People v. Navaja Digest 220 SCRA 624 GR. No. 104044

People v. Navaja

G.R. No 104044 March 30, 1993

Ponente: Davide, Jr., J

Disputable presumption: Suppression of Evidence

Facts:

1. The Accused Alexander Navaja was convicted of the crime of selling a prohibited drug, 'shabu' under RA 6425. The authorities set up a buy bust operation but he managed to elude arrest after the transaction. Accused was subsequently arrested during a hearing of the Habeas Corpus case filed by his mother, about a year after.

2. In his appeal the accused contended that the court erred in convicting him as only one of the witnesses among 5 (of the policemen who accosted him) were presented by the prosecution.

Issue: Whether or not the non-presentation of the other witnesses gave rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence

HELD:

The non-presentation of the corroborative witnesses did not constitute suppression of evidence and such would not be fatal the prosecution's case. The rule is settled that the adverse presumption is not applicable when ---

1) suppression is not willful

2) the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative

3) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties

4) the suppresion is an exercise of privilege

Moreover, the Court has consistently held in drugs cases that absent any proof to the contrary, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty. The accused has also failed to present proof of an ulterior motive on the part of the police officers.

Note: This case digest/summary may serve as a ticker or memory aid. Reading of the full text of the case is still highly recommended. 

People vs. Ladao Digest

People v. Ladao

G.R. No. 100940-41 November 27, 2001

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.:

Confession

Facts:

1. The accused-appellant Ladao was among those apprehended by the Caloocan Police on the night of February 9, 1990, in connection with the rampant robbery and hold-up incidents in Caloocan. In the ensuing investigation conducted by Police Inspector Antonio Paras and Ricardo Concepcion, accused-appellant and his co-accused executed, with the assistance of Atty. Juanito R. Crisostomo of the Public Attorney's Office, Caloocan City, their extra-judicial confession admitting authorship of the crime of robbery with homicide.

2. In his extra-judicial confession, accused-appellant declared that he and his four co-accused, together with three others who were able to escape, held up the passenger jeepney driven by the victim. He further stated that they tied the hands and feet of the victim and threw him into the estero not knowing that the place was filled with water. Using the jeepney of the victim, they plied the Recto-Caloocan route and picked up passengers whom they likewise robbed. Thereafter, they abandoned the jeepney somewhere.

3. Accused-appellant Henry Soriano appeals from the lower court's decision convicting him and his four co-accused of the crime of robbery with homicide.

Issue: W/N the extrajudicial confession is admissible against the accused

YES. Settled is the rule that once the prosecution has shown that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession was involuntary and untrue. The burden is on the accused to destroy this presumption.  A confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat, or promise of reward or leniency. The exculpatory tone of accused-appellant’s confession is demonstrative of its voluntariness rather than compulsion.

Accused-appellant failed to present any proof that force and violence were employed to coerce him to sign the extra-judicial confession.  He did not submit himself to an examination by a physician to bolster his claim.  Neither did he complain of the alleged torture to his relatives or to Prosecutor Neptali Aliposa when he swore to the truth of his statement.  Likewise, he filed no criminal complaint or administrative charge against the police officers concerned. 

Moreover, the language of the confession and the details in it could only come from a participant in the commission of the crime.  Every aspect thereof jibes with the sworn statements given by his co-accused.  His confession reflects the manner in which the crime was committed; the kind of weapon used; the place where they boarded the victim’s jeepney; the role of each accused; and their relative positions inside the jeep.  Furthermore, accused-appellant's admission that they threw the victim in an estero filled with water confirms the result of the post mortem examination indicating that the victim drowned to death.

Valid confession

Accused-appellant’s allegation that he and his co-accused were not assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation is belied by the affidavit executed by Atty. Crisostomo attesting to the voluntariness of accused-appellant’s confession and the legal assistance he rendered during the investigation. Moreover, Atty. Crisostomo testified that he informed accused-appellant and his co-accused of their constitutional rights and assisted them during the custodial investigation. As such, his confession constitutes evidence of the highest order since it is backed up by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless he is prompted by truth and his conscience.

Note that apart from the extra-judicial confession, the conviction is supported by other competent evidence.  Hilda Castro’s testimony, positively identifying accused-appellant and his co-accused as the persons who robbed them between Tayuman and Blumentritt, is on all fours with the confession of accused-appellant and that of his co-accused that after dumping the victim in the estero, they used the latter’s jeepney and robbed the passengers they picked up in the Recto-Caloocan route and vice-versa.  In fact, Hilda Castro’s bag was recovered from the abandoned jeepney of the victim, which shows that accused-appellant and his companions were the same persons who took away the jeepney of the victim and killed him, and thereafter staged another hold-up where Hilda Castro happened to be one of the victims.

People v Amaca 277 SCRA 215 Digest

People vs. Amaca

GR No. 110129 August 11, 1997
Ponente: Panganiban, J.:

Offer of compromise in Criminal Cases; Res Gestae

 Facts:

1.    Accused Amaca and another known as “Ogang” were charged for shooting Wilson Vergara. During the trial, the prosecution presented Dr. Edgar Pialago, a resident physician on duty when the victim was brought to the hospital after the shooting. The doctor testified that he was able to attend to the victim who had undergone a surgical operation conducted by another doctor. At that time, the major organs of the victim were no longer functioning normally, while his pancreas was likewise injured due to the 2 gunshot wounds at his back. The victim was admitted at 10:45PM but expired the following evening at 10PM. According to Dr. Pialago, even with immediate medical attention, the victim could not survive the wounds he sustained.

2.     Another witness testified, PO Mangubat,  a police officer , who interviewed the victim (Wilson Vergara) right after the shooting. Mangubat  testified that he saw the victim already on board a Ford Fiera pick-up ready for transport to the hospital. He inquired from the victim about the incident, and the former answered he was shot by CVO Amaca and Ogang. Upon query why he was shot, the victim said he did not know the reason why he was shot. Upon being asked as to his condition, the victim said that he was about to die.  He was able to reduce into writing the declaration of the victim and made latter affixed his thumb mark with the use of his own blood in the presence of Wagner Cardenas, the brother of the City Mayor. 

3.       Segundina Vergara, mother of the victim, and her son-in-law Jose Lapera both desisted from further prosecution of the case. the former because of the "financial help" extended by the accused to her family, and the latter because Segundina had already "consented to the amicable settlement of the case." Despite this, the Department of Justice found the existence of a prima facie case based on the victim's ante mortem statement.

4.       The lower court convicted Amaca on the basis of the victim's ante mortem statement to Police Officer Mangubat positively identifying accused. The dying declaration was deemed sufficient to overcome the accused’s  defense of alibi. However, due to the voluntary desistance of the victim's mother from further prosecuting the case, the court a quo declined to make a finding on the civil liability of the appellant.

Issue:  1) Whether or not offer of compromise is admissible against the accused

YES. The "financial help" when viewed as an offer of compromise may be deemed as additional proof to demonstrate appellant's criminal liability. The victim's mother desisted from prosecuting the case in consideration of the "financial help" extended to her family by the accused-appellant. 

It is a well-settled rule that that the desistance of the victim's complaining mother does not bar the People from prosecuting the criminal action, but it does operate as a waiver of the right to pursue civil indemnity. Hence, in effectively waiving her right to institute an action to enforce the civil liability of accused-appellant, she also waived her right to be awarded any civil indemnity arising from the criminal prosecution. This waiver is bolstered by the fact that neither she nor any private prosecutor in her behalf appealed the trial court's refusal to include a finding of civil liability. But the heirs, if there are any may file an independent civil action to recover damages for the death of Wilson Vergara.

Issue (2): Whether or not  the dying declaration of victim should be admitted

YES.  The victim’s dying declaration is admissible.

A dying declaration is worthy of belief because it is highly unthinkable for one who is aware of his impending death to accuse, falsely or even carelessly, anyone of being responsible for his foreseeable demise. Indeed, "when a person is at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the

truth." This is the rationale for this exception to the hearsay rule under Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The elements of such exception are: (1) the deceased made the declaration conscious of his impending death; (2) the declarant would have been a competent witness had he survived; (3) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (4) the declaration is offered in a criminal case where the declarant's death is the subject of inquiry; and (5) the declaration is complete in itself. All these concur in the present case.

Finally, Police Officer Mangubat is presumed under the law to have regularly performed his duty. There is nothing in the circumstances surrounding his investigation of the crime which shows any semblance of irregularity or bias, much less an attempt to frame Amaca. Even the accused testified that he had no previous misunderstanding with Police Officer Mangubat and knew no reason why the latter would falsely testify against him.

Declarant is a competent witness

The serious nature of the victim's injuries did not affect his credibility as a witness since said injuries, as previously mentioned, did not cause the immediate loss of his ability to perceive and to identify his shooter. 

Homicide only not murder

Appellant may be held liable only for homicide since treachery was not alleged in the Information, while evident premeditation and night time, although duly alleged, were not satisfactorily proven. The Information readily reveals that the killing was qualified only by evident premeditation. Treachery was not alleged in the information. It is  necessary to qualify the crime to murder. Treachery is an element of the crime. The Constitution requires that the accused must be informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation against him."The failure to allege treachery in the Information is a major lapse of the prosecution.

Moreover, treachery and night time may not be considered even as generic aggravating circumstances, because there is nothing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to convincingly show that the accused-appellant consciously and purposely adopted (1) such means of attack to render the victim defenseless and (2) the darkness of night to facilitate the commission of the crime, to prevent its discovery or even evade capture. 

People vs Lase 219 SCRA 584 Digest

People v. Lase

Offer of Compromise in Criminal Case

Facts:

1. Appellant was convicted of the murder of one Dante Huelva. Huelva was urinating on the roadside when accused appellant stabbed him in the back. This was witnessed by two people Sayson and Pangatihon. 

2. Accused-appellant interposed the defense of alibi and relied on the testimony of his principal witnesses to support his version that he was somewhere else and not at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing. 

3. During the trial, Godofreda Huelva, mother of the victim testified that accused-appellant offered to settle the case for the sum of P10,000.00. In his surrebuttal testimony, accused-appellant vaguely denied this offer of compromise. He, however, insinuated that he could offer a higher amount

RTC: The Trial court held him liable for the killing of Dante Huelva qualifying it to murder,

Issue: Whether or not the offer to settle the case should be admitted as evidence of guilt

YES. An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. The second paragraph of Section 27, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly provides that,'In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. Murder is not among those criminal cases that can be compromised. 

Treachery was proven but not evident premeditation

The crime was committed with treachery due to the sudden and unexpected attack on the victim, who was then urinating at the side of the road, with a deadly 7-inch Batangas knife. Accused-appellant consciously adopted this mode of attack to facilitate or insure the commission of the crime without risk to himself arising from any defensive or retaliatory act on the part of the victim. Evident premeditation was not duly established by the prosecution.

As to the delay in giving the witness' statement

The failure of prosecution witness Pangantihon to immediately report the incident did not affect his credibility. His initial reluctance either due to unwillingness to be involved in or dragged into criminal investigations is understandable. 

People vs. Manalo Digest 219 SCRA 656

People v. Manalo

G.R.Nos. 96123-24 March 8, 1993

Melo, J.:

Object Evidence

Facts:

1. Accused Rolando Manalo  for shooting one Warlito Bonillo and one Carlito Diomampo with an unlicensed pistol Colt Caliber .45.

2. The conviction was the result of the filing of two (2) amended informations. The accused pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits the accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder in relation to PD 1728.

3. Witness Carlos Lacbay narrated that at about 5PM of Nov. 29, 1989 he visited one of the victims, Diomampo, in the latter's house where they conversed over some wine and camote regarding the latter's interest in buying a motorcycle. After 2 hours, witness Lacbay decided to leave, while Diomampo and a brother-in-law offered to accompany him home. After this, Lacbay rode on his service motorcycle while Diomampo and the other person (Bonilla) rode in tandem in their own motocycle.

4. When the group arrived at Bgy. San Rafael in San Pablo City at about 7 pm, and parked their motorcycles, accused Manalo (an acquaintance of both victims) arrived and invited the victims to his house for some drinks. The two acceded after insisting that Lacbay would go as he did, with them. As they were walking to accused house, Bonilla and Diamampao walked ahead, with accused following close by and Lacbay behind the latter.

5. After the victims entered the house of accused, the latter suddenly drew a .45 Caliber gun and shot Diomampo once in the head and then Bonilla on the temple about 3 meters from behind. Both died immediately, nevertheless, accused fired another shot at Diomampo. Lacbay who saw everything was so shocked. The accused told him that he shot both because Diomampo had impregnated his daughter, Dina Manalo. After this, accused asked Lacbay to dig, to which the latter refused. Finally, accused asked him not to leave the place as he would look for someone to do the digging. Lacbay took this chance to flee the scene. Subsequently, both the bodies of Bonilla and Diomampo were found buried in a shallow pit under the 'banggerahan' of accused' house.

6. The defense maintains the innocence of Manalo, arguing that he is merely a witness to the crime perpetrated by two unknown assailants. According to the defense' version of the story, it was these two unknown persons who killed both victims. Accordingle, the assailants were already waiting in the area for  Bonilla and Diomampo, then thereafter shot them.

RULING:

The court had examined the evidence and it found that it supported the judgement of the lower court.The accused banks on the alleged absence of physical evidence showing that accused fired a gun. The court held that this circumstance did not prove his innocence since even if a paraffin test would yield a negative result, it is still possible for one to have fired a gun and washed his hands thereafter.The court also recognized the great possibility that there will be no paraffin traces left in the hands when a bullet was fired from a .45 Caliber pistol, as held in the case of People vs. Rebullar (188 SCRA 838).

Finally, the lone witness to the crime, Lacbay has positively identified Manalo as the sole perpetrator of the killing. Lacbay can never be said to be a prejudiced witness since he had no other motive nor misunderstanding to maliciously testify against Manalo. The little delay in reporting the killings to the authorities was due to the shock, confusion and fear of Lacbay and that he had to wait ans consult with a relative who was a member of the Philippine marines.

More importantly, the accused Manalo has executed an extrajudicial statement admitting the killings but which he later on withdrew during the trial. Accused adopted two irreconciliable stands that is actually the heart of the case, rendering him unworthy of credit and belief. Accused also wrote several letters, one to Mr. Marcela Bonilla offering money as settlement for the death of the two victims and then to Fiscal Escondo requesting him no to charge murder but only homicide as he had no intention to kill the victims. In one of these letters, he even asked forgiveness for  the crime he had committed.