Case Digest (G.R. No. 101003)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Jonathan Barlis y Mercado, Ferdinand Doe and Eduardo Doe, G.R. No. L-101003, March 24, 1994, the Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant was Jonathan Barlis y Mercado (with two companions identified as Ferdinand Lopez and Eduardo Nining, then at large).On 20 January 1990, Honorina Ballerda was killed inside her home in Novaliches, Quezon City. On 30 January 1990 Jonathan surrendered at the Kamias police station, admitted participation, and — with the assistance of Atty. Confesor Sansano of the IBP-Quezon City Chapter — signed an extrajudicial sworn statement (Exhibit "B") narrating the killing and the taking of certain items. An information for robbery with homicide was filed on 6 February 1990 in the Regional Trial Court (Criminal Case No. Q-40-10283), which was assigned to Branch 88; trial proceeded against Jonathan alone because his companions remained at large.
At trial the prosecution presented Adela Argate (house helper), Pfc. Mariano Rivera, Atty. Sansano, Dr. Dario Gajardo (medico-legal), and Wilma Ballerda (victim’s daughter). Adela testified that Jonathan and two companions entered with the victim’s permission, gagged and tied her helper, and later she found the victim dead and missing property; she positively identified Jonathan. Dr. Gajardo testified to thirty-four stab wounds, sixteen fatal, caused by a pointed instrument. Pfc. Rivera and Atty. Sansano described advising and assisting Jonathan in Tagalog and identified the sworn statement.
Jonathan testified in his own defense, asserting an alibi that he went to Bulacan the morning of the killing and that he surrendered only to assist police; several witnesses sought to corroborate his alibi. His uncle, Pfc. Patrocinio Mercado, said he accompanied Jonathan to surrender and that Jonathan was assisted by counsel when the sworn statement was taken.
On 4 April 1991...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the appellant’s defense of alibi properly rejected by the trial court?
- Was the appellant’s extrajudicial sworn statement (Exhibit "B") admissible given his constitutional right to counsel under Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution?
- Did the trial court err in adjudging civil liability and ordering restitution for specific items allegedly taken?
- Was the conviction for robbery with homicide sustainable on the record, or should the appella...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)