G.R. No. L-30423 - People vs. Alegre y Cerdoncillo

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30423)

Factual Background

The victim, Adelina Sajo, age fifty-seven and unmarried, was found dead in her bathroom on July 26, 1966. The necropsy report attributed death to asphyxia by manual strangulation and placed the time of death at eighteen to twenty-two hours before 12:30 p.m. of July 26, 1966. Her bedroom displayed signs of ransacking with open drawers and scattered personal effects. No eyewitness to the killing appeared at trial.

Arrests, Confessions and Identification

Melecio Cudillan was apprehended in Tacloban City for pawning a bracelet later identified as one of the victim’s. He executed an extrajudicial statement on July 29, 1966, in Tacloban (Exhibits “F”, “F-1”, “F-2”) and a second sworn statement in Pasay on July 31, 1966 (Exhibits “A”, “A-1” to “A-6”), sworn before the Assistant City Fiscal on August 1, 1966. In those statements he admitted participation in the robbery and killing and named several persons, including individuals identified as “Rami” and “Mario,” whom police later associated with Ramiro Alegre and Mario Comayas. During a confrontation at the Pasay City police office, according to prosecution testimony, Melecio Cudillan pointed out Ramiro Alegre, Mario Comayas and Jesus Medalla as his companions.

Information, Arraignment and Trial Court Verdict

On the basis of Melecio Cudillan’s extrajudicial statements, an Information for Robbery with Homicide was filed against several persons, including Ramiro Alegre, Mario Comayas, Melecio Cudillan and Jesus Medalla. At arraignment on August 10, 1966, the four named defendants pleaded not guilty. The prosecution produced nine witnesses and relied principally on Melecio Cudillan’s extrajudicial confessions to reconstruct the planning and execution of the crime. The trial court accepted those confessions and the other testimony and convicted the accused, imposing death sentences and pecuniary indemnities.

Prosecution Evidence at Trial

The prosecution presented the testimony of Sgt. Mariano Isla, who recounted that Melecio Cudillan pointed to Ramiro Alegre, Mario Comayas and Jesus Medalla at the police station and that the three “just stared at him and said nothing.” The prosecution also produced Hernando Carillo, a fellow detention prisoner, who testified that each of the three appellants admitted to him, while in jail, their participation in the killing and robbery. No witness testified to the actual commission of the crime outside these hearsay and jailhouse assertions.

Defense Evidence and Repudiation of Confessions

Ramiro Alegre did not testify but offered three alibi witnesses who placed him at the Sheraton Hotel construction site working from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on July 25, 1966, including a time record (Exhibit “1”) and testimony of his foreman and coworkers. Jesus Medalla and Mario Comayas testified that they attended an internment at the house of Ciriaco Abobote on July 25, 1966, and returned to their respective homes thereafter. At trial Melecio Cudillan repudiated his Tacloban and Pasay sworn statements, claiming compulsion and duress and asserting he had not been assisted by counsel during police interrogation.

Issues Raised on Review

Appellants urged that the trial court erred in using Melecio Cudillan’s extrajudicial confessions as competent evidence against them, in treating their silence at the police confrontation as tacit admissions of guilt, and in giving undue weight to the testimony of an inmate that appellants confessed to him. The Supreme Court framed the issues as whether the extrajudicial declarations of one accused could be used against co-accused absent independent proof of conspiracy, whether silence in custody may constitute tacit admission, and whether the remaining evidence sufficed to sustain conviction.

Legal Analysis on Use of Extrajudicial Confessions

The Court held that the extrajudicial confessions of Melecio Cudillan could not be used as evidence and were not competent proof against Ramiro Alegre and Jesus Medalla under the principle res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet, citing Section 25, Rule 130 and Section 27, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court. The Court reiterated the general rule that an accused’s extrajudicial declaration, though deliberate, is hearsay as to co-accused and lacks probative value unless an exception applies. The Court found no facts establishing an independent conspiracy or bringing the case within recognized exceptions that would render such confessions admissible against co-accused.

Legal Analysis on Silence as Tacit Admission

The Court held that the silence of appellants while under police custody, in the face of statements made by Melecio Cudillan, could not be considered a tacit admission. The Court explained that the right to remain silent in criminal cases is protected and that an accused’s failure or refusal to testify may not be taken as evidence against him, citing Section 1(c), Rule 111 and Section 79, Rule 123, Revised Rules of Court, and relevant authorities. The Court emphasized that silence under custodial circumstances is often an exercise of the constitutionally protected privilege against self-incrimination and that to infer acquiescence from silence would undermine that right. The Court explicitly relied upon Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution: “Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.”

Treatment of Jailhouse Confession Testimony

The Court also scrutinized the testimony of Hernando Carillo, the detention prisoner who claimed appellants admitted participation to him. The Court found it inherently improbable that appellants would readily confess to a casual acq

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30423)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted the case in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Seventh Judicial District, Branch VII, Pasay City.
Ramiro Alegre y Cerdoncillo, Mario Comayas y Cudillan, Melecio Cudillan y Arcillas, and Jesus Medalla y Cudillan were charged with Robbery with Homicide and were convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court.
The trial court ordered joint and several indemnity payments to the heirs of the deceased and directed elevation of the case to the Supreme Court for review.
During appeal, Melecio Cudillan died on arrival at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital on August 16, 1970, and the case as to him was dismissed on August 29, 1974.
The Supreme Court conducted an automatic review of the conviction and limited its consideration to appellants Ramiro Alegre, Mario Comayas, and Jesus Medalla.

Key Factual Allegations

The victim, Adelina Sajo y Maravilla, aged 57 and a spinster, was found dead in her bathroom in the Maravilla compound, Ignacio Street, Pasay City, in the early morning of July 26, 1966.
The Necropsy Report attributed death to asphyxia by manual strangulation and estimated time of death as eighteen to twenty-two hours before 12:30 p.m. of July 26, 1966.
The victim's bedroom was ransacked and jewelry was missing from the premises.
No witness observed the killing or the robbery.
Ramiro Alegre resided in a rented room on the ground floor of the victim's house and was briefly detained and released by police for lack of evidence.
Melecio Cudillan was apprehended in Tacloban while pawning a bracelet identified as stolen from the victim and executed extrajudicial confessions implicating several persons, including appellants.
The prosecution relied principally on the extrajudicial confessions of Melecio Cudillan to reconstruct the planning and execution of the crime.

Evidence Presented

The prosecution presented nine witnesses, none of whom witnessed the commission of the crime.
The prosecution introduced the Tacloban and Pasay extrajudicial statements of Melecio Cudillan (Exhibits "F", "F-1", "F-2", and "A" series) as primary evidence of how the crime was committed.
Sgt. Mariano Isla testified that Melecio Cudillan pointed to Ramiro Alegre, Mario Comayas, and Jesus Medalla during a police confrontation and that the three merely remained silent.
Hernando Carillo, a detention prisoner, testified that each of the three appellants admitted to him in jail their participation in the robbery and homicide.
Melecio Cudillan later repudiated his extrajudicial statements at trial and alleged compulsion and the absence of counsel.
Appellants Jesus Medalla and Mario Comayas offered alibi testimony that they attended and left an internment on July 25, 1966, and spent the night elsewhere.
Appellant Ramiro Alegre produced three witnesses and a Time Record (Exhibit "1") to show he worked as a welder from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Hotel construction on July 25, 1966.

Issues Presented

Whether the extrajudicial confessions of Melecio Cudillan were admissible and competent evidence against co-accused appellants.
Whether appellants' silence when allegedly pointed out by Melecio Cudillan constituted a tacit admission of