed upon the petitioner should )e four - !ears and two -2 months of prision correccional. @3 3RDRD.
