G.R. No. 133685-86 - People vs. Bagnate

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133685-86)

Petitioner and Respondent

Appellee: People of the Philippines (prosecution). Appellant/Respondent: Amado Bagnate (convicted defendant appealing the trial court judgment).

Key Dates

Crimes alleged: night of 6–7 August 1997. Arraignment: 1 December 1997. Police investigation and execution of extrajudicial confession: 7–8 August 1997. Municipal judge’s swearing: 8 August 1997. Decision under review: affirmed and modified by the Court of Appeals (automatic review) in the present resolution (decision dated May 20, 2004). Because the decision date is 1990 or later, the 1987 Constitution is applied in assessing constitutional issues.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Provision

Primary constitutional provision invoked: Article III, Section 12 (1)–(3) of the 1987 Constitution concerning rights of persons under custodial investigation (right to be informed of right to remain silent, right to competent and independent counsel preferably of one’s own choice, prohibition against coercion and torture, inadmissibility of confession obtained in violation of these rights). Penal statutes and amendments relied upon: Revised Penal Code provisions on Murder and Rape with Homicide; Republic Act No. 7659 (death penalty law) as amending relevant provisions; Rule 133, Sec. 3, Rules of Court regarding corroboration of extrajudicial confessions by corpus delicti. Civil Code articles on damages and Article 2219 (now Article 2230) on exemplary damages as referenced in the record.

Procedural History

Appellant was charged by two Informations: (1) Murder (Criminal Case No. T‑2874) for the killing of Aurea Bronia and (2) Rape with Homicide (Criminal Case No. T‑2875) for the rape and killing of Rosalie Rayala. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment. The trial court admitted his extrajudicial confession and convicted him in both cases, imposing the death penalty in each. On automatic review, the appellate Court examined admissibility of the confession, corroboration by corpus delicti, aggravating circumstances, and damages, and issued the present decision affirming convictions but modifying damage awards.

Facts Established by the Prosecution

The police investigation resulted in an extrajudicial written confession by appellant that described (in detail) entering the victims’ dwelling, hacking Rosalie and Aurea with a bolo, raping Rosalie while she was still alive, dragging Aurea, and leaving the scene. The confession was recorded in the Bicol dialect, translated and transcribed into English, and signed by appellant and by his counsel Atty. Brotamonte. Autopsy reports by Dr. Amelia Guiriba showed multiple hacked and stab wounds on the necks of both victims and vaginal contusion for Rosalie, with causes of death being severe hemorrhage secondary to multiple hacked wounds. The bolo was recovered; death certificates and autopsy findings established the victims’ deaths. Witness testimony corroborated scene circumstances (blood, hair, drag marks; appellant seen with hands covered in blood shortly after the incident).

Arrest, Custodial Setting and Execution of the Written Confession

Appellant was brought to the Tabaco police station on the afternoon of 7 August 1997 for custodial investigation. The investigating officer informed him of his rights in Bicol dialect. Appellant volunteered cooperation, identified himself, and accepted the offer of counsel provided by the police—Atty. Brotamonte—after stating his private counsel was in Manila. Atty. Brotamonte conferred privately with appellant, inspected for physical injury, informed him of his rights, assisted in translation, explained the contents of the typed confession, and signed the confession. Photographs were taken during the procedure. The following day appellant appeared before Municipal Judge Base, who again examined voluntariness, explained consequences, inspected appellant’s body, and had appellant swear to the confession.

Assistance of Counsel and Competence/Independence Question

Appellant later contended that Atty. Brotamonte was not a competent and independent counsel because he did not advise appellant of the penalties attachable to the offenses and therefore appellant allegedly did not understand the consequences of his admission. The Court reviewed the record of Atty. Brotamonte’s testimony and the circumstances of his conference with appellant: he privately examined appellant for signs of injury, explained constitutional rights item by item, translated questions and answers from Bicol to English and vice versa, advised appellant to tell the truth, and remained with him during the investigation until the statement was signed. The Court found that the assistance provided was more than perfunctory and satisfied the constitutional requirement of competent and independent counsel for the purposes of a valid extrajudicial confession.

Constitutional Standard for Admission of Extrajudicial Confession

Under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, a person under custodial investigation must be informed of the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of one’s own choice; if indigent, counsel must be provided. Rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or other means vitiating free will may be used. Any confession obtained in violation of these provisions is inadmissible. The presence and assistance of counsel aim to secure voluntariness and protect the accused from coercion; the lawyer need not obstruct questioning but must effectively safeguard constitutional rights.

Court’s Analysis on Failure to Inform of Penalty

The Court addressed appellant’s argument that counsel failed to advise him of the possible penalty (death) and held that the Constitution does not require counsel to inform an accused of the imposable penalty as a prerequisite to counsel’s competence. The constitutional safeguard focuses on meaningful information about the right to remain silent and to counsel, and protection against coercion, rather than on a requirement that counsel advise regarding the specific penal consequences. Consequently, omission of an advisement on the penalty does not, by itself, render counsel incompetent or render the confession inadmissible.

Judicial Inquiry and Sworn Acknowledgment

Judge Base’s personal inquiry and subsequent swearing of appellant were credited. The judge inspected appellant for signs of coercion, asked whether appellant had been forced or coerced, explained the consequences of the confession, and recorded appellant’s affirmation that the confession was voluntary and troubling his conscience. Although the physical documents in the record did not bear a new signature in the copies attached, appellant did not contradict Judge Base’s testimony that appellant re‑affirmed and swore to the confession. The Court treated the judge’s examination and appellant’s sworn acknowledgment as corroborating voluntariness.

Repudiation at Trial and Defense Account

At trial appellant repudiated his extrajudicial confession, claiming that the real perpetrators were Roberto Angeles and Carlito Begil and that he admitted culpability only due to threats by Angeles against him or his sister. He testified to an alternative sequence of events consistent with being present in the neighborhood but denying commission of the crimes. The trial court found his repudiation unconvincing in light of the record evidence.

Corroboration by Corpus Delicti and Forensic Evidence

Rule 133, Section 3 requires that an extrajudicial confession not be the sole ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. The Court found ample corroboration: death certificates and autopsy reports confirmed that both victims were hacked to death and that Rosalie suffered rape (vaginal contusion), matching the confession’s description of hacked neck wounds and sexual assault. Scene evidence (drag marks, blood, hair), the recovery of the bolo, and contemporaneous eyewitness observations (appellant seen with bloodied hands shortly after the event) further corroborated the confession’s material details. The Court concluded these details were such that appellant could not have known them except by participation in the crimes, and that the confession exhibited spontaneity and coherence supporting voluntariness.

Sufficiency of Evidence and Conviction

Given admissibility of the extrajudicial confession, its corroboration by corpus delicti and other evidence, and the insufficiency of appellant’s repudiation and unsubstantiated claims of coercion, the Court affirmed appellant’s convictions for Murder (Criminal Case No. T‑2874) and Rape with Homicide (Criminal Case No. T‑2875), finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Aggravating Circumstances and Sentencing Analysis

For the murder of Aurea, the trial court found nocturnity, treachery, superior strength, and disregard due to age and sex as aggravating circumstances. The Court reviewed these findings and concluded treachery was not sufficiently established on the record (no eyewitness account or specific method demonstrating that the means employed tended directly and specially to ensure execution without risk to the offender); nocturnity was also not shown to have bee

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 133685-86)

Nature of the Case and Procedural Posture

En banc automatic review of a Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 15), Tabaco, Albay, in Criminal Case Nos. T‑2874 and T‑2875.
Appellant Amado Bagnate was convicted: (a) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in Criminal Case No. T‑2874; and (b) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape with Homicide in Criminal Case No. T‑2875.
The trial court sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of Death in each case and ordered indemnities/damages.
Appeal is by way of the record on automatic review to the Supreme Court; the Court resolves issues raised in appellant’s brief and reviews admissibility of the extrajudicial confession and sufficiency of evidence.
Decision promulgated May 20, 2004 (G.R. Nos. 133685‑86), Per Curiam.

Charged Offenses (Informations)

Criminal Case No. T‑2874 (Murder): Occurrence alleged on or about 7 August 1997 at about 1:00 a.m., Barangay Buhian, Tabaco, Albay; accused charged with willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assaulting and hacking Aurea (Auria) Bronia, a 70‑year old blind woman, with a bolo, with nocturnity, treachery, superior strength, and disregard of respect due to age and sex, inflicting mortal wounds causing death.
Criminal Case No. T‑2875 (Rape with Homicide): Same date/time/place; accused charged with having sexual intercourse with Rosalie Rayala against her will by means of violence, force and intimidation, and on the occasion thereof with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength and while armed with a bolo, assaulted and hacked Rosalie, inflicting mortal wounds causing her death.
Both Informations allege aggravating circumstances (explicit for T‑2874; for T‑2875, rape leading to homicide is the statutorily aggravated offense).

Plea and Trial

When arraigned on December 1, 1997, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
A joint trial on the merits was conducted.
The prosecution’s case rested largely on appellant’s extrajudicial confession and physical evidence (autopsy findings, recovery of weapon, scene evidence). There were no eyewitnesses to the killings.

Custodial Investigation, Arrest and Initial Procedures

Appellant was turned over to SPO2 Junwel Ambion for custodial investigation on the afternoon of August 7, 1997.
SPO2 Ambion informed appellant, in the Bicol dialect, of the right to remain silent, right to counsel, the rule that statements may be used for or against him, and that he could not be tortured or molested.
Appellant initially gave a name (Amado Magnate) and later said he was willing to confess; he indicated his counsel was in Manila.
SPO2 Ambion offered the services of Atty. Paterno Brotamonte; appellant accepted.

Role and Conduct of Atty. Paterno Brotamonte (Counsel)

Atty. Brotamonte arrived at the police station after a short delay; before investigation he asked policemen to leave the room and privately conferred with appellant.
He introduced himself, informed appellant of constitutional rights, examined appellant for physical harm, and noticed appellant’s left hand handcuffed to the table.
Atty. Brotamonte explained questions/answers and translated Bicol answers into English for the written confession; he translated and explained each typed page and then both he and appellant signed each page.
He testified at trial that he explained rights "one by one," told appellant the statement might be used against him, told him he would protect the accused’s rights, and assisted in translation of questions and answers from Bicol.
The entire police investigation and confession‑taking process, as recalled by Atty. Brotamonte, took more than an hour.

Content and Execution of the Extrajudicial Confession

The extrajudicial confession consists of three typed pages, with a Preliminary advisement of constitutional rights in Bicol dialect and affirmative responses by appellant that he understood and wished to be assisted by counsel provided (Atty. Brotamonte).
Confession excerpts (verbatim in the record) state appellant’s name, age (28), occupation, residence; he narrates going to victims’ house at about 12:30 a.m. on August 7, 1997; embracing and kissing Rosalie; being spanked; retrieving and using a bolo to hack Rosalie on the neck, pulling her and having carnal knowledge of her while she was still alive; Carlito Begil and Roberto Angeles purportedly standing and viewing and thereafter having sexual relations with Rosalie; upon hearing Aurea Bronia shout, appellant hacked Aurea on the neck, pulled her away to the grassy portion of the yard, then left for the main road and fled towards Metro Manila and Pulilan, Bulacan.
Appellant signed all three pages in the presence of Atty. Brotamonte; SPO1 Rogelio Gonzales took pictures during the process.
Appellant swore to the veracity of the confession before Judge Arsenio Base, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court of Tabaco on August 8, 1997; Judge Base examined voluntariness, authenticity of signatures, inspected appellant’s body, explained consequences, and asked whether appellant was coerced.

Judge Arsenio Base’s Inspection and Swearing of the Confession

Judge Base requested Atty. Brotamonte’s presence, examined the voluntariness and veracity of the confession, explained consequences of confession, asked if appellant was coerced; he inspected appellant’s body and found no visible signs of coercion.
Judge Base testified that after appellant affirmed the confession and its voluntary nature, he allowed appellant to sign it again in his presence and then subscribed the affidavit.

Appellant’s Repudiation and Defense Testimony

At trial appellant repudiated his extra‑judicial confession, claiming it was executed in violation of his constitutional rights and asserting he was not apprised of the consequences, especially the penalty.
Appellant testified that the real perpetrators were Roberto Angeles and Carlito Begil and that Angeles threatened him or his sister to force him to confess.
Appellant’s account: on the night of August 6–7, 1997 he drank with Begil and Faustino Bufi; he later slept at his brother‑in‑law Roberto Angeles’ house; he was awakened by his ninong Julian Baloloy’s call to fetch a barangay tanod; he fetched Jose Rodriguez and Armando Bosque; he assisted idling in the yard and later returned to Angeles’ house for coffee; Angeles and Begil arrived and Angeles allegedly told him to flee or he (Angeles) would kill appellant’s sister, and gave appellant P10.00; appellant then left, spent time in town, and was finally arrested in Bangkilingan, Tabaco and brought to the police station at about 5:00 a.m.
Appellant alleged physical abuse (boxed and kicked) by police at the Tabaco police station, forcing confession; he claimed coercion by Angeles to own up to crimes.

Trial Court Findings and Dispositive Judgment

The trial court found appellant’s extrajudicial confession admissible and convicted appellant of Murder (T‑2874) and Rape with Homicide (T‑2875), sentencing him to death in each case.
The trial court awarded to heirs of Aurea Broña P50,000.00 as damages (civil indemnity), and to heirs of Rosalie Rayala P50,000.00 as damages (trial court’s awards later modified by the Supreme Court).
The trial court relied largely on the extrajudicial confession and corroborating evidence.

Assignments of Error