Title
People vs. Basay
Case
G.R. No. 86941
Decision Date
Mar 3, 1993
Jaime Ramirez acquitted as extra-judicial confession and dying declaration deemed inadmissible; prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 86941)

Petitioner

People of the Philippines

Respondent

Jaime Ramirez alias “Néboy”

Key Dates

  • March 4, 1986: Attack, murder of spouses Zosimo and Beatrice, arson of their house
  • March 6, 1986: Report of crime; arrest of accused
  • March 7, 1986: Death of Bombie Toting from injuries
  • March 14, 1986: Jurat of Ramirez’s sworn statement before Judge Calumpang
  • December 14, 1988: MCTC decision acquitting Basay, convicting Ramirez
  • March 3, 1993: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 12 (rights to counsel, to remain silent; adherence to Miranda safeguards)
  • 1973 Constitution, Article IV, Section 20 (operative at time of custodial interrogation)
  • Revised Penal Code, Article 248 (Multiple Murder)
  • P.D. No. 1613, Section 5 (Arson resulting in death)
  • Rules of Court, Rule 122 (automatic review)

Procedural History

  1. Criminal complaint filed March 24, 1986, in MCTC Pamplona–Amlan–San Jose for Multiple Murder with Arson.
  2. Preliminary investigation waived April 15, 1986; complaint forwarded to Provincial Fiscal.
  3. Amended complaint August 14, 1986, adding Manolo Toting as frustrated murder victim.
  4. Information filed December 11, 1986, in RTC Negros Oriental (Crim. Case No. 7411); arraignment February 23, 1987; plea of not guilty.
  5. Trial: prosecution and defense witness presentations; disputed extra-judicial confession (Exhibit F) and child’s statement as res gestae.
  6. RTC Decision December 14, 1988: Basay acquitted; Ramirez convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment plus P30,000 indemnity.
  7. Records transmitted for automatic review (erroneously under Rule 122) and accepted May 8, 1989.

Facts

The two accused allegedly attacked Zosimo and Beatrice Toting with a bolo and sickle, inflicted fatal wounds, then set fire to the house. Four family members perished (the spouses, Bombie, and Manolita) and one child, Manolo, sustained serious burns but survived. Bombie allegedly identified the perpetrators before dying. Ramirez attempted to flee when he saw law enforcers.

Issues

  1. Admissibility of Ramirez’s extra-judicial confession obtained during custodial interrogation without valid waiver or counsel.
  2. Admissibility of Bombie’s out-of-court statement as dying declaration or res gestae.
  3. Whether flight serves as indicium of guilt.

Ruling on Extra-Judicial Confession

  • Custodial interrogation must comply with Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (right to counsel, to remain silent, to be informed of rights), as further developed in Miranda v. Arizona and Morales v. Enrile.
  • Ramirez’s statement (Exhibit F) was taken in English (which he did not understand), without a valid written waiver in his presence, without competent counsel (only a non-lawyer “friend” appeared, and not during interrogation), and without meaningful explanation or translation.
  • All safeguards were violated: he was not effectively informed of his rights nor assisted by a lawyer of his choice; the “counsel” present was unqualified and appeared only at jurat.
  • The confession is therefore inadmissible under both the 1973 Constitution and Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

Dying Declaration

  • Bombie was gravely wounded, unable to speak coherently, and died shortly after rescue.
  • She was not a competent witness; no evidence she made the statement under consciousness of impending death, and the statement was not recorded by a neutral authority.
  • The trial court itself discounted her statement against Basay; it was inconsistent to admit it against Ramirez.

Flight as Circumstantial Evidence

  • Ramirez’s attempt to flee is explainable by fear of armed officers, not necessarily guilt.
  • Single act of flight is insufficient; Philippine Rules of Court require multiple circumstances to sustain conviction on circumstantial evidence.

Legal Characterization of Crimes and Penalties

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.