1 Cabral, Escober, Gamido
1 Cabral, Escober, Gamido
1 Cabral, Escober, Gamido
The lower court concluded that the evidence of guilt was not strong.
In view of the above exception to the constitutional guarantee on bail and
in accordance with its rule-making powers, 3the Supreme Court, in
The office of the Solicitor General disagreed with the lower court. It promulgating the Rules of Court, adopted the following provision:
opined that aside from failing to include some pieces of evidence in the
summary, the trial also misapplied some well-established doctrines of
Sec. 7. No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
criminal law. The Office of the Solicitor General pointed out the following
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when
circumstances duly presented in the hearing for bail:
evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of
the stage of the criminal prosecution. 4 (Emphasis suppplied)
First. There was no ill motive on the part of Cecille to impute the
heinous crime of rape against respondent (People v. Paragsa, 83
In this case, accused-respondent was being charged with rape qualified by
SCRA 105 [1978]; People v. Delovino, 247 SCRA 637 [1995]).
the use of a deadly weapon punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. 5As
such, bail is discreationary and not a matter of right. The grant or denial of
Second. Dr. Belmonte, the psychiatrist who attended to Cecille an application for is, therefore, dependent on whether the evidence of guilt
testified that based on her psychiatric examination of the latter, is strong which the lower should determine in a hearing called for the
Cecille manifested psychotic signs and symptoms such as purpose. The determination of the evidence of guilt is strong, in this
unusual fear, sleeplessness, suicidal thoughts, psychomotor regard, is a matter of judicial discretion. While the lower court would
retardation, poverty of thought content as well as depressive never be deprived of its mandated prerogative to exercise judicial
signs and symptoms. These abnormal psychological discretion, this Court would unhesitatingly reverse the trial court's
manifestations, according to Dr. Belmonte, are traceable to the findings if found to be laced with grave abuse of discretion.
rape incident (Pages 5-7, TSN, November 22, 1994.)
By judicial discretion, the law mandates the determination of whether
Third. The unrebutted offer of compromise by respondent is an proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong. 6 "Proof evident" or
implied admission of guilt (People v. Flore, 239 SCRA 83 "Evident proof" in this connection has been held to mean clear, strong
[1994]). evidence which leads a well-guarded disspositionate judgment to the
conclusion that the offense has been committed as charged, that accused is
the guilty agent, and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law not non sequitur. That she agreed to accompany them for a joy ride does
is administered. 7 "Presumption great" exists when the circumstances not mean that she also agreed to the bestial acts later committed against
testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be drawn her person.
therefrom is strong, clear, and convinsing to an unbiased judgment and
excludes all reasonable probability of any other conlusion. 8 Even though Second, the lower court stated that "force and violence in the offense of
there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of accused, if on an examination rape relative terms, depending on the age, size and strength of the parties
of the entire record the presumption is great that accused is guilty of a and their relation to each other." The lower court enunciated this doctrine
capital offense, bail should be refused. 9 (Emphasis and supplied) in finding that the alleged rape was actually a consensual act since the
prosecution was unable to show the complainant suffered any injury nor
In other words, the test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt show any evidence that her pants or blouse was torn. Neither was there
beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a any evidence that accused-respondent exerted overpowering and
great presumption of guilt. As such, the court is ministerially bound to overbearing moral influence over the offended party.
decide which circumstances and factors are present which would show
evident guilt or presumption of guilt as defined above. 10 This Court is of the impression that when the lower court invoked the
above doctrine, it readily concluded that complainant agreed to the sexual
This Court has observed that the lower court's order failed to mention and act disregarding testimonies lending credence to complainant's allegation
include some significant factors and circumstances which, to the mind of that she was threatened and intimidated as well as rendered weak and
this Court are strong, clear and convincing. First, it excluded the dizzy, not only by the smoke of the marijuana cigarette but also by
testimony of Dr. Belmonte about her psychiatric examination of the victim intoxication, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime. It was not
as well as her findings that the latter manifested "psychotic signs and imperative for the prosecution, in order to prove the elements of force or
symptoms such as unusual fear, sleeplessness, suicidal thoughts, intimidation to show that Cecille had broken limbs or that her blouse or
psychomotor retardation, poverty of thought content as well as depressive pants were torn. Her testimony to that effect would have sufficed.
signs and symptom." 11 This particular testimony should have been Nevertheless, the prosecution still exerted efforts to corroborate Cecille's
considered and included in the summary as it was given by an expert claim by presenting the physician who testified that Cecille suffered
witness. Second, the unrebutted offer of compromise by accused- hymenal lacerations and lesions near the umbilicus area. Unfortunately,
respondent is an implied admission of guilt which should have been noted however, the lower court chose to ignore these telling pieces of evidence.
as an offer of a compromise is generally considered as admissible evidence
against the party making it. 12 In addition, the lower court doubted complainant's allegation that she was
to smoke a small cigarette, presumably marijuana, due to the fact that "the
Aside from failing to mention those important pieces of evidence and prosecution failed to present any portion of that so-called small cigarette
testimonies, this Court has likewise observed that the lower court much less did it present an expert witness to show that inhaling of smoke
misappplied some doctrines in criminal law. First, the lower court, in its from the said cigarette would cause the said offended party to suffer
order, intoned the following doctrine that "evidence to be believed must weakness and dizziness." Said ratiocination is trifling and unpersuasive. In
not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be fact, it is even misleading as complainant categorically asserted that what
credible in itself in conformity with common experience and observation made her weak and dizzy were the smoke of the cigarette and the
of mankind." intoxicating effect of four shots of gin, not the inhalation of the smoke
alone. In any case, complainant could not be expected to produce that
According to the lower court, the credibility of the complainant is suspect "portion of that so-called small cigarette." Moreover, one does not need an
because she willingly went with accused-respondent to the resort where expert witness to testify on what is common knowledge - that four shots of
she was allegedly raped. In the scene of the crime, complainant allegedly gin have a "weakening and dizzying" effect on the drinker, especially one
voluntarily drank four shots of gin. The complainant, likewise, never as young as the fifteen-year old complainant.
protested nor cried while they on their way to accused-respondent's house.
Because of those findings, the court doubted the credibility of complainant More disturbing than the above misapplication of criminal law doctrines is
and stated that the crime of rape is not to be presumed and that sexual the lower court's misinterpretation of the medical findings and deliberate
acts between a man and a woman are presumed to be consensual. In withholding of some testimonies which would have shown a very strong
overcoming such presumption, much depends on the credibility of the likelihood that complainant could indeed have been raped. The following
complainant. pieces of evidence cited in the summary of the assailed order are
indications of misleading findings:
This Court cannot agree. First, there was no finding of any ill-motive on
the part of complainant in filing the rape charge against accused- First, the lower court did not lend any credence to the medical certificate
respondent. This should have been taken into consideration. The following issued after complainant's physical examination. On the contrary, it
rebuttal of petitioner to the findings of the lower court is more credible: interpreted it to mean that the offended party is already experienced in
sexual intercourse, after the examining physician had testified that the
It must also be stressed that Cecille testified that she hymenal lacerations might have been sustained a month, six months or
was forcedby respondent to drink gin with the help of his friends even a year prior to the examination. Interestingly, the lower court failed
by holding her hair and putting the glass on her mouth (Pages 5- to mention that Dr. Decena also testified that she cannot tell "how old is
7, TSN, November 17, 1994). More, respondent and his friends an hymenal laceration" because she cannot indicate when an old
blew smoke into her face forcing her to inhale the intoxicating laceration was inflicted and that from the size of the vagina she "could not
smoke. Whenever she attempted to leave the place, she was point the exact cause."
forced to sit down by Odiamar and his friends (Pages 6-7, TSN,
November 17, 1994). This Court views this apparent lapse on the part of the lower court with
and agrees with petitioner, in accordance with well established
Similarly, Cecille categorically declared that she was threatened jurisprudence, that proof of hymenal laceration is not indispensable in
by Florece with a gun (Page 17, TSN, November 17, 1994). indictments for rape as a broken hymen is not an essential element of the
crime. Further, in against chastity, the medical examination of the victim's
genitalia is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of
The requirement of force and intimidation in the crime of rape
the crime. The examination is merely corroborative in nature. 13And
are relative and must be viewed in light of the victim's
contrary to the theory espoused by the lower court, a hymenal laceration is
perspective and the offender's physical condition (People v.
not conclusive proof that one is experienced in sexual intercourse.
Plaza, 242 SCRA 724 [1995]). Further, physical resistance need
not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon
the victim and the latter submits herself against her will because Second, the lower court highlighted the testimony of Dr. Decena to the
of fear for life and personal safety. (People v. Ramos, 245 SCRA effect the cigarette burns indicated that the lesions near complainant's
405 [19951) umbilicus were due to skin diseases. Notably, however, the lower court
again failed to mention that Dr. Decena likewise positively testified that
the wounds could have been "caused by cigarette butts as alleged by the
In this case, Cecille was only fifteen (l5) years old at the time of
victim" which corroborates Cecille's testimony that respondent burned her
the incident in question. At her age, it is reasonable to assume
"right side of the stomach" thrice.
that a shot of gin rendered her tipsy. Thus, four (4) shots of gin
must have rendered her dizzy, intoxicated and deprived of will or
reason. The resulting weakness and dizziness which deprived It is thus indicative from the above observations that the lower court abuse
Cecille of reason, will and freedom must be viewed in light of her its discretion and showed manifest bias in favor of accused-respondent in
perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the determining which circumstances are to be considered in supporting its
crime, and not by any hard and fast rule because in "rape cases, decision as to the guilt of accused-respondent. In this regard, it must be
submission does not necessarily imply volition." (Querido, 229 remembered that the discretion to be exercised in granting or denying
SCRA 745 [1994]) bail, according to Basco v. Rapatalo 14 "is not absolute nor beyond control.
It must be sound, and exercised reasonable bounds. Judicial discretion, by
its very nature, involves the exercise of the judge's individual opinion. It is
It must likewise be taken into consideration that when Cecille went with
because of its very nature that the law has wisely provided that its exercise
the group of accused-respondent, she was of the impression that it was
be guided by well-know rules which, while allowing the judge rational
just for a joy ride. The conclusion made by the trial court that Cecille must
latitude for the operation of his own individual views, prevent them from
have consented to the sexual act because she acquiesced to go with them
getting out of control. An uncontrolled or uncontrollable discretion on the
in the first place is, therefore, bereft of any legal or factual support, if
part of a judge is a misnomer. It is a fallacy. Lord Mansfield, of the
discretion to be exercised in granting or denying bail said: "But discretion enumeration or selective inclusion of pieces of evidence for the
when applied to a court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. prosecution in the order cannot be considered a summary, for a summary
It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, is necessarily a reasonable recital of any evidence presented by the
vague and; but legal and regular." prosecution. A "summary" that is incomplete is not a summary at all.
According to Borinaga v. Tamin, 22 the absence of a summary in the order
The fact that vital prosecution evidence and testimonies have been would make said order defective in form and substance. Corollarily, an
irregularly disregarded indicate that they have not been considered at all order containing an incomplete "summary" would likewise be defective in
in arriving at the decision to grant bail. This irregularity is even more form and substance which cannot be sustained or be a semblance of
pronounced with the misapplication of the two criminal law doctrines validity. In Carpio v. Maglalang, 23 said order was considered defective
cited to support the grant of the bail application. This Court cannot help and voidable. As such, the order granting or denying the application for
but observe that the lower court exerted painstaking efforts to show that bail may be invalidated. 24
the evidence of guilt of accused-respondent is not strong by its non
sequitur justifications, misleading or unsupported conclusions, irregular WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision dated August 1, 1997
disregard of vital prosecution evidence and strained interpretation, if not and the resolution dated December 22, 1997 in CA G.R. No. 42318 are
misinterpretation, of criminal law doctrines. REVERSED and the order dated March 24, 1995 in Criminal Case No. T-
1417 is declared void for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion.
It is the view of this Court that: (1) the testimony of Dr. Decena confirming The court a quo shall immediately issue a warrant for the rearrest of
complainant's allegation that accused-respondent burned the right side of Roderick Odiamar if his bail bond has been approved and thereafter,
her stomach with cigarette butts, (2) the testimony of Dr. Belmonte stating proceed with dispatch in the disposition of said case. This resolution is
that complainant exhibited psychological manifestations which are immediately executory.
"traceable to the rape incident'', and (3) the unrebutted offer of
compromise, are indications of the strength of the evidence of guilt of SO ORDERED.
accused-respondent.
Lending credence to petitioner's case is the fact that after the conduct of
two (2) preliminary investigations, "no bail" was recommended in the
information. According to Baylon v. Sison, 15 such recommendation
constitutes clear and strong evidence of guilt of the accused.
(1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail
or require him to submit his recommendation;
(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused
upon the approval of the bailbond. Otherwise, petition should be
denied.
There are two corollary reasons for the summary: First, the summary of
the evidence in the order is an extension of the hearing proper, thus, a part
of procedural due process wherein the evidence presented during the prior
hearing is formally recognized as having been presented and most
importantly, considered. The failure to include every piece of evidence in
the summary presented by the prosecution in their favor during the prior
hearing would be tantamount to not giving them the opportunity to be
heard in said hearing, for the inference would be that they were not
considered at all in weighing the evidence of guilt. Such would be a denial
of due process, for due process means not only giving every contending
party the opportunity to be heard but also for the Court to consider every
piece of evidence presented in their favor. 20Second, the summary of the
evidence in the order is the for the basis for the judge's exercising his
judicial discretion. Only after weighing the pieces of evidence as contained
in the summary will the judge formulate his own conclusion as to whether
the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong based on his
discretion. 21(Emphasis supplied)
After Rocero had left his point, (sic) Vicente Chua went to his
office at the Bee Seng Electrical Supply as he usually does after
office hours, accompanied by his 13-year old son Irvin and 6-
year old daughter Tiffany On their way, he saw appellant Escober
at his post. At the office, the two children watched a television
program, as their father proceeded to the bathroom to take a
bath [pp. 10-17, tsn, Sept. 14, 1983].
G.R. No. L-69658 January 29, 1988 Upon the other hand, Vicente Chua was inside the bathroom,
when he heard the gunshot. He hurriedly went out and saw her
JUAN ESCOBER y GERALDE, petitioner, (sic) son Irvin lying on the sofa while her (sic) daughter Tiffany
vs. was lying on the floor, both mortally wounded. Beside her (sic)
HON. OSCAR LEVISTE, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL daughter, he saw a scissor blade [Exhibit 'E' fun of blood. He also
COURT, BRANCH XCVII, QUEZON CITY and PEOPLE OF THE observed that everything was scattered in his office, with all Ms
PHILIPPINES,respondents. drawers opened. Later, he found out that the P5,000.00 cash he
kept in one of the drawers was lost [pp. 1314, 31-36, tsn, Sept. 14,
1983].
Immediately, he went out and shouted for help from his wife to
FERNAN, J.: bring out the car as their children was (sic) stabbed and
bleeding. Forthwith, she got one car, while her eldest son drove a
These consolidated cases originated from the decision rendered by Judge second one. After Vicente Chua had brought the two wounded
Oscar Leviste in Criminal Case No. Q-22896 of the Regional Trial Court of children inside the two cars, they were brought to the Chinese
Quezon City, Branch XCVII, finding the accused-appellants Juan Escober General Hospital where they were pronounced dead upon
y Geralde and Macario Punzalan, Jr. y Guevarra guilty beyond reasonable arrival. [pp. 22-26, tsn, Aug. 16, 1983; pp. 13-14, tsn, Sept. 14,
doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, sentencing them to suffer 1983].
the supreme penalty of DEATH and to pay jointly and severally the heirs
of the victims compensatory damages of P12,000.00 for each of the It was about 8:45 in the evening of December 3, 1982 when
victims and moral damages of P200,000.00 G.R. No. 69564 is the Police Investigator Oscar Francisco was dispatched to investigate
automatic review of the death sentence while G.R. No. 69658 is a petition the incident. And, since the victims were already brought to the
for review on certiorari of said decision, the recourse taken by accused- Chinese General Hospital, he was instructed to proceed thereto.
appellant Juan Escober 'to cut short that long period of wait for a final When he arrived at the hospital at past 9.00 o'clock P.M., he
resolution of his fate." 1 found the victims already dead. Whereupon, he conducted a
cursory examination of the victim and indicated on two separate
Juan Escober, together with four unidentified persons designated as John sketches (Exhibits "C" and "D"), the 12 and 11 stab wounds
Doe, Peter Doe, Richard Doe and Juan Doe, were charged with the crime sustained by Irvin Chua and Tiffany Chua, respectively. From
of Robbery with Homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City there, he proceeded to the scene of the crime, where he met
in an Information dated December 9, 1982. He entered a plea of "Not Corporal Ibuan Pat. Robanera and a police photographer, who
Guilty" with the assistance of counsel Atty. Hipolito de Peralta upon arrived to assist him in the investigation [pp. 3-9, tsn, July 5,
arraignment on March 2, 1983. 1983].
On March 29, 1983, the Information was amended to include accused- Corporal Ibuan handed to Francisco a blood-stained blade of a
appellant Macario Punzalan, Jr. as one of the accused therein. He, too, scissor (Exhibit "E") which the former said was found beside the
pleaded "Not Guilty" during the arraignment on April 22, 1983, assisted by pool of blood inside the room where the incident happened. In
court-appointed counsel, Atty. Benigno Mariano, who at that time had the course of his investigation, Francisco noticed that the
replaced Atty. Hipolito de Peralta as counsel de parte for Juan Escober. drawers inside the office of Vicente Chua were forcibly opened
with its (sic) contents scattered. Upon subsequent interview with
A joint trial of the accused ensued. The prosecution presented its evidence, Vicente, he likewise learned that cash amounting to P5,000.00
summarized by the Solicitor General in his Consolidated Brief, as follows: was taken by the culprits in one of said drawers [pp. 9-13, Ibid].
One of the alleged co-conspirator (sic), Amadeo Abuyen alias Thereafter, Francisco invited for questioning at the Police
Roberto Alorte, * was formerly a co-security guard of appellant Headquarters appellant Escober, the security guard on duty then
Juan Escober at the Bee Seng Electrical Supply, Inc., a family at the Bee Seng Electrical Supply, who voluntarily gave his
corporation owned by the couple Vicente Chua and Lina Chua. It version of the incident (Exhibit "F"). Aside from that of Escober,
is located inside a walled compound about 50 meters away from the written statements of the victims' parents, Vicente Chua and
the residence of its owner, at 24 Joy Street, Grace Village, Lina B. Chua, were also taken (Exhibits "G" & "H", respectively).
Balintawak, Quezon City. About 4 months prior to the incident, Thereafter, Francisco referred on December 8, 1983 [sic]
Abuyen was relieved by Domingo Rocero for being always absent (Exhibit "I") the result of his investigation to the City Fiscal who
and found sleeping while on duty. [pp. 5-8, tsn, Aug. 16, 1983; wrote at the left hand margin thereon the following notations:
pp. 2-10, tsn, Sept. 14, 1983; pp. 6-8, tsn, April 22, 1983). "Detained the accused all prima facie case exist(s) and that
accused is probably guilty thereof. No bail recommended. [pp.
At the time of the incident on December 3, 1982, Rocero's tour of 13-23, Ibid].
duty was from 7:00 in the morning to 7:00 in the evening. He
left his post at about 7:30 P.M. that evening after he was relieved Subsequently, on the morning of December 10, 1982, the police
by appellant Juan Escober. On his way home, he passed by apprehended the appellant Punzalan, who in a police line-up was
Barangay Balingasa in Balintawak, where he saw Amadeo readily Identified by the victims' mother, Una Chua, as one of
Abuyen in the store of Colonel Samson drinking beer with three those she saw standing at the open gate of their compound
during the night of the incident on December 2 (sic), 1982. precinct. He refused because the owner of the agency had not
Another statement (Exhibit "F") was, therefore, taken on then arrived. When owner arrived, he called another security
December 10, 1982 from the victims' mother to supplement the guard to guard the Vising Electrical Supply. The police and the
previous statement she gave on December 8, 1982. Also taken on owner of the security brought Escober to the precinct to get his
even date were the statements of Security Guard Jesus Zaragosa statement and there the police was forcing him to adroit he was
(Exhibit "K") and that of Virginia Alorte Abuyen, the mother of the one who robbed and killed the children of the Chuas and he
one of the suspects who claimed that her son, Amadeo Abuyen, told them do not know everything. The testimony of Mrs. Chua
mentioned to her his four [4] companions, including the herein that she saw him together with Abuyen Alorte inside the garage
two appellants, in the commission of the crime. Even appellant is not true because he was the one who told Mrs. Chua that their
Punzalan waived his constitutional rights under custodial children were being stabbed. When Alorte and his companions
investigation and voluntarily and willingly gave his statement left, Mrs. Chua was finding (sic) to call him (Escober). When he
(Exhibit "M") wherein he did not only admit his participation in was brought to the precinct, the investigator was typing
the commission of the crime, but also implicated appellant Juan something. Escober could recall/remember only his signature.
Escober [pp. 25-26, Ibid; pp. 2-12, tsn, July 6, 1983]. He Identified his statement, Exhibit I for the defense, Exh. F for
the prosecution. He narrated it there exactly. The signature there
Thus, in his second referral dated December 13, 1983 [sic] are his. He knows the police who investigated him but he does
(Exhibit "J") to the Fiscal, Police Investigator Francisco named not know the person. Escober was at the precinct when he signed
the five [5] accused as: Juan Escober y Geralde, Macario his statement. He was there up (sic) October 3, 1983, the date he
Punzalan, Jr. y Guevarra, Amadeo Abuyen y Alorte, alias testified in court (tsn, 2-13). 3
Florante Bato, alias Dodong and a certain Peter Doe, albeit, only
the herein two appellants were apprehended. [pp. 7-8, tsn, July Accused-appellant Macario Punzalan, Jr. likewise testified in his defense.
6, 1983]. 2 The gist of his testimony is found in his Brief as follows:
Thereafter, accused-appellant Juan Escober took the witness stand to PUNZALAN testified on his own behalf (his direct testimony is
testify in his defense. His testimony is deed in his Brief, thus: found in TSN, pp. 2-35, Nov. 9, 1983). PUNZALAN is a fruit
vendor at "the market of Monumento." In the afternoon of 3
Escober was then a Security guard and belonged to the Western December 1982, according to PUNZALAN, he accepted the
Private Detective Security since January 1, 1982 and was invitation of fugitive ABUYEN/ALORTE for a drink, in a place
assigned at Vising Electrical Supply at Joyce St. Grace Village, near Abonce Beer House; ABUYEN/ALORTE was with two
Balintawak, Quezon City,owned by Vicente Chua and Lina Saw companions whom he introduced all his relatives; after several
Chua. On December 3, 1982, at 7 p.m. he reported for work. drinks, he was requested to join the group to proceed to another
When his companion left and he arrived (to take over) he place for which reason they boarded a tricycle; and the group
cleaned the guardhouse, a routinary work because Mr. and Mrs. stopped 'at a place with a high gate' because ABUYEN/ ALORTE
Chua did not like to see the guardhouse dirty and also because wanted 'to drop by someone' (TSN, pp. 2-11, November 9, 1983).
after the security guard leaves, the security guard on duty must ABUYEN/ALORTE knocked at the little door and the security
clean it. There was a janitor but the security guards used to clean guard (PUNZALAN Identified accused Escober as the security
the guardhouse. As security guard, he had a gun but on this guard) opened the door and they greeted each other;
occasion he left it in the locker because he was cleaning the ABUYEN/ALORTE then instructed PUNZALAN "to wait for him
guardhouse. Then when he was to throw the garbage, Alorte outside;" and thereafter ABUYEN/ALORTE and his two
arrived and talked to him because he, Alorte alias Abuyen, companions entered the compound (TSN, pp. 11-14, Nov. 9,
wanted to, and two men [also accused named Does as they are 1983).
also still at large] entered and one man [co-accused Punzalan]
was left at the gate. Escober was not able to talk to Alorte alias PUNZALAN further testified that he waited for half an hour for
Abuyen because when Alorte came, one of his companions aimed the group; that while waiting he heard the mourn (sic) of a child
a gun at Escober and also a knife and they said they would kill that he was then about to enter the premises but he met
him. He does not know the man who aimed a gun at him. He ABUYEN/ALORTE and his two companions and saw them with
only knows Alorte because he Alorte used to be his co-guard at blood stains in their arms;' that ABUYEN/ALORTE and his
Vising Electrical Supply. They then asked Escober to get into companions started running and he followed them; that in
(climbed) the pick- up car inside the garage and the other man response to his query AB ABUYEN/ALORTE stated that he
was pointing a gun at Escober. Alorte and his companion went stabbed the two [2] children'; and that they boarded a taxi and
up the Vising Electrical Supply. Escober does not know the real he was brought back to our place where we are selling apples'
name of Alorte; all the (sic) knows is Roberto Alorte. Escober (TSN pp. 14- 18, Nov. 9, 1983)
does not know the man who was left near the gate but he knows
him by face and he was then in the courtroom and he pointed to PUNZALAN was apprehended early dawn of 10 December 1982
the person who answered by the name of Macario Punzalan, Jr., at the Monuments market. No lawyer assisted him during his
his co- accused. Escober did not see what Punzalan was doing custodial investigation despite the fact that he informed the
because he, Escober, was made to climb the vehicle (pick-up). At police officers that he has a lawyer by the name of Atty. Valdez
this point, his gun was in the locker. He was not able to get that nor was he informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent
gun when these four men entered because a gun was already and to counsel. Nevertheless, the police investigator proceeded
pointed at him. Alorte took Escober's gun from the locker to interrogate him. He disclosed that he was invited by Amadeo
because he was formerly a security guard at Vising Electrical Abuyen for a drink; and that they drank beer 'in a place near
Supply for 3 or 4 months. He does not know why Alorte did not Abonce Beer House. "PUNZALAN asserted that, when Exh. M
continue his work there. After 5 minutes, after the two men went was presented for his signature he refused to sign (Exh. "M")
up the office, they came down and talked to the man guarding because 'many statements thereon are not correct that he
Escober and Alorte fired at him. He was not hit for he was able to nevertheless signed Exh. "M" because he was already tired and
avoid it and after that, the four men suddenly left. Escober went was forced to sign it after they hurt me by boxing me, subjected
down from the pickup and he heard Vicente Chua calling him me to water therapy and he could not endure the pain, when
and he responded. Chua asked him to call Mrs. Chua at the they gave (him) the electric shock treatment;" and that the
house because, according to Chua, their children were stabbed. portions of Exh. "M" which are incorrect are those Identified as
So Escober went to the house and called Mrs. Chua. When Mr. Exhs.'11-A and 11-B (TSN, pp. 19-32, Nov. 9, 1983 ). 4
Chua called him, Alorte and his companions were no longer at
the place for, after firing, they hurriedly left. Escober was able to
On January 10, 1984, the decision under review was promulgated. On
call Mrs. Chua and she and he, together, returned to Vising
February 8, 1984, despite his manifestation in open court immediately
Electrical Supply and upon reaching the place, Mr. Chua was
after the promulgation of the decision that he was appealing the same to
shouting and he could not understand him because he was
this Court, Atty. Mariano filed a motion for reconsideration. This was
speaking in Chinese. Mrs. Chua went back and got the car,
opposed by the prosecution.
parked it and returned to the office. When Mr. Chua went out of
the office, he was bringing his son and placed him at the parked
car of the office. When Chua returned to the office (after he Pending resolution of the motion. Atty. A.E. Dacanay entered his
called Escober) and came back out, Escober saw him with his appearance on August 7, 1984 as counsel for accused Escober, and on
son and placed him at the balcony. The two children who were August 20, 1984, he filed another motion for reconsideration for the said
stabbed were carried in two cars because there were only two accused, which was likewise opposed by the prosecution. After an
cars at the driveway. Escober opened the gate. He does not know exchange of pleadings between Atty. Dacanay and the prosecution, the
to what hospital they went. After that, he called Jeffrey one of the trial court issued an Order dated November 21, 1984 denying the motions.
sons of the Chuas, so he could help him (Escober) call the police. Hence. the petition in G.R. No. 69658 and the automatic review.
Jeffrey was not able to call the police because when Jeffrey gave
him a directory and asked him (Escober) to look for the In G.R. No. 69658, accused-appellant Juan Escober contends that:
telephone number of the police but he told Jeffrey to look it up
himself because his eyes were blurred. After 15 minutes, the
police came and after that, the owner of the security agency
arrived. Other policemen not in uniform also arrived. They
interviewed Escober and forced him to go with them to the police
RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING serious mortal wounds directly causing their immediate deaths,
HIS TWO-PAGE DECISION IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCE IN to the damage of their heirs.
CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
CONSEQUENTLY IT MUST BE REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, Prosecution evidence consisted of the testimonies of Vicente
ACQUITTING PETITIONER ...; Chua, Mrs. Lina Chua, Domingo Rocero, Oscar Francisco,
Amado V. Ramos, Teodoro Ibuan Abelardo V. Lucero and Dr.
RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING AND Josefina Qua, and Exhibits "A" to "Z" with sub-exhibits; while
CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER, TOGETHER WITH HIS Defense evidence consisted of the testimonies of the two named
CO-ACCUSED PUNZALAN AND THREE OTHERS ACTED "AS accused above and some exhibits, contained in Pages 1to 454 of
PRINCIPALS BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION" the Records, Volume 2, Vol. 1 and 3.
CONSIDERING THESE CIRCUMSTANCES: FIRST: (THE)
UNLIKELY GARBAGE THROWING REASON OF ACCUSED In view of the foregoing evidence, and considering the
ESCOBER (PETITIONER) IN OPENING THE GATE OF THE memoranda of both parties, the arguments and authorities cited
COMPOUND IN QUESTION, AGAINST THE TESTIMONY OF therein, this Court finds that the material allegations of the
HIS CO-ACCUSED MACARIO PUNZALAN, JR. OF KNOCKING above information are facts, and that accused Juan Escober y
ON THEIR PART; SECOND THE RITUAL IN AVOIDANCE OF Geralde and Macario Punzalan, Jr. y Guevarra are guilty of the
SUSPICION OF FIRING A GUN JUST BEFORE THE EXIT OF charges of Robbery with Double Homicide, as principals by
THE CONSPIRATORS AND VOLUNTEERING THAT HE WAS indispensable cooperation as defined in article 17, par. 3, with no
NOT HIT': AND THIRD: '(T)HE VERSION OF JUAN ESCOBER mitigating circumstances, and attended by aggravating
'PETITIONER) REGARDING HIS ACTUATION DURING THE circumstances of cruelty, nighttime to insure the commission of
HALF-HOUR ROBBERY-HOMICIDE WAS REPLETE WITH the crime, taking advantage of number and superior strength,
CONTRADICTIONS. treachery, in band, among others, and that the defenses and
excuses of the accused are unnatural, incredible, contradictory
RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED FURTHERMORE IN and uncorroborated. The circumstances pointing to the (sic) this
CONVICTING PETITIONER TO DEATH AS SUCH PRINCIPAL fact, among others, are the following: The unlikely garbage
UNDER THE DECISIONAL LAW ON CRIMINAL throwing reason of accused Juan Escober in opening the gate of
CONSPIRACY. the compound in question, against the testimony of his co-
accused Macario Punzalan, Jr. of knocking on their part; the
RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER'S ritual in avoidance of suspicion of firing a gun just before the exit
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ... OF SAID DECISION OF of the co-conspirators of Juan Escober, and volunteering the
JANUARY 10, 1984. 5 information that he was not hit. The version of Juan Escober
regarding his actuation during the half-hour robbery homicide
was replete with contradictions. Macario Punzalan admitted
These assigned errors were reiterated in the Brief for Accused-Appellant
being fetched by, going with and talking to, immediately prior to
Juan Escober filed in G.R. No. 69564.
taking a tricycle to the said compound, and later acting as
lookout for, his co-conspirators. The Court finds further that the
On his part, Macario Punzalan, Jr. seeks reversal of his conviction on the group took some drinks, not to get drunk admittedly, and
following grounds: therefore to strengthen their resolve better to commit the crime
planned.
PUNZALAN SHOULD BE ACQUITTED; OR AT THE VERY
LEAST, HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE NULLIFIED ON THE WHEREFORE, this Court declares Juan Escober y Geralde and
GROUND THAT PUNZALAN WAS DENIED HIS RIGHTS TO Macario Punzalan, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
RE MAIN SILENT AND TO COUNSEL IN ALL OF THE THREE crime charged in the amended information, this Court holding
OF THIS CASE: CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY firmly that when a hired security guard opens the compound
IN- INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL ON THE MERITS; under his protection to four men who turn out to be robbers and
murderers or when a former security guard accompanies and
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT, AS A MAT meets with said malefactors immediately before the commission
TER OF LAW, PUNZALAN IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE of the offense and stands guard at the gate and flees with said
CRIME OF ROBBERY; malefactors then the burden of proof is shifted to him to
exculpate and excuse himself by clear, satisfactory and
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PRINCI convincing evidence, which the named accused failed to do, but
PAL MOTIVE FOR THE CRIME WAS ROBBERY; succeeded only in insulting this Forum of Truth with their
rediculous (sic) justifications for the brutal and merciless killing
of innocent and helpless children on the occasion of that robbery
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT ROBBERY
in question, of being held-up at gunpoint, of coincidentally being
WAS IN FACT COMMITTED;
in the act of throwing garbage and being fired at but not getting
hit but not knowing so many vital details a truthful witness
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING would certainly not forget, among others, thus that this court
PUNZALAN ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT; after a total appreciation of all the evidence on record is
convinced that there being apple (sic) circumstances present that
THERE BEING NO DIRECT EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW THE could only possibly point to the guilt of said accused for the most
CRIME WAS COMMITTED, THE LOWER COURT ERRED, AS heinous (sic) crime that deserves the highest penalty, Hereby
A MATTER OF LAW, IN RULING THAT THE COMMISSION sentences the said accused Juan Escober y Geralde and Macario
OF THE CRIME WAS ATTENDED WITH THE AGGRAVATING Punzalan, Jr. to the legal punishment provided by Article 294,
CIRCUMSTANCES OF CRUELTY, NIGHTTIME, TAKING Paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which
ADVANTAGE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, TREACHERY AND is DEATH and orders the said accused further to pay the heirs of
IN BAND. 6 their victims compensatory damages of P12,000.00 each, jointly
and severally, and moral damages of P200,000.00 to the said
We shall deal first with Escober's assigned errors, particularly the heirs, jointly and severally.
objection interposed to the form and substance of the decision under
review. Accused-appellant Escober asserts that said decision is null and SO ORDERED. QUEZON CITY, January 10, 1984. 7
void for it does not conform with the requirement of Section 9, Article X of
the 1973 Constitution and that it was rendered even before all the Every decision of a court of record shall clearly and distinctly
stenographic notes of the proceedings had been transcribed. state the facts and the law on which it is based ...
We find merit in this contention. The decision of January 10, 1984 consists The above-quoted decision falls short of this standard. The inadequacy
of 1-1/2 pages, typed single-space, with a number of handwritten notations stems primarily from the respondent judge's tendency to generalize and to
and insertions. It reads: form conclusions without detailing the facts from which such conclusions
are deduced. Thus, he concluded that the material allegations of the
The AMENDED INFORMATION charged the above-named Amended Information were the facts without specifying which of the
accused of Robbery with Homicide defined in Article 294 of the testimonies or exhibits supported this conclusion. He rejected the
Revised Penal Code. It alleged, among others, that on or about testimony of accused-appellant Escober because it was allegedly replete
December 3, 1982, in Quezon City, said accused conspiring, with contradictions without pointing out what these contradictions consist
confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to of or what "vital details" Escober should have recalled as a credible
gain and by means of violence and intimidation again persons witness. He also found the crime to have been attended by the aggravating
robbed Vicente Chua y Ching by entering the premises of No. 24 circumstances of cruelty, nighttime, superior strength, treachery, in band,
Joy St. Grace Village, Quezon City and taking therein P5,000.00 "among others," but did not particularly state the factual bases for such
and (sic) by reason or on the occasion of said robbery employed findings.
personal violence upon minors Irvin Chua y Saw and Tiffany
Chua y Saw, stabbing them and inflicting thereby multiple As enunciated by this Court in the case of Hernandez v. Colayco, 64 SCRA
480, reiterating Montelibano v. Director of Lands, 21 Phil. 449; Alindogan
v. Insular Government 15 Phil. 168; City of Manila v. Insular firing was a mere ritual in avoidance of suspicion and that Escober's
Government, 9 Phil. 71; Enriquez v. Enriquez, 3 Phil. 746; Braga v. version of the incident is too replete with contradictions to merit belief.
Millora, 3 Phil. 458:
After a thorough review of the evidence, We find that the guilt of Juan
Without the concrete relation or statement in the judgment of Escober has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
the facts alleged and proved at the trial, it is not possible to pass
upon and determine the issue raised in litigation, inasmuch as The act of opening a gate upon hearing a knock is by itself an innocent
when the facts held to be proved are not set forth in a judicial gesture. One who imputes an evil motive or purpose thereto must prove
controversy, it is impossible to administer justice, to apply the his allegations convincingly. In the case at bar, even if the version of
law to the points argued, or to uphold the rights of the litigant Macario Punzalan, Jr. that Escober opened the gate at the knock of the
who has the law on his side. alleged mastermind Amadeo Abuyen/Roberto Alorte were to be believed,
the same would not constitute sufficient and convincing proof that
It is not sufficient that the court or trial judge take into account Escober had knowledge of the nefarious plan. The worse that could be
the facts brought out in an action suit, the circumstances of each attributed to him is lack of better judgment or laxity in the performance of
question raised, and the nature and condition of the proofs his duties as a security guard in having failed to exercise the minimum
furnished by the parties. He must also set out in his decision the precaution dictated by his occupation to exclude from the premises being
facts alleged by the contending parties which he finds to have guarded persons who have not demonstrated any legitimate reason for
been proven. The conclusions deduced therefrom and the getting in. For it must be remembered that having been co-employees,
opinion he has formed on the issues raised; then only can be Escober knew Abuyen/Alorte. It was therefore not surprising that he
intelligently set forth the legal grounds and considerations should open the gate for him. In fact, even Domingo Rocero, the security
proper in his opinion for the due determination of the case. guard who replaced Abuyen/Alorte and who was not as familiar with
Abuyen/Alorte admitted on his Sworn Statement having allowed
As it is written, the decision renders a review thereof extremely difficult. Abuyen/Alorte into the compound thus:
Without a particularization of the evidence, testimonial or documentary,
upon which the findings of facts are based, it is practically impossible for 20.T Mula ng manungkulan ka sa Bee Seng Electrical
the appellate court to determine whether or not such findings were Supply, ilang beses mo ng nakita si Roberto Alorte sa
sufficiently and logically supported by the evidence relied upon by the trial malapit sa iyong pinagguaguardiayahan?
court.
S Dalawang beses ko na po siyang nakita sa lugar na
Were it not for its dire consequences, we would have appreciated the iyon, una noong buwan ng Septyembre at pangalawa
efforts shown by respondent-judge to administer justice in this case in the noong buwan November 1982.
most speedy and expeditious manner. He obviously took to heart our
admonition that judges do not have to wait for the transcription of 21.T Ano ang dahilan at nakikita mo siya sa lugar na
stenographic notes before rendering judgments but can rely on the notes iyan?
of the proceedings personally taken by them. For this is what respondent
judge did. The records show that he took copious notes of the testimonies
S Una binisita niya ako at pangalawa mayroon siyang
of the witnesses on which he apparently based this decision, as the
kasamang babae at hindi ko na siya pinapasok sa loob
transcript of the stenographic notes were not yet complete at the time of
ng Bee Seng Electrical Supply. 9
the rendition of the judgment. In fact, the review of the case suffered some
delay due to the failure of stenographer Eduardo Bober to submit to this
Court the transcript of stenographic notes of some hearings. The facts of the case likewise do not support the prosecution's theory that
the gun-firing incident was a mere ritual in avoidance of suspicion. We
share the keen observation of counsel for Escober that "... it is not a
Speed in the administration of justice, however, is not the sole concern of
common experience that a person allows himself to be shot by a gun. He
courts and judges. More than this is the essentiality of justice and fairness
would be the stupidest person on earth if he allows that ... to avoid
which is the primordial objective of the courts. Respondent judge
suspicion that he was in cahoots [sic] with malefactors The least or
lamentably disregarded the latter for the former.
perhaps the safest way for that evil purpose is to allow himself to be
rendered ineffective, i.e., by tieing [sic] him up, mauling him or wounding
The decision of January 10, 1987 calls to mind the decision rendered by him so he would live if he were a conspirator. To allow him to be shot by a
another trial court in the case of People v. Banayo, 129 SCRA 725, gun is too risky a ritual for he might get killed. 10
regarding which We said:
Besides, the robbery and homicide were perpetrated within a span of 5-10
At the onset, this Court takes a rather dim view of the apparently minutes, not half an hour as found by the trial court, a time too short to
indifferent attitude displayed by the trial court towards a murder enable Abuyen/Alorte and Escober to contrive such a ritual or scenario, or
case it has tried as shown by the rendition of a decision, the body if it were a pre-conceived plan, for Abuyen/Aorte to have remembered it
of which contains only 63 lines spread out over less than three considering the unexpected apprearance of Lina Chua at the scene and the
typewritten pages, double-spaced and wide-margined. While need for immediate escape.
brevity should characterize a court's decision and length is not
necessarily determinative of its quality, the lower court in
Even assuming arguendo that the gun was fired in the air and not at
deciding this murder case nonetheless should have outlined in
Escober, the same could have been done to scare Lina Chua away from the
greater and more satisfactory detail the evidence presented by
scene of the crime rather than to divert suspicion from Escober.
both prosecution and the defense, the facts as found by the trial
judge based on the evidence on record and the jurisprudence
and the authorities supporting the court's decision. That the gun-firing was not a ritual and that Escober was not a part of the
criminal plan are further bolstered by the statement made by Macario
Punzalan during the preliminary investigation, and extra-judicial
This trial judge failed to do. There is not one single citation of
statement of the alleged mastermind Abuyen /Alorte dated April 16, 1986,
authority in the decision. The issues raised by the appellant
submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit B during the separate trial of said
include allegations of concocted testimony, the nature of a dying
Abuyen/Alorte. The pertinent portion of Macario Punzalan's statement
declaration, premeditation, conspiracy, treachery and superior
reads:
strength. The issues raised are quite serious and they deserved
better treatment. [Emphasis supplied].
FISCAL: Ito ba si Abuyen at saka si Juan Escober at
Abuyen ay matagal ng magkakilala?
With the finding that the decision of January 10, 1984 does not conform to
the requirements of Section 9, Article X of the 1973 Constitution, the case
should have been remanded to the court a quo for the rendition of a new PUNZALAN: Hindi ko po alam sir, dahil po sa guardiya
judgment. However, since the records of the case, including all evidence po dati yung Alorte.
necessary for a determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused-
appellants are now before Us, We deem it wise to render judgment in this FISCAL: Ito ba ang kasalukuyang guardia [referring to
case in order to accord the accused-appellants their right to a speedy Escober]
disposition of their cases. 8
PUNZALAN: Oho, siya po ang naka guardia noon.
The prosecution's theory is that Juan Escober is a principal by [duty]
indispensable cooperation in the crime of robbery with homicide. In
support thereof, it tried to prove that Escober's actuations during the FISCAL: Noong pagkatapos ng pag-uusap nila ano pa
incident in question were done with the knowledge of and pursuant to said ang ginawa? Kung mayroon pa?
nefahous plan. These acts consist of- [1] his alleged act of opening the gate
of the compound to his co-conspirators; [2] his having been seen by Mrs.
PUNZALAN: Hindi ko na po nakikita sir.
Lina Chua behind Alorte/Abuyen, the alleged mastermined, after the
gunshot; and [3] his having volunteered the information to Mrs. Chua that
he was not hit. The prosecution further attempted to show that the gun- FISCAL: Ito ng umakyat kayo sa bahay ay sumama ba?
PUNZALAN: Hindi ho, nasa ibaba po rin ako sir. inaccuracy, aside from being susceptible to other interpretations.
Abuyen/Alorte declared that immediately after the shooting, he called his
FISCAL: Ito [referring to Escober nakita mong companions and ran away from the scene of the crime. Punzalan's
umakyat? testimony was of the same tenor, i.e., that Abuyen/Alorte and his
companions started running and he [Punzalan] followed them. This was
precisely the moment when the malefactors were fleeing from the scene of
PUNZALAN: Hind ho, kung baga sa ano ay
the crime, and at which point Escober could have felt safe enough to
pinapapatay ho sa akin ni Abuyen ni Alorte.
emerge from the pick-up where he was held captive. Thus, Mrs. Chua
claims to have seen Escober about a meter behind Abuyen/ Alorte, who
FISCAL: Bakit? was not walking, but running away from the scene of the crime.
PUNZALAN: Ewan ko po, hindi ko po alam ang Indeed, it was not unlikely for Mrs. Chua to misinterpret the situation she
dahilan. described having seen. She was then in an agitated condition on seeing the
pedestrian gate of the compound open, which was Escober's duty to keep
FISCAL: Pero hindi mo naman pinatay. closed. Moreover, from the relative positions of Mrs. Chua, Abuyen/Alorte
and Escober, the line of vision of Mrs. Chua was such that it would be
PUNZALAN: Hindi po. difficult for her to determine for certain the distance between
Abuyen/Alorte and Escober and whether the latter was merely walking
behind the former or in fact chasing him.
FISCAL: Bakit?
Escober's unilateral offer of the information that he was not hit does not PAGPAPAUNAWA NG KARAPATAN SA ILALIM NG
prove either that he was a co-conspirator. It was but natural that he would SALIGANG BATAS NG PILIPINAS.
want to inform and assure his superior who is presumed to be concerned
with his safety and well-being. The motivation attached to said act by the Ikaw ngayon ay nasa ilalim ng pagtatanong sa himpilang ito ng
prosecution is therefore too conjectural and far-fetched to pass the test of pulisya hinggil sa isang usaping kinasasangkutan mo sa salang
logic and reason. PAGNANAKAW NA MAY KASAMANG PAGPATAY. Bago ka
tanungin ng anoman, ipinauunawa ko muna sa iyo at
The only evidence of the prosecution which may lead to a conclusion of pinagpapaalalahanan ka ng iyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng
Escober's complicity is the testimony of Mrs. Lina Chua that upon hearing Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas, tulad ng mga sumusunod:
a shot, she looked at the garage where the shot sounded to have come from
and saw Abuyen/Alorte walking towards the gate with Escober about a 1. Ikaw ay may karapatang manatiling tahimik at huwag
meter behind. magsalita o magbigay ng salaysay kung hindi mo nais.
We have reasons to doubt the veracity and/or accuracy of this statement. 2. Ikaw ay may karapatang magkaroon ng paglilingkod ng isang
We observe that Mrs. Lina Chua was the last among the prosecution abogado na iyong mapipili. Kung hindi mo kayang kumuha ng
witnesses to give her statement to the police. She gave her statement on abogado, at nais mong magkaroon ng paglilingkod nito
December 8, 1983 when none of the accused had been apprehended. So, maglalaan ng isa para sa iyo ang hukuman na hindi mo na
soon after the violent incident her appreciation of what she saw may have kailangang bayaran ang paglilingkod nito.
been faulty when she attributed the blame on Escober whose lack of better
judgment and laxity in the performance of his job resulted in the tragic 3. Ikaw ay may karapatan na huwag magbigay ng anomang
event. pahayag na maaaring gamiting katibayan laban sa iyo.
Taken in conjunction with the extra-judicial confession of Abuyen/Alorte 4. Hindi ka maaaring pilitin,o gamitan ng anomang uring
quoted above, Mrs. Chua's narration of the situation would suffer from karahasan o pamilit para ikaw ay magbigay ng salaysay.
Tanong — Pagkatapos na malaman mo, maipaunawa defended both accused with equal zeal and vigor and that Punzalan was
sa iyo at mapagpaalalahanan ka ng iyong mga able to present his defense well. In fact, it was Punzalan's version of
karapatan sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas, having knocked that the trial court believed. In the final analysis, the only
nahahanda ka bang magbigay ng isang malaya at prejudice Punzalan might have suffered was the failure of Atty. Mariano to
kusang loob ng salaysay? cross-examine Escober on the latter's testimony regarding Punzalan's
presence at the scene of the crime. 22Escober's testimony, however, was
Sagot — Opo. merely corroborative of the testimonies of Lina Chua and Domingo
Rocero, witnesses for the prosecution who were cross-examined by Atty.
Mariano. 23
Tanong — Nahahanda kang magbigay ng salaysay kahit
na walang abogado na sumusubaybay sa iyo habang
ikaw ay sinisiyasat? Prosecution witnesses Vicente Chua and Lina Chua had established the
fact of robbery and we are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that
Punzalan knew of such plan. It is incredible that his three companions
Sagot— Opo.
would fetch him on the pretext of drinking beer and just bring him along
to the scene of crime, thereby risking another eyewitness to the
Tanog— Lubos mo bang naunawaan na ikaw ay hindi perpetration thereof. Punzalan's flight from the scene of the crime with his
maaaring pilitin or gamitan ng anomang uri ng companions and his failure, if he were truly innocent, to report to the
karahasan upang maging saksi laban sa iyong sarili? police what he knew about the crime after reading it in the newspapers
further demonstrate his knowledge of the plan.
Sagot— Opo.
While it has been established that Punzalan's participation in the crime
Tanong— Sa kabila ng lahat ng mga karapatang was to act as a look-out, and as such, he did not participate in the killing of
ipinaunawa sa iyo magbibigay ka pa rin ba ng salaysay? the two helpless victims, he cannot evade responsibility therefor. Well-
established is the rule in this jurisdiction that whenever a homicide has
Sagot— Opo. been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all
those who took part as principals in the commission of the robbery are
also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
Sgd. Macario G. Punzalan, Jr.
homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide unless it
clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. 24
Noteworthy is the fact that except for an additional question in Escober's
extra-judicial statement, 18 the latter carried the same quoted prefatory
WHEREFORE, the decision dated January 10, 1984 in Criminal Case No.
statement. This, to our mind, indicates the lack of zeal and initiative on the
Q-22896 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is hereby SET ASIDE.
part of the investigating officers to fully and truly inform Punzalan of his
Accused-appellant Juan Escober y Geralde is hereby ACQUITTED of the
rights to remain silent and to counsel during the custodial investigation.
crime of Robbery with Homicide and his immediate release from
The Identical manner by which the police sought to inform Escober and
confinement is ordered, unless detained for some other crimes. Accused-
Punzalan of their constitutional rights shows a blatant disregard for
appellant Macario Punzalan, Jr. y Guevarra is hereby found guilty beyond
individual comprehensive ability arising from differences in intelligence
reasonable doubt as principal in the complex crime of Robbery with
level, educational background and personal experiences. No effort was
Homicide and is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
exerted to see to it that Punzalan really understood what was being told,
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victims in the amount of
considering his low educational attainment of Grade 2 Elementary level.
P60,000,00,
The so-called "informing" done by the police in the case at bar was nothing
more than a superficial and mechanical act, performed not so much to
attain the objectives of the fundamental law as to give a semblance of SO ORDERED.
compliance thereto. Besides, the phraseology used by the police respecting
the appointment of counsel de oficio for Punzalan was misleading. It gives
the impression that the services of a counsel de oficio can be availed of by
Punzalan only during the court proceedings, not during the custodial
investigation.
Not having been fully and truly informed of his right to counsel, the waiver
appearing in Punzalan's extrajudicial statement cannot be considered
intelligently made. For this reason, aside from the fact that it was done
without the assistance of counsel, said waiver is not valid. 19Needless to
say, the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence. 20
While it may be conceded that it would have been more judicious for the
trial court to appoint a counsel de oficio for Punzalan other than the
counsel de parte of his co-accused Escober, such failure did not constitute
prejudicial error to warrant nullification of the proceedings taken against
Punzalan. There is no evidence that Atty. Mariano was biased in favor of
Escober to the prejudice of Punzalan. The records show that Atty. Mariano
7. Criminal Case No. 85-40367 — Memorandum/Circular to all Operators:
(1) Transportation; (2) Shipping Transportation; (3) Air Line
Transportation dated November 30, 1984; 8
9. Criminal Case No. 85-40369 — Executive Order No. 820 Creating the
Presidential Regional Assistant Monitoring Services (PRAMS) in all
Regions of the Philippines dated October 11, 1983; 10
11. Criminal Case No. 85-40371 — Presidential Permission for Free of Fare
(sic) in any Transportation in the Philippines dated February 28, 1985. 12
The prosecution was made under Art. 161 of the Revised Penal Code which
provides as follows:
MENDOZA, J.: It is gathered that personnel from the PRAMS have been using
Presidential directives, particularly Executive Order No 819;
Memorandum Order No. 811; and Memorandum Circular No.
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of
1278, to support its fraudulent activities. These issuances,
Appeals which affirmed with modification 1 petitioner Maximino B.
however, refer to the creation, designation/appointment, and
Gamido's conviction by the Regional Trial Court on eleven counts of
operationalization of the Presidential Regional Monitoring
having forged the signature of the Chief Executive. Specifically, petitioner
Officer (PREMO) System, the duly authorized regional
was accused in 11 cases of forging the signature of the President of the
monitoring arm of the Office of the President, which is charged
Philippines in the following documents and making it appear that the
to provide the President with the information on development in
documents were genuine official documents of the Republic of the
the region.
Philippines:
Furthermore, Mr. Gamido has not been given any authorization
1. Criminal Case No. 85-40361 — Special Appointment of Maximino
to sign for and on behalf of the President of the Philippines. As
Gamido as Confidential Presidential Representative dated November 30,
such, all memorandum/directives issued by Mr. Gamido on
1984; 2
behalf of the Office of the President are fraudulent. All
memorandum/directives issued by alleged PRAMS personnel
2. Criminal Case No. 85-40362 — Memorandum/Order No. 1489 are likewise fraudulent.
informing all Heads of Ministries, Bureaus, Instrumentalities of the
Government, and Government Controlled Corporations and others on the
By Authority of the President:
existence of Presidential Regional Assistant Monitoring Services (PRAMS)
JUAN C. TUVERA
dated July 29, 1985; 3
Presedential Executive Assistant
3. Criminal Case No. 85-40363 — Appointment of Maximino Gamido as Following the issuance of this memorandum, the Presidential Security
Presidential Regional Executive Assistant and Executive Director of the Command and the Office of the President, through the Malacañang
PRAMS dated November 7, 1983; 4 Complaints and Investigation Office (CIO), investigated petitioner.
4. Criminal Case No. 85-40364 — Memorandum to Land, Air and On September 27, 1985, upon the invitation of Atty. Quirino Sagario, CIO
Navigation Transportation Operators in the Philippines dated July 11, Hearing Officer, petitioner appeared and presented the 11 documents,
1985; 5 claiming that President Ferdinand E. Marcos had signed them in his
(petitioner's) presence.
5. Criminal Case No. 85-40365 — Memorandum Order to all Heads of
Ministries, Bureaus, Government Corporations, Government Agencies and The lone witness for the prosecution, Melquiades T. de la Cruz,
Instrumentalities, and Government Controlled Corporations dated July Presidential Staff Director of the Malacañang Records Office (MRO),
29, testified that there were no copies of the documents on file in his office
1985; 6 and that the signatures thereon did not appear to be those of the former
President.
6. Criminal Case No. 85-40366 — Memorandum Order No. 1480 — To:
Hon. Maximino B. Gamido, Presidential Regional Executive For his part, petitioner said that he was the Executive Director of the
Assistant/Executive Director PRAMS-PREMO dated November 23, 1984; 7 Presidential Regional Assistant Monitoring Services, or PRAMS, having
been appointed by then President Marcos and that his appointment and
the related documents, subject of the prosecution, had been signed by the
former President in petitioner's presence.
The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 3, in finding the petitioner with the Office of the President. From these premises it is rational to
guilty, held: conclude that the documents in question, which purport to have been
signed by then President Marcos, are bogus documents. The trial court
The defense put up by the accused, that all the subject and Court of Appeals correctly found petitioner to be the author of the
documents were actually signed by then President Ferdinand E. forgery. The presumption is that the possessor and user of a falsified
Marcos, in his office at Malacañang, and in the presence of said document is the forger thereof . 15
accused, is as preposterous as it is unbelievable, the said defense,
besides being completely negated and belied by the established Second. Petitioner contends that Melquiades T. dela Cruz was
facts (that subject documents, do not exist in the Malacañang incompetent to testify as to whether the signatures on the documents,
Records Office, and therefore, are spurious) is an imposition on purporting to be those of President Marcos, were forgeries because there is
human belief and all sense of propriety. Further, the accused no showing that he had witnessed President Marcos signing his name.
does not appear to the Court, and has not shown himself, to be of
such stature as to enjoy the privilege of having the former Chief What dela Cruz said that is that he was familiar with the signature of
Executive sign documents in his presence. Moreover, the President Marcos and that the signatures on the documents in question
testimony of the accused in support of his defense is totally were not those of President Marcos. 16 This is sufficient to establish the
untrustworthy and unreliable. signatures as forgeries. Under Rule 132, §22 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, it is not required that the person identifying the handwriting of
On the basis of the foregoing factual and legal considerations, another must have seen the latter write the document or sign it. It is
the Court is convinced, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the enough, if the witness "has seen writing purporting to be his [the subject's]
felony of the forging the signature of the President, as defined upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
and penalized under Art. 161 of the Revised Penal Code, was knowledge of the handwriting of such person." De la Cruz has been record
committed by the accused on eleven (11) counts. custodian at Malacañang for so many years; it is inconceivable he had not
acquired familiarity with the signature not only of President Marcos but of
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused guilty beyond other Presidents under whom he had served.
reasonable doubt of the crime forging the signature of the Chief
Executive, and/or violation of Art. 161 of the Revised Penal Code, There was thus no necessity for a handwriting expert testify on the
without any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and hereby genuineness of the challenged signatures. As this Court has once observed,
sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) the authenticity of signatures "is not a highly technical issue in the same
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen sense that questions concerning, e.g., quantum physics or topology or
(14) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, molecular biology, would constitute matters of a highly technical nature.
in each of these eleven (11) criminal cases, or a total of eighty The opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness of a questioned
(80) years up to one hundred fifty-four (154) years, with costs signature is certainly much less compelling upon a judge than an opinion
against the accused. rendered by a specialist on a highly technical issue. The signatures on a
questioned document can be sighted by a judge who can and should
SO ORDERED. exercise independent judgment on the issue of authenticity of such
signatures." 17 Here, as the trial court observed, "the forgeries were not
only established by the evidence, but they are also as clearly discernible to
On appeal, the Special First Division of the Court of Appeals 14 affirmed
the naked eye or mere ocular inspection, as they are conspicuously evident
with the modification already noted on the margin of this opinion.
from their appearance. . . . " 18
In this petition, petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals committed
Third. Nor is there merit in petitioner's claim that forgery could not be
reversible error in affirming his conviction for the following reasons:
said to exist since the documents, because of their "unusual format,
atrocious grammar, and misspelled words" could not have defrauded or
(1) The fact that the documents in question are not on file in the deceived anyone, and that moreover they lack apparent legal efficacy."
Malacañang Records Office does not ipso facto prove that they are forged That is not so. If the documents were fanciful or whimsical, as for
but only that they were lost or destroyed. example, a commission appointing petitioner mayor of a mythical
kingdom, the forgery could simply be dismissed as a spoof. But as pointed
(2) The lone prosecution witness, Melquiades T. dela Cruz, is incompetent out by the Solicitor General, the Office of the President had to issue a
to testify that the documents were forgeries since there is no evidence to memorandum denouncing the legality of PRAMS because of the
show that he had seen then President Marcos sign documents. Indeed, this possibility that the less wary would be deceived, especially because that
witness could not say with certainty that the signature on each of the 11 the documents pertaining to it bear the Great Seal and were typed on
documents was not that of President Marcos. stationary which have the appearance of official stationery of the Office of
the President.
(3) No handwriting expert was presented in court to give an opinion as to
the genuineness of President Marcos' signatures. Fourth. Petitioner also argues that he should have been charged under
only one information because there was only one intent "to discharge the
(4) The Court of Appeals and the RTC committed the fallacy of imagined functions of a non-existent office." The argument has no merit.
"argumentum ad elenchi" in concluding that the signatures in the The documents in this case were forged on different dates. One act was not
documents were forgeries from the documents' "unusual format and done to commit another. There is therefore no basis for considering the
atrocious grammar" when these documents were not offered to prove their various acts as constituting only one crime of forgery.
appearance and grammar.
Fifth. As a last-ditch effort of sorts to escape criminal liability, petitioner
(5) Assuming these defects in format and grammar, there is no forgery claims that since "no person of sound mind would [make] it appear that
since the documents could not have deceived any person. the Chief Executive created an office for him and appointed him thereto,"
he must be exempt from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 1 of the
Revised Penal Code. This, again, is not necessarily so since the purpose
(6) A writing or instrument in order to constitute a forgery must possess
may be to deceive others. Moreover, this defense now invoked should have
some apparent legal efficacy (36 Am. Jur. 2d 690), and if PRAMS is a non-
been raised below. At all events, the presumption is in favor of sanity. 19 In
existent entity as Memorandum Circular No. 1281 declared, then the
this case there is no evidence to show that petitioner was insane at the
documents executed under it cannot acquire such "apparent legal
time he committed the acts for which he is being prosecuted.
efficacy."