Case Digest (G.R. No. 131131)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Abelardo Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001, the Supreme Court Third Division, Gonzaga‑Reyes, J., writing for the Court. The accused‑appellant is Abelardo Salonga; the prosecution is the People of the Philippines. Co‑accused Flaviano Pangilinan, Amiel Garcia and Ricardo Licup were charged with him but remained at large.On October 23, 1986 a Metrobank cashier’s check (No. CC 013702) for P36,480.30 payable to “Firebrake Sales and Services” was found to have been encashed although no legitimate transaction supported it. A spot audit by Metrobank’s Loans and Placement Department uncovered signature dissimilarities, an unexplained P36,480.30 discrepancy in proof sheets, and accounting tickets short by that amount. Internal Affairs investigators summoned Salonga for an interview on January 27, 1987; Salonga executed a written admission (Exhibit B) conceding he issued the blank cashier’s check to Amiel Garcia, that there was no legitimate transaction, and that he received P8,500.00. He later wrote a September 15, 1987 letter (Exhibit C) reiterating his admission and offering to repay P8,500.00.
An information charging Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document was filed. Salonga was arraigned on January 7, 1991 and pleaded not guilty. On July 19, 1993 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Branch 142 (presided by Judge Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr.) convicted Salonga beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
The Court of Appeals (Sixth Division; ponente Buenaventura J. Guerrero) affirmed the conviction but held the penalty should be reclusion perpetua and, pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, refrained from entering judgment and certified the record to the Supreme Court for final determination and appropriate action. The case reached the Supreme Court by certification under Rule 124, sec. 13. Salonga raised thre...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the accused’s extrajudicial confession (Exhibit B) inadmissible because his waiver of the right to counsel violated Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (custodial interrogation rules)?
- Was the prosecution’s evidence insufficient or based on conjecture so as not to support conviction beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was the penalty of reclusion perpetua proper, or what penalty should be imposed under the Revised Penal Code...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)