People Vs Suela January 15, 2002 (Digest)

PP. OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
NERIO SUELA y HEMBRA, EDGAR SUELA y

HEMBRA and EDGARDO BATOCAN
G.R. No. 134288-89 January 15, 2002
FACTS: On or about the 26th day of July 1995, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
accused, conspiring, confederating with one another, and mutually helping one
another, by means of force upon things, did then and there willfully and feloniously
rob one Nilo Rosas by barging into the door of said house and once inside, took the
following: a colored TV, 3 cameras, assorted jewelries, and cash money, all
amounting to P657,000.00. On the occasion of the said robbery, the accused with
intent to kill, attacked, assaulted, and employed personal violence upon Geronimo
Gabilo by stabbing him, which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely
demise.
Sometime thereafter, Edgar Suela contacted Rosas’ executive secretary, telling her
that if Rosas will agree, he will relay information as to the identity and whereabouts of
those responsible for Gabilo’s death. He was willing to exchange this written
information for P200,000.00. An entrapment ensued and this effected his arrest.
While under detention, the Suelas expressed their desire to give an extrajudicial
confession. Hence, they were brought to the IBP for the taking down of their
confessions.
The trial court held that the appellants had been assisted by competent and
independent counsel during the execution of their extrajudicial confessions. The
letter of Nerio Suela addressed to Director Rosas asking him for forgiveness as well
as the discovery of the stolen TV set and knife in the former’s house, further
convinced his guilt. Finding the presence of one aggravating circumstance (disguise)
with no mitigating circumstance, the trial court sentenced them to death.
Hence, this automatic review of the Decision.
ISSUE: The following errors are alleged:
I. The trial court erred in considering batocan’s extrajudicial confession as

admissible evidenc against him;
II. The trial court erred in admitting and appreciating the wristwatch as
evidence against Batocan;
III. The trial court erred in convicting Batocan of robbery with Homicide;
IV. The court erred in considering the extrajudicial confessions of the Suelas
as admissible against them;
V. The court erred in considering the Suelas of robbery with homicide.
RULING:
With respect to Batocan, he did not finish first year high school. He was interviewed
before he gave his confession for around five minutes. After this initial interview with
Atty. Rous, counsel just listened nonchalantly to the questions propounded by the
police and to the answers given by Batocan. Atty. Rous’ attention even seemed
divided for while he was attending the custodial investigation, he was also looking
over another paperwork on his desk.
In view of these, the court is not convinced that Batocan’s extrajudicial confession
was obtained without violating his constitutional rights.
As to the Suelas, Atty. Sansano did not understand the exact nature of appellants’
rights to counsel and to remain silent during their custodial investigations. He viewed
a refusal to answer as an obstruction in the investigation. Moreover, when he
interviewed appellants, he did not even bother to find out the gist of their proposed
statements in order to apprise them of the nature and consequences of their
extrajudicial confessions. Clearly and sadly, appellants were not accorded
competent and independent counsel whom they could rely on to look after their
interests.
As to the admissibility of the wristwatch, it is of limited probative value as it was taken

without a search warrant and not as an incident of a valid arrest. It is clearly a fruit of
a poisonous tree and as such, could not be admitted and appreciated against the
accused.
As to Nerio Suelas’ letter to Director Rosas, this was written while Nerio was no
longer under custodial investigation. In open court, he admitted having written it.
The fact that he was not assisted by counsel when he wrote it will not make the letter
inadmissible in evidence.
Even excluding the wristwatch and the written extrajudicial confessions, there is still
material evidence on record which prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission
of robbery with homicide.
While under the new rules, an aggravating circumstance that is NOT alleged in the
information CANNOT be appreciated in determining the criminal liability of the
accused, the rules do not prevent its appreciation for the purpose of determining civil
liability.
The appeal is partially granted and modified. The RTC decision is affirmed but the
penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The award of civil indemnities is also
affirmed. Edgar Suela is acquitted for the separate crime of simple robbery.

People Vs Suela January 15, 2002 (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Suela January 15, 2002 (Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Suela January 15, 2002 (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP. OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

NERIO SUELA y HEMBRA, EDGAR SUELA y

G.R. No. 134288-89 January 15, 2002

Hence, this automatic review of the Decision.

ISSUE: The following errors are alleged:

I. The trial court erred in considering batocan’s extrajudicial confession as

V. The court erred in considering the Suelas of robbery with homicide.

As to the admissibility of the wristwatch, it is of limited probative value as it was taken

You might also like