158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

*
G.R. No. 109773. March 30, 2000.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. ELBERTO BASE, accused-appellant.

Custodial Investigation; Extrajudicial Confessions;

Requisites.—Numerous decisions of this Court rule that for
an extrajudicial confession to be admissible, it must be: 1.]
voluntary; 2.] made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel; 3.] express; and 4.] in writing.
Same; Same; Exclusionary Rule; The exclusionary rule
is premised on the presumption that the defendant is thrust
into an unfamiliar atmosphere running through menacing
police interrogation procedures where the potentiality for
compulsion, physical or psychological is forcefully apparent.
—The mantle of protection afforded by the above quoted
constitutional provision covers the period from the time a
person is taken into custody for the investigation of his
possible participation in the commission of a crime or from
the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of
the offense although not yet in custody. The exclusionary
rule is premised on the presumption that the defendant is
thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere running through
menacing police interrogation procedures where the
potentiality for compulsion, physical or psychological is
forcefully apparent.
Same; Same; Right to Counsel; While the right to
counsel is immutable, the option to secure the services of
counsel de parte is not absolute.—The rule is not intended
as a deterrent to the accused from confessing guilt if he
voluntarily and intelligently so desires but to protect the
accused from admitting what he is coerced to admit
although untrue. It must be remembered in this regard that
while the right to counsel is immutable, the option to secure
the services of counsel de parte is not absolute.
Same; Same; Same; A lawyer provided by investigators
is deemed engaged by the suspect where he never raises any
objection against the former’s appointment during the course
of the investigation and he thereafter subscribes to the
veracity of his statement

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

159

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 159

People vs. Base

before the swearing officer.—While the initial choice in cases

where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford
the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police
investigators, the accused really has the final choice as he
may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another
one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed
engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection
against the former’s appointment during the course of the
investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the
veracity of his statement before the swearing officer.
Same; Same; Same; The counsel should never prevent
an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.—
Verily, to be an effective counsel “[a] lawyer need not
challenge all the questions being propounded to his client.
The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused
from saying anything which might incriminate him but,
rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the
slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit
something false. The counsel, however, should never prevent
an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.”
 Same; Same; The failure of the accused to speak up and
disclose his fear of his interrogators at the earliest
opportunity subjects to serious doubt the reality and
substance of the supposed fear.—For all accused-appellant’s
protestations to the contrary, his tale of coercion and
torture in the hands of his interrogators taxes credulity vis-
à-vis his testimonial declarations that despite supposedly
being severely mauled and sustaining injuries as a result
thereof he did not: 1.] complain to the senior officer of his
interrogators about how he was treated during his custodial
investigation; 2.] tell his wife of his injuries when she
arrived the next day nor did he ask her to take him to a
hospital for treatment; 3.] inform his lawyer of the alleged
injuries he sustained at the hands of his interrogators
although he had several opportunities to do so; 4.] inform
his lawyer that he was forced to sign the sworn statement;
5.] present any medical certificate to prove the existence of
his alleged injuries. Topping accused-appellant’s incredible
tale of torture is his almost two-year silence on the incident
which only came to light when he testified in court.
Accused-appellant explains away these lapses as the
products of his ‘fear’ of his interrogators. However, his
failure to speak up and disclose his fear at the earliest
opportunity subjects to serious doubt the reality and
substance of that supposed fear.

160

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

Same; Same; The confessions of two accused have the

ring of truth about them where their extrajudicial statements
are replete with details and they corroborate and
complement each other so substantially that it is very
difficult to suppose that the statements had been merely
derived from the creative imagination of the police officers
involved.—A circumspect scrutiny of accused-appellant’s
Sinumpaang Salaysay clearly shows how he and his co-
accused planned the killing of the deceased as well as the
sequence of events before and after the occurrence of the
incident. These events could not have been supplied either
any of those interviewed by the peace officers or by the
peace officers themselves because the said statement is
repiete with details which only one who has an intricate
knowledge thereof can supply. Verily—”It remains only to
note that the extrajudicial statements of Romeo Jabil and
Rufo Llenarasas are replete with details and they
corroborate and complement each other so substantially
that it is very difficult to suppose that the statements had
been merely derived from the creative imagination of the
police officers involved. The confessions, in other words,
have the ring of truth about them.”
Criminal Law; Evidence; Extrajudicial Confessions;
Corpus Delicti; Elements.—Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules
of Court provides that “[a]n extrajudicial confession made
by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction,
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.” In this
case the prosecution presented other evidence to prove the
two elements of corpus delicti, to wit: 1.] a certain result has
been proven, i.e. a man has died; and 2.] some person is
criminally responsible.
Same; Conspiracy; Words and Phrases; Conspiracy
exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it.—Conspiracy is alleged in the information charging the
accused-appellant of the crime. Conspiracy—“. . . exists
when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct
proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be inferred from
the acts of the accused prior to, during or subsequent to the
incident. Such acts must point to a joint purpose, concert of
action or community of interest. Hence, the victim need not
be actually hit by each of the conspirators for the act of one
of them is deemed the act of all.”

161

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 161

People vs. Base

Same; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; Evident

Premeditation; Elements; The one-week interval when the
accused-appellant and his co-conspirators first cased the
victim’s house up to the actual date of the killing
underscores the presence of evident premeditation.—The
one-week interval when accused-appellant and his
coconspiratars first cased the victim’s house up to the actual
date of the killing underscores the presence of evident
premeditation. For this aggravating circumstance to be
considered, there must be proof of the following elements
thereof, i.e., 1.] the time the offenders determined to commit
the crime; 2.] an act manifestly indicating that they clung to
their determination; and 3.] a sufficient lapse of time
between determination and execution to allow reflection
upon the consequences of the act.
Same; Same; Same; Treachery; The essence of alevosia
is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim
without the slightest provocation on the victim’s part; The
fact that treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked
from behind does not mean it can not also be appreciated if
the attack is frontally launched.—Treachery is also alleged
in the information indicting the accused. There is treachery
“[w]hen the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
its execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.” The essence
of alevosia is the swift and unexpected attack on the
unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the
victim’s part. The fact that treachery may be shown if the
victim is attacked from behind does not mean it can not also
be appreciated if the attack is frontally launched. Even a
frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and the
victim is unarmed. In this case, the suddenness of the
shooting without the slightest provocation from the victim
who was unarmed and had no opportunity to defend
himself, clearly qualified the crime with treachery.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court

of Lipa City, Br. 13.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

162
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Base

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

In the early morning of February 8, 1990, a group of

men arrived at the residence of Julianito Luna y
Tagle, Barangay Captain of Namunga, Rosario,
Batangas. One of two men who introduced themselves
as policemen allegedly looking for a certain
Hernandez suddenly shot Julianito in the head with a
.45 caliber pistol and immediately after, they sped
away in an owner-type jeep.
Accused-appellant Elberto Base was among those
identified on board the jeep and, together with
Conrado Guno, Frederick Lazaro and Eduardo
Patrocinio, were indicted for Murder with Direct
Assault Upon a Person in1 Authority in a Second
Amended Information alleging that—

That on or about the 8th day of February 1990, at about

7:00 o’clock in the morning, in Barangay Namunga,
Municipality of Rosario, Province of Batangas, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above named accused, armed with a caliber .38 revolver and
.45 caliber pistol, conspiring and confederating together,
acting in common accord and mutually helping one another,
with treachery and evident premeditation and by means of
a motor vehicle which is a top down owner type jeep colored
green with Plate No. UV-CFU-178, and without justifiable
cause, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the said .45
caliber pistol, suddenly and without warning, one Julianito
Luna y Tagle known to them to be an elected Barangay
Captain (Punong Barangay) of the said Municipality while
in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion
thereof, or in connection therewith, thereby inflicting upon
the latter [a] gun shot wound, 1x1 cm., left temporal region,
2 cm. above the left ear, entry with contusion collar,
inwards, upwards and backwards, with exit at right
occipital region and with avulsion of brain, complete
fracture of skull, which directly caused his death.
Contrary to law.
______________

1 Record, pp. 105-106.

163

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 163

People vs. Base

Upon arraignment, accused Elberto 2

Base and
Conrado Guno pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged. Frederick Lazaro and Eduardo Patrocinio
have remained at large.
Trial thereafter ensued after which the court a quo
rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, m view of the foregoing, the Court finds

accused Elberto Base guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Murder, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
50,000.00 for the death of Jullanito Luna; the total sum of
P40,000.00 as actual damages; and the amount of
P100,000.00, by way of moral damages.
It appearing that accused Elberto Base is a detention
prisoner, the preventive imprisonment he had undergone
should be taken into consideration in the computation of his
sentence.
And for failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the
guilt of accused Conrado Guno beyond reasonable doubt of
the charge against him in the Information, he is hereby
ACQUITTED. 3
SO ORDERED.

Dissatisfied, accused Elberto Base interposed this

appeal alleging that—

THE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-

APPELLANT ELBERTO BASE OF THE CRIME OF
MURDER ON THE BASIS OF HIS ALLEGED
EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION DESPITE ITS
INADMISSIBILITY.
 II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-

APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
OF [THE] CRIME OF MURDER.

________________

2 Ibid., pp. 60-61.

3 Id., p. 223.

164

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

The prosecution’s version of the incident adopted the

trial court’s factual narration of what transpired thus:

x x x around 7:00 o’clock in the morning of February 8, 1990

three men arrived in the residence of Julianito Luna in
Namunga, Rosario, Batangas. One was identified to be
called Apple who knocked at the door and the person who
accompanied his two other companions. After Apple left,
Julianito Luna who was the Barangay Captain of the place
together with his wife and son Arvin went out and Julianito
Luna talked with the two men who introduced themselves
as policemen and were looking for one Hernandez.
Julianito told the two men that he did not know the man
they were looking for and told Arvin to accompany the two
men to one Ka Prado. At that juncture the man armed with
a .45 pistol shot Julianito once hitting the latter on his head
and Julianito sprawled on the ground.
After the shooting the two men ran towards their top
down owner jeep colored green parked on the National
Highway in front of the residence of Julianito Luna and
thereafter sped away towards the direction of the Poblacion
of Ibaan, Batangas.
Julianito Luna was rushed to a local hospital in Rosario,
Batangas who was given first aid and at a time when he
was about to be brought to Manila, he expired due to a gun
shot wound, 1x1 cm. left temporal region, 2 cm. above the
left ear, entry with contusion collar, inwards, upwards and
backwards, with exit at right occipital region and with
avulsion of brain complete fracture of skull, which directly
caused his death.
Early reports having reached the 217th PC Co. in
Masaya, Rosario, Batangas a team of PC and Police
elements was immediately dispatched to track down the
assassins of Julianito Luna and in due time the-motor
vehicle of the assassins was recovered in the premises of the
house of Mrs. Amelia Quizon in Barangay Lodlod, Lipa City
already parked but without the assassins.
The motor vehicle was brought to the camp of the 217th
PC Go., but was immediately returned to the place based
upon a notion that the assassins would come back to the
place to recover the same vehicle.
As expected, not long thereafter Elberto Base one of the
accused arrived in the premises of the house of Mrs. Amelia
Quizon in order to recover the top down owner type jeep and
it was then when

165

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 165

People vs. Base

he was collared by a team of PC soldiers who were all in

civilian clothes and brought to the camp together with the
motor vehicle.
In the camp in a line-up of several people Elberto Base
was positively identified by Amelia Quizon as one of the
passengers of the jeep who parked the jeep in her premises
and also the person who tried to recover the jeep when he
was finally collared by the PC soldiers. What made her so
remember Base is the scar on the face of the latter.
It was also established that before the vehicle in question
was brought to Lodlod, Lipa City by the assassins, the latter
passed by the house of the brother of Leo Vale in San Jose,
Batangas, and because the brother of Leo Vale was not
there, Leo Vale was requested by the passengers of the jeep
to accompany them to the house of the husband of Amelia
Quizon in Lodlod, Lipa City, to which request Leo Vale
acceded.
And in a line-up of several people Leo Vale positively
identified accused Elberto Base as one of the passengers of
the jeep whom he accompanied to Lodlod, Lipa City, and
which identification he reiterated when he testified in
Court. He also identified the subject vehicle, which the
passengers boarded and left in the premises of the residence
of Amelia Quizon.
The owner of the jeep involved with Plate No. UV-CPU-
170 which the assassins used was established to be that of
Loreto Angeles of Parañaque, Metro Manila. It was
established that on February 7, 1990 accused Frederick
Lazaro known to him as a policemen of Parañaque together
with accused Eduardo Patrocinio borrowed from him the
said vehicle telling him that he was going to Carmen,
Pangasinan, to which request he acceded and promising
him to return said jeep the following day.
While in the camp of the 217th PC Company Elberto
Base executed a written Sworn Statement with the
assistance and presence of Atty. Romeo Reyes of Rosario,
Batangas, who testified in court, to the effect that he
assisted the accused in the execution of his statement, by
telling Elberto Base of his constitutional rights before said
execution. He further testified that throughout the
proceedings he was present and the accused read the
contents of his statement before swearing to the truth of the
same.
A perusal of the statement of Elberto Base shows that he
was well aware of the intended plot to kill Julianito Luna,
by admitting that a week before the killing he was with the
assassins surveiling the residence of Julianito Luna.

166

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

He also admitted to be with accused Frederick Lazaro and

Patrocinio when the jeep in question was borrowed by the
two and was with accused Lazaro and Patrocinio when they
left Kalayaan, Pasay City in proceeding to San Juan,
Batangas that day when Julianito Luna was shot.
Accused Base also admitted that he was left on a shed in
Ibaan, Batangas when Frederick Lazaro and Patrocinio
returned to Rosario and when they came back, he was
fetched and was with them in going to San Jose, Batangas
in the house of one June Vale and later on in Barangay
Lodlod, Lipa City where they left the jeep in the premises of
the house of Amelia Quizon. And finally Base admitted in
his statement that he was told to recover the jeep in Lodlod,
Lipa City.

Accused-appellant denied having anything to do with

the fatal shooting of the victim and alleges, in sum,
that he was tortured to admit the crime. As culled
from his testimony, at around 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the
afternoon of February 8, 1990, he had just
disembarked at the bus stop at Mataas na Lupa, Lipa
City after visiting his uncle Mauro Espina, his sister-
in-law Perla Ronquillo 4
and Opring Espina in
Maricaban, Pasay City. From there, he intended to
proceed on board a 5jeepney to the terminal near the
market in Lipa City.
However, he never reached his destination because
he was picked up by three armed men in civilian
clothes who told him to come along
6
with them as they
would ask him some questions. He was brought to7
Lodlod, Lipa City at the house of Amelia Quizon.
Upon their arrival at Quizon’s place, a gun was poked
at accused-appellant8
and he was ordered to lie down
facing the ground. As he lay thus, he was trussed up
at the neck, bound hand and foot with 9
abaca rope
with his hands tied behind his back. He was then
loaded on a top down jeep

_______________

4 TSN, 12 August 1991, pp. 10-12.

5 Ibid., p. 12.
6 Id., pp. 12-13.
7 Id., p. 13.
8 Id.
9 Id., p. 14.

167

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 167

People vs. Base
and brought to the 10217th PC Company Detachment in
Rosario, Batangas.
Upon their arrival at the PC Detachment, accused-
appellant was brought to the CAFGU barracks and
there he was 11
mauled, pounded with 12gun barrels and
gun butts by fifteen (15) persons 13
and forced to
admit to the shooting of the victim. As a result of 14
the
mauling, his lips bled and he broke a tooth. To
underscore just how tightly his captors bound him,
accused-appellant likewise showed the court a quo a
scar on his
15
left arm allegedly caused by the tying of
the rope.
As his lips bled because of the beating, accused
wiped it across the leg of his trousers pointing to a
dark stain
16
on the left leg of his pants he was wearing
in court which was allegedly 17
caused by brushing his
bloodied lips thereon. After wiping his bloodied
mouth, the physical abuse continued despite accused’s
entreaties 18and protestations as to why he was being
beaten up. He even informed them that 19
he was a
Barangay Council member, to no avail. After he was
manhandled, he was interrogated by Sgt. Romulo
Mercado who 20
sat by a typewriter and took down his
statements.
Accused-appellant, however, claimed that although
Sgt. Mercado asked him questions, the latter did not
take down accused’s real answers and instead the
said investigator
21
typed what he wanted to type
therein. Accused further testified that he was not
given any opportunity to read in whole or in

________________

10 Id., pp. 36, 53.

11 Id., pp. 19, 23.
12 Id.
13 Id., pp. 14-16.
14 Id., pp. 16-18.
15 Id., p. 16.
16 Exhibit 4.
17 TSN, 12 August 1991, pp. 16-18.
18 Ibid., p. 19.
19 Id., p. 36.
 20 Id., pp. 19-20, 35, 47.
21 Id., pp. 43, 51.

168

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

22
part the typewritten statement and that it was only
upon arrraignment that he came to know that the
written statement taken from him which 23
he was
forced to sign was actually a confession.
With regard to the manner in which the custodial
interrogation
24
was conducted and the Sworn
Statement was executed, accused-appellant testified
that his pleas to his interrogators that 25they observe
his constitutional rights went unheeded. He likewise
claimed that although the sworn statement bore the
attesting signature of Atty. Romeo Reyes, he neither
knew nor saw Atty. Reyes at 26
the 217th PC
Detachment on February 8, 1990. Accused-appellant
denied that he knew his co-accused Conrado 27Guno,
Frederick Lazaro and Eduardo Patrocinio. He
likewise 28 denied knowing Leo Valle and Erlinda
Angeles.
The crux of accused-appellant’s appeal hinges on
the admissibility of the Sworn Statement dated
February 8, 1990. In challenging its probative value,
he insists in sum that the document is inadmissible in
evidence because it was executed in violation of his
constitutional rights, firstly his right to counsel of his
own choice.
We disagree.
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution embodies
the mandatory safeguards afforded a person under
investigation for the commission of a crime and the
concomitant duty of the State and its agencies to
enforce such mandate. It declares that:

SEC. 12. (1). Any person under investigation for the

commission of an offense shall have the right to remain
silent and to have
______________

22 Id., pp. 50-51, 21-22.

23 Id., pp. 50, 52.
24 Exhibit V and series.
25 TSN, 12 August 1991, p. 49.
26 Ibid., p. 21.
27 Id., p. 28.
28 Id.

169

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 169

People vs. Base

competent and independent counsel preferably of his own

choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(1) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or

any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
are prohibited.
(2) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
(3) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions
for violations of this section as well as compensation
to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families.
29
Numerous decisions of this Court rule that for an
extrajudicial confession to be admissible, it must be:
1.] voluntary; 2.] made with the assistance of
competent and 30
independent counsel; 3.] express; and
4.] in writing.
The mantle of protection afforded by the above
quoted constitutional provision covers the period from
the time a person is taken into custody for the
investigation of his possible participation in the
commission of a crime or from the time he is singled
out as a suspect in the commission of the offense
31
 31
although not yet in custody. The exclusionary rule is
premised on the presumption that the defendant is
thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere running
through menacing police inter-

________________

29 People v. Mantes, 299 SCRA 562 (1998); People v. Deniega,

251 SCRA 626 (1995); People v. Espanola, 271 SCRA 689 (1997);
People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199 (1998); People v. Tan, 286 SCRA
207 (1998).
30 People v. Bernardino Domantay @ Junior Otot, G.R. No.
130612, 11 May 1999, p. 12, 307 SCRA 1.
31 People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997); Bernas, The
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary,
1996 ed., p. 412, citing People v. Mara, 236 SCRA 565 (1994).

170

170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

rogation procedures where the potentiality for

compulsion, 32
physical or psychological is forcefully
apparent.
However, the rule is not intended as a deterrent to
the accused from confessing guilt if he voluntarily and
intelligently so desires but to protect the accused from
admitting
33
what he is coerced to admit although
untrue. It must be remembered in this regard that
while the right to counsel is immutable, the option to
secure the 34
services of counsel de parte is not
absolute. Indeed—

The phrase “competent and independent” and “preferably of

his own choice” were explicit details which were added upon
the persistence of human rights lawyers in the 1986
Constitutional Commission who pointed out cases where,
during the martial law period, the lawyers made available
to the detainee would be one appointed
35
by the military and
therefore beholden to the military.
x x x      x x x      x x x
 Withal, the word “preferably” under Section 12 [1],
Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution does not convey the
message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under
investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally
competent and independent attorneys from handling his
defense. If the rule were otherwise, then, the tempo of a
custodial investigation will be solely in the hands of the
accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the
interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer who for one
reason or another, is not available to protect his interest.
This absurd scenario could not have been contemplated by
the framers of the charter.

While the initial choice in cases where a person under

custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a
lawyer is

________________

32 People v. Andan, supra, citing Bemas, The Constitution of the

Republic of the Philippines, supra and Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436, 16 Led. 2d 694 (1966).
33 People v. Benito Bravo, G.R. No. 135562, 22 November 1999,
p. 9, 318 SCRA 812, citing People v. Deniega, supra.
34 People v. Serzo, Jr., 274 SCRA 553 (1997).
35 Citing I Record of the Constitutional Commission 731-734; I
Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1987
1st ed., p. 347.

171

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 171

People vs. Base

naturally lodged in the police investigators, the

accused really has the final choice as he may reject
the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A
lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed
engaged by the accused where he never raised any
objection against the former’s appointment during the
course of the investigation and the accused thereafter
subscribes to the36 veracity of his statement before the
swearing officer.
 Verily, to be an effective counsel “[a] lawyer need
not challenge all the questions being propounded to
his client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to
stop an accused from saying anything which might
incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our
Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as 37
would lead the accused to admit something false.
The counsel, however, should never prevent an 38
accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.”
A circumspect scrutiny of the records leaves this
Court unconvinced of accused-appellant’s claim that
he was not adequately assisted by counsel during his
custodial interrogation. Noteworthy are the following
excerpts of the testimony of the interrogating officer,
Sgt. Romulo Mercado:

ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q. Now, in connection with your investigation of the
death of Julianito Luna, do you remember if you
ever investigated a person, a certain person in the
name of ElbertoBase y Malasmas?
WITNESS:
A. Yes, sir.
Q. 1Now, do you recall if he gave a written
statement?
A. Yes, sir.

_______________

36 People v. Suarez, 267 SCRA 119 (1997), citing People v.

Parojinog, 203 SCRA 673 (1991).
37 People v. Layuso, 175 SCRA 47 (1989).
38 People v. Suarez, supra, citing People v. Aquino, 186 SCRA
851 (1990).

172

172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

Q. Yes, but that written statement which the

accused El-berto Base gave you, will you be able
 to recognize it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I am showing you the original of a written
statement consisting of four pages, and found in
the possession of the public prosecutor, please go
over this written statement and tell us if you
recognize it?
WITNESS:
A. I was the one who took this that is why I know
the affi-davit.
Q. It would appear from the face of this statement on
pageone and again on page 4 that Elberto Base
was assisted by a lawyer in the person of Atty.
Romeo T. Reyes, is t hat correct?
A. Yes, sir.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
ATTY. CRESCINI :
Q. All these statements appears to be in question
and answer form, please tell the court who
propounded those questions?
WITNESS:
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the answers appearing there, whose answers
were those?
A. Those were the answers of Elberto Malasmas
(sic), sir.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
Q. The questions and answer[s] appears to be in
Filipino. Before you reduce[d] the statement in
writing, did you explain or ascertain from him
what language or dialect he was conversant most?
WITNESS :
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What language did he prefer to be asked of him?
A. Tagalog, sir.
Q. Let me invite your attention to the question
appearing on page 2, “Narito si Atty. Romeo T.
Reyes na maari naming ibigay sa iyo. Nais mo ba
 na asistihan ka niya?” Did you ask him that
question?

173

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 173

People vs. Base

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the answer here appearing is “Opo.” Who
gave that answer?
A. Elberto, sir.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q. The first page also purports to show that you have
read and explain[ed] to the affiant Elberto Base y
Malasmas his contitutional rights. Did you
actually read that to him?
WITNESS:
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now there appears on page 3 marked as Exhibit
“B-2” this last question, the last question,
“Nakahanda kabang lagdaan at sumpaan ang
Salaysay na ito?” This iscontinued to page 4, did
you really ask him that question?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the answer is here is “Opo.” Who gave that
answer?
A. Elberto Base, sir.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q. I will now address your attention to the signature
appearing on page 1 above the typewritten name
Elberto Base y Malasmas and below the
information regarding his constitutional rights
and second signature purports to be that of
Elberto Base y Malasmas also on page 1 andafter
he was offered the servies of Atty. Romeo T. Reyes
 and after he has also expressed his consent to be
assistedby Atty. Reyes, whose signature[s] are
those both legiblyreading Elberto Base?
A Those are the signatures of Elberto Base, sir.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q. Why do you know that those signatures marked
in evidence as Exhibits “V-6,” “V-7” and “V-8” are
the signatures of Elberto Base?
WITNESS:
A. I was present when he affixed his signatures, sir.

174

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

Q. During the entire investigation you were

conducting of the witness Base, was Atty. Reyes
whom you delegated to assist Elberto Base
present?
WITNESS:
A. He was there, sir.
Q. I will invite your attention to the signature
appearing on page one above the typewritten
name Romeo T. Reyes,opposite that of Elberto
Base, as well as another signature on the last
page, below the phrase, “assisted by” and above
the typewritten name Atty. Romeo T. Reyes.
Whose signatures are those?
A. Those are the signatures of Atty. Reyes.
Q. Why do you say so?
A. When he signed that, we were facing each other.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q. Before Elberto Base signed his statement marked
as Exhibits “V” to “V-3” respectively, did you give
him the opportunity to read the same?
WITNESS:
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after reading it out, did he sign his
statement?
A. He was in front of us, I and Atty. Reyes when he
affixedhis signature.
Q. Did he sign it voluntarily?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This statement purports to have been subscribed
and sworn to before Captain Edmon Zaide,
Administering Officer on February 8, 1990. Do
you know that as a fact?
A. I know that, sir.
Q. Why do you know that?
A. Because Capt. Zaide39
was also there. We were
facing each other.”

________________

39 TSN, 8 July 1991, pp. 27-34; italics supplied.

175

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 175

People vs. Base

  Sgt. Mercado remained steadfast and unwavering

with reg ard to the regularity in the conduct of the
investigation des pite repeated attempts of
defense counsel to throw him off track on cross
examination:
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, you are the investigator who
conducted an investigation on Elberto Base, is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been an investigator?
A. More or less eight years, sir.
ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q. And approximately, before February 8, 1990, do
you rem ember how many investigations have you
conducted?
WITNESS:
A. I cannot remember anymore, sir.
Q. About one hundred Mr. Witness?
A. Less, sir.
Q. Now, in your investigation conducted Mr.
Witness, would you agree with me that it is your
procedure that before proceeding with the
investigation, you usually reduced into writing
the rights of the accused to be investigated?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as a matter of fact, the right[s] were also
reduced into writing when you investigated
Elberto Base, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, so you would agree with me
that before you started to investigate Mr. Elberto
Base, those rights of the accused were already
reduced into writing?
A. No, sir.
Q. So when did you reduce that (sic) rights into
writing?
WITNESS:
A. When he was in front of me, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, I noticed that in your
investigation conducted on Elberto Base, there is
already a name of a certain Atty. Romeo T. Reyes.
Do you know this Atty. Romeo T. Reyes? On the
top portion of that investigation you conducted on
Elberto Base?
A. Yes, sir.

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base
Q How long have you known him?
A. More or less seven months, sir.
Q. And you know Atty. Reyes very well?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, I noticed that there is a
superimposition of the name Romeo T. Reyes on
the name printed asConrado Reyes. Will you
please explain the significance of that written
name Romeo T. Reyes on the printed name
Conrado T. Reyes?
WITNESS:
A. It was superimposed because I thought he was
Atty. Conrado Reyes.
ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q. So you will admit that you do not know that well
Atty. Romeo T. Reyes?
A. I know him very well but I do not know his first
name.
Q. Alright, I noticed that before you conducted the
investigation on Elberto Base, the name Atty.
Romeo T. Reyes was already typewritten on the
top portion of your sworn statement. Is that
correct?
A. When he was in front of me and I was typing that
investigation, that was the time I put the name
Atty. Romeo T. Reyes.
Q. So you will agree with me that even before you
started the investigation of Elberto Base, Atty.
Reyes’ name was already indicated at the start of
the salaysay?
ATTY. CRESCINI:
  Objection, Your Honor. Misleading. Already
answered.
COURT:
  Sustained.
ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q. You will agree with me that before you reduced
the rights of the accused into writing, during the
 custodial investigation the name Romeo T. Reyes
was already placed on the sworn statement?
ATTY. CRESCINI:
  Same objection.
COURT:
  Sustained.

177

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 177

People vs. Base

ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, I noticed that there were
several signatures on this Exhibit “V” for the
prosecution marked as Exhibits “V-6,” “V-7,” V-9”
on page 1 and on Exhibit “V-3” submarkings “V-
8,” “V-10” and “V-ll” and “V-12,” now will you
please see for yourself these markings. Now, these
signatures marked as “V-5,” “V-6,” “V-7” and “V-9”
and “V-10,” “V-ll” and “V-12” were affixed by the
respective names appearing therein
simultaneously?
WITNESS:
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And these persons signed or affixed their
signatures after this statement of Elberto Base was
typewritten, is it not,Mr. Witness?
A. Yes, sir.
COURT:
Q. Where was this statement taken?
A. In our headquarters, sir.
Q. Where was that?
A. At Barangay Masaya, Rosario, Batangas.
Q. And Atty. Reyes happened to be there?
A. We have him called (sic).
Q. Did you call Atty. Reyes before you investigated
 this Base ?A. Yes, sir.
COURT:
Q. At the time that you inform[ed] the accused of his
constitutional rights particularly his right to be
assisted by counsel, did you personally inform him
that before you investigate him, he has the right
to be assisted by counsel of his choice?
WITNESS:
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did he inform you that he will be assisted by
counsel?
A. He told me he could not secure a services (sic) of a
lawyer during that time.
Q. But did he inform you [of] the name of his lawyer
whom he wanted to represent him?
   

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

A. No, sir.
Q. How did the name of Atty. Reyes come into the
picture?
A. Because we know that said statement will not be
accepta ble in court if the accused is to be
investigated and is not assisted by a lawyer, that
is why we have Atty. Reyes called and presented
him to the witness if he will acceptAtty. Reyes.
COURT:
Q. And did the accused accept the services of Atty.
Reyes when you told him that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Atty. Reyes first confer with the accused?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. During all the time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there an occasion when Atty. Reyes would
advise the accused not to answer any question
that you pro- founded?
A. I cannot remember, sir.
Q. Is there any occasion when the witness first
ask[ed] the opinion of Atty. Reyes whether he
should answer the question or not?
A. Yes, sir.
COURT:
  Proceed.
ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q. You will admit Mr. Witness that Atty. Reyes’
name came into the picture because of your
knowledge that this statement would not be
acceptable to court (sic) if the accused is not
assisted by counsel is it not?
WITNESS:
A. Yes, sir. If he is a suspect.
Q. So, did I get you right Mr. Witness that the
assistance of Atty. Romeo T. Reyes is through
your insistence and not thru the request of the
accused?

179

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 179

People vs. Base

ATTY. CRESCINI:
  Objection, Your honor. There is no showing of
insistence on the part of the witness. It assumes a
fact not testified.
COURT:
  Reform your question.
ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q. Do I get you right Mr. Witness that Atty. Romeo
T. Reyes’ name was brought to the 217th PC
 Company to assist the accused Elberto Base
because of your knowle dge that this statement is
not acceptable to court if not assisted by [a]
lawyer?
ATTY. CRESCINI:
  Objection Your Honor. Already answered.
COURT:
Q. It was upon your initiative and not the accused
that the services of Atty. Reyes [was secured] to
assist him in your investigation?
WITNESS:
A. Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q. So it is not the accused, would you agree with me,
it was you who requested?
ATTY. CRESCINI:
  Objection Your Honor. Already answered.
ATTY. HERMOSO :
  This is only a follow-up question.
COURT:
  Reform and make it clear.
ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q. According to you a while ago, it is upon your
initiative that Atty. Romeo T. Reyes went to the
217th PC Company to assist the accused?
WITNESS:
A. I called for him. I was not yet sure if he will assist
the acc used because he was not sure if the accused
will commit and the accused consented.
Q. Did the accused consented (sic)?
A. He consented.

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, what was the condition, body
and mind of the accused at the time he was being
investigated?
A He was in good condition, sir.
Q. Are you sure of that?
40
A. Yes, sir.

Even more revealing on the voluntaries in the taking

of accused- applicant's is the following testimony of
Atty. Romeo T. Reyes who was with the accused and
assisted him during the taking thereof:

ATTY. CRESCINI:
Q. Now, on that date, sometime at about 8:00 in the
evening, do you recall having been requested to
assist to(sic) a person under custodial
investigation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And can you recall the name of that person whom
you assisted?
A. I think Elberto Base.
Q. And if you see that person and having so
requested, did you accommodate the request to
assist him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who in particular requested you to give
assistance to El- berto Base?
A. Iwas made to understand that I was invited by
the company commander of the 217th PC
Company in Barangay Namunga, Rosario,
Batangas and the invitation was extended by a
policeman and two (2) PC soldiers whose name I
can no longer recall.
Q. But you can recall the name of the company
commander of the 217th PC Company?
A. Well, I understand he is no longer the executive
officer who attended me and brought me to the
place where Base was. I can’t recall the name.
Q. Did you go to the 217th PC Company?
________________

40 TSN, 10 July 1991, pp. 17-27; italics supplied.

181

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 181

People vs. Base

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you able to see that person, Elberto Base?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where in particular did you see him?
A. He was at the investigation room at the time I
arrived.
Q. If you see him again, will you be able to identify
him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you look inside this Courtroom and point to
him if he is present?
A. Mr. Base is the one wearing a maong type shirt.
Q. About what time in the evening of February 8,
1990 did they go to you when you went to the
headquarters to assist him?
A. The team that invited me arrived past 7:30 in the
evening, after having our supper.
Q. Were you able to talk to him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What about?
A. Well, I told him about the gravity of the offense of
which he is being investigated and also I informed
him of his constitutional right.
Q. From whom in particular did you come to know
about the matter and gravity of his offense?
A. The incident that took place was a public
knowledge in Rosario and I was apprised of the
facts and circums tances surrounding the
commission of the offense and I informed Mr.
 Base that you are being investigated of a very
grave offense.
Q. In what language did you confer with Mr. Base
more particularly as far as advising him of his
constitutional right is concerned?
A. In Tagalog, sir.
Q. And after so advising him about the gravity of the
of-fense for which he is being investigated as well
as his constitutional right, what did Mr. Base tell
you?
A. Well, he insists that he is willing to give a
voluntary statement.

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

Q. And did he in fact give a statement?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you present during the taking of his
statement?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know if after the taking of the statement if
Mr. Base is given the opportunity to read such
written statement?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I am showing to you the original of the statement
that purports to be the written statement of
Elberto Base consisting of four (4) pages, and may
I invite your attention to a signature appearing
above the typewritten name Atty. Romeo Reyes,
do you recognize that signature?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whose signature is that?
A. That is my signature, sir.
ATTY. CRESCINI:
  May I place on record that the witness has
 identified Exh. “B-9.” May I also invite your
attention to an initial appearing on the left hand
margin at the bottom of page 2. Whose initial is
that?
A. That is my initial, sir.
Q. How about this initial on page 3 at the left bottom
portion, whose initial is that?
A. That is my initial.
Q. And finally, I address your attention to the last
page to the signature appearing above the
typewritten name, Romeo Reyes, whose signature
is that?
A. That is my signature.
Q. Do you know why you were required by the
investigator to affix your signatures on each and
all pages?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why?
A. Just to show that I was present when the
statement on each and every page were taken.
Q. I address your attention to the signatures
appearing on page 2 above the typewritten name
Elberto Base marked

183

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 183

People vs. Base

  as Exhibits “B-6” and “B-7,” so you know whose

signat ures are those?
A Yes, sir.
Q. Whose signatures are those?
A. Those are the signatures of Elberto Base.
Q. May I also invite your attention to the signature
appearing on the fourth page marked as Exh. “B-
8” above the typewritten name Elberto Base,
whose signature is that?
A. That is the signature of Elberto Base.
Q. Why do you know that Exhibits “B-6,” “B-7” and
“B-8” are the signatures of the accused?
A. I was present when those signatures were affixed
by El-berto Base.
Q. It also appears that this statement was sworn to
on February 8, 1990 before Capt. Eduardo Zayde,
were you present when this was sworn to?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, let us go back to the taking of the statement.
How did Elberto Base give this statement?
A. He gave it in the vernacular.
Q. And the manner in which he gave this statement?
A. Casual manner.
Q. Was it voluntary?
A. Voluntary.
Q. The very first portion of this statement, Exh, “B,”
started with a narration by the investigator for
some of the cons titutional rights of Elberto Base.
Were you present when this was done?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And all the answers, was in the vernacular, were
these given by Elberto?
A. Yes, sir.
ATTY. CRESCINI:
  That will be all, Your Honor, just two additional
questions.

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

Q. Testifying before this Honorable Court in his

defense, the accused Elberto Base alleged not only
that he was not assisted by lawyer, that no lawyer
was presented and healso manifested that he was
in the investigation room and even in the course
 thereof he was maltreated and that his lips were
wounded, he had a broken tooth and a broken
bone at the back. Now, in the course of your
staying at the 217th PC Company, he said you
arrived at around 7:00 until the conclusion of his
statement, did you notice any maltreatment of this
accused Elberto Base?
A. I don’t (sic) notice anything.
Q. Up to what time did you stay there Atty. Reyes at
the headquarters of the PC?
A. I stayed there past 12:00 o’clock.
Q. From that time of your arrival sometime at 7:20
in the evening until your departure at past 12:00
o’clock did you notice any force exerted or applied
on the person of El- berto Base in the course of the
investigation?
A. There is no force exerted against Base.
Q. Did you notice any injury in (sic) his person?
41
A. I did not notice any injury, sir.

Like Sgt. Mercado, Atty. Reyes remained constant

and steadfast despite intense grilling by defense
counsel on cross-examination:

ATTY. HERMOSO :
Q. Alright, you said on February 8, 1990 at around
7:30p.m. a team from the 217th PC Company
came to your house, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many persons came to your house then?
A. I think more than five (5).
Q. You cannot say even the number of these persons
who came to your house?
A. I cannot because 7:30 was dark and it was a black
out during that time they arrived.

_______________

41 TSN, 26 August 1991, pp. 6-15; italics supplied.

 185

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 185

People vs. Base

Q. And these persons who came to your house, did

you allow them to enter your house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many persons?
A. I think three (3).
Q. Do you know these persons who entered your
house?
A. I can no longer remember the name, but I am very
sure there was one (1) policeman who was with
them.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
Q. Now, the moment these three (3) persons entered
your house, what was their purpose in going to
your house, did they inform you what was their
purpose in going to your house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What?
A. They extended to me an invitation to go to the
camp of the 217th PC Co. in Barangay Namunga,
Rosario, Batangas.
Q. So, the three policemen, what do you mean by
extended to you an invitation?
A. I was told that the company commander is
requesting my presence.
Q. Now, before this incident happened, before you
were invited to the 217th PC Co. do you already
know this incident?
A. Yes, sir, they informed me.
Q. Before you were informed by these policemen who
came to your house are you aware already of this
incident of the killing of Julianito Luna?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Since when have you been aware of this incident,
 Mr. Witness?
A. Since the very morning, that was the news
already in town.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q. You went with them to the 217th PC Company?
A. Yes, sir.

186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

Q. What vehicle did you use going to that

headquarters?
A. P.C. vehicle.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
ATTY. HERMOSO:
Q. Now, what happened when you arrived at the
217th PC Company?
A. I was introduced to Elberto Base.
Q. What happened after the introduction?
A. Well, I was told, that Elberto Base will give a
voluntary statement. I asked the investigating
officer in the person of Captain Zayde, if I can be
allowed to talk to Elberto Base before the actual
taking of his statement.
Q. So, Mr. Witness, when you said that you be
allowed to talk with Mr. Base before the actual
taking of the statement, when you arrived there,
there was no statement yet taken?
A. No statement yet.
Q. Now, Mr. Witness, who introduced you to Mr.
Elberto Base?
A. The company commander, whose name I forgot
and| Capt. Zayde the investigating officer.
Q. And where was that introduction made?
A. In the investigation room.
Q. Who were present in the investigation room?
A. Mr. Base, Capt. Zayde and a PC officer also who is
in front of the typewriter.
Q. What was that person doing in front of the
typewriter?
A. Well, he was then ready to take the statement of
Mr.
Q. Do you know this person who is in front of the
typewriter?
A. Ya, yes.
Q. What is the name, Mr. Witness?
A. A certain Sgt. Mercado.
Q. How about you, do you know if he knows you, this
Sgt. Mercado?
A. Before the incident, I don’t think so.

187

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 187

People vs. Base

Q. Now, this Sgt. Mercado, is not included in the

person who fetched you in your house?
A. I could not remember.
Q. Now, when you requested that you first talk with
Mr. El- berto Base, were your request granted?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you talk with Mr. Elberto Base?
A. Well, inside the investigation room also.
Q. And inside the investigation room aside from you
and Mr. Elberto Base while you were talking
thereat, was there any person inside?
A. Capt. Zayde was out in the room.
Q. How about the person who was typing?
A. He was still there.
Q. Aside from the person who was in front of the
typewriter, was there another person inside the
investigation room?
A. There was none.
Q. And the accused while he was in the investigation
room not in handcuffs?
A. He was not handcuff (sic).
Q. Now, you said that you arrived there at 8:30 in
the evening of February 8, 1990, and according to
you the investigation officer have (sic) not yet
taken the statement of Elberto Base, is that
correct?
A. Actually there were papers already in the
typewriter and I requested him to start all over
again.
Q. And who was that person you informed to start all
over again?
A. Sgt. Mercado.
Q. And did he start all over again?
A. Yes, sir, after I have conferred with Mr. Elberto
Base.
Q. I am showing to you this alleged Extra-judicial
Statement which was taken on February 8, 1990,
at 217th PC Company at around 8:00 p.m. in the
presence of Atty. Romeo Reyes. Would you kindly
tell this Honorable Court if your statement a
while ago that your request from Sgt. Mercado to
start all over again was followed?
A. Yes, sir.

188

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

Q. So, actually the start of the giving of the

statement of theaccused Elberto Base commenced
after 8:30?
ATTY. CRESCINI:
  Objection, if your Honor, please, the witness did
not fix the period at exactly 8:30, he said around
8:30. So it’s in that neighborhood. It would be or
should be around 8:30.
COURT:
  To the best of your recollection, at about what
time did the investigator I am referring to Sgt.
Mercado, start taking down the written statement
of Elberto Base?
A. Sir, in my presence?
Q. In your presence?
A. It was past 8:00 o’clock already, sir.
Q. Can you not give a more specific time considering
your previous testimony that you arrived in the
camp at around 8:30 in the evening?
A. Maybe past 8:30, Your Honor.
Q. You are not certain?
A. I am not very sure of the time, Your Honor.
Q. When the investigation started taking down the
statem ent of Elberto Base in your presence, you
did not cons ult your watch to determine what
time the investigation started?
A. I did not, Your Honor, but I am very sure now
that because of my conference that I have with
Elberto Base the actual taking of the statement
took place about 8:30 t o 9:00 o’clock in the
evening.
COURT:
  So you are not certain as to the exact time?
A. I am very certain, Your Honor.Q. And that was
per your previous declaration 8:30 in the evening?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. After arriving in the camp you hate (sic) to talk
with the commanding officer and Capt. Zayde?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And only after such conference were you
introduced with accused Elberto Base?
A. Conference with himself.
 189

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 189

People vs. Base

Q. With Capt. Zayde and the commanding officer?

A. I have no conference with Capt. Zayde with
Elberto Base, only.
Q. By conference, I meant that you talk (sic) with the
comm anding officer and Capt. Zayde before you
had your conference with the accused?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for how long did your conference with the
accused last?
A. About 20 minutes, sir.
Q. It was only after the conference with the accused
that his statement was taken again?
A. Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERMOSO:
  Now, Mr. Witness, you said you were able to talk
with Mr. Base after he was introduced to you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the first thing you utter (sic) when he was
introduced to you, is that, I am Atty. Reyes?
A. Yes, sir, I introduced myself.
Q. That you were requested by Capt. Zayde to help
you in the investigation?
A. That’s not exactly (sic).
Q. You said, that is not exactly, what was the exact
words? (sic)
A. I could not recall exactly the words that I used but
I told him that I was requested to assist you in the
conduct of the investigation.
COURT:
  What else did you tell him?
A. And I told him if he has a counsel of his own. And
he said, none. I further asked him if he is willing
 to be ass isted by counsel in the giving of his
statement consider- (sic) the gravity of the offense
for which he is being investigated.
Q. Any further statement that you gave?
A. After saying that he is willing to make use of my
assistance, I informed him of his constitutional
rights and af-

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

  ter I have informed him I asked him if he is still

willing to give a free and voluntary statement.
Q. You said that you informed him of his
constitutional rights, what constitutional rights
did you inform the accused?
A. That he is still presumed to be innocent, that he is
entitled to a lawyer of his own choice and that it is
his right to remain silent.
Q. The rights that you told him you explained to
him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are those the rights that you explained to him?
A. And that his statement that will be given will be
used against him. That is all that I informed the
accused, Your Honor.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
Q. Now, I noticed in this alleged Extra-judicial
investigation, Mr. Witness, that there was an
erasure in the name Conrado Reyes, do you have
a hand in the changing of your name in the first
name, Mr. Witness?
A. Yes, sir, this is my correction.
Q. You requested correction of your name after it
was alr eady typewritten?
A. Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERMOSO:
  I think that would be all for the witness. Your
Honor.
COURT:
  You said that you informed the accused of his
right to remain silent, will you demonstrate to the
Court how you explained that right of the accused
to Elberto Base?
A. Yes, sir, I told him in the vernacular that, “Ikaw
ay puedeng huwag magsalita at sumagot sa mga
katanun-gang (sic) ng investigador dito sa
imbistigasyong ito hanggang sa ikaw ay huwag na
(sic) magbigay ng Salaysay sapagkat ito ay
maaring gamitin laban sa iyo.”
Q. That’s how you explained to the accused?
A. Yes, Your Honor, on that particular right to
remain sil ent.
Q. For how many minutes did the investigation last?
A. I think it’s almost three (3) hours.

191

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 191

People vs. Base

Q. In the course of the investigation, when a

particular question is asked to the accused, you,
as a counsel, during that proceedings, did you at
any particular moment advise your client not to
answer that question because it will be very
detrimental to him?
A. There are times before the actual taking of the
statement, I interviewed Mr. Base and after
narrating to me the incident I told him if that will
be the substance of his testimony to be given to the
investigator and he told me, yes. And on the basis
of that assurance, will (sic) I allow him to answer
questions within the context of the narration that
he gave to me, although there are times when I
have to caution him during our conference that
this is dangerous. There are statements that are
dangerous and I cautioned him to beware.
Q. You have not yet answered my question. Repeat
the question.
Q. In the course of the investigation, when a
particular question is asked to the accused, you,
as a counsel, during that proceedings, did you at
any particular moment advise your client not to
answer that question because it will be very
detrimental to him?
A. I cautioned him to think first before he answer
(sic).
Q. But your observation was not included in the
investigation conducted by the investigator?
A. It was not included.
Q. You did not request that this advice to the
accused be given to the accused?
A. I did not, Your Honor.
Q. After the statement of the accused was taken then
by the investigator, you and the accused together
read the statement again?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. Read the statement for the first time?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. And did you discuss this written statement to the
accused before he signed it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you advise him not to sign the statement?

192

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

A. Well, I told him if he is still willing to sign the

statement.
Q. You did not answer the question of the court?
42
A. I did not advise him to sign.
The foregoing testimonial excerpts vividly show that
Atty. Reyes’ participation during the custodial
investigation of accused was anything but
perfunctory. Much less could it be argued that he was
remiss in his duties to assist the accused. On the
contrary, they in fact underscore his active
participation in the proceedings.
To support his claim that his sworn statement was
irregularly taken, accused-appellant further insists
that the same was obtained through force and paints
a graphic picture of torture in the hands of fifteen
persons who43
repeatedly beat him up with gun barrels
and butts as a result of which he allegedly lost a
tooth and sustained contusions,
44
a busted mouth and
broken bones at his back.
We remain unpersuaded.
For all accused-appellant’s protestations to the
contrary, his tale of coercion and torture in the hands
of his interrogators taxes credulity vis-à-vis his
testimonial declarations that despite supposedly
being severely mauled and sustaining injuries as a
result thereof he did not: 1.] complain to the senior
officer of his interrogators about how
45
he was treated
during his custodial investigation; 2.] tell his wife of
his injuries when she arrived the next day nor did 46
he
ask her to take him to a hospital for treatment; 3.]
inform his lawyer of the alleged injuries he sustained
at the hands of his interrogators
47
although he had
several opportunities to do so; 4.] inform his lawyer
that he was forced to sign the sworn state-

_________________

42 TSN, 26 August 1991, pp. 18-36; italics supplied.

43 TSN, 12 August 1991, pp. 23, 38.
44 Ibid., pp. 16-18; 39.
45 Id., p. 39.
46 Id., p. 40.
47 Id., pp. 40-41.

193

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 193

 People vs. Base

48
ment; 5.] present any medical certificate to prove the
existence of his alleged injuries. Topping accused-
appellant’s incredible tale of torture is his almost two-
year silence on the incident which 49
only came to light
when he testified in court. Accused-appellant
explains away these50lapses as the products of his ‘fear’
of his interrogators. However, his failure to speak up
and disclose his fear at the earliest opportunity
subjects to serious doubt
51
the reality and substance of
that supposed fear. Along the same vein, accused-
appellant’s unsupported claims of physical abuse in
the hands of his interrogators simply ring hollow in
the absence of other proof to corroborate them. Indeed
—

“. . . bare assertions of maltreatment by the police

authorities in extracting confessions from the accused are
not sufficient in view of the standing52 rule enunciated in
53
the
cases of People v. Mada-I
54
Santalani People v. Balane and
People v. Villanueva that where the defendants did not
present evidence of compulsion, or duress nor violence on
their person; where they failed to complain to the officer who
administered their oaths; where they did not institute any
criminal or administrative action against their alleged
intimidators for maltreatment; where there appeared to be
no marks of violence on their bodies; and where they did not
have themselves examined by a reputable physician to
buttress their claim, all these were considered
55
by this Court
as factors indicating voluntariness.”

Going by accused-appellant’s account, the Court

likewise finds it odd for accused-appellant’s
interrogators who picked him up for questioning as he
disembarked
56
from a bus at Mataas na Lupa, Lipa
City to take a detour by first bringing

________________

48 Id., p. 52.
49 Id., p. 53.
50 Id., pp. 39, 53.
51 People v. Logronio, 214 SCRA 519 (1992).
 52 93 SCRA 317 (1979).
53 123 SCRA 614 (1983).
54 128 SCRA 488 (1983).
55 People v. Damaso, 190 SCRA 595 (1990); italics supplied.
56 TSN, 12 August 1991, pp. 10-13.

194

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

him to57 Lodlod, Lipa City at the house of Amelia

Quizon58
where he was bound hand and foot at gun
point, loaded on a top down jeep and then brought to 59
the 217th PC Detachment in Rosario, Batangas
instead of being forthwith taken to the PC Camp for
questioning after being apprehended at the bus stop.
Settled is the rule that evidence, to be believed, must
not only proceed from the mouth 60
of a credible witness,
but must be credible in itself. Suffice it to state in
this regard that such circumstances narrated by
accused-appellant only tends to underscore the
incongruity of his tale of torture.
A circumspect scrutiny
61
of accused-appellant’s
Sinumpaang Salaysay clearly shows how he and his
co-accused planned the killing of the deceased as well
as the sequence of events before and after the
occurrence of the incident. These events could not
have been supplied either any of those interviewed by
the peace officers or by the peace officers themselves
because the said statement is replete with details
which only one who 62
has an intricate knowledge
thereof can supply. Verily—

“It remains only to note that the extrajudicial statements of

Romeo Jabil and Rufo Llenarasas are replete with details
and they corroborate and complement each other so
substantially that it is very difficult to suppose that the
statements had been merely derived from the creative
imagination of the police officers involved. The confessions,
63
in other words, have the ring of truth about them.”

________________
 57 Ibid., p. 13.
58 Id., pp. 13-14.
59 Id., pp. 36, 53.
60 People v. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, 15 March 1999,
304 SCRA 655, citing People v. Cayabyab, 274 SCRA 387 (1997);
People v. Salazar, 272 SCRA 481 (1997); People v. Salvatierra, 257
SCRA 489 (1996); People v. Lian, 255 SCRA 532 (1996).
61 Exhibit V and series.
62 People v. Ribadajo, 142 SCRA 637 (1986).
63 People v. Llenaresas, 248 SCRA 629 (1995).

195

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 195

People vs. Base

When, as in this case, “[a]n extrajudicial statement

satisfies the requirements of the Constitution, it
constitutes evidence of a high order because of the
strong presumption that no person of normal mind
would deliberately and knowingly confess to a64 crime
unless prompted by truth and conscience. The
defense has the burden of proving that it was
extracted65 by means of force, duress, promise or
reward.” Unfortunately for accused-appellant, he
failed to overcome the overwhelming prosecution
evidence to the contrary.
Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides
that “[a]n extrajudicial confession made by an accused
shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.” In this
case the prosecution presented other evidence to
prove the two elements of corpus delicti, to wit: 1.] a
certain result has been proven, i.e. a man has 66
died;
and 2.] some person is criminally responsible.
In this case, it is indubitable that a crime has been
committed and that the other pieces of prosecution
evidence clearly show that accused-appellant had
conspired
67
with the other accused to commit the
crime. In fact, he was seen by the prosecution
witnesses in the company of his other co-accused.
Furthermore, Atty. Romeo T. Reyes and the
interrogator, Sgt. Romulo Mercado, testified to the
voluntariness of his confession. In this regard, it must
be stressed that the aforementioned rule merely
requires that there should be some other evidence
“tending to show the68 commission of the crime apart
from the confession:”

_________________

64 People v. Montiero, 246 SCRA 786 (1995); People v. Alvarez,

201 SCRA 364 (1991).
65 People v. Edwin De Vera y Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 128966, 18
August 1999, p. 31, 312 SCRA 640, citing People v. Dasig, 221
SCRA 549 (1993).
66 People v. Lorenzo, 240 SCRA 624, (1995).
67 Exhibit V, pp. 2-3.
68 People v. Edwin De Vera y Garcia, supra, citing People v.
Lorenzo, supra.

196

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

All told, an overall scrutiny of the records of this case

leads us to no other conclusion but the correctness of
the trial court in holding that the accused-appellant
and his co-accused committed murder. What remains
to be determined is whether the elements of the crime
have been established.
Conspiracy is alleged in the information charging
the accused-appellant of the crime. Conspiracy—

“. . . exists when two or more persons come to an agreement

concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it. Direct proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be
inferred from the acts of the accused prior to, during or
subsequent to the incident. Such acts must point to a joint
purpose, concert of action or community of interest. Hence,
the victim need not be actually hit by each of the
conspirators
69
for the act of one of them is deemed the act of
all.”
70
A perusal of the Sinumpaang Salaysay would
readily show accused-appellant’s complicity in the
slaying of the victim. In the sworn statement, he
narrated that a week before the killing, he was with
the assassins in 71conducting a surveillance of the
victim’s residence. He also declared that he was with
Frederick Lazaro and Eduardo Patrocinio when the
jeep with Plate 72Number CFU-178 was borrowed by
the two accused and that he was with them when
they left Pasay City bound for73 San Juan, Batangas,
the day the victim was shot. He likewise averred
that he was left on a shed in Ibaan, Batangas when
Lazaro and Patrocinio returned to Rosario, Batangas
and that he was with them when they 74went to the
house of Jun Vale at San Jose, Batangas; from there
they proceeded to Lodlod, Lipa City where they left
the jeep in

_______________

69 People v. Eleuterio Costelo, et al., G.R. No. 134311, 13 October

1999, p. 21, 316 SCRA 895, citing People v. Maldo, G.R. No. 131347,
19 May 1999, 307 SCRA 424; italics supplied.
70 Exhibit V and series.
71 Exhibit V, pp. 2-3.
72 Ibid., p. 2.
73 Id.
74 Id. p. 3

197

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 197

People vs. Base

75
the premises of Amelia Quizon’s house. Finally,
accused-appellant admitted that he was told to
recover the jeep
76
in Lodlod, Lipa City on the day he
was arrested.
The one-week interval when accused-appellant and
his coconspirators first cased the victim’s house up to
the actual date of the killing underscores the presence
of evident premeditation. For this aggravating
circumstance to be considered, there must be proof of
the following elements thereof, i.e., 1.] the time the
offenders determined to commit the crime; 2.] an act
manifestly indicating that they clung to their
determination; and 3.] a sufficient lapse of time
between determination and execution 77 to allow
reflection upon the consequences of the act.
Treachery is also alleged in the information
indicting the accused. There is treachery “[w]hen the
offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution without risk to himself arising from 78
the
defense which the offended party might make.” The
essence of alevosia is the swift and unexpected attack
on the unarmed victim without 79
the slightest
provocation on the victim’s part. The fact that
treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked from
behind does not mean it can not also 80
be appreciated if
the attack is frontally launched. Even a frontal
attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and the
victim

________________

75 Id.
76 Id.
77 People v. Pedro Academia, Jr. y Baldado, G.R. No. 129251, 18
May 1999, p. 7, 307 SCRA 229, citing People v. Baydo, 273 SCRA
526 (1997).
78 Article 14, par. 16, Revised Penal Code.
79 People v. Romeo Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, 26 May 1999, 307
SCRA 594, citing People v. Lascota, 275 SCRA 591 (1997); People v.
Quinao, 269 SCRA 495 (1997) and People v. Ombrog, 268 SCRA 93
(1997).
80 People v. Guillermo, G.R. No. 113787, 28 January 1999, 301
SCRA 257.

198

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

81
is unarmed. In this case, the suddenness of the
shooting without the slightest provocation from the
victim who was unarmed and had no opportunity to
defend himself,
82
clearly qualified the crime with
treachery.
At the time the crime was committed on February
8, 1990, murder was punishable by reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to death. Considering the
presence of two aggravating circumstances with no
mitigating circumstance, the maximum penalty of
death would be imposable under Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code. However, since the offense was
committed during the suspension of the imposition of
the death penalty and prior 83
to its reimposition under
Republic Act No. 7659,84
the imposable penalty is
reclusion perpetua. This penalty is single and
indivisible, thus, it shall be imposed regardless of any
85
attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
The sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos
awarded by the court a quo as civil indemnity ex
delicto, without further need of proof of damage, is
proper as it follows prevailing jurisprudence
86
and is in
line with the policy of the Court. With regard to
actual damages, the trial court found that the wife of
the victim spent Twenty Five Thousand (P25,000.00)
Pesos for food and drinks during the deceased’s ten-
day wake;

_______________

81 People v. Chavez, 278 SCRA 230 (1997); People v. Dansal, 275

SCRA 549 (1997); People v. Tampon, 258 SCRA 115 (1996).
82 People v. Jose Biñas @ Nestor Biñas, G.R. No. 121630, 8
December 1999, p. 37, 320 SCRA 22, citing People v. Rodolfo
Atrejenio y Libanan, G.R. No. 120160, 13 July 1999, 310 SCRA 229,
citing People v. Taclan, G.R. No. 123109, 17 June 1999, 308 SCRA
368.
83 Took effect on December 31, 1993.
84 People v. Pulusan, 290 SCRA 353 (1998).
85 People v. Abdul, G.R. No. 128074, 13 July 1999, 310 SCRA
246; People v. Demetrio Nuñez y Dubduban, G.R. No. 128875, 8
July 1999, 310 SCRA 168; Article 63, Revised Penal Code.
86 People v. Virgilio Borreros, G.R. No. 125185, 5 May 1999, 306
SCRA 680, citing People v. Espanola, 271 SCRA 689 (1997); People
v. Gregorio, 255 SCRA 380 (1996); citing People v. Sison, 189 SCRA
643 (1990); People v. Solis, 291 SCRA 529 (1998).
 199

VOL. 329, MARCH 30, 2000 199

People vs. Base

Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos for funeral services

and transportation 87
expenses of Five Thousand
(P5,000.00) Pesos. Since accused-appellant does not
question this finding of the trial court, he is liable to
private complainants
88
in the said amount as actual
damages.
This Court, however, can not sustain the award of
moral damages89
in the absence of sufficient evidence to
support it. It is elementary that for moral damages
to be properly adjudicated in criminal offenses
resulting in physical injuries,
90
there must be a factual
basis for the award thereof.
WHEREFORE, with the sole MODIFICATION
that the award of One Hundred Thousand
(P100,000.00) Pesos by way of moral damages be
DELETED, the Decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan

and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—Under the exclusionary rule known as the

“fruit of the poisonous tree,” once the primary source
(the “tree”) is shown to have been unlawfully
obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the
“fruit”) derived from it is also inadmissible. (People vs.
Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 [1995])
Evidence secured on the occasion of an
unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and
should be excluded for being

______________

87 RTC Decision, p. 10; Rollo, p. 99.

 88 Dionisia Artajos v. Court of Appeals and People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 131113, 21 April 1999, p. 11, 306 SCRA 317.
89 People v. Antonio Eribal, G.R. No. 127662, 25 March 1999, p.
10, 305 SCRA 341.
90 People v. Pacifico Barellano @ “Junior,” G.R. No. 121204, 2
December 1999, p. 26, 319 SCRA 567, citing People v. Loreto Noay,
296 SCRA 292 (1998), citing People v. Alas, 274 SCRA 310 (1997).

200

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Base

the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. (People vs.

Montilla, 285 SCRA 703 [1998])
The argument that the sworn statement of the
accused was given without the assistance of counsel
will not exculpate him where he was convicted on the
basis of other evidence and not on the basis of the
tainted exhibit. (People vs. Cañales, 297 SCRA 667
[1998])

——o0o——

201

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.