G.R. No. L-36824 - People vs. Guillermo

On May 10, 1972, at approximately 5:30 A.M., a robbery occurred at the residence of Vicente Gardoce in Barrio Lamonan, Passi, Iloilo.
During the robbery, Billardo Gardoce was fatally shot with a homemade shotgun, leading to his immediate death.
The robbery involved the demand of money and weapons; specifically, Vicente Gardoce was compelled to surrender P500, a 22-caliber “paltik” revolver, and a 12-gauge homemade shotgun.
The incident took place amid disturbances such as barking dogs and confusion generated by the sudden intrusion of the accused.

Accused-appellants Ariston Guillermo, Carlito Aborde, Ronito Cullo, and Jesus Cullo were implicated in the crime.
The prosecution’s principal testimony was provided by Vicente Gardoce and his son Benedicto Gardoce, detailing the sequence of events:

Vicente Gardoce heard his dogs barking, prompting him to investigate.
His sons, Benedicto, Godofredo, Rufino, and Billardo, were involved to varying degrees, with Billardo ultimately being shot.
The accused were seen restraining the victims and, in the case of Billardo, committing homicide.

The direct evidence included the physical restraint of the victims and the act of shooting, as well as the alleged confessions later obtained.

Exhibits “A” and “B” – alleged extrajudicial confessions of Ariston Guillermo and Carlito Aborde – were admitted as evidence by the trial court.

Both accused admitted that they initially refused to sign these confessions until threatened with further maltreatment by police authorities.
The affidavits were prepared by Chief of Police Alfonso Palmares, despite the accused lacking proficiency in English.

The circumstances surrounding the confessions were marked by police maltreatment during detention:

Testimonies revealed that both Ariston Guillermo and Carlito Aborde were subjected to physical abuse and intimidation.
Their confessions were later signed after continued coercion.

One examination, carried out more than two months after the incident, did not show injuries on Ariston Guillermo.
Healed lesions on Carlito Aborde were attributed to a prior vehicular accident, thus rendering the evidence inconclusive regarding abuse during detention.

Testimonies concerning the participation of the Cullo brothers were inconsistent and raised doubts:

Although both Ronito and Jesus Cullo admitted to being present at unrelated social events prior to their arrest, there was insufficient credible evidence linking them to the crime.
Initial affidavits by Vicente and Benedicto Gardoce did not clearly identify the Cullo brothers as participants.

Documentation in the original complaint shows modifications in naming co-accused, suggesting a possible mishandling or misidentification during investigation.
Accused-appellants Ronito and Jesus Cullo firmly denied any participation and testified about their alibi, emphasizing their non-involvement despite police maltreatment.

Whether the confessions contained in Exhibits “A” and “B” were voluntarily given or were the product of coercion, threats, and physical maltreatment.
The legality of admitting evidence secured through methods that may have violated the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Whether the identification of the accused by witnesses, particularly the testimonies of Vicente and Benedicto Gardoce, was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The impact of inconsistent testimony regarding the participation of the Cullo brothers on the overall evidence of conspiracy.

Whether the extrajudicial confessions of Ariston Guillermo and Carlito Aborde could legally be used to implicate the Cullo brothers.
Whether such declarations, under the res inter alios acta rule, should be limited to self-incrimination rather than to establish conspiracy.

Whether the direct evidence provided by the victims’ testimonies is sufficient to sustain convictions for those accused.
The impact of procedural flaws, such as the delay in physical examinations and the questionable voluntariness of confessions, on the integrity of the evidence.