Case Digest (G.R. No. L-283)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Silvestre Carillo, G.R. No. L-283, October 30, 1946, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tuason, J., writing for the Court. The prosecution is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Silvestre Carillo; the victim is Pastor Calma.Carillo was tried before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, convicted of murder, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with the accessories of law and ordered to pay the heirs P2,000 as indemnity and costs. He admitted killing Calma but disputed the manner and motive of the killing and later appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court.
Prosecution relied principally on two extrajudicial statements: Exhibit A, a confession recorded in question-and-answer form by Capt. F. M. Palanca, a guerilla officer attached to the Philippine Army, and Exhibit B, a ratifying statement before Assistant City Fiscal Cesar Kintanar. An eyewitness, Jorge Dapat, testified that after hearing shots at the Philippine Independent Church cemetery he saw Pastor Calma dead and about a minute later saw Carillo arrive with an American MP; the MP asked Carillo whether he had shot Calma and Carillo answered “yes.”
At trial Carillo gave a different account: he claimed to be a soldier who encountered an escaped prisoner (Calma) who resisted arrest and attempted to wrest his rifle, forcing him to shoot in self-defense. He asserted both confessions were signed under duress—obedience to his superior Capt. Palanca and physical coercion by an American MP—and that he signed Exhibit B without being informed of its contents and only at the City Fiscal’s suggestion that he plead guilty to be used as a government witness.
The trial court found murder with evident premeditation. On appeal to the Supreme Court, issues raised included the voluntariness and admissibility of Exhibits A and B in light of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination (cited as Paragraph 18, Section 1, Article III), the applicabi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were Exhibits A and B admissible against appellant despite the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination and notwithstanding Article 24 of Commonwealth Act No. 408 (the Articles of War)?
- Did the evidence establish murder with evident premeditation, or should the conviction be reduced (or the accused acquitted) based on lack of evident pre...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)