Title
People vs. Arsenio y De la Cruz
Case
G.R. No. L-57025
Decision Date
Apr 6, 1990
A 1978 Manila murder case involving three accused; one pleaded guilty, another acquitted due to inadmissible confession, and the third's death penalty reduced to life imprisonment.
murder
admissibility of extrajudicial statements
assistance of counsel

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-57025)

Information, Pleas, and Early Proceedings

The information alleged that the accused, “conspiring and confederating together” with another whose identity was unknown, and armed with bladed weapons, attacked and stabbed Ramoncito Alonzo y Lopez, thereby inflicting mortal wounds that caused his death. All three accused entered identical pleas of “not guilty.”

At the hearing on September 27, 1979, Rogelio Berame, through counsel, sought to withdraw his plea of “not guilty” and substitute it with a plea of “guilty.” With the prosecutor’s conformity and after the court warned him of the consequences, the court allowed the withdrawal. Upon rearraignment, Berame entered a plea of guilty. Because he was only sixteen years old when the crime was committed and the court credited his voluntary plea of guilty, the court imposed in a partial judgment the penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional, while reserving his civil liability.

The trial then proceeded against the remaining accused: Alberto Arsenio and Eduardo Desaville.

Prosecution Evidence at Trial

The prosecution presented four witnesses: Dr. Marcial Cenido, Sonny Salientes, Pfc. Rodolfo Jalandra, and Pfc. Eliseo Canares. Their testimonies may be summarized as follows.

Before November 21, 1978, Sonny Salientes had been a detainee and trustee at the Manila City Jail, and the deceased, Ramoncito Alonzo, was also a co-trustee. On the morning of November 21, 1978, at about 7:00 a.m., Salientes and the deceased were detailed to fetch other co-detainees whose cases were to be heard. They were calling out a member of the Sigue Sigue gang from Cell 22 when, according to Salientes, a detainee held Alonzo while accused Rogelio Berame stabbed him. Salientes further testified that the detainee who held the victim was later killed by a co-trustee, and that while he saw four detainees ganging up on Alonzo, he could recognize only Alberto Arsenio and Rogelio Berame.

Immediately after the stabbing, city jail authorities identified and arrested three suspects: Alberto Arsenio, Eduardo Desaville, and Rogelio Berame, and they were brought to the city jail investigation unit together with two bladed instruments (Exhibits K and L). During questioning by Pat. Graciano C. Bautista, Jr., Alberto Arsenio and Eduardo Desaville allegedly made verbal admissions that they planned the killing because Alonzo had “squealed” and had removed his BCJ gang mark. Bautista then called the homicide section, and Pfc. Rodolfo Jalandra and Pfc. Eliseo Canares took cognizance of the case. Saliente’s narrative then continued by stating that at the investigation office Alberto Arsenio executed a written statement (Exhibit J) with Jalandra, while Eduardo Desaville and Rogelio Berame executed written statements (Exhibits N and O) with Canares. The statements, as presented, described the respective roles of the accused in the killing, with the alleged reason that the victim had been too strict and abusive as a trustee.

As a result of the investigation, the three suspects were placed under arrest and booked for murder (Exhibits G, H, and I).

Defense Evidence and Repudiation of Statements

The accused testified in their defense. Eduardo Desaville stated that he was already serving sentence for murder in connection with another case, and he claimed that Rogelio Berame killed Alonzo. Desaville testified that during the incident he was inside Cell 23 to get pants because his nephew was to have a trial the next day. He said that he heard shouting and that prisoners ran inside Cell 23. He added that prisoners were lined up by cell guards while the guards asked who stabbed the victim but that no one could identify the assailant. He claimed that he and Alberto Arsenio were taken to the investigation room, where Rogelio Berame was later brought in as well. Desaville denied that his written statement was freely given; he asserted that he gave Exhibit N because he could no longer endure maltreatment by police officers in civilian clothes, which he described as repeated hits with a gun butt on his chest and back. He stated that during the investigation he came to know Berame holding a blood-soaked bladed weapon. On cross-examination, Desaville admitted membership in the BCJ gang like his co-accused, but denied knowledge of the victim’s gang membership. He admitted he swore to the truth of Exhibit N but claimed it was because of maltreatment; he also denied surrendering any weapon to authorities.

Alberto Arsenio denied attacking Alonzo. He stated that when Alonzo was killed he was inside Cell 23 with Desaville and did not notice any commotion or know who killed Alonzo. He stated that he did not remember giving a statement, but that he remembered signing Exhibit J, which he said he had not read and which was explained to him without him understanding it. He asserted that he did not admit participation and that because his hands were tied behind his back while he lay on his stomach and was beaten and kicked on his forehead, he was forced to sign Exhibit J. He could not name the policemen allegedly responsible for the maltreatment and did not report it to his relatives, although he said he raised it only in court.

Rogelio Berame, for his part, reiterated in his defense posture that he alone attacked Alonzo and that this was why he pleaded guilty. On cross-examination, he admitted giving a statement (Exhibit O) to the police, answering questions and swearing to the truth thereof before a fiscal, and he stated that he understood the statement as explained to him and that its contents were true and correct.

Trial Court Conviction and the Initial Dispositive Result

Based on the evidence presented, the trial court convicted Alberto Arsenio and Eduardo Desaville of murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation, and it sentenced them to death. It ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim jointly and solidarily with Rogelio Berame in the sum of P12,000.00, and assessed costs. It also awarded appointed counsel Atty. Leopoldo Balguma attorney’s fees of P500.00.

Constitutional Change and Withdrawal of Appeal as to Alberto Arsenio

After the promulgation of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, the Court, on November 16, 1987, required the two remaining accused who had been sentenced to death to file written statements personally signed by them with counsel, indicating whether they wished to continue the case as an appealed case.

Alberto Arsenio filed, on November 26, 1987, a statement later confirmed by his counsel, indicating he no longer wished to pursue the appeal and asking to be recommended for executive clemency. In a resolution dated January 26, 1988, the Court granted the withdrawal and remanded the records for execution of judgment against him. Judgment then became final and executory as to him.

Issues on Appeal and the Court’s Evidentiary Ruling

Two issues were submitted for the Court’s determination: first, whether the trial court erred in admitting the extrajudicial statements of Alberto Arsenio and Eduardo Desaville (Exhibits J and N), and second, whether it erred in admitting as evidence the extrajudicial statement of Sonny Salientes despite repudiation in court, and in failing to appreciate Salientes’ testimony accordingly.

The Court held that the extrajudicial statements of Alberto Arsenio and Eduardo Desaville should not have been admitted because they were obtained in violation of the Bill of Rights requirement under Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution. The Court rejected the Solicitor General’s position that the accused had been sufficiently informed of their rights during custodial investigation.

Failure of the “Meaningful Information” Requirement During Custodial Investigation

The Court examined the preliminary questioning given by police investigators before taking the accused’ sworn statements. As to Alberto Arsenio, the preliminary warning purportedly informed him that, under the constitutional provision, he had the rights to remain silent and not answer questions, to obtain counsel (and counsel would be provided if he had none), and that his statement and answers could be used against him in court. His recorded response was that he would answer and did not need counsel because he would relate what truly happened.

For Eduardo Desaville, the warning likewise stated he could remain silent and could have counsel provided if he had none, and that what he would say could be used for or against him in any court in the Philippines; his recorded response was acknowledgment of these rights.

The Court found a constitutional infirmity in this form of questioning. Citing the doctrinal pronouncements in People v. Albofera and People v. Duhan, the Court emphasized that police inquiry that merely recites the constitutional mandates in a ceremonial manner does not meet the constitutional requirement. The Court stressed that the right to be informed demands meaningful information comprehended by the subject. It also required that the police explain the effects of the rights in practical terms in a language the subject fairly understands, with a simpler and more lucid explanation when the subject is unlettered. The Court concluded that the questioning and responses revealed only a perfunctory compliance, and thus the rights to remain silent and to counsel had not been effectively communicated.

Right to Counsel and Invalid Waiver Without Counsel

The Court further held that although the accused apparently waived counsel before making their extrajudicial confessions, the waiver was ineffective because it was made without the assistance of counsel. The Court treated this as contrary to established rulings requiring that no custodial investigation be conducted unless it is in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms