Title
People vs. Mantes
Case
G.R. No. 117166-67
Decision Date
Dec 3, 1998
Husband and friends acquitted of wife's murder due to inadmissible confessions, hearsay evidence, and insufficient proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 117166-67)

Key Facts

Erliste Arcilla Francisco was last seen on February 28, 1992, in the company of Domingo Francisco, who worked as a janitor at UERM Hospital. On March 1, 1992, a charred female body was discovered in Barangay Cupang, Antipolo, identifiable only by personal effects. Initially arrested based on information from Erliste's mother and corroborated by witness statements, Domingo Francisco subsequently implicated his co-accused, leading to the filing of two separate informations: one charging Domingo with Parricide and the other charging the three co-accused with Murder.

Proceedings and Evidence

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the alleged confessions made by the accused during their arrest and custodial investigation—a critical point contested on appeal. Witnesses included law enforcement officials who testified to admissions made by the accused and those who established the motive stemming from domestic issues, such as infidelity and domestic violence.

Custodial Investigation and Confessions

Crucially, the law enforcement officers involved admitted that the confessions were made without the presence of an attorney, constituting a potential violation of the accused's rights as enshrined in Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which prohibits admissible confessions obtained during custodial interrogation without counsel. Notably, these alleged confessions were neither written down nor corroborated with independent documentation.

Evidence of Corpus Delicti

The court found the prosecution failed to adequately establish proof of the corpus delicti, given that the body was barely recognizable and identification relied on hearsay witnesses. The court noted that key witnesses could not affirmatively identify the victim, thereby rendering the evidence against the accused unreliable.

Motive and Guilt

While motive was discussed extensively—domestic strife and the alleged involvement of a paramour—the court emphasized that motive alone does not constitute proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense successfully argued that the prosecution's reliance on vague and contradictory testimonies u

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.