G.R. No. 147782 - Aquino vs. Paiste

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147782)

Applicable Law and Legal Basis

The decision hinges primarily on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, with specific emphasis on the Miranda rights under Section 12(1), Article III, which guarantees the right of any person under investigation to be informed of their right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of their own choice, and the conditions under which waivers of these rights are valid. The case also references Republic Act No. 7438, which extends the constitutional safeguards to persons invited for questioning without formal arrest. The rules on evidence, including the admissibility of admissions, and the doctrine of conspiracy under penal law, notably that conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of accused persons, played central roles.

Background and Factual Narrative

Starting March 14, 1991, petitioner Aquino, with co-accused Garganta and another woman, repeatedly approached respondent Paiste to induce her to buy a gold bar owned by Arnold, an Igorot. They represented it as genuine gold worth PhP 60,000, although when respondent declined due to lack of funds, the price was repeatedly lowered. Despite warnings and refusals, petitioner actively participated in the meetings and trips — including several to Angeles City to see Arnold and the gold bar. On March 18, respondent finally purchased the gold bar for PhP 50,000, later discovering it was fake. Following this, respondent informed petitioner, who tried to distance herself from the transaction but ultimately signed an amicable settlement, promising to pay half of the amount allegedly swindled.

Amicable Settlement and Waiver of Counsel at the NBI

On March 27, 1991, petitioner underwent custodial investigation at the NBI without formal arrest. In this setting, petitioner signed an amicable settlement agreeing to pay PhP 25,000 in installments and waived her right to counsel. She was actually provided independent counsel, Atty. Gordon S. Uy, during this process. The settlement was signed in the presence of petitioner’s counsel and NBI agent Atty. Ely Tolentino. Petitioner later argued that this waiver and settlement were invalid, claiming she signed under duress without proper counsel.

Criminal Complaint, Trial, and Judgment

Respondent filed a criminal complaint resulting in the filing of an Information charging petitioner and others with estafa (fraud). Only petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. At trial, the prosecution presented testimonial and documentary evidence, including the amicable settlement. The RTC convicted petitioner, finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa based on conspiracy with others. The court considered the amicable settlement as an implied admission of guilt, and the ongoing active participation of petitioner in the fraudulent scheme.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, holding that the amicable settlement was validly executed with counsel present and petitioner’s allegations of coercion were unsubstantiated. The CA further emphasized that even if the amicable settlement were inadmissible, the prosecution’s evidence sufficiently proved petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and conspiracy to commit estafa. The motion for reconsideration was denied.

Issues on Petition for Review

Petitioner raised four principal assignments of error before the Supreme Court:

The constitutional validity and procedural correctness of the NBI investigation and admissibility of evidence procured therein.
The constitutionality and validity of the waiver of right to counsel during the custodial investigation.
The sufficiency of evidence to prove petitioner’s active participation in the commission of estafa.
The proof of conspiracy between petitioner and co-accused.

Admissibility of the Amicable Settlement and Waiver of Counsel

The Supreme Court held that petitioner was clearly under custodial investigation when she was brought to the NBI, thereby invoking the Miranda Rule and related constitutional rights. However, petitioner was provided an independent and competent counsel without objection. The presence of counsel safeguarded petitioner’s rights, and the amicable settlement with waiver of counsel appended was voluntarily executed. The Court rejected petitioner’s bare claims of coercion and duress due to lack of supporting evidence. Additionally, the privilege of confidential communication between counsel and client explained the absence of testimony of petitioner’s counsel. Petitioner’s failure to call counsel as a witness further weakened her allegations. The Court reaffirmed that an amicable settlement in such context does not constitute an extrajudicial confession but is a contract recognizing rights and obligatio

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 147782)

G.R. No. 147782, June 25, 2008

Facts of the Case

On March 14, 1991, Juanita Aquino (petitioner), Elizabeth Garganta, and a woman identified as "Adeling" visited Teresita B. Paiste (respondent) at her Manila residence, where they tried to convince her to buy a gold bar allegedly owned by "Arnold," an Igorot.
Respondent was shown a sample and agreed to have it tested at a pawnshop, which was purportedly genuine. Despite expressing she had no money, petitioner and Garganta returned the next day to persuade her to accompany them to Angeles City, Pampanga, to meet Arnold and see the gold bar.
At Angeles City, Arnold showed the gold bar, declared its worth as PhP 60,000. Respondent again expressed lack of funds but was pressured by petitioner to consider the purchase as a good investment.
Subsequent visits occurred on March 16 and 17, with petitioner, Garganta, and Adeling repeatedly urging respondent to buy or find a buyer for the gold bar. On March 18, 1991, petitioner, Garganta, and respondent went to Angeles City and bought the gold bar for PhP 50,000.
On March 19, 1991, testing revealed the gold bar was fake. Respondent informed petitioner, who denied direct involvement and insisted on locating Garganta.
An amicable settlement was signed on March 27, 1991, at the NBI-NCR, with petitioner admitting fault and agreeing to pay half of the swindled amount in installments. A waiver of petitioner’s right to counsel was also executed, though an independent counsel, Atty. Gordon S. Uy, was present.
On April 6, 1991, petitioner brought Garganta to respondent’s home; Garganta was identified as the seller of the fake gold bar and was subsequently arrested.
A complaint for estafa was filed against Garganta, petitioner, and three others in the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC). Only petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
Trial proceeded with evidence including the amicable settlement and testimonies from both the prosecution and defense.

Issue Presented

Whether the amicable settlement executed at the NBI was admissible as evidence, considering petitioner’s claims of threat and invalid waiver of right to counsel.
Whether conspiracy between petitioner and her co-accused was sufficiently proven to justify petitioner’s conviction for estafa.
Additional contentions relate to the constitutionality and procedural correctness of the NBI investigation and custodial rights of the accused.

Ruling of the RTC and Court of Appeals (CA)

RTC convicted petitioner beyond reasonable doubt of estafa, sentencing her to an indeterminate penalty of 5 years and indemnifying respondent PhP 50,000 plus interest and costs.
RTC found that petitioner conspired with Garganta, Adeling, and Arnold, taking into account the signed amicable settlement as an implied admission of guilt.
CA affirmed RTC’s decision. It ruled that the amicable settlement was valid and admissible despite petitioner’s allegat