Title
People vs. Barlis y Mercado
Case
G.R. No. 101003
Decision Date
Mar 24, 1994
Jonathan Barlis surrendered, confessed to killing Honorina Ballerda, and implicated himself in a robbery. Despite his alibi, he was convicted of homicide, not robbery with homicide, due to insufficient evidence of theft. The Supreme Court upheld his confession, rejected his alibi, and modified his sentence, awarding damages to the victim's heirs.
homicide
robbery
confession

Case Summary (G.R. No. 101003)

Facts and Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented testimony that the appellant and two companions entered the victim’s home with permission. Adela Argate testified that at about 9:20 a.m. on 20 January 1990, she saw the victim pushed (“ginigitgit”) by the appellant and one companion. Another companion brought an icepick, grabbed Adela, gagged and hogtied her, and brought her inside the bathroom. Adela observed the radio volume was increased and the dogs in the house began barking. When Adela freed herself and went out, she found that the appellant and the companions were no longer inside and she saw the victim’s body sprawled on the floor, with her face covered in blood. She later asked neighbors to call the police. Adela identified the appellant because he was tall and had no hat, while she could not positively identify the other malefactors due to their position and concealment. She testified that during the incident, she lost a wristwatch and less than PHP 100.00 in cash.

Pfc. Mariano Rivera testified that the appellant voluntarily gave his confession after being apprised of his constitutional rights in Tagalog, with the assistance of Atty. Confesor Sansano. Rivera identified the extrajudicial confession as Exhibit “B” and corroborated the existence of an advice of constitutional rights (Exhibit “A”). Atty. Sansano confirmed the assistance during the investigation.

The appellant’s sworn statement admitted that he had been with the group responsible for the killing of the victim and that, during the incident, one companion (“Buboy”/Eduardo Nining) took three men’s watches, while another (“Ferdie”/Ferdinand Lopez) took money that they later divided among themselves. The statement also described that the companions entered the house, that an icepick was used, and that the stabbing was carried out by Ferdie, who stabbed the victim after the plan to rob was resisted. The appellant narrated that after the stabbing and when the victim fell, he went upstairs and searched, while Ferdie also searched and pocketed items. The statement further described their departure, their division of money, and the appellant’s later movements after the incident.

Dr. Dario Gajardo performed the autopsy and testified that he found thirty-four stab wounds caused by a pointed instrument such as an icepick, located mainly on the neck and front of the body, with sixteen wounds considered fatal. Wilma Ballerda testified on funeral and related expenses and also on the emotional impact of her mother’s death.

Defense Evidence and the Appellant’s Version

The defense consisted of the appellant’s testimony and corroborating witnesses offered to support alibi and to question the voluntariness or validity of the confession. The appellant claimed that on 20 January 1990 around 9:00 a.m., he was on his way to Grotto, San Jose, Bulacan when he met Ferdinand Lopez and Eduardo Nining. He claimed they asked him to accompany them to pawn their VHS to the victim, and that after talking with the victim and gaining permission for the other two to enter, he left and went back to Novaliches. He alleged that he later learned police were looking for him and that he returned to Bulacan until 30 January 1990, when he was brought to Quezon City Police Station to act as a witness against the other accused. He claimed he signed a salaysay because police were in a hurry to secure a lawyer and that a lawyer signed the document without asking him questions. He also maintained that he was detained after signing.

Cristina Lopez, the appellant’s girlfriend, testified that she and the appellant’s mother accompanied him when he surrendered and were brought to the IBP office, but they were allegedly not allowed inside. Rizaldy Reyes, Hernando Angeles, and Joselito Gatdula testified to support the appellant’s claimed whereabouts before and around the time of the incident. Pfc. Patrocinio Mercado, the appellant’s uncle and a police officer, testified that he and the appellant’s mother went to Bulacan on 30 January 1990, that the appellant told him of his intention to surrender because he was innocent, and that the appellant was brought to the police station where an investigator assisted him in becoming a witness. He stated that he was not inside the investigation room and only discovered later that the appellant had executed a sworn statement and had been included in the charge.

Trial Court Ruling and Appeal

The trial court convicted the appellant of robbery with homicide, finding that there was conspiracy among the appellant and his companions and relying on circumstantial evidence and the appellant’s extrajudicial confession. It held that movables were lost and that the victim died after the appellant went inside the house, gagged and tied Adela, and that these circumstances showed participation. It rejected the appellant’s alibi as failing against Adela’s identification. It also upheld the admissibility and weight of the salaysay, noting that the defense did not establish credible grounds that the confession was taken without the required assistance of counsel.

On appeal, the appellant assigned errors arguing: first, that his alibi and the prosecution’s alleged weak circumstantial evidence should have been credited; second, that the court erred in giving credence to his sworn statement on the ground that it was taken without counsel; third, that he should not be adjudged civilly liable; and fourth, that he should not have been convicted of robbery with homicide.

The Parties’ Contentions on the Appellant’s Alibi and Identification

The appellant contended that the trial court wrongly rejected his alibi and wrongly relied on allegedly weak circumstantial evidence. He attacked Adela’s credibility, alleging that her identification to the police was inconsistent with her in-court declaration and that, because the house was dark, she could not have seen the malefactors. He also alleged suppression of evidence because the prosecution did not present the police statement marked as Exhibit “2.”

The Court rejected these contentions. It held that the appellant’s alibi was correctly disregarded because it was belied by his sworn statement, which admitted participation in entering the house with intent to rob and narrated the sequence of events after the stabbing. It also emphasized that the appellant was positively identified by Adela. The Court found that there was sufficient illumination inside the house when the accused entered. It further reasoned that the lights were turned off only after the crime had been consummated and before the accused left.

As to the alleged suppression of evidence, the Court held that the prosecution was not required to present Adela’s prior police statement when Adela herself testified in court and when the prosecution explained that it opted not to present the statement because it was not sworn before an officer authorized to administer oaths. The Court also held that the presumption of willful suppression did not apply where the defense had access to a copy of the statement and even marked it as Exhibit “2.” Finally, it held that the defense did not comply with Section 13, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court in attempting to impeach Adela using a prior inconsistent statement, because Adela was not confronted about the alleged inconsistencies.

Custodial Investigation and Admissibility of the “Salaysay”

The appellant next argued that the trial court erred in admitting and crediting his sworn statement because it was taken without the assistance of counsel in violation of Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. He claimed he surrendered only to help police find the true culprits, that Pfc. Rivera misled him into signing, and that when he was brought to the IBP-Quezon City Chapter, Atty. Sansano signed without conferring with him. He also questioned why Cristina Lopez and his mother appeared as witnesses in the document when they allegedly did not sign.

The Court was not persuaded. It found that the appellant was surrendered by his uncle to Pfc. Rivera, and that before questioning, he was duly advised of his constitutional rights in a language he understood. It also found that he voluntarily agreed to be assisted by Atty. Sansano, and that Sansano testified that he assisted the appellant during the investigation. The Court invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and held that it was not rebutted. It further held that the absence of the mother and girlfriend’s signatures as witnesses was immaterial because the Constitution did not require the presence of witnesses during custodial investigation; what the law requires is assistance of counsel, which may even be waived. It added that the constitutional protection aims to prevent coercion that would lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent a freely and voluntarily given truthful statement. The Court thus sustained the weight accorded to the appellant’s extrajudicial confession.

Robbery with Homicide: Corpus Delicti and Sufficiency of Evidence of Robbery

On the interrelated issues of conviction for robbery with homicide and restitution, the Court examined whether the prosecution proved the robbery element. The information alleged that the appellant took several items from the victim, including a ladies’ gold necklace, a Seiko wristwatch, a diamond stone, cash amounting to PHP 3,000.00, and assorted pieces of jewelry. The Court observed that the only evidence linking the specific theft was the appellant’s sworn statement. The statement, however, described that his companions took three men’s watches and that they divided money among themselves, while Adela testified she lost only one ladies’ watch and less than PHP 100.00.

The Court applied Rule 133, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which provides that an extrajudicial confession alone is insufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. It clarified that corpus del

...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